Election 08 (Make your prediction)

johnfolton writes:

quote:

---

might postpone the elections.

---

That'd be unconstitutional. Now, let's not play dumb and bring up things like a hurricane tearing through a city to stop an election. We're talking about postponing elections across the nation. We never postponed elections in a time of war previously. Why on earth would they be postponed now?Not to mention that the official policy of the Bush administration is to hold the elections, as this was bandied about the last time we had a presidential election: While the New York elections that were to be held on September 11, 2001 were postponed because of the attacks, that is only because the election officials of New York have that power.Nobody has that power at the federal level. There is no way to postpone a federal election.And if the election gets held, then it is also unconstitutional for Bush to remain. The Twenty-second Amendment still holds: Nobody can hold the office for more than two terms. It doesn't matter if Charlotte, North Carolina gets nuked on January 19. The old president steps down and the new one is sworn in on January 20. Since there is no problem with swearing in a new president upon the death of the old (it can be done on a plane), why on earth would any

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

..johnfolton responds to me:

quote:

---

How about a nucleur pulse that congress fears over the middle of america taking out all cars and communications.

---

Doesn't matter. What part of "Nobody has that power at the federal level" are you having difficulty with? What part of "There is no way to postpone a federal election" is causing you trouble?We held elections during the Civil War when cities were under siege by enemy troops. Are you saying the current citizenry are unable to do the same?

quote:

---

If the people can not vote how could you have an election

---

Huh? What do you mean "if the people cannot vote"? You're making it sound as if it were possible to prevent every single person across the entire country from voting. That's physically impossible.Again, during the Civil War, we held elections. Cities were under siege by enemy troops and still we managed to hold elections.And by the by: People have been voting for at least a week in many precincts. Even if nobody else voted between now and the end of the day on November 4, we'd still have the results of an election.

quote:

---

thus George would remain President.

---

Incorrect. The Twenty-second Amendment still stands. George Bush is inelligible to hold the office starting January 20, 2009. We have a process for succession should we get to January 20 and not have a President:The Twentieth Amendment: [emphasis added]So let's run through a couple cases, shall we?1) The election takes place but we find out the winner wasn't really qualified (say, for example, that McCain wins and we find that his birth in Panama really did make him foreign-born and not a natural-born citizen, thus violating Article II, Section 1 regarding the qualifications for President). Well, that falls under Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment: The person elected as Vice President will become President.2) Suppose something happens on November 4 such that no election takes place. Then Congress will decide who the next President will be. Since Bush no longer qualifies, it cannot be him.Is it really that difficult to read the Constitution?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

From organizations like Acorn

---

What, precisely, is ACORN up to?It sounds like you don't really know the processes ACORN uses and the legal framework that exists regarding organizations that seek to register people to vote.

1. ACORN does pay its workers, but it pays an hourly wage, not by the number of forms signed. This is to help prevent fraud. Since a worker will not be paid by the number of forms, there is no incentive to turn in falsified documents.
​
2. Of the forms turned in, ACORN contacts the person listed on the form three times to validate the information on the form. This is to prevent fraud. A fake form will most likely have illegitimate information.
​
3. By law in most jurisdictions, all forms collected by registration agencies such as ACORN must be turned in. This is to prevent fraud. If a group with malicious tendencies collects forms but wishes to suppress the vote by not turning in the forms of those whom it deems unworthy, that is disenfranchisement. Even in jurisdictions where this is not required (and they are very few), ACORN turns in all forms in order to prevent disenfranchisement.
​
4. ACORN examines the forms that are turned in to look for other signs of fraud such as multiple forms being written in the same handwriting. This is to prevent fraud.
​
5. Because ACORN turns over all registration forms (as is usually required by law), ACORN flags every suspicious form it finds when turning them over. This is to prevent fraud. By informing the registrar of suspicious forms, they can be more easily scrutinized and deleted by election officials.
​
6. Should there be a finding that the forms turned in by specific workers are fraudulent, that worker is fired from ACORN. ACORN then works with the election officials to prosecute the person who submitted fraudulent documents. In every single instance of an ACORN worker being prosecuted for submitting false voter registration documents, said worker was turned in by ACORN.

Could you please outline how this process is flawed? I should point out that in the past 3 years, there have been only 70 cases of fraud connected to an election found in the entire country. Of those 70, only 18 were involving a voter and of those 18, not a single one involved a false registration form.So please tell us, Buzsaw, exactly where is your evidence that ACORN is a source of trouble regarding elections? This is nothing more than the latest example of fake outrage over non-existent problems.

quote:

---

Obama's army of community organizers which he had handily organized in place in preparation for his campaign.

---

And is there a reason for your sneering over the phrase "community organizers"? Given that you were apparently quite ignorant regarding the reality of ACORN, exactly what is your problem with people getting involved in their community with regard to government? Are you upset that these groups are doing out in the open what churches try to do in private?I trust you are just as upset over the actions of church groups to provide rides to their congregation to the polling place, right? Such "community organizers" are necessarily corrupt, right?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

My assessment back then was based on the fact that a large sector of Americans, especially among are beginning to think like Germans thought during the pre-Hitler decades.

---

BZZZZT!Godwin's Law. I'm so sorry, Buzsaw. Thanks for playing.First person to mention the Nazis automatically loses the debate. To think that the best example to compare your argument to is the Holocaust is to prove that you understand neither the Holocaust nor your own argument.

quote:

---

They are ripe for the picking by the likes of Obama.

---

Right...and the McCain's campaign of declaring Obama to be tantamount to a terrorist has nothing to do with invoking fear.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw quotes the Investor's Business Daily:

quote:

---

ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.

---

Incorrect. ACORN turned over registration forms that had bogus information on them. They are required to do so by law. And they flag every single form that appears to be fraudulent in order to assist election officials weed them out.In short, IBD lied to you.

quote:

---

In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.

---

And they were all flagged by ACORN as suspicious. Since ACORN is required by law to turn in every single form they get in order to prevent disenfranchisement, they look through them for suspicious forms such as duplicate entries in the same handwriting and flag them so that election officials can more easily determine where the problems are.They then volunteer to turn over information to election officials in order to help prosecute those who turned in fraudulent forms. Every single ACORN worker that has ever been prosecuted for filing false election documents has been turned over by ACORN.Is there a reason why IBD didn't mention this fact?

quote:

---

Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.

​

Fewer than 40 responded.

---

And this is a problem why? Again, ACORN contacts the people they sign up before they turn the forms over in order to prevent fraud. Those who don't respond are flagged before they are turned over as required by law. If the person has already been contacted by ACORN, they may think they have already done what needs to be done to verify their registration.But on a more basic level, since when was it a requirement to respond to government letter in order to be registered to vote? This is a fake claim.

quote:

---

In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.

​

In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

---

And every single one of them was turned in by ACORN.Every single one.Is there a reason why IBD didn't mention this fact?

quote:

---

ACORN has also been registering convicted felons ” including inmates ” in Florida and other battleground states.

---

And all of them were flagged before being turned over so that the election officials knew which ones were the problem. Since ACORN is required by law to turn in every single form it receives, it is not in any position to throw out forms it knows are bad. So, it flags them as suspicious and then assists election officials in prosecuting those who turned them in.Every single ACORN worker that has ever been prosecuted for fraud was turned in by ACORN.

quote:

---

For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")

---

Incomplete: Is there a reason that IBD decided not to report on the fact that the Obama campaign amended the filing and that such amendments are hardly uncommon?

quote:

---

But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.

---

Again, incomplete: Why does the IBD refuse to provide the complete details?And by the way, the suit was dropped: Is there a reason why you didn't mention this fact?You have been lied to, Buzsaw. What are you going to do now that you know this?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

AnswersInGenitals writes:

quote:

---

The republican 'king makers' don't want a maverick.

---

McCain is not a maverick. He is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. The idea that he is somehow willing to take on his own party is nothing more than a story told by the media due to the fact that they like him. If you look at his voting record, it is clear that he is more conservative than the average Republican officeholder.He talks a good game to the press, but speeches aren't votes. He can talk about being moderate when it comes to question of abortion, for example, but his voting record shows that he has never voted for anything except to outlaw it.

quote:

---

And they particularly don't want a president who isn't a dogmatic Reaganite. So McCain was pretty much left to twist in the wind.

---

Except that McCain is precisely that: A dogmatic Reaganite.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Monk writes:

quote:

---

MSNBC

---

Chris Matthews
Joe Scarborough
Tucker Carlson
Mike Murphy
Pat Buchannan
David Shuster
David Gregory
...Compared to:Keith Olbermann
Rachel MaddowYeah...MSNBC has a liberal bias. There are two (count 'em!) liberal voices on the network with a combined total of two hours of programming. Therefore, it's a "liberal" network. Nevermind that Scarborough has three hours...the fact that there are two hours of "liberal" programming in a day means it's a "liberal" network.What liberal media? If the media were truly liberal across so much of the spectrum, how on earth does a conservative ever get elected?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It's nearly midnight in California and it looks like Modulous is the closest one. Currently, Obama has over 340 (much more than most predicted) and McCain won't break 200.Will those who predicted McCain or even had it close consider this to be a sign that their ability to analyze the pulse of the nation is not quite up to par?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

The power of the media bro, if it can make people stand in line over night for a cellphone, it can sway votes in any direction.

---

Which means if the media is liberal, how on earth did Bush get elected twice?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

However, since I believe there is only one party

---

Right, Mr. Nader. Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Al Gore would have pushed through a tax cut for the rich. Al Gore would have threatened to veto improved CAFE standards. Al Gore would have politicized the Justice Department and put in operatives as Attorneys General, firing those who weren't "loyal." Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Al Gore would have gutted FEMA and stuck around to attend McCain's birthday party rather than mobilize things when we could see from space that Katrina was going to slam into the Mississippi Delta.Al Gore would have ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing saying that Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the United States...especially since during his term in the Executive, they were actively pursuing him and told the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was probably going to be the most important thing on their plate. Yep, all that would have been ignored and, like the Bush administration, he would have never held a single meeting regarding terrorist attacks in general and Al Qaeda in particular.Yeah, there's really only one party.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

John Stewart...(from the Daily Show)

---

The same Jon Stewart that had McCain on 10 times?Yeah, Jon's a liberal and yeah, he was for Obama. But to pretend like he was akin to Hannity in his treatment of the two candidates is disingenuous at best.Does the phrase "false equivalency" mean anything to you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

There is, this country is run by one party, or rather I should say one class.

---

Those two are not the same thing. I will handily agree with you that the wealthy have much more power than the poor, but that is not the same thing as party.

quote:

---

You were told who to vote for

---

Really? My ballot had a write-in slot. I could vote for whomever I wished.

quote:

---

and you only had two choices

---

Really? My ballot had half a dozen choices as well as the write-in. I had many more than two options.

quote:

---

both from the upper class of society

---

Really? Nader is from the upper class of society? Oh, but wait...you said "both" and he's not one of those "both."

quote:

---

Al Gore would have done things differently, I agree

---

So if the Democrat would have done things differently than the Republican, how does that make the Democrats and the Republicans the same party? Wouldn't members of the same party do things the same way (at least on the aggregate)?

quote:

---

At least Nader wasn't bought out by special interest groups

---

Um, the Republican party isn't a special interest group? Citizens for a Sound Economy is a Republican front group chaired by Dick Armey and C. Boyden Gray. Their goal is to make the tax cuts permanent, privatize Social Security (and look how well that would have turned out), set up a flat tax, and enshrine school vouchers.Then there's the Family Council. Anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-Christianity.Both of them are supporters of Nader.

quote:

---

as Obama has been.

---

Oh? What "special interest groups" has Obama been bought out by? Be specific.

quote:

---

I would hate for you guys to lose your illusionary Messiah.

---

I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself. I never knew I had this fixation on Obama as some sort of saviour. I mean, I'm sure I didn't mention who I had voted for and here you are telling me how I feel about the candidates!

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

none of the other candidates are relevant

---

Why? Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992...even though he had officially dropped out of the race. Let's not forget that Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in 1912 and beat out the Republican.

quote:

---

By media standards there were two candidates, can we agree on that?

---

For this election, yes. It isn't always the case.

quote:

---

I never said I supported Nader

---

And I never said you did. I was simply pointing out that there was someone on the ballot who does not qualify to your claim of "upper class of society."

quote:

---

you compared me to him by calling me Mr. Nader

---

Indeed, since you used the same argument. That doesn't mean you support him, just that you have the same claim.

quote:

---

and yes he is from the upper class.

---

Really? He's first generation. His parents immigrated from Lebanon and his first language is Arabic (and no, Buzsaw, he's not Muslim. He's Catholic.) While he's worth about $3M, it's all stocks and bonds of which he turns over the earnings to the non-profits he started.Just what is your definition of "upper class," then?

quote:

---

Im pressed for time but I'll give you a quick one off the top of my head, Service Employees International Union.

---

Huh? Standing for a cause and then receiving support from the people who are affected by the cause means you've been "bought out"? There is no way for a group of people who want to have an issue championed to do so legitimately? So gay people seeking to defeat Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida were actually looking to corrupt politics?

quote:

---

I was upset at the Nader comment because I did not show support for any candidate either.

---

Again, I never said you did. I compared you to him since you are arguing the same point, but that doesn't mean you support him.

quote:

---

But, you did vote for Obama, right?

---

Did I? When you read my mind, do you have to concentrate on it or is it something that just rushes in unbidden? Do you pick up the thoughts I am having right then and there or do you have the ability to probe my thoughts without me actually being aware of what you're looking for?Why don't you respond to what I actually said rather than what you wish I would have said.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

He's first generation.

---

​

So are many millionares. Why would that exclude him or them from being placed in a tax bracket?

---

It wouldn't. But surely you understand the difference between "old money" and "new money," yes? He doesn't come from the upper class, he eventually found himself there.

quote:

---

I gauge it by the same standards that the IRS does. Is there another way to define it?

---

What you do with your money plays a part. If you have a lot of money but don't do anything with it, how does that make you "upper class"?

quote:

---

Gay people are not looking to corrupt politics, Unions are

---

Really? I think this is going to be one of those things where we will never be able to come to an agreement.

quote:

---

How can you trust anything that is said from either side when their only objective is financial gain?

---

And financial gain is necessarily a problem, why? Last time I checked, poverty was a bad thing and having a good paying job was a good thing. And is it not possible for people to be wrong when it comes to financial gain? Not just in the small stuff but on the big things? When trickle-down economics got shoved on us under the Reagan administration in the 80s, there were literally fewer than 12 of the 18,000 members of the American Economic Association who thought it could work. But the media, in their role as bad stenographer, simply reported that "There are those who say..." and thus made it seem as if there were an actual controversy over the Laffer curve.We've seen this fake controversy before with regard to evolution. There is no controversy. If you look at the literature, you cannot find any support for anything other than evolution. And yet, people think that there really is a question about the legitimacy of the evidence in support of evolution. How many times have we heard here about the grand conspiracy of scientists to keep "intelligent design" down? For crying out loud, Behe himself has claimed there's a conspiracy and he's a published biochemist.So just because something is about money doesn't people can't be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

quote:

---

You asked me for a special interest group and I gave you one.

---

And I am questioning your logic in concluding that they "bought out" Obama. My original question still stands: Standing for a cause and then receiving support from the people who are affected by the cause means you've been "bought out"? There is no way for a group of people who want to have an issue championed to do so legitimately?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

As a sub-topic, we can discuss WHY did Perot drop out of the election having 20% of the votes?

---

Why not let Perot speak for himself? He claimed that the Republicans were threatening to blackmail his daughter. Not wanting to ruin her upcoming wedding, he dropped out in July.Oh, and he dropped back into the race in October.

quote:

---

Who stood to lose more voters if Perot continued?

---

It appears that he was pulling across the field. About 20% of his votes were from those who called themselves "liberal," 27% from those who called themselves "conservative," and 53% from those who called themselves "moderate." The exit polling of those who voted for Perot showed that he pulled votes from Bush and Clinton equally (38%) and the rest wouldn't have voted at all were it not for him.

quote:

---

Who benefited by Perots exit from the race?

---

Conspiracy?Turns out neither. He pulled from both Clinton and Bush equally.

quote:

---

Who would Perot be more affiliated with, Democrats or Republicans?

---

Neither.

quote:

---

IMO Perot droped out because he placed more of a burden on the Republican party, a party he would probably more affiliated with. Your thoughts...?

---

My thoughts are that Perot gets to say why he dropped out, since he did talk about why. He claims to have dropped out because of threats against his daughter.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.