Chartercandidate

Many people in the press believe that in response to Syria using chemical weapons against their citizens, that Obama will authorize a strike against Syria's ability to deploy these weapons. The white house says that they won't be taking sides or attacking the chemical storage sites, but eliminating the ability to deploy these weapons by attacking military planes, rockets, etc. Presumably any actions will not be announced ahead of time but will be short and targeted.

Assuming that these things occur - what is the criticism? I know that you will include his future actions in Syria as part of your articles of impeachment. My question is, what should be / should have been done about the situation in Syria? Should he take sides? Should he have acted earlier? Should he not act? What action should the president do (past/present/future) to avoid your criticism as far as Syria goes?

I can logically understand why some people support voter ID and why others suppose it. I can even understand the argument that some people make to eliminate same day registration even though I don't agree with the argument. However, many republicans seem intent on limiting/eliminating early voting in elections. In most of these instances state legislators are making a decision for the local counties who pay for the elections. If someone were going to try and make a fraudulent vote, it would seem that the timing of that vote doesn't make a difference. If limiting early voting has no effect on fraud, doesn't save the decision makers any money, and violates the federalist principles, then what is the justification used to limit early voting in localities that want it?

First a little background. I don't get social networking. It's nice to be able to connect with people from high school, but this idea of using social networking more than once a week is just odd to me. I know I sound older than I am (36), but if you can write a thought in 150 characters, then it's probably not worth reading. However I read that employers look online for a social profile and its absence can hurt you in a job search.

I currently have a facebook page and I have had a policy that in order to be my friend, I have to had met you in person at least once. However, I now have friend requests from dozens of people I have never met. I know that some times people can put up wild pictures or jokes or whatever and the employer finds out and the employee gets fired. My question is, can I get in trouble for something a facebook friend posts on their own wall if I've never even met the person? I don't want to lose my job because someone I've never met in person posts an anti-pope joke and my Catholic boss sees it.

The city has declared bankruptcy and all of the current debt holders are going to take a haircut. Bond holders will not get all of their money, vendors will lose some money, and pensioners will lose money as well. Let's assume that the federal gov't isn't legally obligated to cover the pensions (I know the PBGC covers pensions for liquidated private companies, but I don't know about reorganized cities). How much of the pain should go to bondholders (who have known about Detroit's finances for at least a decade)? How much pain should go to vendors (the same about the finances)? How much should go to the pensioners (the cause of most of the debt and the people who elected leaders unwilling to tackle the foreseeable problems for over a decade)?

First let me apologize for putting another TM/GZ question in politics rather than Current Events, but I have a question for conservatives. Before the trial Obama called TM black and called for a full investigation. He then remained silent until the day of the verdict. He then called for calm in the aftermath of the verdict and expressed sympathy for the dead guy. Today he acknowledged that there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the issue. Blacks don't like being accused of being criminals. Blacks commit too many crimes that understandably lead to those stereotypes. He said black on black crime is a major problem and a bigger treat against blacks than interracial crimes. He asked for protests to remain peaceful and said that things have improved in race relations over time. Conservatives are portraying him as a militant black panther from 1968 - and some of them clearly haven't even heard all of Obama's statement today. What would president McCain or Romney have done differently that would have led to more racial unity assuming the case had proceeded exactly the same?

It has become common place at major outdoor sporting events to have those giant flags unfurled for the national anthem before a game. Sometimes these flags are held by veterans or active duty military - people who would never allow a American flag to rest on the ground. How are these large flags released and stowed without touching the ground?

I realize that the Tea Party calls itself a movement not a party, but frankly they handle most of the functions of a party. They fund raise, they endorse, they advertise, etc. I guess my real question is is there a substantive policy difference between the two. It seems as if the Tea Party has pulled their platform from the economic issues page of the GOP website, but considers themselves distinct from the Republicans so that they don't have to answer for the actions of the GOP prior to November 2008. I realize they claim not to care about social or national security issues - but they sound like its 1988 when talking about taxes. Is there an area where the Tea Party economic promises differs from the economic promises made by Republican national candidates over the last generation?

I'll be the first to admit that I vote against the GOP in elections. However I have a question about a specific part of their economic policy that I would like answered - no accusations, no statements framed as a question, just something that I would like to know and I don't personally know anyone more conservative than me. The problem is that no one seems willing or able to answer it. I have asked on internet boards and usually get responses containing insults from people on both sides. I sent the question to the RNC and they said they were better than the Democrats - which isn't what I asked. I asked my senators and got back form letters that had nothing to do with what I asked. I have a question on GOP policy that I would like to have answered without name calling or referencing the other side. Where can I get it answered?

Much has been made of the fact that the GOP does poorly among minorities. However, with a few small changes in the electorate the Democrats could lose 2016 and maybe even 2020 before demographics necessarily prevent the (current) GOP from winning a national election. Last election Democrats got only 40% of the white vote. What should Democrats do to maintain or increase that number.

I have heard some people say that back voters voted for Obama because he is black - sometimes implying that blacks will vote more for the GOP in 2016 simply because Obama won't be on the ticket. The last GOP presidential candidate to get more than 10% of the black vote was Ronald Reagan. The last one to get above 15% was Nixon in 1960. Why would a community that voted over 90% for John Kerry, Al Gore, and Mike Dukakis be accused of voting for Obama because he was black? Whether you consider it good or bad, looking at empirical data seems to show that whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2016 will get over 90% of the black vote regardless of their race.