Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?
- Thread starter Gabba Flamenco Crossover
- Start date
D
droid
Guest
Is it wrong to laugh at this?
Damn right. Downs has absolutely nothing to do with what the mother did or didn't consume during pregnancy.
Poor show...
Last edited by a moderator:
D
droid
Guest
Force of habit? I also imagine (as is happening now) McCain will distance himself from the old administration and pose as a great reformer burdened with the bad decisions of a corrupt predecessor.
Fact is that it is happening as we speak, with voter rolls all over the country being molested - in fact it all goes back to 2006 when laws were passed which allowed the secretaries of each state to reject voter registration - California rejected a whopping 40% of voter registrations in that year alone. Even if they wanted to stop it now, the machine has been rumbling away since 2000.
Think about it this way. if you have a successful method of stealing election after election, then why not do it? What does it matter what people think when they live in what is effectively a one party state?
D
droid
Guest
[QUOTE="vimothy]So the answer to the question asked at the start of the thread is no. It's not the end. The Reagan/Rove right own the electoral mechanisms and thus the route to power.
Just remind me again why the Dems go along with this.[/QUOTE]
So tell me Vimothy, exactly how are the accusations about electoral fraud incorrect?
Do you disagree with the contention that according to the Bush appointed 'Elections Assistance Commission' 3,006,080 voters had their votes binned in 2004?
Do you disagree with the contention that a Black voters ballot is 900% more likely to be lost than a white voters (based on an analysis of the of the 1,389,231 'spoiled votes in 2004)?
Do you disagree with the contention that in the caucus primary in New Mexico this year one in eight Democrats were handed 'provisional' ballots without also being handed official envelopes - which means they were binned?
Do you disagree with the contention that the Republican Secretary of State of Colorado (a swing state) eliminated 19.4% of the voters from the voter rolls before the 2004 election?
Do you disagree with the contention that Republicans are trying to prevent voter registration ? (for example The Republican Governor and legislature of Florida, made the League of Women Voters and other voter-drive groups subject to a $5000 fine for every voter form they submitted with accidental errors such as typos).
Do you disagree with the contention that the “Help America Vote Act” mentioned above has allowed secretaries of states to reject voter registrations (typically Latino, Vietnamese, Chinese and Muslim- surnamed citizens) to the tune of 42% in California (14,629 voters in Los Angeles County alone) and 85,000 in the swing state of Florida?
Do you disagree with the contention that about 1 in 10 absentee ballots are being discarded due to minor errors like using the incorrect envelope or making an 'X' instead of a circle?
Do you disagree with the contention that states that have for over a century allowed voters to vote without ID (such as Indiana) are now turning away thousands of voters who do not have such ID?
Do you have any argument to offer other than the facile assertion that 'this mustn't be happening because the dems aren't stopping it from happening'?
I would have thought that with your commitment to democratic ideals you'd be somewhat more concerned about this issue...
Just remind me again why the Dems go along with this.[/QUOTE]
So tell me Vimothy, exactly how are the accusations about electoral fraud incorrect?
Do you disagree with the contention that according to the Bush appointed 'Elections Assistance Commission' 3,006,080 voters had their votes binned in 2004?
Do you disagree with the contention that a Black voters ballot is 900% more likely to be lost than a white voters (based on an analysis of the of the 1,389,231 'spoiled votes in 2004)?
Do you disagree with the contention that in the caucus primary in New Mexico this year one in eight Democrats were handed 'provisional' ballots without also being handed official envelopes - which means they were binned?
Do you disagree with the contention that the Republican Secretary of State of Colorado (a swing state) eliminated 19.4% of the voters from the voter rolls before the 2004 election?
Do you disagree with the contention that Republicans are trying to prevent voter registration ? (for example The Republican Governor and legislature of Florida, made the League of Women Voters and other voter-drive groups subject to a $5000 fine for every voter form they submitted with accidental errors such as typos).
Do you disagree with the contention that the “Help America Vote Act” mentioned above has allowed secretaries of states to reject voter registrations (typically Latino, Vietnamese, Chinese and Muslim- surnamed citizens) to the tune of 42% in California (14,629 voters in Los Angeles County alone) and 85,000 in the swing state of Florida?
Do you disagree with the contention that about 1 in 10 absentee ballots are being discarded due to minor errors like using the incorrect envelope or making an 'X' instead of a circle?
Do you disagree with the contention that states that have for over a century allowed voters to vote without ID (such as Indiana) are now turning away thousands of voters who do not have such ID?
Do you have any argument to offer other than the facile assertion that 'this mustn't be happening because the dems aren't stopping it from happening'?
I would have thought that with your commitment to democratic ideals you'd be somewhat more concerned about this issue...
vimothy
yurp
I have no data in either direction. (Can you give your sources, please?)
I am confused as to what exactly is in it for the opposition. How does the political economy of such a system work? Even if you are correct and the Republicans are systematically disenfranchising voters likely to vote Democrat, the fact that the Democrats don't seem to mind is interesting, no? So there is collusion, but it seems to be a little lop-sided, especially given the nature of government (primarily access to rents). If I was selling my chance of electoral success (that is, access to revenue streams for myself and supporters) by acquiescing, I would want something in return. My supporters would certainly want something in return. The Reps may be corrupt, but at least they're getting rewards -- the Dems are just giving it away! Maybe voting for Obama is not such a smart idea after all...
I am confused as to what exactly is in it for the opposition. How does the political economy of such a system work? Even if you are correct and the Republicans are systematically disenfranchising voters likely to vote Democrat, the fact that the Democrats don't seem to mind is interesting, no? So there is collusion, but it seems to be a little lop-sided, especially given the nature of government (primarily access to rents). If I was selling my chance of electoral success (that is, access to revenue streams for myself and supporters) by acquiescing, I would want something in return. My supporters would certainly want something in return. The Reps may be corrupt, but at least they're getting rewards -- the Dems are just giving it away! Maybe voting for Obama is not such a smart idea after all...
D
droid
Guest
So in other words, you know nothing about it, but disagree anyway?
You will have to read Palast's 'Armed Madhouse' for sources if you're genuinely interested - or go to his website. I don't have a copy of the book handy.
Also - to say that the dems aren't doing anything to try and stop it is not entirely correct. There are quite intense local grassroots efforts to prevent electoral fraud throughout the US, and increased efforts to publicise the fraud - but simply not on the scale you would expect.
Your (somewhat tortuous) logic here is quite illuminating though:
'The republicans are stealing the election, the democrats aren't doing enough to stop them - therefore the dems are corrupt by allowing the reps to continue their fraud and you should vote for the GOP because at least they are clever enough to fuck the system and get rewarded.'
A truly breathtaking commitment to democratic principles there...
You will have to read Palast's 'Armed Madhouse' for sources if you're genuinely interested - or go to his website. I don't have a copy of the book handy.
Also - to say that the dems aren't doing anything to try and stop it is not entirely correct. There are quite intense local grassroots efforts to prevent electoral fraud throughout the US, and increased efforts to publicise the fraud - but simply not on the scale you would expect.
Your (somewhat tortuous) logic here is quite illuminating though:
'The republicans are stealing the election, the democrats aren't doing enough to stop them - therefore the dems are corrupt by allowing the reps to continue their fraud and you should vote for the GOP because at least they are clever enough to fuck the system and get rewarded.'
A truly breathtaking commitment to democratic principles there...
vimothy
yurp
What's to disagree with? What do you mean? I asked a simple question: if you (well, Palast) are correct, what does the political economy of such an arrangement look like? You've obviously thought about this too because you note, "quite intense local grassroots efforts to prevent electoral fraud throughout the US, and increased efforts to publicise the fraud - but simply not on the scale you would expect".
Given that Republican electoral capture pressuposes some degree of collusion or at least acquiescence from the Democrats, what's in it for them?
Actually, I've already read it (though admittedly this was some years ago). I was just wondering if you had any other corroborating evidence/sources.
We weren't all blessed with your easy wit, droid. I was merely trying to highlight the sort of (blackly) humourous conclusions that someone might draw from the knowledge that the Republicans will steal the election no matter what and the Democrats, at least, the Democrat leadership, don't care. Why bother voting Dem if they won't win and don't care?
Given that Republican electoral capture pressuposes some degree of collusion or at least acquiescence from the Democrats, what's in it for them?
Actually, I've already read it (though admittedly this was some years ago). I was just wondering if you had any other corroborating evidence/sources.
We weren't all blessed with your easy wit, droid. I was merely trying to highlight the sort of (blackly) humourous conclusions that someone might draw from the knowledge that the Republicans will steal the election no matter what and the Democrats, at least, the Democrat leadership, don't care. Why bother voting Dem if they won't win and don't care?
D
droid
Guest
But theres a lot of assumptions that presuppose this assertion - that they all know whats going on, that they think it can/will affect them personally , that they believe voters will care, that they believe the media will support them if they protest, that they are rational actors to begin with...
Simply because I expect there to be more coverage/reaction doesn't mean the conditions are there for this to happen in the US. I (and you) live in a (comparatively) sane political system in comparison with the states. Standards that may apply in Europe do not seem to apply to the murky cabaret world of US politics.
Fundamental questions here - why did Gore concede in 2000 in the face of such obvious and repeated corruption? Why did Kerry give up in 04?
Your question may be interesting, but its really an aside. Fraud has occurred. Elections have been stolen.
An even more crucial question is why don't the voters rise up in protest? And its one that goes to the heart of things - the American people and their relationship with their political leaders and the media.
Well, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that its because they don't care, rather they have an interest in not upsetting the whole applecart. With things as they are they at least have a chance of fighting back, and given the general history of democracy in the US, the cynical politician might say that this is just one in a long line of institutional problems which can/should be dealt with from within the system.
RE: Sources - yes, most come from Palast, as he is pretty much the only person investigating this, but it is interesting to note that many of his sources are official, bipartisan (and in some cases, government appointed) bodies - and as you've read his books you'll know that he regularly supplies scans of relevant and incriminating documentation...
Last edited by a moderator:
D
droid
Guest
Oh - and this also assumes that the voters are aware of the scale of the problem - or even that there is a problem at all.
It seems they are not.
Last edited by a moderator:
crackerjack
Well-known member
vimothy
yurp
Sure, sure -- but you know, right?
D
droid
Guest
Thats pathetic even for you. Please stop being a twat (if you can).
There is convincing evidence of widespread electoral fraud, and no one - not even you has seriously contradicted or challenged that evidence. Anyone who is the least bit interested in the democratic process should be concerned. Especially those who are more than happy to cheerlead the 'export' of said democratic values and to condemn other states for their lack of democracy.
If you have some solid evidence which contradicts the claims of Palast and associates, lets hear it. Otherwise...
There is convincing evidence of widespread electoral fraud, and no one - not even you has seriously contradicted or challenged that evidence. Anyone who is the least bit interested in the democratic process should be concerned. Especially those who are more than happy to cheerlead the 'export' of said democratic values and to condemn other states for their lack of democracy.
If you have some solid evidence which contradicts the claims of Palast and associates, lets hear it. Otherwise...
crackerjack
Well-known member
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Funny, isn't it, how all the meth strongholds in the U.S. also happen to be the states where you have the most foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government militia member secessionists (e.g. Palin's husband)?
Maybe it's not funny.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Here's the thing, though, Droid...
I remember being in my Greek class during the 2000 election right after the election had clearly been stolen. My professor was a Jewish woman from NYC, and we talked about how hilarious it was that a county full of NY-transplants in southern Florida was somehow counted for Bush. People were livid. Everyone was. For months and months.
The problem with focusing on this issue, however, is that to the extent that democrats bring this up (rather than use their real policy advantage) they will be bracketed into the "politics of conspiracy theories and sore losers" column and given the fact that neo-conservative punditry rules the airwaves in 2000, democrats knew any loud complaints about conservatives stealing the election would be met with tremendous amounts of spin. Had democrats continued to complain about the rigged elections post-2000 they'd have no chance of winning the next few elections.
I think conservatives are mostly idiots, but I don't think they're so stupid that they'd really think Palin was an asset to their ticket. She plays to the base in a race that's so clearly about unifying indepedent voters...Seems like they want to lose, but lose with a small enough margin that people can't declare neo-conservatism dead in the water...
BTW GM stock now at 4.91 /share the lowest in 58 years! If I'm not mistaken GM's the largest company in the world. I can hear the countdown clock to GM's bankruptcy clicking away as we speak...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
why does embedding NEVER work for me?!?!?!
why does embedding NEVER work for me?!?!?!
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Another thing Droid:
Even Clinton's "impeachment" was the product of a clear concerted effort on the part of conservatives...I'd never question the validity of the election frauds...but you have to remember that conservatives really thought they were going to get in the White House and go out and secure all the oil reserves we could in other countries before China got to them. Conservatives thought they were doing us all a favor. None of their efforts panned out. Politically it would be very very bad for them to take the presidency.
This is the same thing Kerry (or at least some democrats) understood in 2004--it would have been a nightmare to take office without letting conservatives take their fair blame for their responsiblity in the Iraq mess.
As I type Brian Mellor is on CNN under a heading "Voter Fraud Concerns" talking about ACORN...funnily enough ACORN is being accused of throwing the election for OBAMA!
Even Clinton's "impeachment" was the product of a clear concerted effort on the part of conservatives...I'd never question the validity of the election frauds...but you have to remember that conservatives really thought they were going to get in the White House and go out and secure all the oil reserves we could in other countries before China got to them. Conservatives thought they were doing us all a favor. None of their efforts panned out. Politically it would be very very bad for them to take the presidency.
This is the same thing Kerry (or at least some democrats) understood in 2004--it would have been a nightmare to take office without letting conservatives take their fair blame for their responsiblity in the Iraq mess.
As I type Brian Mellor is on CNN under a heading "Voter Fraud Concerns" talking about ACORN...funnily enough ACORN is being accused of throwing the election for OBAMA!