Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Well whats the explanation then?"
Click to expand...
I'm baffled to be honest.

"What would the impact have been if the entire democratic party had refused to accept the result of the last 2 elections and boycotted the process to protest? Wouldn't this have led to a massive and unprecedented shakeup of US democracy? Who knows what would've happened as a result (and therein lies the problem)?"
Click to expand...
Ah, OK, I see what you're saying here. At that point maybe so but what is to stop them at the moment from pre-emptively kicking up a massive fuss about the homeless voter thing? That wouldn't bring down the system would it?
 
D

droid

Guest
I really don't know. Maybe worries about international perceptions? If US democracy is seen as the sham it is then it would decimate the last remaining vestiges of credibility the government has? That could be plausible except of course we all know that US elite's don't really give a fuck what anyone thinks... the economy maybe?

As an interesting aside - remember the 'dont taze me bro' meme? That guy was pretty much asking that question before he got zapped... probably tells you as much about the state of democracy in the US as anything.

Here it is for those with short memories:

 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
As an interesting aside - remember the 'dont taze me bro' meme? That guy was pretty much asking that question before he got zapped... probably tells you as much about the state of democracy in the US as anything.

Here it is for those with short memories:

Click to expand...

If you're implying what I think you might be implying, that's off the fucking hook.
 
D

droid

Guest
I was thinking more about the free speech aspects, whilst playfully winking in that direction - but it is interesting and relevant to this discussion (especially as Kerry seemed to acknowledge the main points of the question), though i imagine anyone who had asked politically awkward questions in that environment may have received the same treatment.

Anyway, speaking of winking - now that we have established that American democracy is total sham in which both parties are complicit in massive fraud, lets get back to the important topics.

What kind of drugs is Sarah Palin on and where can I get some?
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
Anyway, speaking of winking - now that we have established that American democracy is total sham in which both parties are complicit in massive fraud, lets get back to the important topics.

What kind of drugs is Sarah Palin on and where can I get some?
Click to expand...

A crystal meths/mescalin combo.
 
D

droid

Guest
crackerjack said:
That he was silenced for raising an issue prohibited from public discussion (even though it formed a major chunk of Bowling For Columbine)
Click to expand...

Oh - and sorry to quibble, but bowling for Columbine came out in 2002, and this unfortunate fellows question was about fraud in the 2004 election.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
Oh - and sorry to quibble, but bowling for Columbine came out in 2002, and this unfortunate fellows question was about fraud in the 2004 election.
Click to expand...

OK, winker, but fraud in 04 was also the subject of quite a bit of journalism, incl one v long piece in Vanity Fair - more influential than a mouthy student at a loser's meeting, i'd guess.
 
D

droid

Guest
Yes - but far less easy to censor. You can't taze Vanity fair (though I'm sure many would like to). Anyway - I'm not arguing that point, just being pedantic. The question remains though - why have the democrats allowed large scale electoral fraud to continue more or less unchallenged?

I see what you did there btw - very good.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
swears said:
I can't quite believe that Obama will win. I think there'll be some sort of October surprise, Bradley effect or electoral fraud that'll keep him out. He's too good to be true. I can just see McCain's smug git face now, winning after a few thousand ballots have been "lost" in a furnace or something.
Click to expand...

By every historical indicator (even before the credit crisis hit full force), the Dem candidate is going to win this election. It wouldn't matter who s/he was. The fact that he's Obama--came across a million times more articulate and plain-speaking than McCain in the last debate, unified youth and independent or middle of the road voters like no one since maybe JFK, won't be a national foreign policy embarrassment or a continuation of the policies of two failed Bush terms--will only make his winning a historical inevitability.

What I think is completely beyond the pale is that we're fighting a trillion dollar war, we just bailed out Wall Street (and yeah, maybe the entire economy--remains to be seen) to the tune of 700 billion and McCain wants to CUT taxes for the top five percent or so (maybe more?) of highest earners. So where are we going to get the money to continue waging war (quite possibly adding Iran to the list) and to (as McCain proposed in the debate) bail out everyone who is going to lose their mortgage with federal dollars?

I don't know about the rest of America, but I doubt we can pull money out of McCain's ass to do all of this...tax cuts for the rich are simply implausible right now, and he knows this...
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
But Droid, do you think that the republicans even want to be in the White House anymore? Do you think they want to continue to take blame for the mess they've so obviously created? I think they're more than happy to cede the presidency and let someone else get in there and possibly have trouble fixing everything so they can once again take the moral high ground in the blame game.

Interested in hearing why you think they'd even try to steal the election (again)...
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
crackerjack said:
A crystal meths/mescalin combo.
Click to expand...

Ha! That would explain the birth defects...

J/k that was pretty Rush Limbaugh of me. Besides, irresponsibly waiting until you're 45 to conceive a child (especially when the world is full of orphans who'd love a good home) is far more likely to cause problems, as it increases one's chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome by quite a lot. Personally I don't think propping up your retarded baby in the harsh TV lights way past his bedtime wins you many political points. Sick.

For this and many other reasons, I find it kind of unsurprising but hilarious that Palin does better image-wise with men than she does with women--forcing women to carry rape and incest induced pregnancies to term? What kind of woman truly believes this is a "pro-life" rather than an "anti-female sexual freedom" position? (Answer: Palin) I can sympathize somewhat with people who think abortion should be an ultimate last resort, but this just sickens me.

You can shoot endangered wolves out of helicopters for sport, but scraping out a bunch of cells that a rapist forcibly planted in someone's uterus? Never!
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Everything about Sarah Palin is terrifying - not least the fact that McCain is an old man and it's no secret he's had cancer before, and that if elected he could die or fall too ill to govern before the end of his term. And then...yikes, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Palin may have been chosen as a running mate on an "it's so crazy, it might just work!" basis, but I really hope most voters are clever enough to figure out that actually, most crazy ideas don't work, which is why they're called 'crazy' in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top