|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Election 08 (Make your prediction) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
johnfolton writes:
quote: 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:
U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday. ... Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to put an end to the controversy Monday evening. "We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war, and we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president. That's the view of the administration," she said. "No one is thinking of postponing the elections." -- Officials discuss how to delay Election Day, CNN, July 12, 2004 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
..johnfolton responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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:
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. [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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: 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.
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw quotes the Investor's Business Daily:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Incomplete:
Even before Friday’s conference call, Republicans had made much of an $832,598 payment made in February by the Obama campaign to Citizens Services Inc., a consulting firm affiliated with Acorn. “This organization is not just related to but deeply ingrained in the Acorn organization, a front group for Acorn,” Mr. Davis said. The Obama campaign initially reported that the payment was for “staging, sound, lighting” and other advance work when it reported its expenditures with the Federal Election Commission. It filed amended reports in August and September to reflect that those payments were for get-out-the-vote efforts. Mr. Davis contended that the original filing was an effort to “hide the fact” that money was paid to Acorn. But F.E.C. officials have said such amended filings are common. Citizens Services typically contracts with Acorn and its affiliates for work like that done for the Obama campaign. Mr. Goldberg, the Acorn spokesman, said that less than $80,000 of the Obama campaign’s payment to Citizens Services went to Acorn. Jeff Robinson, executive vice president of Citizens Services, did not return a call inquiring how the rest of the money was spent. -- On Obama, Acorn and Voter Registration, Stephanie Strom, New York Times, October 10, 2008 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: Again, incomplete:
The lawsuit accuses ACORN founder and former chief organizer Wade Rathke of either concealing or failing to properly report that his brother Dale misappropriated $948,000 from New Orleans-based ACORN and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000. In the suit, board members Karen Inman and Marcel Reid claimed a small group of ACORN executives allowed the Rathke family to repay the embezzled money instead of reporting the allegations to law-enforcement authorities. -- ACORN board: No lawsuit over embezzlement claim, Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press, October 22, 2008 Why does the IBD refuse to provide the complete details? And by the way, the suit was dropped:
The board of a national activist group embroiled in controversy over its voter registration practices has decided to withdraw an unrelated lawsuit over claims that the founder's brother embezzled nearly $1 million, a spokesman said Monday. Two of 51 board members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now sued for access to the group's financial records. But the full ACORN board voted to withdraw the lawsuit during a weekend meeting in New Orleans, ACORN spokesman Charles Jackson said. -- ACORN board: No lawsuit over embezzlement claim, Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press, October 22, 2008 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AnswersInGenitals writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Monk writes:
quote: Chris MatthewsJoe Scarborough Tucker Carlson Mike Murphy Pat Buchannan David Shuster David Gregory ... Compared to: Keith OlbermannRachel Maddow Yeah...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: 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: Really? My ballot had a write-in slot. I could vote for whomever I wished.
quote: Really? My ballot had half a dozen choices as well as the write-in. I had many more than two options.
quote: Really? Nader is from the upper class of society? Oh, but wait...you said "both" and he's not one of those "both."
quote: 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: 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: Oh? What "special interest groups" has Obama been bought out by? Be specific.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: 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: For this election, yes. It isn't always the case.
quote: 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: Indeed, since you used the same argument. That doesn't mean you support him, just that you have the same claim.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: Really? I think this is going to be one of those things where we will never be able to come to an agreement.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: Conspiracy? Turns out neither. He pulled from both Clinton and Bush equally.
quote: Neither.
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024