|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
There was a story on the BBC last night about Florida Republicans being very worried about voter fraud and saying they were "seriously concerned about the democrats stealing the election..."
Um, ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) they're joking right? Good sense of irony? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It really does worry me. To have a democracy that is so beholden to the court system, when the court system is so politicised is I feel very dangerous.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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.
Mousethief, I don't understand your point here. If it wasn't to be decided by the SCOTUS, then who? The other options were the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) or the courts in Florida. You could just say "well, they should have just recounted all the votes" (and perhaps they should have) but the point is that someone had to make that decision. I'm not a lawyer, but I can usually follow legal arguments moderately well, and I had no idea what the correct decision would have been in that case, and I suspect many of those saying the election was stolen didn't either.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Crossposted with AFZ
One thing I cannot understand about the US is the politicisation of the judicial system. The first time I heard that a certain judge was a Democrat or a Republican, I thought, "then WTF are they doing as a judge, if their biases are so obvious?" We have judges appointed by the government here without any similar degree of politicisation.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
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.
In some cases its a desire to be seen to be on the winning side. Hitchens and Alan 'fingernails' Dershovitz have come out for Obama. They're both foreign policy hawks* as is McCain but they don't want to be in a narrative whereby the US electorate decisively rejects what they stand for so you had the unedifying spectacle of Hitchens explaining that whlst Obama was deeply parteigenossen on the whole mindless bellicosity bit he was nevertheless 'teachable' to a clearly sceptical Fox News anchorette.
*Which is nowadays code for bellicose militarist and chauvinist with appalling judgement.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There was a story on the BBC last night about Florida Republicans being very worried about voter fraud and saying they were "seriously concerned about the democrats stealing the election..."
Um, they're joking right? Good sense of irony?
No, it's just the back story they are using to cover their disenfranchisement of voters. They, in violation of a consent decree signed by the Republican party, target challenges to likely Democratic voters, especially persons of color, strip them of their right to vote, and then note the difference between polls and the resulting margin. They call that attempted voting fraud on the part of the people disenfranchised.
It all comes down to Rove's philosophy of 'acting to create their own reality'. That's the same reality where the Iraq war was a good idea and is going well, unregulated free markets will regulate themselves, and the real problem at the schools is the uppity teachers. In Rove-speak, the parts of America that don't understand this are the un-American parts of America.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There was a story on the BBC last night about Florida Republicans being very worried about voter fraud and saying they were "seriously concerned about the democrats stealing the election..."
Awwww, diddums!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
... Rove's philosophy of 'acting to create their own reality'.
There is a precedent for that. "The Big L****" - no I can't name it without breaking Godwin's Law (Neopopular Form) and we've at least two weeks to go before this thread ends up opposite the Egyptian Cigar Factory.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
... Rove's philosophy of 'acting to create their own reality'.
There is a precedent for that. "The Big L****" - no I can't name it without breaking Godwin's Law (Neopopular Form) and we've at least two weeks to go before this thread ends up opposite the Egyptian Cigar Factory.
As good as I try to be with my Anglo-Saxon lore, you seem to have lost me here.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
As good as I try to be with my Anglo-Saxon lore, you seem to have lost me here.
The first bit is about Hitler's Bie Lie, but no doubt you knew that. The second comment is more obscure, but I think it's a reference to Mornington Cresent: it's the final stop of the game, i.e. 4th November 2008.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cqg:
Scarier and scarier.
Honestly, whatever happened to the good old days when all our nutcases were abducted by aliens?
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Best quote:
quote:
The occultists are "weaving lazy 8's around McCain's mind to make him look confused and like an idiot". Bree K. said we need to break these curses off of him that are being sent from Kenya.
It must be really irritating for Americans to have dumb Europeans (and the rest of the world) whining about your country, and guns, and health care and stuff, especially when we've some pretty major skeletons ourselves, but shit, you guys have cornered the market in paranoid grade-A religious nutters. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Will Joe the plumber be displaced by Ashley the racist? The Republicans have been denied their Willie Horton this time.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Rolling Stone bio of McCain, "the make-believe maverick". I've read about half of it. Among other things, it seems like *some* of his POW story was spun a bit. (See pg. 5.)
Also, Yes! magazine has a checklist of "12 Ways You Can Safeguard the Vote".
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And here, Yes! has much more on protecting your vote.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Thanks, GK. Washington State approved 'vote by mail' ballots for all counties except King and Pierce (in 2002, I believe). As a resident of the hinterlands, I received my ballot a few days ago. I've methodically researched all the errors that can disallow my vote, checked to see that I am still officially registered and will be hand-delivering my ballot to the district office Monday (allowed as optional). Our fate will be delivered onto history.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I have a habit of going down to the registrar's office to vote, because SF ballot boxes sometimes wind up in the bay.
I take the little absentee voting form from the back of my voting booklet. (You can get a blank one at the office; but this is typed, so no worries about reading handwriting.) Then I get an absentee ballot, fill it out, keep the ID tabs in case of any problems, turn in the ballot, and watch carefully as the poll worker puts it in the box.
The registrar's office is at City Hall. I can't be completely sure my ballot is safe, but at least it doesn't travel across town and have the opportunity to go swimming!
I'm going to do early voting. But I'm still wading through the booklets of all the state and local measures...some of which are very tricky. I hope that doesn't keep people away from the polls! Though they can just vote for pres. if they want.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...I'm still wading through the booklets of all the state and local measures...
Yeah, I'm still pondering this earthshaker: Intitiative 985.
quote:
This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls, and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.
Who knew that good citizenship could be so mundane? [sorry, MT]
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Zwingli: the recount laws in question were Florida state laws. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction over the laws in question as they were not federal laws, and they were not ruling on a lower US court's ruling, which is what SCOTUS's remit is. The whole thing was so kangaroo it's breathtaking. That and Bush's close friends on the court not recusing themselves? I predict this will go down in history as one of the most egregious misdeeds ever by any court in the U.S. I still find it sickening.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Crossposted with AFZ
One thing I cannot understand about the US is the politicisation of the judicial system. The first time I heard that a certain judge was a Democrat or a Republican, I thought, "then WTF are they doing as a judge, if their biases are so obvious?" We have judges appointed by the government here without any similar degree of politicisation.
Tell us a little more about the Brit system. As I understand it, the government is run by one party at a time or if there were no majority in Parliament, a coalition. So say Labour is in power, they have no problem appointing Tory judges? Are judge candidates so homogeneous that it makes no mind what party they are from? Or is there absolutely no way that their rulings can affect the political order as applied to laws on the books legislated by either party?
A curious American would like to understand better.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is that a Tim Eyman initiative, Gort? I vote No on anything that Tim Eyman touched, just on principal.
Yes, it is. Seems to pull funds from the other projects to benefit metropolitan areas at the expense of the entire state. Hmm. This thing should be a county effort.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Tell us a little more about the Brit system. As I understand it, the government is run by one party at a time or if there were no majority in Parliament, a coalition. So say Labour is in power, they have no problem appointing Tory judges? Are judge candidates so homogeneous that it makes no mind what party they are from? Or is there absolutely no way that their rulings can affect the political order as applied to laws on the books legislated by either party?
A curious American would like to understand better.
My understanding (from the Australian perspective, which is pretty close to the British one) is that it is generally bad form to be seen appointing political hacks, but everyone does it anyhow. The main difference being that judges are appointed for long enough terms, and don't have to seek re-election, so they can thumb their noses at the political parties once they get in power.
Given the manipulation by the media of the public's perception about levels of crime and "leniency" (yeah, prison populations haven't sky rocketed all over the Western world), this is a good thing.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Since the 60s the Court has more and more shaped the constitutional application of the law, pulling back and forth between the American versions of liberal and conservative. "Political hacks" generally have not been not appointed, until Dubya tried to appoint a White House counsel with no judicial experience- she withdrew. The appointed justices are usually well-seasoned judges, but their record of decisions are scrutinized for political red-flags by the President who appoints them and the Congress that approves them.
Chief Justice John Roberts was a canny appointment since most of his career was either in private practice or in service to the Reagan administration, with only two years of work on the Court of Appeals. Thus he could tell the judiciary committee that his work in private practice was guided by the needs of his firm's clients (not his opinions), and the work he did for Reagan was according to that administration's policy (not his opinions), AND the committee had only two years of decisions on the appellate court to judge his judiciary policy. So he was okayed.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
McCain campaign is imploding, per TruthOut.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
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?
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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...
The 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade, a 5,000 man battle tested unit of the Army has been redeployed from Iraq to American soil under control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. They are now being trained in domestic operations for "large scale emergencies and disasters". See here.
Color me paranoid, but the timing of this action seems a bit suspicious. Why are we suddenly in need of a fully armed brigade training for domestic operations on US soil? Are the domestic terrorists about to riot?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zwingli: the recount laws in question were Florida state laws. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction over the laws in question as they were not federal laws, and they were not ruling on a lower US court's ruling, which is what SCOTUS's remit is. The whole thing was so kangaroo it's breathtaking. That and Bush's close friends on the court not recusing themselves? I predict this will go down in history as one of the most egregious misdeeds ever by any court in the U.S. I still find it sickening.
OK, I thought it may have been something along those lines. Though whatever the Florida courts did, one party would appeal to the SCOTUS, who wouldn't miss the opportunity to take the case.
As for judges, think of them like referees/umpires in a football match. They might each have their own biases in how they think the rules should be interpreted, which may favour one team's playing style more than the other's, but it is considered very bad form indeed if they openly support one side or the other, or if one side appoints an officiator who openly supports them. Courts here tend to be small 'c' conservative, though they do make the odd radical decision, eg Mabo.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is an outline of the British legal system.
There was a consultation about the appointment of judges in October last year. The executive summary of of the document contains good summaries of the current situation.
Includes the following points: quote:
Parliament is the supreme legislative body in Britain, although since devolution, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies also have legislative power of varying degrees.
...
In Britain, Parliament is legislatively supreme, in that there are no legal restrictions on its ability to legislate. It can legislate on any matter, including on constitutional matters, and can repeal or amend any legislation, even if that legislation contains constitutional rules or principles. This is widely referred to by commentators, most famously Dicey, as the sovereignty of Parliament.
The doctrine has profound implications for the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, because it means that judges cannot hold an Act of Parliament to be unconstitutional or invalid: even if legislation is found by the courts to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act, it is for Parliament – not the judges – to decide how to remedy the incompatibility.
quote:
So, while the separation of powers remains an important concept in Britain, it is arguably more accurate to describe the system, because of the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, as being based on a partial fusion of powers. This is particularly so because of the overlap between the executive and legislature, with the Government formed from, and accountable to, Parliament. The Prime Minister, for example, must by convention be a Member of the House of Commons and can effectively be removed from office by a simple majority vote of Parliament.
...
Another example concerns the dual role of the House of Lords, as second chamber of the legislature, and as the highest appeal court in the UK. The Law Lords (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary), whose primary function is to sit as judges in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, are also able to sit in the House of Lords in its legislative capacity.
The Law Lords adopted a statement of principles in June 2000 restricting their ability to take part in debates.
I believe the constitutional reform act means that we are going to get a supreme court in 2009, doing away with Law Lords. But basic differences from the States remain, the judges can't rule anything the government does unconstitutional, and no judges are elected. Judges can issue a statement that a law is 'not in conformity' with the Human Rights Act - the government is then supposed to change it. And you can appeal to the European courts for anything that is covered by the European treaties. In theory the government could throw a tantrum and withdraw from the treaties completely, repealing the various laws relating to them if they really wanted to. Therefore they are considered to retain ultimate sovereignty.
All of which means the government fundementally cares somewhat less about the political affiliation of the judges. If they really don't like the decisions being made they just change the law. The big abortion debates in the UK for example have not been about specific cases - but about specific legislative changes. Like the recent proposal to change the legal time limits on abortion. In theory, if there were enough support, a party would just put a manifesto pledge in their election literature saying they would make abortion illegal again and then introduce a new bill into parliament during their first term of office.
Currently, issues like that are considered issues of conscience and MPs are allowed a 'free vote' - i.e. they are not expected to have to vote on party lines. Though usually the government and opposition may state and overall position. But in the UK it just not something the parties campaign about.
If we had a Republican party in the UK, and they were anti-abortion, it is very difficult to see how they would have managed not to have change the law in the course of eight years in office. So it does seem very strange to a UK observer, that the republicans can get so aerated about this over the course of an election campaign - but then not actually do anything about it - without their supporters apparently noticing.
(N.B. These are short excerpts from a 73 page public document - I think this OK for copyright.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Last night I went out for a pint with an American friend, and the converstaion got onto politics. He is making the effort to have a postal vote for the first time since coming over here (12 years now), and he will not be voiting for Obama but against McCain. His line is that he used to be a McCain supporter, was really pleased when he became the Republican candidate, but has been sickened by the way McCain has sold out to the party machine.
I don't think I've read such a strong anti-McCain feeling on this thread. Is it widespread do you reckon?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I just saw this AP story about an anti-Obama email from Focus on the Family.
Has anyone seen the email they're talking about? It sounds even worse than I'd have expected (and I don't have a high opinion of Focus on the Family to begin with).
Here's the Letter From 2012 in Obama's America (warning: PDF). In keeping with FotF's obsessions, virtually everything that goes wrong from this point on is the fault of homosexuals.
Evangelicals paranoid about homosexuality! In other news, film at eleven!
Incidentally, not only did this letter come from the future it also jumped time tracks and entered our universe from a parallel space-time continuum where AIPAC and Fox News don't exist, Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons, Iran is prepared to accept the existence of Israel (presumably Iran driving the Jews into the sea would not be In Accordance With The Prophecy), Al Qaeda get on with Shia Islam and a politician who is evidently both clever and articulate commits political suicide on a daily basis whilst losing his command of the English language.
I imagine it will play well with the people who thought that Left Behind was gritty social realism but I think they're already voting Republican.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I don't think I've read such a strong anti-McCain feeling on this thread. Is it widespread do you reckon?
Yes, absolutely. The number of prominent conservatives and life-long Republicans who are coming out and publicly endorsing Obama is breathtaking. That just doesn't happen, and they wouldn't be doing it if they thought McCain was good but Obama better.
Most of them are trying to put a positive spin on it, but they all boil down to something like this:
This country is, right now, facing significant crises that will require a strong leader. Obama looks like a leader. McCain looks like a chicken running around with its head cut off. And if that weren't bad enough, there's Palin, who would take over if McCain died.
They may be conservatives, and they may be life-long Republicans, but they are Americans first, and if you put Country First, you can't put McCain, and you most certainly can't risk putting Palin, in the White House.
They put it more eloquently than that, of course. But that feeling seems to be extremely widespread.
Every poll I've seen in the last couple of weeks shows that McCain's unfavorable ratings are extremely high. The one reported in this story is two weeks old, but typical:
quote:
The most recent tracking poll shows more Pennsylvania voters view McCain unfavorably than favorably - 44 percent unfavorable vs. 37 percent favorable. For his running mate Sarah Palin, it's 47 percent unfavorable, 39 percent favorable.
Obama, by comparison, is rated favorably by 52 percent, against 34 percent unfavorable. His No. 2, Joe Biden, is even better: 54 percent to 27 percent.
And I can't imagine that McCain's unfavorable ratings have declined since then. In fact, the flap over Palin's clothes and the mugging hoax have, I'm sure, cost him dearly.
In fact, it's bad enough that even open racists are planning to vote for Obama. These people would be unlikely to vote for Obama if they could find any reason to vote for McCain. That they can't says a great deal.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Izzybee
Shipmate
# 10931
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Last night I went out for a pint with an American friend, and the converstaion got onto politics. He is making the effort to have a postal vote for the first time since coming over here (12 years now), and he will not be voiting for Obama but against McCain. His line is that he used to be a McCain supporter, was really pleased when he became the Republican candidate, but has been sickened by the way McCain has sold out to the party machine.
I don't think I've read such a strong anti-McCain feeling on this thread. Is it widespread do you reckon?
In a personal, anecdotal way, yes.
Mr. Iz actually sent money (about $20) to McCain waaay back when he was running in 2000. He felt that he was a moderate who would make things as bi-partisan as possible if he reached the White House.
This year, he wouldn't even vote for him in the primaries - in fact we didn't vote in the primaries, because we beth felt we had noone to vote for - he's registered Republican and I'm registered independent and so really had noone to vote for.
Mr. Iz will be voting for Obama. Not, in the case of your friend, just to vote against McCain and what he's become (or perhaps what he was all along and never showed us) but because he believes that Obama is now what he saw McCain to be 8 years ago. He's had to put up with some pretty harsh criticism from people he works for, but he's been actively promoting Obama. This may actually be the first time in the 12 years we've been together that we've actually supported the same candidate - and this time I can actually vote - yay!
--------------------
Hate filled bitch musings...
Posts: 1336 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
A quote from page 14 of "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America:"
"Has America completely lost God's favor and protection as a nation?"
Well, I dunno 'bout you, but I'm having a tough time with the premise of this question. Do these people, looking around at the godawful mess we're in right now, believe that this nation, as of October, 2008, is currently operating with God's favor and under God's protection -- at least, any more than any other nation?
Whew. Talk about swallowing camels.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
OK, I thought it may have been something along those lines. Though whatever the Florida courts did, one party would appeal to the SCOTUS, who wouldn't miss the opportunity to take the case.
Then it is to their eternal shame, because it was not a case they had any standing in at all. The Florida State Supreme Court is the highest court that can decide Florida law. After their decision it could be appealed federally if you could make a case that their ruling somehow abrogated the constitution. A mechanism for a vote recount hardly abrogates the constitution, and SCOTUS knew this and insisted that their decision not be applied to any other case.
As for your second paragraph, the ability to recuse oneself exists for a reason; it needs to be used when it is appropriate. Your logic would seem to say that it is never appropriate; judges always just need to tough it out and put their personal feelings aside. The existence of recusion recognizes this is not the case.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Well, I dunno 'bout you, but I'm having a tough time with the premise of this question. Do these people, looking around at the godawful mess we're in right now, believe that this nation, as of October, 2008, is currently operating with God's favor and under God's protection -- at least, any more than any other nation?
Well, duh. The president has said the Believer's Prayer: "If it were up to me, I'd make abortion and gay marriage illegal."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
OK, I thought it may have been something along those lines. Though whatever the Florida courts did, one party would appeal to the SCOTUS, who wouldn't miss the opportunity to take the case.
Then it is to their eternal shame, because it was not a case they had any standing in at all. The Florida State Supreme Court is the highest court that can decide Florida law. After their decision it could be appealed federally if you could make a case that their ruling somehow abrogated the constitution. A mechanism for a vote recount hardly abrogates the constitution, and SCOTUS knew this and insisted that their decision not be applied to any other case.
As for your second paragraph, the ability to recuse oneself exists for a reason; it needs to be used when it is appropriate. Your logic would seem to say that it is never appropriate; judges always just need to tough it out and put their personal feelings aside. The existence of recusion recognizes this is not the case.
I'm willing to bet at least one party could find a way to claim that the recount violated the Constitution.
For my second paragraph, I wasn't referring specifically to SCOTUS cases that involved political parties directly, as the Florida recount did. It is more that, to an Australian, the very idea of deliberately appointing a judge who has the same political biases as the appointer, rather than choosing the most accomplished candidate based on legal ability, seems deeply suspect. Judges are, in a sense, supposed to be neutral umpires, and should not be chosen because they are perceived as favouring one class of citizens or collection of causes. Even if they don't benefit the appointing political party directly, they do benefit the people who vote for those politicians, thus assisting their re-election.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
I'm willing to bet at least one party could find a way to claim that the recount violated the Constitution.
Then the court shouldn't have removed this ruling from case law.
quote:
the very idea of deliberately appointing a judge who has the same political biases as the appointer, rather than choosing the most accomplished candidate based on legal ability, seems deeply suspect.
From your lips to God's ears. I think they should work out in committee a list of the (say) top 5 candidates and pull one of the names out of a hat.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The number of prominent conservatives and life-long Republicans who are coming out and publicly endorsing Obama is breathtaking. That just doesn't happen, and they wouldn't be doing it if they thought McCain was good but Obama better.
One factor this time around is that they can endorse Obama with impunity. McCain now looks near certain to lose. His age means that his political career will be finished. Palin will disappear back to Alaska, and the nation will try to forget just how close she came to the White House. There will be no one to hold a grudge against Obama-endorsing Republicans.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
I'm willing to bet at least one party could find a way to claim that the recount violated the Constitution.
For my second paragraph, I wasn't referring specifically to SCOTUS cases that involved political parties directly, as the Florida recount did. It is more that, to an Australian, the very idea of deliberately appointing a judge who has the same political biases as the appointer, rather than choosing the most accomplished candidate based on legal ability, seems deeply suspect. Judges are, in a sense, supposed to be neutral umpires, and should not be chosen because they are perceived as favouring one class of citizens or collection of causes. Even if they don't benefit the appointing political party directly, they do benefit the people who vote for those politicians, thus assisting their re-election.
The argument advanced by the majority opinion was that a statewide recount would violate Floridians' civil rights because a uniform, statewide standard did not exist. Of course, under this line of thought ANY counting of the ballots in Florida that year would be a civil rights violation since there was no uniform statewide standard. Bush v. Gore never addressed this question as to why the state's electoral votes weren't simply disallowed across the board since, according to the Supreme Court's own logic, Florida never held a legitimate election that year.
The metaphor of a judge, particularly a judge dealing with constitutional questions, as a "neutral umpire" came up recently in the senate approval hearing of John Roberts, when he described his job as "calling balls and strikes". Where this metaphor breaks down is that while most sporting events have very specific rules and a limited range of action, most constitutions are written with very general language and must be applied to a broad range of circumstances, many of which were not foreseen at the time of the constitution's adoption. For example, the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment", but what sort of punishment is considered "cruel and unusual"? The framers of the U.S. Constitution considered public flogging to be an acceptable punishment for minor property crimes, but even a so-called "originalist" like Antonin Scalia has said he would probably vote to overturn a law allowing such a punishment today.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade, a 5,000 man battle tested unit of the Army has been redeployed from Iraq to American soil under control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. They are now being trained in domestic operations for "large scale emergencies and disasters". See here.
Color me paranoid, but the timing of this action seems a bit suspicious. Why are we suddenly in need of a fully armed brigade training for domestic operations on US soil? Are the domestic terrorists about to riot?
Oh God. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So how long do you figure it will be before the Third Amendment goes the way of the Fourth?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
So how's it going down there Yanks? Are the two fives I have on McCain* still in the running? Or are they lost to me?
It gets awfully confusing and depends on what your are reading.
*Only because he looked likely in mid-August. And because my initial offer of a loonie was laughed at.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Ok, I hope I don't sound stupid.
But I seriously think that the GOP is purposely throwing this election so Obama can get blamed when the economy really goes down south. That is the only explanation I have for the incredibly bad campaign McCain is running. It also explains why McCain picked Sarah Palin. Really after I heard that announcement, my mouth just dropped.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
Yeah, I've suggested that before too, on this very thread.
Given what faces the next POTUS, anybody actually trying for the job (and at this point, it'll take some fancy convincing to persuade me McCain is really trying) has to be very brave, very crazy, or very stupid.
--------------------
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
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Best quote:
quote:
The occultists are "weaving lazy 8's around McCain's mind to make him look confused and like an idiot". . .
That explains a great deal.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But I seriously think that the GOP is purposely throwing this election so Obama can get blamed when the economy really goes down south.
Except for two things: 1. Obama will pin the blame on the Bush administration and deregulation run amuck; 2. he doesn't have to run again till 2012, when he will be able to take credit for making things better.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
