Republican Landslide in November?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 





Now, there's a real difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans never blame fraud when they lose; they just try to do better next time. Democrats cannot believe their party is sometimes disliked by parts of the electorate. If they didn't win, then someone else must have cheated!


Do some research on this issue and become informed. One place to start is with Greg Palast (author of Armed Madhouse) who is a BBC investigative journalist and has been following the stories of American election fraud for years. If you plan to look at election cheeting You'll want to search for terms such as "caging lists", "Ohio election fraud investigations 2004", "iVotronics ballot machines", "Diabold political contributions" (I think you'll find that the manufacturers of the voting machines are Republican and a deeper investigation reveals that virtually all errors that have been found with these machines benifit the Republican candidate. In fact I know not of even one instance where it was found to benifit a Democratic candidate, but perhaps I missed it somewhere due to my left wing bias and estreme partisanship)...well this should get you started, and then there's the UN election monitors that Bush kicked out of the country. Wierd isn't it? We demand elections inspectors for Russia, but here in America we refuse to let them in while at the same time promoting "free" elections.

While I can understand your sentament, this is not an issue that some sore looser, or whiney liberal as it's refered to on Fox, Limbaugh and company brings up for attention. It's a real issue and it's recieved a lot of attention in the British and European media but very little in the States. Fraud is fraud, and I think most people in America will agree, no matter what party, that we all need and deserve free and fair elections. We also aughtta hear about it in the American media rather than stupid diversions like the right wingers tripping over each other to get out the daily talking points that a few days ago involved pigs and lipstick.

Now I seriously challenge you to go pick up the Palast book...it's in paper back now...this guy has worked tirelessly on this issue for years. If nothing else, read it to try and prove him wrong...he backs up his sources. Don't stay ignorant on this issue. It's too important for the future of the nation to not be informed on what is going on.

Anyway, I'm really glad that you brought this up because it's a serious threat to democratic and free elections no matter who it benifits. Recently it happens to benifit Republicans to the tune of millions of votes. Yes, the Democrats are behind at least 2 million votes and maybe more, before the election even happens. I don't know how anyone can be in support of election fraud and at the same time be a patriot?




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow

Do some research on this issue and become informed. One place to start is with Greg Palast (author of Armed Madhouse) who is a BBC investigative journalist and has been following the stories of American election fraud for years.



Yeah, I know about Greg Palast, the "Progressive investigative journalist" in his own words. What does progressive mean to you? I can tell you what it means to me: about what "fair and balanced" means to you.




In fact I know not of even one instance where it was found to benifit a Democratic candidate, but perhaps I missed it somewhere due to my left wing bias and estreme partisanship)...


You might begin with Gore in Florida in 2000, for starters. A lot of the ballots that his team insisted on counting weren't legal ballots for reasons OTHER than the infamous hanging chad. They also objected to all Bush ballots they could.

What do you think of the fact that Obama got into his first senate seat by getting all of his rivals disqualified? Or is it ok to play such games if you're on the winning side? Kennedy is widely seen as getting elected through MASSIVE voter fraud in Chicago in 1960. Most treatments of is assassination get around to addressing that issue somehow.

Why, if the Reps could "fake" Bush's 2 elections, couldn't they do a much easier job to keep their majority in 2006? That would seem much easier, and have a bigger impact on GOP issues.

Are you really so sure that a majority of Americans couldn't have voted for Bush? Talk about a sense of entitlement.




It's a real issue and it's recieved a lot of attention in the British and European media but very little in the States.


Again, the British and European media are not my idea of neutral sources. If you DO watch BBC or Deutsche Welle, you've seen the way the fawn over any and all Democrats, and heap vitriol on every Republican since Reagan.

Just because Obama was received like a rock star in Germany, doesn't mean he's that popular in Kansas. In fact, it dealt a serious blow to his identification with blue collards in the midwest. But again, his handlers don't think "those people" matter anyway.



I don't know how anyone can be in support of election fraud and at the same time be a patriot?


Hilarious! Disagreeing with you means I approve of Fraud????? . . . . See, there's not really any room for discussion, if people are not entitled to disagree with you.

I for one wont bother. I'll save my objections for when I step behind the curtain.

.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by Fathom
 


Guns, God, Gays, and Gorgeous white females who toe the party line...that's what will win this election, not the issues.
[edit on 14-9-2008 by skyshow]


Pity there isn't a euphemism for abortion that begins with "g". Those 25% of the american population someone thinks should be flushed down the toilet, don't worry the Democrats have tried to ensure a quarter of all pregnancies end in such a fashion.

The choice of Palin was a stroke of political genius who has caused such a visceral response from the feministas precisely because she doesn't toe the party line they formulated on the back of the Roe V Wade judgement.

Soon I think people will start to catch on that Obama's campaign is based on the ego of a poor guy who's spent his whole life wondering "if I do this will my father love me?"

Gallup Congressional Polling
Tucking my own viscera away for a moment I think a landslide, ie. executive and legislative victories for the republicans, may indeed be possible - remember there is one other entity in the US with a lower popularity reading and thats Congress under the sparkling leadership of the theologian St Nancy Pelosus, who thrilled the nation recently with her attempt to define the moment the soul enters a person - nice one Nancy, I didn't realise such questions were now in the perview of politicians?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


Even if Bush got 2/3 majority of votes, it doesn't make voter fraud right. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what. Just to reply to your reply on what I had said regarding vote fraud benefiting the Republican party candidates, I was speaking of the electronic vote machines. I think what you were talking about is the paper ballot issues, but while it was being disputed, as I'm sure you're quite well aware of, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to over rule the State of Florida's Supreme Court and in a 5 to 4 decision had the counting stopped. What I was talking about was the machines! I believe we need to keep a paper trail.

Another interesting thing was that 9 out 10 or so exit polls all over the nation showed something other than the outcome in 2000, and even a professor of statistics had come out with the figures and said it was like the chances of winning the lottery that virtually all of these exit polls in the many precincts could have all been wrong. Generally, up until that time for some, the exit polling was thought to help keep things honest. Maybe you can help me answer the question as to why Bush had the UN election inspectors thrown out of the country? That one really bothers me.

Anyway, it's good we are talking about these issues. We are both Americans ( I presume you live in the States, though not certain of course as we have many from other countries on ATS ) and both want fair elections. As for the Patriot comment, I appologise if you interpreted that as being leveled directly at you...I was throwing it out there as a generalization that it appears contradictory to on the one hand consider oneself a patriot while at the same time not possessing a desire to rid the elections of fraud and keep it fair. I spent a good deal of time this past week listening to right wing radio and watching cable news channels so I'm a little bit aware of the mentality, and so that is what I was speaking about.

BTW, I have never said the dems were a bunch of angels, but what I did say is that there is massive evidence of fraud and tampering and we aught to want to get to the bottom of it and get it stopped. The first step I think would be in having the international election inspectors brought back in to supervise the process. The second step would be to get rid of all electronic machines period because there is way too much room for tampering and with no paper trail to verify it's open season. Thirdly, our media needs to get more aggressive on this issue.



[edit on 14-9-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
BTW, I have never said the dems were a bunch of angels, but what I did say is that there is massive evidence of fraud and tampering and we aught to want to get to the bottom of it and get it stopped. The first step I think would be in having the international election inspectors brought back in to supervise the process. The second step would be to get rid of all electronic machines period because there is way too much room for tampering and with no paper trail to verify it's open season. Thirdly, our media needs to get more aggressive on this issue.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by skyshow]


There's where we differ. First, while I distrust electronic ballots, the truth is that the ONLY way to have a valid election in is to throw out the secret ballot altogether. Secret ballots were forbidden in the original colonies and states up through the election of 1884, because they were thought to invite fraud. The rise of "political privacy" gave us modern ballot tampering. It came to us as a corollary of the argument that you should not have jury trial by your peers, but by people who were personally strangers to you. These two "protections" basically destroyed civic community and responsibility. But that's for another thread.

Second I don't believe that either of the last two presidential elections, nor the previous congressional contests, was materially affected by fraud. You sound convinced that it "explains" any republican victories. I disagree. But I think the Republicans were well on their way to losing THIS election cycle, because they have departed from the conservative ideals of the Reagan revolution. I think that McCain alone did not appeal to many conservatives--he certainly didn't energize them. I think a lot of Reaganites (like me), see palin as someone who would at least be a voice of moderation on the GOP's spending spree and interventionist stances domestically and internationally.

Third. I don't see Europe as some sort of ideal that we ought to strive for. They have a deep dislike for American conservatives. They hated Reagan, and they hate all forms of exceptionalism other than the European variety. The idea of us copying their government, their welfare states, or their election styles is just laughable. In short, Europe is not my ideal; it is what's going wrong with America.

The international elections inspectors are going to find fault with any system that doesn't automatically produce an internationalist-socialist outcome. Most of them are outspoken critics of the US electoral college, which is the only reason this country never gave in to the Fascism that overwhelmed the parliaments of Europe and Latin America in the 1930's.

Why would anyone look to foreigners with such a clear streak of disdain for us, to supervise our electoral process?

You may have an inferiority complex regarding Europe, but I don't. Their civilization is collapsing around them, and their only response it to blame America. Already in much of Europe's capitals, it isn't safe for a European to visit the cultural icons of that civilization because they are surrounded by immagrant ghettos. Sharia law is already being imposed in England and France, but to question this is considered "hate speech." Pro-muslim political violence threatens members of parliament in the Netherlands, but saying so makes you a racist. Europeans are losing the last vestiges of sovereignity; so no, I don't consider them valid election judges for us. Not only has Europe lost the will to lead, it has lost the ability to propogate it's own society for one more generation.

Within our lifetimes, Europe as we have known it will cease to exist. If you want some REALLY shocking reading, try Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. It was written ninety years ago, and practically every one of your political icons has read it many times over.


all the best.
.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 





Pity there isn't a euphemism for abortion that begins with "g". Those 25% of the american population someone thinks should be flushed down the toilet, don't worry the Democrats have tried to ensure a quarter of all pregnancies end in such a fashion.


Abortion rates actually declined sharply during the Clinton years while funding for family planning programs actually was increased. Not sure exactly why you say that the dems try to ensure...that's a bunch of balony.

In my posts I use god and abortion interchangeably in a political context, and I suppose it's not always good to do this because there are many liberals who are religious and/or believe in god; the god worshipers aren't all a bunch of right wingers, though with their hostile take over of the media these past few decades one might tend to think so.

Anyway...off track again sorta'... It's an odd title for a thread this election because the race at this point is so close in terms of all the polling that to say "landslide" is like having a bucket of hot water and inviting your friends over for a hot tub party.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
... Guns, God, Gays, and Gorgeous white females who toe the party line...that's what will win this election, not the issues....

from memory:

Obama's unification message: "There's no Red state, nor Blue states, just the United States"

A Republican's unification message: " We will convert all the Blue states to Red states"



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


Fair enough. I respect that you take the time out to fully explain your views. I am not sure how the UN elections inspectors are organized, but I would imagine (or hope) that it is an "independent" body with a multi-national governance presence that objectively monitors elections to be sure they meet internationally agreed upon standards of what means "fair and honest"... I think I would rather have them monitoring the process rather than hired partison hacks.

I didn't realise that about the secret vs. public ballot. Very interesting. Thanks for that. I almost think in the interest of fairness we need to go back to a public ballot, but then at the same time that invites intimidation and folks fearful of retaliation by employers and such. Another requirement used to be that you had to be a land owner, white and male.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow

I didn't realise that about the secret vs. public ballot. Very interesting. Thanks for that. I almost think in the interest of fairness we need to go back to a public ballot, but then at the same time that invites intimidation and folks fearful of retaliation by employers and such. Another requirement used to be that you had to be a land owner, white and male.



I think the landowner thing, in that culture, meant that the elite were the only voters, anyway. If you are the employer, you have little to fear. On the other hand, much of the US was urban by 1880 in the state capitals, certainly along the coast. And it didn't bother anyone until then.

As far as the concern about retaliation. . . . I wonder how it played out during Reconstruction in the south, 1865-1875. Of course, the Victorious north had imposed the Republican Party on local politics in the old South, so that freed slaves were may have had more to fear from whites for voting at all---it could be safely assumed that they were voting Republican, rather than voting for the Democrats, the party of slavery.

While I understand the concerns about intimidation, I also think it might work the other way. Even in someplace like Iraq or Latin America, all it would take is the first person to stand up and choose the opposition. The person who follows him . . . . eventually you'd have a landslide, with the whole town witnessing the event.

Public voting in my opinion, might lead to more "Emperor has no clothes" moments than we have now.

And in the final analysis, the only way to do it is to have a group of voters so small that EVERYONE counts the ballots at the same time. When you start talking millions of secrets, one claim is as baseless as another.

See, now THIS is a discussion. Thank you for the conversation.

.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join