|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Perhaps this is as good time as any to introduce an article in DailyKos, one of several, about church cells and their coercive, cultish implications.
I have to say that that article looks like a very biased piece of propaganda to me. What they are describing is perfectly normal in all sorts of churches and doesn't have to be controlling or abusive at all. Yes, it can be, but so can any organisational structure.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If large numbers of people were denied the vote with no legal redress (I have no idea if they were) then rioting would be the proper democratic response to that.
In the end democracy only works because people are prepared, if they have to, to take things into their own hands.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Biased propaganda on the Daily Kos?! Say it ain't so! What next, Fox News?
In other news, if an Obama loss looks rigged, I hope there are riots. And I hope I join them. It may not be true but one of my favorite parts of Michael Moore's Sicko (an amazing movie, by the way) is when the French citizens say that their government there is afraid of the citizenry. The U.S. government is definitely not familiar with this fear, and it's an issue that Libertarians, true Republicans, and sane Democrats should all agree on.
[x-posted with ken, who said the same thing in less words]
[ 22. October 2008, 18:07: Message edited by: Jason I. Am ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agrgurich
Shipmate
# 5724
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
[QB] From over here, European side of the pond, now that Colin Powell has endorsed Obbama, Pallin has turned out to be a neocon plant and the reps could loose the senate the house and the white house, is it possible that the GOP may split.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of a 2 party system?
Not in the least. Senator Joe Liberman who was Al Gore's V.P. candidate is campaigning for McCain. These things happen. The US is not turning into Mexico under the PRI
--------------------
Life is a comedy to those who think & a tragedy to those who feel.-Horace Walpole
AJG
Posts: 4478 | From: Michigan's Copper Country | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jason I. Am:
In other news, if an Obama loss looks rigged, I hope there are riots. And I hope I join them.
I hope there are demonstrations, and if there are, I will join them. If Obama loses a rigged election, we should have so many people on the streets that absolutely everything shuts down. And things should stay that way until and unless McCain admitted the election was a fraud and stepped down.
But I don't think riots would be useful, and not just because I'm a non-violence advocate. If we rioted here in California, had riots big enough and serious enough to threaten the government, I have no doubt the governor would declare martial law and call out the National Guard. And I don't see the National Guard standing down in such a situation. So there would be a lot of expense to government and business, but Obama would still not be in office and nothing would change.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Hear, hear Ruth W!
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
If we rioted here in California, had riots big enough and serious enough to threaten the government, I have no doubt the governor would declare martial law and call out the National Guard. And I don't see the National Guard standing down in such a situation
Only problem... the National Guard is all in Iraq.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
If we rioted here in California, had riots big enough and serious enough to threaten the government, I have no doubt the governor would declare martial law and call out the National Guard. And I don't see the National Guard standing down in such a situation
Only problem... the National Guard is all in Iraq.
No problem at all. Bush all but dismantled posse comitatus last year. Why call out the Guard when you can call out the Army itself?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
that article looks like a very biased piece of propaganda to me. What they are describing is perfectly normal in all sorts of churches and doesn't have to be controlling or abusive at all. Yes, it can be, but so can any organisational structure.
I'll gladly and relievedly take your word for it that it isn't normally abusive as used in Britain. But there is a problem if it is so in certain ecclesial environments. The article looks too well documented to dismiss as propaganda. What axe would the author be grinding? The irrational and self-destructive stubbornness of a segment of the U.S. electorate is a fact over which the rest of the world is shaking their heads (e.g., on abortion, which is what caused me to bring this matter up here). If involvement in cell churches is a common feature of that segment and not of the remainder, then a causal connexion is all the more plausible.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
If we rioted here in California, had riots big enough and serious enough to threaten the government, I have no doubt the governor would declare martial law and call out the National Guard. And I don't see the National Guard standing down in such a situation
Only problem... the National Guard is all in Iraq.
Nope, they're mostly right here. California has about 21,000 National Guard soldiers, and most of them have not been deployed overseas; 5,000 total have been called up for active duty since 9/11 (source). The guard was called up to restore order during the Rodney King riots in 1992 (and IIRC they show a few people caught violating the curfew). They've also been deployed on the Mexican border.
Seriously, rioting would not work. Massive demonstrations might.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?
I just read at politico.com that the RNC paid over $150,000 for a new wardrobe for Gov. Palin.
If I had given money to the DNC who in turned gave it to the RNC for a shopping spree at Saks, I'd be pretty darn pissed off.
eeG
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
$150,000 just for clothes?! For one campaign?!
Good grief. $150,000 would keep me -- rent, clothes, transportation, food, heat, etc etc -- in a style well above what I'm accustomed to for five full years.
I'm mad, and I'm not even a Republican.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Fair point, Ruth. But I do think there's a thinner line between "demonstrations that shut down everything for a long period of time" and "riots" then maybe you suggest.
In any case, I'll be joining into the most beneficial, effective cause. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
The citizens of this country have already lived through two stolen elections and haven't done a damned thing about it. What makes anyone here think their reaction will be any different this time around? They're too busy fattening up on Double Whoppers and watching football, Operah or playing Guitar Hero to care.
Take some time to actually engage a few random adults around you on the subject (not your liberal friends and fellow workers). You may be surprised at the incredible range of apathy. "What difference does voting make? Nothing will change." is the standard response. The sad part is - that may be truth.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
...and another thing [he said upon reflection], How many of you have been gassed, pepper-sprayed or beat with truncheons during a riot or protest march? I'm telling you from personal experience, it ain't a walk in the park.
Are you ready to be gunned down for your convictions? Don't fool yourself into thinking the National Guard or the regular Army would hesitate if they felt threatened by overwhelming numbers or a situation out of control. Remember Kent State University (Ohio).
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
You'd also run the risk of being designated an enemy combatant...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Exactly. You can be sure that that designation would also remove from your defense every civil right on the books.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Here's the scenario: Protest marches and/or riots over a stolen election denying the first Democratic African/American Presidential nominee (leading decisively in the polls) while Bush is still in office. Bush still controls the military as Commander in Chief for three more months. He's proven his ability to suppress the constitution in the name of national security. He's ignoring Supreme Court orders to shut down Guantánamo. His administration's rape of the constitution is legend. What would his reaction be to a serious protest of another stolen election?
Hello?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Gort, that's got to be about the most depressing thing I've read in ages.
The one faint hope I'd hold out in such a scenario is that W. is now concerned with what history will say about him, and he may hesitate to be written up as the first American dictator. "May" being the operative word there.
Jason, you are of course right about the thin line between massive demonstrations and rioting -- with huge protests there would inevitably be at least some violence. I think a lot would depend upon how it all got started and who led. If Obama's super-organized team emailed all their earnest volunteers and donors and asked them to take to the streets in peaceful protest, it might be mostly okay.
But chances are Gort's right and as a people we'd all roll over and just take it. Who was it who said people get the government they deserve?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot? Just not in our system I guess. What if Obama wins - with or without stealing the election. There could be riots then, too, right? Like fans celebrating a football victory. Funny, too, how liberals continue to insist that Bush has decreased our civil rights. Look at poor Joe the Plubmer. He makes the mistake of asking the Messiah a question and the whole Obama campaign smear machine descends on him, destroying him in many ways. Just remember that if (God forbid) Obama is president, you must always agree with everything he says or you'll be destroyed, too. Instead of speaking truth to power, you'll all be in perfect agreement with power - or else!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot? Just not in our system I guess. What if Obama wins - with or without stealing the election. There could be riots then, too, right? Like fans celebrating a football victory. Funny, too, how liberals continue to insist that Bush has decreased our civil rights. Look at poor Joe the Plubmer. He makes the mistake of asking the Messiah a question and the whole Obama campaign smear machine descends on him, destroying him in many ways. Just remember that if (God forbid) Obama is president, you must always agree with everything he says or you'll be destroyed, too. Instead of speaking truth to power, you'll all be in perfect agreement with power - or else!
The infamous plumber was a Republican plant- he has a future on Fox News.
The COld War has been over for 17 years and MCCain and Co turn to red-baiting. Disgusting.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
The X-factor in this particular election, though, is (for the first time in ages) a sizable cohort of young, maybe first-time, voters. At least, they seem to be registering in large numbers; we won't know for sure until Election Day whether they're voting in anything like the same proportions as those in which they're registering.
I suspect young, possibly more idealistic, and possibly more naive, voters might be more apt to protest and/or demonstrate (with or without violence) than cynical old fogeys like me (and in my long-ago, not-always-misspent youth, I have been arrested in a demonstration for a cause I deemed worthy).
But I also think it's possible that the election may not be clearly decided immediately. IMO, the kerfluffles following the last two Prez elections damped down the possibility of any popular response. Folks Waited To See the results of official challenges, and lost their energy and impulse to protest.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot? Just not in our system I guess. What if Obama wins - with or without stealing the election. There could be riots then, too, right? Like fans celebrating a football victory. Funny, too, how liberals continue to insist that Bush has decreased our civil rights. Look at poor Joe the Plubmer. He makes the mistake of asking the Messiah a question and the whole Obama campaign smear machine descends on him, destroying him in many ways. Just remember that if (God forbid) Obama is president, you must always agree with everything he says or you'll be destroyed, too. Instead of speaking truth to power, you'll all be in perfect agreement with power - or else!
[my italics]
NY, you're the American so can you tell this Brit when the Democrats last stole a presidential election? And how?
[ 23. October 2008, 14:16: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot?
Name an election stolen by Democrats, and provide some objective evidence for your claim.
quote:
What if Obama wins - with or without stealing the election. There could be riots then, too, right? Like fans celebrating a football victory.
I doubt it. Would you care to provide some rationale for this?
quote:
Funny, too, how liberals continue to insist that Bush has decreased our civil rights.
Bush's record on civil rights is mixed; there's a good summary here.
quote:
Look at poor Joe the Plubmer. He makes the mistake of asking the Messiah a question and the whole Obama campaign smear machine descends on him, destroying him in many ways.
None of this is the Obama campaign's fault. McCain brought the knucklehead to national attention, and the press looked into his background. The Obama campaign has not continued to talk about him, but the McCain campaign has.
quote:
Just remember that if (God forbid) Obama is president, you must always agree with everything he says or you'll be destroyed, too. Instead of speaking truth to power, you'll all be in perfect agreement with power - or else!
Again, do you have any rationale or a scrap of evidence to support this tinfoil-hatted notion?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot? Just not in our system I guess. What if Obama wins - with or without stealing the election. There could be riots then, too, right? Like fans celebrating a football victory. Funny, too, how liberals continue to insist that Bush has decreased our civil rights. Look at poor Joe the Plubmer. He makes the mistake of asking the Messiah a question and the whole Obama campaign smear machine descends on him, destroying him in many ways. Just remember that if (God forbid) Obama is president, you must always agree with everything he says or you'll be destroyed, too. Instead of speaking truth to power, you'll all be in perfect agreement with power - or else!
Er.
I believe it was Mr. McCain who dragged Joe the Plumber back into the spotlight, whereupon the press began rooting around in poor Mr. Plumber's past. Perhaps people with tax liens outstanding against them are unwise to raise questions in public about taxes. Stone, glass houses, etc.
Sorry -- X-posted with Ruth.
[ 23. October 2008, 14:30: Message edited by: Foolhearty ]
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I heard an interview with Mark Miller an NYU professor who has written extensively on voter fraud in this country where he talked about the importance of the "Bradley effect" in the next election. Research into several high profile US elections has shown that there really is no "Bradley effect" but it is brought up repeatedly to provide a compelling narrative for an unexpected Obama defeat (which will be the result of suppression and fraud). The nation will be told that despite his considerable lead, white Americans entered the voting booth en masse and let their hidden klansman vote. This group of hidden racists will replace the enormous number of "value voters" that materialized (and subsequently disappeared) in the last election.
He also recommends not voting a straight ticket.
As for riots and marches, as Gort said Bush has gutted Posse Comitatus and has an active military unit deployed inside the U.S. to help with "civil unrest" and "crowd control". The ACLU and other organizations have filed freedom of information requests and a commander from NORAD recently commented on the case saying essentially, "trust us". In Fallujah one week on the streets of the US the next. Scary.
I hear that videothevote.org is doing good work this election.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Reading through Rebranding the US with Obama , I was struck by a couple of questions.
Should the opinion of "outsiders" (who want to work with you guys) worth considering?
Are there Americans whos vote may be influenced by "outside" considerations, such as the desire to improve America's image overseas?
Are there a significant number of Americans who will take any mention of "outsiders" as enough of an insult to make sure they vote against Obama (or are they just in that mood anyway)?
And, will America's standing overseas (take your pick of which country) suffer if McCain wins legitimately?
I know the effect on outside opinion if McCain wins fraudulently, and it ain't pretty for the US.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Deterioration of the US's standing abroad is one very strong reason for me to vote for Obama. We can't afford another 4 years of the last 8, both domestically, and in foreign relations. It drives me mad to think of the goodwill shown immediately after 9/11 being squandered by this brainless bozo from Texas. We don't need his yes-man carrying forward the shameful legacy.
And I don't think that's just me.
[ 23. October 2008, 15:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, will America's standing overseas (take your pick of which country) suffer if McCain wins legitimately?
Electing Obama would raise US popularity here, but I don't think choosing McCain would lower it further. By electing GWB twice the US has already reached its Bad President Saturation Point: any further stupid choices would just elicit a resigned shrug.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election
quote:
The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.
Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.
But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.
snip
Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why is it that when Democrats steal elections, Republicans don't riot?
maybe our perspectives are different. you're a Conservative from a "blue" state and I'm a Liberal (sorta) from a "red" state.
If ever I were concerned over a group of people rioting, it would be those more in support of the conservative side. some of our conservatives are downright militant and frightening. I have been witness (on a very small, town-sized scale) of physical threats and attacks on the left wing types from the right wing types.
The scorn, name calling, threats, abuse; I have friends who have driven to Anchorage to take part in Obama rallies, and even more friends who have opted not to because they are afraid of the potential violence. (of which there has been none, as far as I am aware)
the school yard bully factor is in full control in conservative politics, at least in this part of Alaska - which, I'll grant you, is the "NeoCon" stronghold of the state and the home of SP.
As for the media working for the left - where was all the coverage of the protests after the stolen election? where was the coverage of the protests at the beginning of the war? I was completely stunned by how little the media paid attention to it.
and of course, ignoring the effort worked - we just sank further into apathy.
(in all fairness, again, my news sources are somewhat limited and government funded, which explains a lot of it, of course.)
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election
quote:
Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted.
ISTM that one of the things that plays into this effect is the "branding" of the other candidate by the opposition party. When McCain started off, he was pushing the experience angle. I found that to be a compelling point. But McCain abandoned that approach early on. Perhaps it would not have worn well over time. I think that Obama did look steady during the economic melt-down in a way that may have mitigated experience as a concern.
Obama, OTOH, pushed the "erratic" mantra. That idea really did crystallize my unease about how McCain was running his campaign. So it was a very effective unflattering lens to offer up for viewing McCain's candidacy.
The point I'm making is that Obama has run a more effective campaign (in ways besides the usual important issues of ground game and money). He has managed to set the framework for how we view McCain very effectiely, and to a bit less extent has done the same for how we view him. Those things seem to me to be the keys to a victory.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
As for the media working for the left - where was all the coverage of the protests after the stolen election? where was the coverage of the protests at the beginning of the war? I was completely stunned by how little the media paid attention to it.
Where was the coverage of the illegal and possibly unconstitutional hijinks during and just before the GOP convention?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
The X-factor in this particular election, though, is (for the first time in ages) a sizable cohort of young, maybe first-time, voters. At least, they seem to be registering in large numbers; we won't know for sure until Election Day whether they're voting in anything like the same proportions as those in which they're registering.
Or being allowed to vote following attempts at registering, but being disenfranchised.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I honestly am beginning to think that McCain is tanking the election on purpose. I mean, why else would you have one of your douchebag campaign workers go on TV and unfavorably compare Barack Obama's trip to see his dying grandmother to Sarah Palin's wardrobe expenditures?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Erin--
I've been wondering about that, too. He might even be doing it unconsciously. Or maybe some of his handlers?
So many well-known Republicans are coming out for Obama because of the way McCain is handling the campaign. It's good, but very strange.
Christopher Buckley lost his column at National Review, the magazine his father started, because of coming out for Obama.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
Nah. It's McCain for Obama. I've been saying so for pages. He's a plant, and has been doing everything possible for months to lose this election so the Dems get stuck with cleaning up the almighty mess the next administration has facing them.
Then they'll get blamed for all the hideous consequences foisted on the rest of us, and in 4 years Sarah Palin will run again and the Repuglicans will Rule Forever.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Hey, I thought the endless line of Republicans publicly disowning McCain was just part of a plan to bolster his image as a "Maverick".
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I just had a phone call asking if I would participate in a 45 second survey about the presidential election. I said "Okay."
I was then asked (as nearly as I can remember it) if I was aware that "one candidate" was in favor of abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason at all and that voting for him would result in the deaths of millions of children -- or would I be voting for the candidate who was pro-life? I said, "No." I was then asked to reconsider so that millions of children would not die. Would I please reconsider? "No." Then the person on the other end started to raise his voice and sound threatening so I hung up.
I never thought I'd be scared to live in Ohio.
Anyone else get one of these?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Nah. It's McCain for Obama. I've been saying so for pages. He's a plant, and has been doing everything possible for months to lose this election so the Dems get stuck with cleaning up the almighty mess the next administration has facing them.
Then they'll get blamed for all the hideous consequences foisted on the rest of us, and in 4 years Sarah Palin will run again and the Repuglicans will Rule Forever.
Not forever... just another 8-12 years.
That's the way Reagan's "trickle-down"/voodoo economics works: you can only run the pyramid scheme for so long before it falls apart. So you can sustain 2-3 terms of GOP administrations, running up huge deficits, allowing infastructure to fall apart. realigning wealth to the already rich and powerful. You can live on this borrowed money for a couple of terms, but ultimately, as we have seen TWICE now, it will fall apart.
Then you've gotta allow a Dem to come in and do the dirty work. Cuz it will take some nasty, politically unpopular stuff to clean up the mess-- lots of belt tightening, smaller budgets, and yes, tax increases. Just no other way around it.
After 4-8 years of a Dem. administration, the worst of the mess will be cleaned up and people will be tired of the high taxes and reduced benefits that were necessary to get them there. Then they'll elect another one of these flim-flam guys from the GOP offering them easy money and no taxes and pie in the sky.
And they'll go for it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Josephine -
Sorry. Traveling all day. Just now at the hotel. The plane was packed. Would have loved one of those high speed trains the other thread talks about.
But, I'm too pooped to search the internet for the credible evidence you want. However, it occurs to me that it is standard Republican belief that the Democrats stole the 1960 presidential election and standard belief that the Democrats routinely disenfranchise large groups of Republicans, especially military. Recall that CNN called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle where there are lots of military votes hoping to suppress turnout. I think CNN intentionally did that. I think Kennedy stole the Illinois in 1960. Am I right? Who knows. But one only has to believe that something happened to react. Look at the way a lot of lefties still think Bush stole the 2000 election.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Art Dunce -
I'd like to backtrack to your observation that Republican ads were trying to play both sides of the fence (as it were) with the ads in English and Spanish saying entirely different things.
Did this happen in the '00 and '04 election cycles? Because one of the things that I respected about W is that he (as Governor of Texas) was not all "OMGZ BROWN PEOPLE COMING OVER THE BORDER!!1!eleventy!!", unlike a previous governor of this state (who I still refer to "that low-life race-baiting carpetbagger") who did so quite effectively to win his own reelection.
I know immigration became a real hot button issue (again) nationally post the '04 election and it was fairly ugly in the primaries but I'm curious.
I can tell you that the 1994 race-baiting shenanigans are a big reason that California (who only went D in 1992 after Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush because Perot pulled off a lot of the conservative vote) has been pretty True Blue since*. Latinos proved up for citizenship and registered to vote in large numbers. The only Republican who's won a top-tier state election since is Ah-nuld and he's definitely a special case.
* We have a definite coastal-interior split but the heavily-Dem coastal areas are also pretty heavily populated.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Look at the way a lot of lefties still think Bush stole the 2000 election.
Dude, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS isn't meant to decide presidential elections. That's unconstitutional. The fact that some of Bush's close buddies were sitting that decision and didn't recuse themselves doesn't help appearances any either. Can you say conflict of interest? I don't know how far you have to have your head up Bush's butt to not think that election was stolen.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If Obama gets elected (please God), he will be the first northern Democratic president since JFK. That's a long time!
[ 24. October 2008, 03:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Yeah, I remember watching Nixon and JFK debating on my family's black and white TV - nearly half a century ago. Nixon had shifty eyes and a sweaty upper lip.
Gawd, I'm so old, I fart dust.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Look at the way a lot of lefties still think Bush stole the 2000 election.
Dude, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS isn't meant to decide presidential elections. That's unconstitutional. The fact that some of Bush's close buddies were sitting that decision and didn't recuse themselves doesn't help appearances any either. Can you say conflict of interest? I don't know how far you have to have your head up Bush's butt to not think that election was stolen.
Ya, hombre! He thinks that Cheney should have been the Republican nominee.
Can you say "outlier"?
If there's any stealin' of this election going to go on, I don't think it's in Obama's favor. The Freepers et. al. have been talking themselves into an aneurysm about ACORN, but the fact remains that a "Mickey Mouse" voter card filled out to get the going-rate-per-filled-out-card is only a problem if "Mickey Mouse" shows up at the polls. It ain't gonna happen.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Yeah, I remember watching Nixon and JFK debating on my family's black and white TV - nearly half a century ago. Nixon had shifty eyes and a sweaty upper lip.
And the dreaded five o'clock shadow.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The guard was called up to restore order during the Rodney King riots in 1992 (and IIRC they show a few people caught violating the curfew).
That was the Marines. The Guardsmen that were deployed were not issued ammunition.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
