Obama vs. McCain

[benji]

He didn't state any facts for me to deny, I simply assumed he was bringing up the "STOLEN" meme. Something which is a talking point, and unhinged from what I believe is the case for describing reality.

Anyhow. I was assuming you meant my questioning of the "four forms of I.D." and "dead voting Republican" claims you made. The first of which I have never heard, (and I would be surprised if someone has explored Presidential election history more than me on here) so I was hoping you had some links or something, especially since I could not find anything in a cursory Google search. I was also noting (not denying the claim) that majority minority precients are almost assuredly Democratic controlled, raising the question of why they would support Republicans by keeping valid or even invalid voters away from the polls. And in the second, I was assuming that of course dead people voted, and some likely voted Republican. However, I was also questioning what the totals were for the dead who also voted Democratic, Green, Reform, etc.

I am not denying facts by presenting questions or counterfacts in an attempt to explain the importance of, or conclusions drawn from, other facts. I do deny certain conclusions, but I cannot deny facts. I think that is an entirely reasonable position to hold.

[el badman]

I'll see if I can retrieve the sources where I saw these and I'll shoot you a PM when I do.

I was also noting (not denying the claim) that majority minority precients are almost assuredly Democratic controlled, raising the question of why they would support Republicans by keeping valid or even invalid voters away from the polls.

With the brother of the presidential candidate being the state governor, I think it makes sense, given the whole after-election drama, to question how the polls were actually handled in these areas.

We were personally in the same situation in 2004, when a large chunk of votes, including my wife's, were not accounted for, for some technicality that was never fully explained. We simply received a letter basically saying "oh by the way, your vote was worthless", without giving a valid reason, and so did a whole lot of citizens there. It did make a lot of noise where we were living, but since it was New Mexico, I guess that didn't really reach national interest as in Florida's case...

[benji]

Yeah, but neither the governor, nor the secretary of state oversee the individual precients in the manner of which those claims contend. They are overseen by local election boards and officials. In majority-minority precients, as I said, I would be surprised if they were not Democratic election officials.

The timeline has likely passed, but in most states (I would assume all) you should either:
A) Not be informed that your vote did not count, as your ballot has no name attached to it.
B) Even if somehow it did (eliminating the concept of an anonymous ballot) there should be a means to question the reasons why.

Was it more of a letter, from some group stating "your ballot may not have been counted" instead of a specific "Mrs. el_badman, your ballot was not counted"? The former seems far more plausable than the latter, unless New Mexico doesn't have secret ballots?

My larger point in regards to the 2000 election, (and all elections) is that even if one side tried to steal it, (and not both) there is no way of knowing if they succeeded or failed. As there is absolutely no way of knowing who should've actually won in most cases. There is easily as much of, if not more, of a case for Bush's victory being legitimate as there is for Gore winning. We have no way of knowing if Bush won, but Gore's operatives double punched enough ballots to make it close (one thing from the other side that did happen), or if Gore won and Bush used his brother to get local Democratic precients to disenfranchise enough voters to change things.

[el badman]

Was it more of a letter, from some group stating "your ballot may not have been counted" instead of a specific "Mrs. el_badman, your ballot was not counted"? The former seems far more plausable than the latter, unless New Mexico doesn't have secret ballots?

The letter was actually directed to her specifically, and it seemed to be the case for all the other letters that were sent to this community, all sent from Santa Fe the administrative capital of NM. We received it about a month after the final results...

I see your point about how it could have gone both ways if some irregularities were in fact committed. But I'm really not sure that the local precients, Dems or Reps, would have that much of an impact if a higher authority tries to alter the results afterwards.

[benji]

That's strange, they shouldn't have anyway of knowing which persons ballots were not counted. They should only know that someone voted and that they have the same number of ballots as people who voted (less ones that were spoiled in someway) not which ballot goes with which person.

Actually the state doesn't count ballots, each precient does and then reports those totals to the secretary of state. That is why each recount was done in each county and precient, not at some central state facility. That is also why Gore could not get his selective country recounts and had to have them recounted in every county. (Legally on the last one. I'm not agreeing with the decision, Florida state law, or the 14th Amendment interpretation.)

[Impakt]

I'm not from the USA but Obama ftw!

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mimaNFEbg6U[/youtube]

[BIG GREEN]

So the guy is a baller? I'm impressed. What does McCain do...play shuffle board or bingo?

[Sauru]

man they played soft, i woulda dropped him just to see the massive amount of body guards rush me

[Lamrock]

lol Hope vs. Away

[cyanide]

I couldn't tell, but it looked like he double dribbled at 1:03.

[Sauru]

I couldn't tell, but it looked like he double dribbled at 1:03.

i saw that and he even hooks a guy on one of his layups

[Axel]

Casting my vote for John McCain unless Hillary is veep.

[shadowgrin]

Obama can also play decent basketball! He truly is the black messiah.

[Wall St. Peon]

Obama is pretty good at basketball...finally something I'm sure about the guy!

I bet McCain was pretty good at polo back in 1922...

[benji]

This thread needs more choices. More like "Barack Obama vs. Johm McCain vs. a bunch of losers" or something.

There is no need to vote for the Fascist Demagogue (Obama) or the Arrogant Populist (Johm McCain), one vote will have no effect on them. It would be better to vote for one of the third parties, any of them, as each vote for them actually matters. The number of votes they get determines their ballot status.

If so inclined to get over the Fascist and Christian Democrat duopoly, a few of the larger third party choices:

Libertarian Party - Bob Barr
Former Republican Congressman and drug warrior. Has gone through some change (we can believe in?) and now condemns the drug war, along with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and aspects of the Iraq conflict. Supports restored checks and balances, spending reduction and increased border security.

Constitution Party - Chuck Baldwin (Known as U.S. Taxpayers Party in some states.)
Pastor, parties 2004 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul supporter and campaign volunteer. Critical of much of Bush Administration. (Considers him to be a Democrat.) Opposed to illegal immigration (or, if you prefer "undocumented citizens") amnesty. Wants to investigate 9/11 Truthers claims.

Green Party - Cynthia McKinney
Former Democratic Congressmen and overall nutjob. Most famous for assaulting Capitol Police. Apparently hates web standards. The largest campaign issues she seems to be running on is impeaching Bush. Which doesn't make much sense considering he wouldn't be President anymore, but whatever.

Ralph Nader
Former candidate a number of times, most famously in 2000 with the Green Party. Commonly referred to as a "consumer advocate" although he hasn't done anything like that in about three decades. One of many anti-nuclear weirdos/fearmongers. Seemingly (spinning out of control?) becoming more senile. (see: recent comments on Obama...response to media about those comments...most any other appearance.)

No other parties really have significant nationwide ballot status, one of the various Socialist parties does have a good chunk, but could never potentially get a majority.
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/ (Socialist Party)
If Wikipedia pictures were what I voted on, he'd get my vote.

That's him celebrating his nomination as the party's candidate, at what I assume was their epic convention at a Holiday Inn.

[Sauru]

Cynthia McKinney is hands down the worst choice ever. if she was ever elected to be prez(never would happen) i would just go a head and shoot myself now

[[Q]]

it's a shame that third parties have zero chance of ever winning.
not since Theodore Roosevelt almost 100 years ago did a 3rd party have a chance, spearheaded by a former president. However, it only paved way for Woodrow Wilson to win the election as Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote, allowing Wilson to win easily. The only way that a person could ever win is if there was a 4th major party invovled and it caused a split in votes on both sides.

[BigKaboom2]

If third parties had a chance of winning, they probably wouldn't be called third parties. Are Republicans the first party or the second party? I wonder....

I didn't know Baldwin wanted to entertain conspiracy theories - I'll investigate further sometime. It seems like Barr is the only logical choice for me based on the issues, but I don't know a blessed thing about him other than his platform (not that it really matters to me, but it can be interesting).

[benji]

Republicans would be the second party. Having only been founded in 1854. (Also in the respect of their coming again extended minority status.)

it's a shame that third parties have zero chance of ever winning.

Not really. You only need 33.4% of the vote in enough states to get 270. The problem is that the current third parties do not have viable political candidates nor modern political organization. Britian has three "major" political parties (Liberal Democrats regularly get 17-25%) in a "winner take all" system. They have more than that in Parliament, unlike us, with just two real parties in Congress.

Ross Perot not only had a serious chance, but had he not withdrawn endorsing Clinton before changing his mind a few months later, could have won the 1992 election. (More likely denied an electoral majority.) He led Bush in every major poll before dropping out, after which Clinton surged from a Taft-level third to first. That Progressive Party started by Roosevelt when denied the Republican nomination he believed was rightfully his was also viable in 1924. George Wallace did well in 1968. A Reagan insurgency in 1976 defying the "First Commandment" would have been. Had Clinton prevailed (or if she still does...dun dun dun) and Obama ran as an independent he would easily be the favorite to win that three-way race.

A third party does not need to "split" a predetermined distribution to the duopoly but can instead find a "third way" as Perot did. As Wallace, Roosevelt, LaFollette all did. Roosevelt didn't place himself between Taft and Wilson, he went to the "left" of Wilson. Wallace went after the racist vote. Perot went after concerns that neither party wanted to discuss and created an "average joe" electorate. Nobody cared about deficit reduction and national debt as a major election issue before Perot, it was an issue of governance not elections. Perot effectively hijacked the Clinton Administrations first year by cultivating discontent over the deficit.

There is, one would think, an untouched liberal electorate outside of a media-defined (or self-defined) "kooks" (Paul, Barr, Baldwin) or by calling patience and non-fervance for power "lazy" (Thompson). Romney showed there is at least a small base of support for a business-experienced technocrat. I would assume there is a strong vialibity for steamlining efficiency (as a cost and government cutting measure) and increasing choice.

The problem is that all the various factions are not casting off on their own, but instead continue to war with each other inside the Republican Party. The Democratic party is simply the Fascist Party, the candidates simply racing to promise more of it than their opponents, otherwise they were in complete agreement on this point. The problem is the Republicans are split between the liberals, the business interests, the Rockefellers, the Christian Democrats, the "neo-con"/foreign interventionalists, etc. Instead of seperating into viable seperate political parties (I fathom there could be three legitimate parties) that would all provide real contrast to the Democrats, they continue to operate on the foolish theory they need to stick together to ensure success.

There is no reason we can't have around five major parties. Two or three holding majority (combined) status in certain geographic areas. Coalitions forming for Presidents, etc. (Governors in the more diverse states such as Ohio, California and Texas.)

How much better would it be instead of Obama vs. McCain, if we had Obama vs. Bloomberg vs. McCain vs. Huckabee vs. Thompson/Paul. (vs. Hillary, representing not a real party, but instead the ultimate party, herself.)

[Joe']

Coalitions? I may not know much about US politics, and I may not have fully understood your point (consider it's 5 AM over here) but the last thing you want is a coalition of parties, especially in the US, with all the parties having very different views and opinions from one another.

The Italian Republic (as well as other countries that have coalitions of parties in their Parliament) has not seen a successful government since it was established in 1946 because of this. As you well know, the most recent government (as well as about twenty previous ones) was elected right after the previous government's coalition split.

Coalitions create a thin majority (that's what happens here all the time), which can easily dissolve at any minute if the parties that form it don't agree on something, any thing. Consider this situation (which is actually what happened over here this past spring): a coalition formed by three parties is established, and it holds the majority by very little. Party #1 holds 30%, party #2 holds 15% and party #3 holds 7% (52% total), the remaining belongs to the other coalition's parties.

The coalition wins the elections and within the first three months they find themselves on different grounds on every decision the have to take. Finally, party #1 and party #2 agree they have to cooperate and find a solution that satisfies both, but party #3 feels their differences are too vast and decides to split from the coalition, thus the latter does no longer hold the majority. New elections are prompted.

Again, just my $0.02. I'm sorry if I didn't take into consideration something I should have or missed your point, I just wanted to share my opinion.

[StockaloneDuoLove]

I'm writing Jesus Christ in.

A vote for Jesus is a vote for peace.



(Ron Paul baby, gotta get that fine fine fine ganja legalized)


((In other words... Obama, because you have to choose the best of the worst... and honestly, McCain was in a prison camp for 5 years... you know that he'll start bombing fuckers left and right, and that's no good))

(((Honestly though, Obama might legalize it)))

((((McCain will only criticize it))))

(((((I'm not even American, I can't even vote)))))

((((((Gonna make all of my friends write in "SATAN SATAN SATAN"))))))

[benji]

I know how coalitions work in systems such as Italy's. I actually love it. Some of the reasons coalitions have broken up in countries are fantastic.

with all the parties having very different views and opinions from one another.

That's exactly what I want.

I may not know much about US politics...New elections are prompted.

We don't have such a mechanism (aside from recall in a few states) to prompt new elections. They occur at a regular yearly interval.

Finally, party #1 and party #2 agree they have to cooperate and find a solution that satisfies both, but party #3 feels their differences are too vast and decides to split from the coalition, thus the latter does no longer hold the majority.

I think this is fantastic. It provides a check on the first two parties from potentially doing something bad.

"Conservative" Democrats used to form coalitions with Republicans that provided a check, if minor and not always for the best or even similar reasons (for example Southern Democrats joined with Republican liberals like Goldwater for different reasons but the same goal), on some of the worst overreaches of the 1933-1993 Democratic majorities.

Political division is the best "check and balance" that protects liberty.

[balozunite]

Although I can't vote
I support more Right Wing views so I would pick McCain although I am not really a fan of his policies, I like him better than Obama and I support right wing parties

[benji]

The campaign has officially moved into its meaningless and worthless phase (arguing over Vietnam, yet again) that will take us until the October debates.

Obama has transformed himself. He is now promising to be George W. Bush's third and fourth terms but with higher taxes, even more blatant religion, a Clintonian foreign policy replacing a Wilsonian one and an active desire for further fascism without security reasons.

Meanwhile Johm McCain continues to campaign as Bush's third (and fourth?) terms but without a Wilsonian foreign policy (instead an itchy trigger finger) as well as some mild belief in low taxes, and less religion. Also, he served in Vietnam. And he'll call us all "[his] friends" for his entire term in office.

But not that Johm McCain matters, Obama will win easily. Barring some incredible unforseen scandal the media can't save him from. (Turning up with with four dead babies in his hotel room, killing his family when uncovered, fleeing and later revealing he's actually Keyser Soze.)

At least we can take some solace in the fact that now only people absolutely unhinged from reality still think Obama is a "new kind of politician" that is "above politics" and represents "real change" (outside of an obsession with half of his ethnic background).

And this...because it amuses me...for those who have heard me whine endlessly about how Obama uses "hope":

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. Its hundred and thirty million people are at peace among themselves; they are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a United States which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume of human comforts hitherto unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope

Yep, a new kind of politican. Real change.

"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

Heh.

[BigKaboom2]

Yeah, it pretty much does seem like they're both jockeying to be Bush 3.0, which I wouldn't really mind all that much.

Obama's "refining" of his positions continues to provide the lulz, though he did go more extreme on one thing - apparently he supports late term abortion if the mother has a "serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy" or a "serious clinical mental-health diseas[e]." So - pretty much anything is fair game. People are calling him the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

And how about this awesomeness?

When I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service. We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities.

You jerks and your overdeveloped sense of entitlement! Obama will demand that you be engaged and participate in the new U.S. serfdom!