PDA

View Full Version : Bad New for Obama


Davian93
09-15-2008, 12:31 PM
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Continuing bounce from the Palin selection now has McCain beating him in the electoral vote too. Florida (and its 27 votes) now leans Republican.

Biden on the other hand didn't help Obama at all.

Sodas
09-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Convention bounce is to be expected. The party that goes last always has a long lasting bounce that doesn't fade until the debates.

Remember, what matters come november is GOTV and how many the democrats register - millions of people who don't show up in polling data.

Sinistrum
09-15-2008, 01:41 PM
Sodas is probably right. Most polling numbers don't mean crap in terms of actual turn out. Just think of how wrong the exit polls have been for the last two presidential elections. Bottom line is that we won't know who will win until Nov. 3rd and obsessing over polling is just wishful/negative thinking regardless of which candidate you back.

Davian93
09-15-2008, 01:45 PM
Sodas is probably right. Most polling numbers don't mean crap in terms of actual turn out. Just think of how wrong the exit polls have been for the last two presidential elections. Bottom line is that we won't know who will win until Nov. 3rd and obsessing over polling is just wishful/negative thinking regardless of which candidate you back.

I'm not obsessing really. It is interesting that so far Palin has helped McCain in exactly the places he really needs help...like Florida. McCain basically has to sweep Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and Florida to win it while hanging on to New Mexico and Nevada in the southwest. Its gonna be another damn close election.

JSUCamel
09-15-2008, 03:06 PM
Its gonna be another damn close election.

I'd be surprised. I think Obama's gonna win handily, thanks to record numbers of young voters turning out to vote.

Sinistrum
09-15-2008, 03:54 PM
I'd be surprised. I think Obama's gonna win handily, thanks to record numbers of young voters turning out to vote.

I remember something similar being said about Howard Dean and Ralph Nader in elections past. The "young people" block of voters is something that always seems to get a lot of hype but doens't seem to actually do anything. Given that most young people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, this isn't all that surprising really.

Ivhon
09-15-2008, 04:23 PM
I remember something similar being said about Howard Dean and Ralph Nader in elections past. The "young people" block of voters is something that always seems to get a lot of hype but doens't seem to actually do anything. Given that most young people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, this isn't all that surprising really.


How old are you, exactly?

Crispin's Crispian
09-15-2008, 04:30 PM
How old are you, exactly?
He's 69.


Anyway, I pretty much agree with Sinistrum. I remember people saying that Kerry was sure to beat Bush in 2004 because the polls were missing out on the younger generation of voters who used only cell phones (rather than the standard land lines typically used for polling).

Oops.

In any case, it's just too soon to tell.

Sinistrum
09-15-2008, 08:33 PM
How old are you, exactly?

26, or in otherwords old enough to know better than to count on anyone from my generation or younger to think rationally about just about anything.

irerancincpkc
09-15-2008, 08:35 PM
Anyway, I pretty much agree with Sinistrum. I remember people saying that Kerry was sure to beat Bush in 2004 because the polls were missing out on the younger generation of voters who used only cell phones (rather than the standard land lines typically used for polling).

To be fair, I think Obama will have more youth voters than Kerry, but I guess you never know... :D

Ozymandias
09-16-2008, 01:05 AM
Yeah, but Sini, its also undeniable that the enthusiasm for the Obama campaign is light years ahead of anything that happened for Kerry and not even in the same universe as Nader.

Your right to say that young people don't often know the different platforms and therefore don't play as big a role as pundits often claim they will, but Obama's campaign isn't built on that. Its got a lot of chic in involved which Kerry didn't. Obama isn't relying on his platform to get people to come out and vote, he's relying on his popular appeal.

I think it'll be close, but I think the Democrats win it. The difference between the hype Palin generates and the hype Obama generates is that Obama is mobilizing new voters, whereas Palin is merely energizing voters that were probany gonna vote Republican anyways. And once we watch Palin get squashed in the debates like the small town, backwater mayor she is, it will sway a lot more of the actually important independant and middle-of-the-roaders who DO know about the differences in policy.

Sei'taer
09-16-2008, 09:45 AM
Yeah, but Sini, its also undeniable that the enthusiasm for the Obama campaign is light years ahead of anything that happened for Kerry and not even in the same universe as Nader.

Your right to say that young people don't often know the different platforms and therefore don't play as big a role as pundits often claim they will, but Obama's campaign isn't built on that. Its got a lot of chic in involved which Kerry didn't. (1)Obama isn't relying on his platform to get people to come out and vote, he's relying on his popular appeal.

I think it'll be close, but I think the Democrats win it. The difference between the hype Palin generates and the hype Obama generates is that Obama is mobilizing new voters, whereas Palin is merely energizing voters that were probany gonna vote Republican anyways. (2)And once we watch Palin get squashed in the debates like the small town, backwater mayor she is, it will sway a lot more of the actually important independant and middle-of-the-roaders who DO know about the differences in policy.

(1) I have a feeling thats going to be the downfall of the campaign, but you never know...theres always a first time for everything.

(2) I don't think it'll be bad at all. In fact, I don't know of any politicians small or big on this board, but someone like Gonzo, or Snow, you, and many others on here could probably take Biden or Palin. I'd like to think that I could just based on the fact that I know if I lead him on long enough he is going to let his mouth get the better of him and he'll eventually say some things that are really really stupid. He's known around Washington for doing just that. You may see him get his clock cleaned, depending on how capable he is of controlling himself, and whether Palin is as good a debater as she appeared to be when she ran for Governor.

JSUCamel
09-16-2008, 10:23 AM
If Palin debates the way she interviews,... I don't think even Biden could lose that.

GonzoTheGreat
09-16-2008, 10:28 AM
You may misunderestimate the ability of Democrats to grasp defeat from a near ineffable victory.

Frenzy
09-16-2008, 10:40 AM
You may misunderestimate the ability of Democrats to grasp defeat from a near ineffable victory.
too true. i wish they'd take this election seriously. It'd make it interesting, if nothing else.

irerancincpkc
09-16-2008, 10:41 AM
Palin might make McCain look good in the debates...

Davian93
09-16-2008, 10:47 AM
Debater: "What is your opinion of the war in Iraq?"

SP: "Which aspect?"

Debater: "The whole war"

SP: "Which war was that?...Vietnam?"

Debater: "No Iraq...the place where we've had 150K troops for the past 6 years."

SP: "Sorry, I'm not familiar with it...are you sure those are U.S. troops?"

Debater: "Yes, we invaded in 2003, we've had thousands of casualties and it has cost the nation a half trillion dollars"

SP: "Hmmm...did you know my son has downs syndrome?. Its just been such a challenge from the good Lord but I kept him anyway. I'm Pro-life"

Debater: ~sighs~

irerancincpkc
09-16-2008, 10:56 AM
~While Joe Biden stands quietly and watches Palin self-destruct~ :D

Biden does have to be careful with the tone of his voice. He doesn't want to appear to be sexist... :rolleyes:

Davian93
09-16-2008, 10:58 AM
~While Joe Biden stands quietly and watches Palin self-destruct~ :D

Biden does have to be careful with the tone of his voice. He doesn't want to appear to be sexist... :rolleyes:


He should be fine as long as he doesn't refer to his running mate as uppity and clean cut ever again. How did he get picked again?

irerancincpkc
09-16-2008, 11:00 AM
He should be fine as long as he doesn't refer to his running mate as uppity and clean cut ever again. How did he get picked again?
He's a very safe pick. Obama needed the opposite of what McCain needed. And his credientals are pretty impeccable; the opposite of Palin...

Crispin's Crispian
09-16-2008, 11:17 AM
He should be fine as long as he doesn't refer to his running mate as uppity and clean cut ever again. How did he get picked again?



"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."


It's an accurate description (bright, articulate, clean), it's just that he worded it as if he's the exception to the rule. It seems to me that black politicians tend to be really articulate. And I don't know how many of them were ever dirty or dim.

Obama called the comments "historically inaccurate," which is true.

Ivhon
09-16-2008, 01:00 PM
Im thinking that Biden is going to get his clock cleaned in the debate.

Nothing sticks on Palin. There are no expectations for her at all. For her to show up will create the buzz that she did well, while any slip at all from Biden will mean that he screwed up.

I got very sad last night thinking about the willingness of the American people to be lied to over and over and over and over again.

Republicans will win again. And again in 4 years and again in 8 years. And if McCain sticks around for 2 terms they will win again in 12 years.

I may be a citizen of Canadia or some other faraway enlightened place by then.

Davian93
09-16-2008, 01:01 PM
Anyone notice that she's suddenly refusing to cooperate with investigators in her abuse of power thingy up in Alaska?

Funny how she went from "Oh, I'll cooperate 100% to, nope not gonna do it."

Ivhon
09-16-2008, 01:22 PM
Anyone notice that she's suddenly refusing to cooperate with investigators in her abuse of power thingy up in Alaska?

Funny how she went from "Oh, I'll cooperate 100% to, nope not gonna do it."

Saw that last night. Stall, stall, stall.

I also have noticed that there are concerns about Republican groups in swing states sending out absentee voter registration cards to likely Democratic voters that have the wrong county on the return address. And shredding them. And other disenfranchisements. Typical.

Election's over and stolen again.

Sinistrum
09-16-2008, 01:39 PM
Election's over and stolen again.

Seriously, if this is the way you truly believe, then why haven't you taken up arms against the government yet Ivhon? If the election is rigged, then democracy is clearly no longer functioning here in the U.S. and participating in the system as it stands will not change it. We must therefore live in some sort of autocratic dictatorship and thus the only logical solution is to overthrow the government and restore the function of the republic, is it not? If the system is sooooo corrupt as to make elections stealable, then there really is no point in continuing to participate in it and the only real solution is to tear it down and rebuild.

Or perhaps this is just the same old tired hysterical hyperbole that has been thrown around in the four election cycles previous whenever one side or the other loses. Because lord knows, it could never be the result of people actually not liking your candidate of choice Ivhon, for whatever reason. No, no, the evil demonic nazi Republicans/Democrats must have used dirty tricks and cheated! We didn't lose because nobody in their right mind could disagree with us! It must have been stolen from us! Waaaaaah waaaah waaaah. Gimme a freakin break. :rolleyes:

irerancincpkc
09-16-2008, 01:45 PM
Republicans will win again. And again in 4 years and again in 8 years. And if McCain sticks around for 2 terms they will win again in 12 years.
This election is too important to allow such an evil party/administration to hold power, and I think the American people know that.

Cary Sedai
09-16-2008, 01:59 PM
This election is too important to allow such an evil party/administration to hold power, and I think the American people know that.

I think, individually most of the American people know that. However, most of the American people don't vote individually, even though they go into the voting stall alone.

I see it more as a popularity contest. Most of us, however we feel privately, want to sit at the cool kids table.

I could be completely wrong of course. I have no basis for this whatsoever.

Frenzy
09-17-2008, 03:11 AM
This election is too important to allow such an evil party/administration to hold power, and I think the American people know that.
They say that with every election, spammer. And your faith in the Left-leaning tendencies of the American people is sorely misplaced. If the American people truly felt as you do, Obama would be double-digits ahead. So why isn't he?

The last time the Republicans fronted a decorated war hero as their candidate, they lost. Mostly because Ross Perot split the vote to let Clinton win. There's no viable independent candidate this time, so the Democrats have to work for this election.

and so far i haven't seen it. Seriously, why aren't the Democrats wiping the floor with the opposition?

Speaking of an independent candidate, how about Palin for President? Palin for President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos)

Sodas
09-17-2008, 03:55 AM
If the American people truly felt as you do, Obama would be double-digits ahead.
1. We elect our presidents by the electoral college, not the popular vote.

2. Ronald Reagan, in 1980, won the popular vote by less than double-digits. This still equated to a 44 state landslide.

3. Polls are not reliable indicators. They are guesses, snapshots of potentials. In 1984, Dukakis held a 17 point lead at the end of his convention, only to lose to Bush I by over 7 points.

From 2004, the last election cycle;
The polling industry is on the defensive for its surveys of voters on Election Day, which some TV pundits relied on Tuesday to overstate support for Sen. John Kerry.

And the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll is catching flak for pre-election surveys in battleground states that turned out to be off the mark.

Polling errors are important, critics say, because they create false impressions about who's ahead or who's behind in a campaign, and that may affect voters' thinking.

Pollsters defend their work, say that their findings are often misunderstood, and question whether many voters were affected by any mistakes.

Both sides agree that, despite heavy investments in money and technology, there's more criticism than ever being aimed at pollsters.

"Let's be honest: They spent four years and a lot of money and were just as bad with their 'exit polls' (of voters Tuesday) as they were in 2000," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "It's disgraceful how bad the information was."

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll's final surveys of key states:

• Kerry was said to be leading in Florida by 3 percentage points. He lost there by 5 points.

• Bush was said to be leading in Pennsylvania by 4 percentage points. He lost by 2.

• Kerry was said to be leading Ohio by 4 points. He lost by 2.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-polls-burn-pundits_x.htm

4. Most of todays polls are based upon 2000 Census date and 2000/2004 voting data. Since then, there have been over two million new registered democrats in the 27 states that report registration data. The pollsters have a hard time estimating what that exactly means - and are not including the newly registered voters in their polling. Best way to watch this is to see the wild range of difference in poll wieghting by political party.

5. It's still early. Most people don't tune in until the debates. And even others wait till the final week.

The only poll that matters is the one on Nov. 4th.

Ozymandias
09-17-2008, 05:05 AM
Seriously, if this is the way you truly believe, then why haven't you taken up arms against the government yet Ivhon? If the election is rigged, then democracy is clearly no longer functioning here in the U.S. and participating in the system as it stands will not change it. We must therefore live in some sort of autocratic dictatorship and thus the only logical solution is to overthrow the government and restore the function of the republic, is it not? If the system is sooooo corrupt as to make elections stealable, then there really is no point in continuing to participate in it and the only real solution is to tear it down and rebuild.

Because in the end, the bad choice isn't so much worse than the good. What are the real policy differences if McCain beats Obama? We see a belligerent foreign policy intent on using force at the drop of a pin. As supposed to Obama, who for all his talk of multilateralism, will be forced to maintain American supremacy, both real and imagined, which STILL means huge DoD budgets and involvement abroad. Their views are on opposite ends of the spectrum, yet their practical policies will, by necessity, come closer to the center due to the realities of the world.

And its not that democracy doesn't work. Its one thing to lament an electorate which is ignorant, naive, and downright stupid, who decide elections in the main based on what their priest tells them, and another to think the system is broken. It works just fine, its just that idiot nutjobs are the ones with the electoral power.

Or perhaps this is just the same old tired hysterical hyperbole that has been thrown around in the four election cycles previous whenever one side or the other loses. Because lord knows, it could never be the result of people actually not liking your candidate of choice Ivhon, for whatever reason. No, no, the evil demonic nazi Republicans/Democrats must have used dirty tricks and cheated! We didn't lose because nobody in their right mind could disagree with us! It must have been stolen from us! Waaaaaah waaaah waaaah. Gimme a freakin break. :rolleyes:

No, but the fact remains that we've seen the most recent president, in his last two elections, basically lie outright to the American public to win an election, and then manipulate their fear in order to stay in office. Its not a mystery that the Democrats are too idealogically dispersed and high minded to unite around a single message the way the Republicans do; you notice that in this election, it seems like every day brings a new report of some potential misuse of office, some ridiculously naive comment, or negative, non-policy smear ad coming from the Republican camp, and really not much of that from the Democrats. This isn't willfull bias, its the truth.

So yeah, whining is useless. But in the end, I have a right to be pissed, because I have to suffer through a heinous economy because a bunch of Christians in the midwest decided that they'd rather ignore any significant policy change which would help America on basic issues, in return for having a President who believes that some metaphysical soul we can't prove exists begins at conception. They've sold the country down the river on policies that 3 decades of failure have taught us don't work, in return for a belief which has zero impact on anything, because quite frankly, the President is in no position to make a significant change to abortion policies anyways.

Davian93
09-17-2008, 07:30 AM
In 1984, Dukakis held a 17 point lead at the end of his convention, only to lose to Bush I by over 7 points

Bush didn't run in 1984...Reagan won his 2nd term. Bush ran in 1988 and won.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-17-2008, 09:47 AM
Mondale/Ferraro was 1984.

Sei'taer
09-17-2008, 10:15 AM
So yeah, whining is useless. But in the end, I have a right to be pissed, because I have to suffer through a heinous economy because a bunch of Christians in the midwest decided that they'd rather ignore any significant policy change which would help America on basic issues, in return for having a President who believes that some metaphysical soul we can't prove exists begins at conception. They've sold the country down the river on policies that 3 decades of failure have taught us don't work, in return for a belief which has zero impact on anything, because quite frankly, the President is in no position to make a significant change to abortion policies anyways.

I am neither a christian, nor from the midwest. These people are christians (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/08/poll_obama_lead.shtml?refid=0). I recommend starting here and then going through the links to the other polls and and such that are linked on the articles. Interesting stuff, considering what you believe to be true.

A poll by the Barna Group, a Christian polling and research organization says Democrat Barack Obama maintains a nine point lead over Republican John McCain among Christians. The poll finds that the race is tightening. Among the key findings -

1) Of the 18 faith groups identified in the polls, McCain is only leading among evangelicals and it's a narrow lead. Obama leads among the other 17 faith groups identified including the born again vote (Barna notes that would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

2) McCain has a narrow lead among evangelicals but a third say they're undecided and McCain's support is weakening among the group...

Sinistrum
09-17-2008, 12:40 PM
Its one thing to lament an electorate which is ignorant, naive, and downright stupid, who decide elections in the main based on what their priest tells them, and another to think the system is broken. It works just fine, its just that idiot nutjobs are the ones with the electoral power.

Ah but Oz, this wasn't what Ivhon was complaining about. I had a discussion with my dad last night where we both came to the exact same conclusion regarding the general idiocy of the electorate as you have here, so I agree with you about their nature. What Ivhon was suggesting is that the Republicans were tampering with voters capability to vote and disenfranchising people, which is entirely different. And quite frankly it pisses me off to hear crap like this because the people spouting it never put their money where their mouth is. Every election cycle we hear stories of disenfranchisement and people rigging the election, usually after the election from the party that lost. Make no mistake, these are very serious allegations. Election tampering is a federal offense with serious penalties attached. But these allegations are always just whispers, rumors, or propaganda without any substances to them, and are nothing more than a case of sour grapes.

Want to know how I know? Because not a single conviction for election tampering has ever resulted from them. Hell, nobody has ever been indicted. And before indulging ourselves in tinfoil hat time, and suggesting it is because the people in power don't want to prosecute, are you really going to sit here and suggest to me that if there was even a single legitimate case of election tampering the national media (whether conservative or liberal) wouldn't be all over it? They would be all over it like white on rice because this type of thing is a king breaker story. The media always pursues a king breaker story and as a result they would give it so much publicity that they would force an indictment and prosecution. But no, the stories of election tampering and cheating the system always die down relatively quickly after the election because there IS NOTHING TO THEM. Furthermore, if there really was anything to them, the people who buy into these stories would see that the system is broken, would see that that there is no point in participating in it, and would therefore take action in accordance with those conclusions (ie revolt). And yet they don't, which is just more proof that stories like these are just infantile ways to rationalize away the fact that the people, no matter how stupid they are, didn't like their proponents candidates of choice.

No, but the fact remains that we've seen the most recent president, in his last two elections, basically lie outright to the American public to win an election, and then manipulate their fear in order to stay in office.

But in the end, I have a right to be pissed, because I have to suffer through a heinous economy because a bunch of Christians

Well then you're going to be perpetually pissed off about the way things work. It is a fact that all politicians lie to get what they want, and even your golden boy Obama does it. People don't want the truth out of their politicians anymore. They want to be spoonfed whatever makes them feel comfortable and they want the government to promise to do things for them, no matter how ludicrious it is. And yes, both parties and candidates are doing it. Your rose colored glasses just won't let you see the Democrats doing it.

It is also a fact that regardless of the existence of the electoral college, we are still a majoritarian based system. And guess what Ozy, the Christians you despise so much are in the majority. So enjoy gnashing your teeth over it because that is about the only thing you can do about it at this point.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Actually, someone should remind the Electoral College THEY DON'T HAVE TO VOTE WITH THE MAJORITY.


Alexander Hamilton is doing aerobics in his grave.

irerancincpkc
09-17-2008, 12:54 PM
Actually, someone should remind the Electoral College THEY DON'T HAVE TO VOTE WITH THE MAJORITY.

They didn't in 2000...

Crispin's Crispian
09-17-2008, 12:59 PM
In contrast to your idea that the mainstream media would instantly pick up an election tampering story, the guy who write this (http://www.witnesstoacrime.com)book (which claims to have a good deal of hard evidence that the Ohio election was stolen by Bush) claims that the corporate media won't pick up his story. They don't even evaluate it, they just push him away.

I only know about this because I heard him on the radio this morning.

So it's not a matter of a lack of evidence, it's whether the evidence that's out there is (a) verified and (b) reported upon by the mass media.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-17-2008, 12:59 PM
Actually, the guy in Florida thought he was, IIRC.

Oh, and: http://www.projectvotecount.com/images/VoteCount-StalinQuote1.gif

Sinistrum
09-17-2008, 01:07 PM
So it's not a matter of a lack of evidence, it's whether the evidence that's out there is (a) verified and (b) reported upon by the mass media.

Ok then I'll ask the question again. If you truly believe this sort of thing is happening, why do you continue to participate in the voting system? If this sort of thing is happening and the media is clearly in on the conspiracy, then what is the point of voting? If all of this is true, then democracy is a lie, the people have no power over government, and we are being ruled by an autocracy. Seems like pretty good grounds to take up arms and revolt to me. So why haven't you done so if this is what you truly believe is going on?

Crispin's Crispian
09-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Don't ascribe views to me, I'm just showing you that you weren't entirely correct.

I don't know if the election is being bought, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me. I'm afraid I don't have the ability to personally verify any of the evidence, so I'm relying on someone else to do it (this includes verifying this guy's research).

If it turns out he's right, then yeah, we have something to worry about.

Sodas
09-17-2008, 02:09 PM
My bad about the date of that. I must have changed which examples I planned to use 3-4 times ;)

But yes, 1988. :)

Let me just add that now that we own AIG, the world's largest insurance company, doesn't that mean that the President is going to need to have to be able to run a company???

Sei'taer
09-17-2008, 05:20 PM
Let me just add that now that we own AIG, the world's largest insurance company, doesn't that mean that the President is going to need to have to be able to run a company???

Nope, we need a president who will unload that hunk of shit and let someone else make it viable again. Just sayin'

Sodas
09-17-2008, 05:22 PM
Nope, we need a president who will unload that hunk of shit and let someone else make it viable again. Just sayin'
Maybe we should put it on ebay!

Rofl. I'm sure we'd end up selling it for a loss to China anyhow...

Sei'taer
09-17-2008, 05:27 PM
Maybe we should put it on ebay!

Rofl. I'm sure we'd end up selling it for a loss to China anyhow...


I was just looking at all the contributions Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae made to politicians over the years. I just keep getting more and more pissed off about these bailouts. I wonder who AIG has been paying...who am I kidding...all of them probably.

Ivhon
09-17-2008, 05:38 PM
Ok then I'll ask the question again. If you truly believe this sort of thing is happening, why do you continue to participate in the voting system? If this sort of thing is happening and the media is clearly in on the conspiracy, then what is the point of voting? If all of this is true, then democracy is a lie, the people have no power over government, and we are being ruled by an autocracy. Seems like pretty good grounds to take up arms and revolt to me. So why haven't you done so if this is what you truly believe is going on?


This is one of the sillier straw-man arguments you have made. According to you if the system is broken then my only discourse is to take up arms? I guess so, since pointing out any flaws in the system is whining in your book.

Well. To answer your question. The reason I have not taken up arms against a government which I DO find to be corrupt, broken, criminal and NOT acting in the interests of its citizenry is quite simple. Let's see what you think.

No matter how stretched the US military is in the bogus war in Iraq and the failing but not bogus war in Afghanistan, it would only take one soldier (make it two, just to be sure) in parental-purchased body armor to quell my insurrection of one.

Seriously, Sini. Suicide as the only way to attempt change? Not to mention that it wouldn't even be martyrdom since the people of this nation are too stupid to realize that the Constitution is being shredded in front of their eyes.

No. Far better solution would be to move. Which I am starting to pressure my better half to do anyway. Not that I hold out much hope.

Sinistrum
09-17-2008, 11:20 PM
to you if the system is broken then my only discourse is to take up arms?

Ok, if this is truly a strawman, then what other option is there to fix things if what you are saying about the government being broken is true, and thus breaks my supposed false dichotomy?

No. Far better solution would be to move.

Ah. I see. Instead of fighting, you'd give up and run away. How typically liberal a response to a perceived problem. Of course you moving away really doesn't do anything to fix your claimed problem of the electoral system being broken, so I guess the choice I presented wasn't really a strawman after all.

Since you've got your heart set on moving away, let me ask a follow up question. If the U.S. system of government is really as bad as you claim, and thus the functional equivalent of democracy in places like Zimbabwe, Libya, or China, then why haven't you moved yet? I'm pretty sure that any sane person living in a society that is governed in a similar fashion as those countries (ie sham elections, dictatorial governments, etc.) would get out ASAP. So why haven't you?

Ozymandias
09-17-2008, 11:35 PM
No matter how stretched the US military is in the bogus war in Iraq and the failing but not bogus war in Afghanistan, it would only take one soldier (make it two, just to be sure) in parental-purchased body armor to quell my insurrection of one.


I'm not so sure about that, Ivhon. I mean, obviously 40,000 army regulars would beat the crap out of any insurrection, but my question is, would it work? The armed forces in this country has a nearly unique history of subordinating itself to civilian authority in all cases. If there were a popular uprising of any size, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Army refusing to fire on its own citizens. I mean, if a third of the country decided "the system is broken, and we're going to fix it," can you honestly see the US Army forcibly breaking it up?

GonzoTheGreat
09-18-2008, 05:29 AM
Ah. I see. Instead of fighting, you'd give up and run away.
That's how the USA got started in the first place, isn't it? Loads of people who couldn't make it in Europe ran away and banded together to steal land from the natives somewhere else.

Are you criticising Ivhon for being a loser comparable to the Founding Fathers, or because you don't think he will try to commit genocide in his new country?

PS I think that I've managed to outstrawman anyone else in this thread, so far.

GonzoTheGreat
09-18-2008, 05:31 AM
I mean, if a third of the country decided "the system is broken, and we're going to fix it," can you honestly see the US Army forcibly breaking it up?
You are never ever going to get numbers like that to cooperate in an armed uprising. Instead you will have something like the Waco business, or Timothy McVeigh.

If you took up arms against the US government, why would anyone follow you? Why would anyone help you? And if they don't, what are your chances?

Terez
09-18-2008, 05:35 AM
PS I think that I've managed to outstrawman anyone else in this thread, so far.
Oh IBIWIDNB, that disclaimer makes me want to cry into my pillow...

Ivhon
09-18-2008, 07:28 AM
Ok, if this is truly a strawman, then what other option is there to fix things if what you are saying about the government being broken is true, and thus breaks my supposed false dichotomy?



Ah. I see. Instead of fighting, you'd give up and run away. How typically liberal a response to a perceived problem. Of course you moving away really doesn't do anything to fix your claimed problem of the electoral system being broken, so I guess the choice I presented wasn't really a strawman after all.

Since you've got your heart set on moving away, let me ask a follow up question. If the U.S. system of government is really as bad as you claim, and thus the functional equivalent of democracy in places like Zimbabwe, Libya, or China, then why haven't you moved yet? I'm pretty sure that any sane person living in a society that is governed in a similar fashion as those countries (ie sham elections, dictatorial governments, etc.) would get out ASAP. So why haven't you?


Way to address everything BUT the response to the question that you posed.

In a typically conservative way (since Im typically liberal...nice ad hominem) you reduce everything to black and white. I said the government is criminal and broken - which it is - therefore you reductio ad absurdum me into saying that the US government is the worst in the world on the scale of Zimbabwe. I did not say that. I did not imply it.

Seriously, Sini. Your lawyer tricks were better when you were in school. This crap is beneath you and Im rather insulted you would try it.

EDIT: Let's boil this down. I whined. You advocated that I kill myself. I pointed that out. You distracted the conversation to anything but the direct question you originally posed.

Hmm...I think there might be a spot for you on the McCain campaign. You would be learning from the best at what you do.

Sinistrum
09-18-2008, 12:50 PM
I said the government is criminal and broken - which it is - therefore you reductio ad absurdum me into saying that the US government is the worst in the world on the scale of Zimbabwe. I did not say that. I did not imply it.

You don't have to say it or intend to imply it. The statement implies itself. According to you, the U.S. engages in sham elections and is really ruled by autocrats. So where, exactly, is the difference between the U.S. and Zimbabwe, et al, in those respects?

You advocated that I kill myself. I pointed that out.

I never said that. You interpreted what I said to mean that in the spirit of giving up on the problem that you've consistantly adhered to on this topic. But if you want me to deal with that inanity, fine. Oz did a pretty good job to start with in pointing out it would be unlikely that the military would actually turn its guns on a significant uprising in the states. However, I'll take it a step further. You think it would be suicide for civilians to engage in conflict with the U.S. military? Try telling that to the insurgents in Iraq. Yanno, the same insurgents that have been making things difficult for our troops since the beginning of the war in Iraq and people like you have been advocating we use the same strategy you plan on using to fix your perceived flaws in government on: ie running away. If they're not such a threat and are going to get slaughtered by our troops, then why are you advocating that our troops run away from them? Seems to me you've got a pretty good logical loop going here. You want our troops to run away from civilians taking up arms, but you in turn as a civilian will run away from our troops.

Hmm...I think there might be a spot for you on the McCain campaign. You would be learning from the best at what you do.

In what way? All I've been doing is merely asking questions of your stances. It is not my fault if you can't answer them logically or consistantly. Besides, I haven't really seen McCain do anything remotely approaching that. I sort of wish he would, because then I might be more inclined to vote for him. Wait, were you assuming that I was inclined to vote for McCain? :rolleyes: It never ceases to amaze me how people like you always seem to make that assumption every time I levy a criticism against the stances people in the Obama camp take. Speaking of which, seems to me there's a place for you in the Obama camp in the regard of not being able to answer questions sufficiently. But you sure can talk about change a lot, particularly you changing postal addresses in response to some very serious alligations. It also seems like many of your policy solutions to a whole host of problems involve running away from those problems, which gives you double credit for such a position.

You distracted the conversation to anything but the direct question you originally posed.

In what way? My original question was why, if your claims of government non-function are true, why haven't you done the only thing conceivable to fix it? How is anything I'm saying now distracting from that question? If is your claim that its the Zimbabwe part of the discussion? Because if so, that is my merely attempting to ascertain the nature of your claims regarding the corruption of the U.S. system of government. Is it the running away part? If so, then that is me addressing your proposed solution to that corruption, which btw, I feel the need to point out AGAIN, doesn't do anything to fix the supposed corruption.

This crap is beneath you and Im rather insulted you would try it.

You're insulted? Heh that is funny. You've just levied a staggering indictment w/out any evidence to back it up (ie actual prosecutions and not books written by partisan politicos w/ sour grapes) against the integrity of the system of government I've just spent six years of school learning to uphold and protect and which I plan to devote the rest of my life to seeing function properly and you're insulted? HA! The irony pours forth.

If you took up arms against the US government, why would anyone follow you?

Let me ask you this Gonzo. If the problem regarding the non-function of the U.S. electoral system is as apparent as Ivhon believes it is, then why would he be the only one taking up arms in response to it? If it is as glaring as he sees it, then wouldn't every else see it so, and thus respond accordingly?

Ivhon
09-18-2008, 01:07 PM
Done with this.

You have ascribed positions to me that I have never stated.

Spent 26 years being harassed by lawyer bullshit. Dont need it during my rec time.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-18-2008, 01:28 PM
Let me ask you this Gonzo. If the problem regarding the non-function of the U.S. electoral system is as apparent as Ivhon believes it is, then why would he be the only one taking up arms in response to it? If it is as glaring as he sees it, then wouldn't every else see it so, and thus respond accordingly?

With this I'm kinda with Gonzo. Until it's too late and soldiers are goosestepping down Main Street, the Sheeple won't notice corruption in government.

You're too optimistic in that regard, Sini.

And Ivhon and Sini, play nice or I'll send you both to your rooms. Ivhon, Sinistrum merely asked why you don't take up arms against the corrupt government since it's obviously too corrupt to change from within from your description. Sini: he wasn't advocating violence, he doesn't think it's too corrupt to change from within. Hope I translated you both correctly. Now cut it out before I send you to your rooms. ;)

Sinistrum
09-18-2008, 01:33 PM
Done with this.

Running away again? At least you're consistant in your approach.

You have ascribed positions to me that I have never stated.

And where, exactly, I have I done this? Oh yeah that's right you ran away, so you can't answer that question. How convenient for you.

Spent 26 years being harassed by lawyer bullshit. Dont need it during my rec time.

As for anything I'm doing being "lawyer bullshit," all I've done is challenged some of your assertions. If you can't handle the "lawyer bullshit" that goes along with making those assertions then why did you even post them on a message board geared toward ideas being challenged? Ah yes, you won't answer that one either, because once again, you've run away.

Ivhon
09-18-2008, 01:45 PM
Call it running away. Fine by me.

I have better things to do with my time than argue with a pile of pixels on the internet. Especially when, yes by my own admission, I have no chance of winning an argument with you. I don't have the training. Nor do I want it.

Just because you can argue anyone into the ground doesnt make you right. It just makes you an asshole with little dick disease.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Ivhon. That was uncalled for.

Sinistrum
09-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Just because you can argue anyone into the ground doesnt make you right. It just makes you an asshole with little dick disease.

Ah yes, when you can't win the debate, resort to name calling. Now who is the one engaging in ad hominem attacks? Anyways, weren't you supposed to be done with this topic of conversation. Or were you simply compelled to come back for the singular purpose of insulting me. I'm sorry you didn't think your positions through to their logical conclusions. I'm sorry I called you on it. I'm sorry you got upset over some of my characterizations of those positions. But I fail to see where anything I have said warrants this kind of personal attack which means I'm most sorry that you're not up to the task of discussing your stances with me without engaging in them.

Davian93
09-18-2008, 02:13 PM
Come on guys, we're better than this crap. Just agree to disagree guys.

Bryan Blaire
09-18-2008, 07:15 PM
No, Dav. I have the bigger sword. I have pics to prove it.

Don't make me bust out my other avatar.

;)

Both you guys should just back away from each other.

Davian93
09-18-2008, 07:17 PM
No, Dav. I have the bigger sword. I have pics to prove it.

Don't make me bust out my other avatar.

;)

Both you guys should just back away from each other.


LOL...welcome back Bryan.

Terez
09-18-2008, 07:24 PM
I thought Ivhon was trying to say that Sini had a (small) STD. I understand now, though...

Matoyak
09-19-2008, 12:04 AM
Just so everyone knows, this is posted with only having read the first few posts in this thread. This is just an interesting poll.

Where I'm located...in a student-based poll (mandatory vote, lol) here was the turnout for the area (Course, this was this past spring, so a while back, when there were only 4 candidates):

McCain: 65%
Obama: 25%
Hillary: 5%
Huckabee: 4.9%
Edwards: 2 write-in votes

That was the entire school area

Here's the ones that will be able to vote:
McCain: 75%
Obama:15%
Hillary: 2%
Huckabee: 8%

Frenzy
09-19-2008, 12:41 AM
no, Ivhon was trying to say that grabbing your dick and attacking the government isn't the only way to change a broken system. But some people assume that grabbing your dick and instigating a full frontal assault is the only response to a system that's fucked up. Some people are also too easily distracted by big guns and dick jokes, so it devolves into partisan name-calling. And not even good name-calling at that. now I'M insulted.

GonzoTheGreat
09-19-2008, 04:51 AM
Let me ask you this Gonzo. If the problem regarding the non-function of the U.S. electoral system is as apparent as Ivhon believes it is, then why would he be the only one taking up arms in response to it? If it is as glaring as he sees it, then wouldn't every else see it so, and thus respond accordingly?
The problem is twofold (at least).

First, there's the fact that while the problem is glaringly obvious, it is not obvious to everyone at the same time. People need to figure it out for themselves, and because they all have different abilities and different experiences, they reach the "we've got a problem" conclusion at different times.
This means that while Ivhon may see it now, you won't see it until after Bush declares a national emergency and abolishes the Senate, and O'Reilly will notice it a lot later still. So when Ivhon starts marching, he gets slaughtered. When you start marching, you're buried in the same ditch Ivhon was. When O'Reilly starts marching, there's no one left to bury him.

Second, there is the problem that not everyone who claims to be on your side would be. Some would be government infiltrators, who were busy selling your plans to their superiors.

Third (I knew twofold was not enough), there's the problem of who would lead the New Revolution. Would you be willing to follow the orders of Emergency President Noam Chomsky? If not, does that mean that you would stand aside, or would you support Dictator For Life George W. Bush? Given those options, what choice would you make?
Naturally, those wouldn't be your only options. You could also enlist in the army of Fred Phelps, for instance. Doesn't that idea make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Fourth, the number of actually succesful revolutions is a lot smaller than the number of failed ones. And even if they were succesful, the results often were not all that good, as the French and Russian revolutions show. So anyone who does have enough historical awareness to recognise the danger signs, also knows that acting upon it is risky, even if you are initially succesful.

Ozymandias
09-20-2008, 11:00 AM
You are never ever going to get numbers like that to cooperate in an armed uprising. Instead you will have something like the Waco business, or Timothy McVeigh.

If you took up arms against the US government, why would anyone follow you? Why would anyone help you? And if they don't, what are your chances?

Ahem... American Revolution. Ahem again... American Civil War. First one your looking at about a third, and the second one, about a third.

Oh, and Gonzo, I think the problem generally becomes obvious for most people at the same time. Look, a lot of people in this country think the system is broken. Vigilantes on the Mexican border, PETA, other violent activist groups; they all have a problem with the system and have taken up arms to get their way. For most moderates, which describes 95% of the population, it takes one event to make people think the system is broken. A lot of build up, but one breaking point. If we had a dozen Katrina-like episodes over Bush's tenure, and then he broke the law and got himself re-elected illegally with the consent of Congress without a good explanation, and continued to epxloit the country while whoring and doing drugs and ignoring governance, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of massed resistance.

Obviously, it takes a HUGE amount of discontent, especially in a country where the quality of life is so high.

GonzoTheGreat
09-20-2008, 11:55 AM
It takes not only a huge amount of discontent, but also an effective, charismatic and trustworthy leader.
If your leader is not charismatic enough, you will have a bunch of groups opposing the central government, and you get something like Afganistan after the Soviets left.
If your leader is not effective enough, you all get happily slaughtered, as happened to most attempts on staging a revolution throughout history.
If your leader is not trustworthy enough, then if you're lucky you have a new Napoleon, if you are less lucky you have a new Stalin.

Even during the American Revolution, most people stood aside, and nearly as many as fought against the British supported the king. You might succeed in breaking your country into lots of little pieces, as they all decide to sever their ties to Washington, but the likelyhood of getting a succesful revolution that will leave you (generic 'you') better off than you would have been without it, let alone now, is slim.

Ozymandias
09-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Even during the American Revolution, most people stood aside, and nearly as many as fought against the British supported the king. You might succeed in breaking your country into lots of little pieces, as they all decide to sever their ties to Washington, but the likelyhood of getting a succesful revolution that will leave you (generic 'you') better off than you would have been without it, let alone now, is slim.

In the American Revolution, a third of the people were Tories, a third stood aside, and a third were actively rebellious. Generally speaking, of course.

And generally rebellion comes when things are so bad any other course would be preferable. And revolution does not have t succeed in order to make its point. If a third of the American public rose up and expressed discontent, Washington would be sufficiently shaken up that change would be made.

GonzoTheGreat
09-21-2008, 05:24 AM
Heck, if a full third of the American people voted a third party, just for once, Washington would already be severely shaken up. But they can't be arsed to do that, so why would you assume that they can be bothered to go to the far more strenuous (and dangerous) extreme of taking part in a revolution?

Terez
09-21-2008, 06:40 AM
Well, the last time the US leaned substantially toward a particular third party candidate, he dropped out of the race before the election. And then he got back in before the election, but by then, all of his fans were disillusioned, as it were.

Frenzy
09-21-2008, 11:22 AM
i always wondered why Perot wussed out.

i think there's a strong and reinforced belief amongst the voting populace that third parties are bad choices. Even a popular (among the people) and successful sitting president like Theodore Roosevelt couldn't win on a third party ticket.

Davian93
09-21-2008, 01:10 PM
Lincoln was a 3rd party candidate...though it did tear the country apart.

My guess is that Perot got threatened by somebody (likely on the Repub side of things as he basically killed Bush Sr. chances. Without Perot, we'd have had Bush Sr for 8 years which may not have been a bad thing. It probalby would have been better to have a strong foreign policy pres in the early 90's rather than Clinton.