Originally Posted by Chas'88

The question still remains, why didn't Gore win his home state? I mean Clinton had no problem winning both his native Arkansas and Gore's Tennessee, but Gore couldn't? I mean only three presidents have won without winning their "home" state: Nixon (a technicality since his home state became NY after he moved there from CA), James K. Polk & Woodrow Wilson. Out of the fifty-some presidents, only three have won the election and lost their home states--I'd say that it's pretty good odds if you lose your home state, you lose the election.

~Chas'88

Nixon won his home state CA in 1960, and lost the election. Nixon won his home state CA again in 1968, and won the election. He lost NY both times. NY was not his "home state" in 1968, since he never held office there, as he had in CA.

I hope it's an omen for Romney. He has a snowball's chance in hell of carrying Massachusetts, and Michigan looks unlikely for him too.

Gore should have won enough votes to avoid losing a state because of cheating, spoilers, and unwillingness by officials to correct an error (butterfly ballot). He didn't earn a victory. Nader arguably cost him the election, but it was so close that many other factors were involved too. Some polls show that those voting for Nader would either have stayed home, or split their votes evenly. Florida voters are more conservative, including those who voted for Nader. Even with Nader on the ballot, Gore would have won if Justice O'Connor had not stopped the recount, or if black voters had not been taken off the rolls by Katharine Harris and Jeb Bush.

It does look more likely that Romney will win the popular vote, and lose the electoral vote and the presidency. This is because the red states are getting more solid, while the blue ones are not-- but are staying in Obama's column.

If Romney wins the popular vote, and Obama the electoral vote, the rabid right-wing might cry foul and make more trouble than the liberals ever made over Gore having both won the popular vote AND having lost through cheating and judicial decision. Unbalanced nonsense as usual. But suppose the electoral college were eliminated. How would election campaigns be different?

Mainly by shifting which states would be considered the most important to campaign in. Those would be the biggest, most populous states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, the industrial midwest, the southern Atlantic coast, maybe Arizona...... the small states would be ignored. But there would be more national media buys than state ones.

It might work better for our blue side, since there are few reliably red states among those. And the smallest blue states are close to bigger ones, and share some of the same media, and are close to places candidates would visit and have rallies at; while the smallest red states are vast open areas that are not near any other state's media markets, and too hard to travel to. And, of course, there are more of these kinds of small red states than small blue ones. In that case, it would backfire on the outraged Republicans. But, maybe Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers will figure this out, after which their campaign would end.

Mitt Romney has been implicated in a complex case involving perjury, stock manipulation, and possibly consumer fraud.

Mitt Romney lied in the divorce proceedings of his wealthy friend, Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, according to a story by radaronline.com. At least that is what Stemberg's former wife, Maureen, says. She is a MS patient who says her husband was so vindictive he even cut off her health insurance. Unfortunately the records for this case have been sealed, and participants are unable to discuss them. Other forces are in motion to lift the gag order.

It is a matter of public record that Mitt Romney went on the stand claiming that Staples as a business was "overvalued." He also specifically said:

I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future.

Because of Romney's testimony the court valued the corporation at a paltry percentage of its actual worth, and Maureen Stemberg was granted a tiny settlement.

Meanwhile, weeks after the divorce was finalized, Mitt Romney and his buddy Tom Stemberg sold their shares of Staples to Goldman Sachs and made millions in the process.

This is a case in a long line of cases that show a side of Mitt Romney's business ethics that he does not want the American people to know about.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt...llions-process

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, Bush started a war that didn't need to be started at all. The death toll from Bush's wars were much much higher, and those killed had posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. Bush established torture and abuse, and justified it with policies and the false notion that 9-11 began a new era of foreign policy of aggression by the USA.

Those killed in Pakistan with drone attacks, were part of a group that threatened the United States. I don't approve of drone strikes, or air attacks generally. But at least under Obama, they were aimed at the right target.

If we don't want our presidents ordering drone attacks with impunity, or supporting detentions without trial, then it is up to us to speak out. If we don't, they are our fault, not Obama's. He is doing it because he knows he has our support in order to "keep the American people safe." If he didn't have that support, he wouldn't do it. I gave you the address to write him. Are you writing him? Does it do any good to argue with him here?

If we don't want someone in office who will take us back to the warmongering that got us into the mess Obama is dealing with, and trying to get us out of, (both economically and in foreign affairs), then it is best to oppose that someone (Romney) now. If you can't support Obama, then support Stein or someone else. But I for one am not going to attack Obama now, and I support him in some ways at least. His victory is essential; we absolutely can NEVER afford another Republican administration, ever again. Any Republican elected to any office, is a tragedy. For what they have done, and for the complete and utter nonsense they stand for, they deserve to be sent home for good. They are not even the party they used to be, and they will never be so again.

We were not "hoodwincked." He said from the beginning he was going to end the war in Iraq, and fight the right enemy in Afghanistan. It was no surprise that he has gone after the terrorists with more determination than Bush did. If you're going to fight a war, you have to fight it strongly. Bush never really cared about keeping the American people safe at all. He started the wars he wanted to start, to benefit himself and his buddies. He fought the wrong war. There wouldn't be an Afghan-NATO war at all now if Bush hadn't diverted his obedient military into the wrong war for so long. He never even put troops on the ground to fight the enemy that attacked us. He let their leader get away; Obama caught him. I don't know if he should have been killed or not, but I am glad they got him. It was a very well-executed move, and it helped keep us safe.

The wrong candidate actually said something right in the debate (though I'm sure he doesn't believe it), when he said we can't kill our way out of this threat. I ask Obama to step up the efforts to help the people in that region to improve their lives and gain more of their rights. Not by killing, but by aid and education.

I remain an activist even with a Democrat in the White House. The world can't wait for a pause in speaking up and holding both parties to a bright light. We are in very dangerous territory with both parties at this point in history. However, as I've said before, I will vote for Obama, but with eyes wide open. And my activism will not cease.

“The Obama administration has embraced the policies of George W. Bush, and then gone much further,” Stein said. “Wall Street bailouts went ballistic under Obama—$700 billion under Bush, but $4.5 trillion under Obama, plus another $16 trillion in zero-interest loans for Wall Street. Obama continues offshoring our jobs. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA, which was carried out under George W. Bush. It was vastly expanded under Obama to labor abusers in Colombia, and to Panama and South Korea. The Transpacific Partnership, being negotiated behind closed doors by the Obama White House, is NAFTA on steroids. It continues to send our jobs overseas. It undermines wages at home. It overrides American sovereignty by establishing an international corporate board that can overrule American legislation and regulations that protect workers as well as our air, our water, our climate and our food supply.”

Obama, who has claimed the power of assassinating U.S. citizens without charge or trial, increased the drone war and has vastly expanded the wars in the Middle East. He is waging proxy wars in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. His assault on civil liberties—from his use of the Espionage Act to silence whistle-blowers to Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act to the FISA Amendment Act—is worse than Bush’s. His attack on immigrant rights has also outpaced that of Bush. Obama has deported more undocumented workers in four years than his Republican predecessor did in eight years. There is negligible difference between Obama and Romney on the issue of student debt, which has turned a generation of college students into indentured servants. But the most important convergence between the Republicans and the Democrats is their utter failure to address the perilous assault by the fossil fuel industry on the ecosystem. It was Obama who undercut the international climate accord reached last year at Durban, South Africa, saying the world could wait until 2020 for an agreement.


“Obama is promoting oil drilling in the Arctic, where the ice cap has already collapsed to one-quarter of its size from a couple decades ago, and he’s opened up our national parks for drilling,” Stein said. “He has given the green light to fracking. He has permitted the exhaust from shale oil [extraction] to go into the atmosphere. He is building the southern pass of the Keystone pipeline. He brags that he has built more miles of pipeline than any other president.”

History will not be kind to those of us who wouldn't see the destruction before our very eyes.

Peace
Earth

PS: Thanks, Prince for the smilies

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, Bush started a war that didn't need to be started at all. The death toll from Bush's wars were much much higher, and those killed had posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. Bush established torture and abuse, and justified it with policies and the false notion that 9-11 began a new era of foreign policy of aggression by the USA.

Those killed in Pakistan with drone attacks, were part of a group that threatened the United States. I don't approve of drone strikes, or air attacks generally. But at least under Obama, they were aimed at the right target.

If we don't want our presidents ordering drone attacks with impunity, or supporting detentions without trial, then it is up to us to speak out. If we don't, they are our fault, not Obama's. He is doing it because he knows he has our support in order to "keep the American people safe." If he didn't have that support, he wouldn't do it. I gave you the address to write him. Are you writing him? Does it do any good to argue with him here?

If we don't want someone in office who will take us back to the warmongering that got us into the mess Obama is dealing with, and trying to get us out of, (both economically and in foreign affairs), then it is best to oppose that someone (Romney) now. If you can't support Obama, then support Stein or someone else. But I for one am not going to attack Obama now, and I support him in some ways at least. His victory is essential; we absolutely can NEVER afford another Republican administration, ever again. Any Republican elected to any office, is a tragedy. For what they have done, and for the complete and utter nonsense they stand for, they deserve to be sent home for good. They are not even the party they used to be, and they will never be so again.

We were not "hoodwincked." He said from the beginning he was going to end the war in Iraq, and fight the right enemy in Afghanistan. It was no surprise that he has gone after the terrorists with more determination than Bush did. If you're going to fight a war, you have to fight it strongly. Bush never really cared about keeping the American people safe at all. He started the wars he wanted to start, to benefit himself and his buddies. He fought the wrong war. There wouldn't be an Afghan-NATO war at all now if Bush hadn't diverted his obedient military into the wrong war for so long. He never even put troops on the ground to fight the enemy that attacked us. He let their leader get away; Obama caught him. I don't know if he should have been killed or not, but I am glad they got him. It was a very well-executed move, and it helped keep us safe.

The wrong candidate actually said something right in the debate (though I'm sure he doesn't believe it), when he said we can't kill our way out of this threat. I ask Obama to step up the efforts to help the people in that region to improve their lives and gain more of their rights. Not by killing, but by aid and education.

I agree, Eric.

There is something to be said for not letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". I am as disappointed as anyone that Obama has adopted much of Bush's foreign policy, but that is because the country wants it. For some reason Americans feel safe when we piss off already pissed off people. Obama thought he could change that and he was mistaken. It is really that simple.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I remain an activist even with a Democrat in the White House. The world can't wait for a pause in speaking up and holding both parties to a bright light. We are in very dangerous territory with both parties at this point in history. However, as I've said before, I will vote for Obama, but with eyes wide open. And my activism will not cease.

History will not be kind to those of us who wouldn't see the destruction before our very eyes...

Here we agree 100%. We should alwasy strive for the best, even though we get 'marginally acceptable' a good part of the time.

It's interesting, and a bit sad, that there are times we get ahead of history, and hurt ourselves in the process. One such case was the Georgia sodomy case in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that took 17 years to overturn, due entirely to stare decisis. If the case had been tried ieven two yers later, the results would have been different. This time, it's lucky that the Presidential election is now, and not in 2010.

Battleground poll voter projection model Romney 52% Obama 48%. Based on this survey Romney not only wins but he has Senate coattails capturing the Senate. 8 more days....

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-...47_658066.html

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I agree.

I've been meaning to post this sometime(You probably know all this stuuf already, though)
Through the Wormhole-Can We Eliminate Evil? The entire thing is interesting, IMO.
Check-out the results of testing babies i/r/t "good" and "evil" around the: 36:00 mark.

Prince

We DVR "Through the Wormhole" and I love the show. Morgan Freeman manages to delve into very esoteric concepts with credibility, similarly to Michio Kaku.

Originally Posted by Weave

Battleground poll voter projection model Romney 52% Obama 48%. Based on this survey Romney not only wins but he has Senate coattails capturing the Senate. 8 more days....

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-...47_658066.html

The question is, would you be willing to place a Romney-sized bet on it?

What's 10 Grand among friends, anyway.

Originally Posted by Weave

Battleground poll voter projection model Romney 52% Obama 48%. Based on this survey Romney not only wins but he has Senate coattails capturing the Senate. 8 more days....

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-...47_658066.html

Why so excited, did you inherit a coal mine, a bank, or some ownership in some other large economic entity?

You obviously don't work for a living, because if you did Romney should scare the hell outta ya.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Why so excited, did you inherit a coal mine, a bank, or some ownership in some other large economic entity?

You obviously don't work for a living, because if you did Romney should scare the hell outta ya.

Uh yeah I work for a living. In fact I just had to endure higher health care costs and a policy that covers less. My parents are both on medicare and with Obamacare their choices for doctors and health care facilities are going to be reduced. My wife's health care policies are getting worse as well, all thanks to Obamacare.


I've also witness trillion dollar deficits every year of Obama Presidency which means eventually we are gonna have to pay those off with my taxes being raised.

Ive also just found out our President was aware almost immediately that the compound in Benghazi was under attack and did not order a relief mission as several requests for help were sent out. He dithered and allowed people to be killed. He then sent out spokespersons who lied and said it was all about a video, when it was obisous form the start it was a terrorist attack.....

Rank incomopetence, so yeah I hope Romney wins......

Originally Posted by Weave

Uh yeah I work for a living.

So you must not have been too happy about the Republicans stalling and trying to squash a 2% tax cut for 95% of working people?

In fact I just had to endure higher health care costs and a policy that covers less. My parents are both on medicare and with Obamacare their choices for doctors and health care facilities are going to be reduced. My wife's health care policies are getting worse as well, all thanks to Obamacare.

Thing is, you've endured rising premiums and shrinking coverage for decades. This is hardly a new trend that can be blamed on a piece of legislation that hasn't even fully gone in to effect yet. Paul Ryan is the one with a plan to get rid of your parents' Medicare entirely. Right now, the Republican plan is to replace their coverage with a voucher that will partially cover one of those plans with rising premiums and fewer choices.

I've also witness trillion dollar deficits every year of Obama Presidency which means eventually we are gonna have to pay those off with my taxes being raised.

You do realize that Bush ran increasingly high deficits for 8 years, and then the economy and revenues crashed before he was even out the door? Government moves slowly and that kind of momentum takes a long damn time to correct.

Ive also just found out our President was aware almost immediately that the compound in Benghazi was under attack and did not order a relief mission as several requests for help were sent out. He dithered and allowed people to be killed. He then sent out spokespersons who lied and said it was all about a video, when it was obisous form the start it was a terrorist attack.....

Rank incomopetence, so yeah I hope Romney wins......

So, four people die on the other side of the world and the president is personally responsible? You must want Bush's head for 9-11!

Now this is the part where you say Romney isn't Bush. Guess what? They are surrounded by the same advisers, donors, and party insiders, and they've even got the same damn 5 point plan. McCain used the 5 point plan in '08, as well.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Debunking the myth about Ralph Nader

Gore supported NAFTA, and pushed WTO/China legislation. Under Clinton, Gore environmentalists got the con job and the derailment of Kyoto. The working poor got welfare reform. Labor got free trade. And Iraqi kids got deadly sanctions. (Thousands of babies and children died from Clinton's sanctions.) Those are just a few reasons he lost.

From a CounterPunch article:


Here are just a few of the actual facts:

* A Progressive Review study of poll results throughout the campaign found no correlation between Bush’s percentage change and that of Nader except in July and August when the change was minimal.

* For example, in September of 2000, Gore’s average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader’s only declined by one point. Similarly, in November, Gore’s average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader’s only went up 0.8 points.

* In Florida, it was also true. In nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only two or three points, Gore’s total varied by seven points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as seven to ten points.

* As Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.

* According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, formerly Perot voters, and of no organized religion. Sixty-two percent of Nader’s voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong o the Democratic party.

* The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41% believing that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered either major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had reservations about their own vote.

* Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the outcome was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.

* In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably be president today.

* Kevin Zeese points out that had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49% and Gore at 47%, with two percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

* Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton’s Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

* Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the three million Nader voters were Democrats.

Zeese also notes, "The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country."

Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

That's quite a lot of mishmash that adds up to nothing. Something one might expect from Faux News.

The only issue was Florida. Gore lost it by less than 500 votes. Nader took nearly 100K votes. Just about every analysis I've seen shows most of those Nader voters were progressive voters and never would have voted for Bush. At worst, they would have stayed home; at best, they would have gone to Gore. It's very hard to imagine that 0.5% would have not voted Gore.

You're trying very hard to justify Nader; why is that?

Voting has consequences. We seem to need to learn that lesson every time.

Originally Posted by Weave

....trillion dollar deficits every year of Obama Presidency which means eventually we are gonna have to pay those off with my taxes being raised.

Your taxes need to be raised anyway, to pay off the Bush deficits. Romney's policies would make the deficit much worse. He wants to cut taxes even more than the ridiculously low level they are at now, bringing in less revenues than any time in this saeculum. He wants to spend more on the military. He wants to take your charitable and home mortgage deductions away. He claims to be for aid to education and other programs. He won't be able to get even the cuts and reduced deductions he claims now to want, and anyway it's always easier to cut taxes than cut spending. Translation: even higher deficits. Much higher. Obama is bringing the deficit down. Republicans are giving him no help at all. They refuse to negotiate, just so they could hurt Obama. Why reward them for their very bad behavior?

Ive also just found out our President was aware almost immediately that the compound in Benghazi was under attack and did not order a relief mission as several requests for help were sent out. He dithered and allowed people to be killed. He then sent out spokespersons who lied and said it was all about a video, when it was obvious from the start it was a terrorist attack.....

Rank incompetence, so yeah I hope Romney wins......

You wanted him to send soldiers in a relief mission almost immediately to defend the compound; that is physically impossible! The attack happened too fast. Exactly what happened was hard to pin down, and mobs aroused by the video happened simultaneously in many places.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I remain an activist, even with a Democrat in the White House. The world can't wait for a pause in speaking up and holding both parties to a bright light. We are in very dangerous territory with both parties at this point in history. However, as I've said before, I will vote for Obama, but with eyes wide open. And my activism will not cease.

Nor should it. I can't disagree there.

Originally Posted by Weave

Battleground poll voter projection model Romney 52% Obama 48%. Based on this survey Romney not only wins but he has Senate coattails capturing the Senate. 8 more days....

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-...47_658066.html

The spokesman for the poll and the writer of the article are Republicans. Fred Barnes is an extremist ideologue.

Those polls count heavily on voter intensity, and give preference to older and well-educated voters. They are crafted to favor Republicans. But one vote counts the same as another, regardless of the "intensity" behind it. There is evidence that Democratic GOTV drives are working, despite what these guys say. Democrats are leading in the early voting.

At least I hope so, and I maintain my prediction. There is no reason of God's Green Earth for anyone to vote for such a fool as Romney. I hope the voters are not fooled. If they are fooled, then they are the rankest-possible fools.

The average of polls are usually correct. RCP usually errs Republican, if at all. The averages are holding in the swing states for Obama, acc. to RCP, Silver and Huffington.

Edit: National polls: although Gallup went up a point for Romney today, Rasmussen went down a point. A new Pew poll has them tied; they had Romney up +4 earlier. There will be no IBD poll today.

Washington Post just put out their own poll showing Obama +4 in VA. That's a left-leaning source for sure, but good news anyway.

Around and around the crank doth turn,
simply just making our stomachs churn.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If we have a repeat of 2000 (regardless of who eventually wins) it will be a LOT uglier this time around.
No need to eliminate the electoral college, if individual states changed the way that they designated electors from "winner take all" to "proportional." But they don't seem to want to do that.

A "repeat" of 2000 would involve cheating by Republicans and incompetence by election officials, and the Supreme Court upholding that cheating and incompetence. This time, if the electoral vote goes for Obama and the popular vote for Romney, the cheating and the Supreme Court would still be on the Republican side, because that's who cheats. So a repeat of 2000 is unlikely, unless Romney wins.

One reason for liking the electoral college, is that it makes it more likely that your vote will make a difference. If you live in a swing state, 500 votes or less could elect the president. In a popular vote, your vote is one of many millions and makes no difference. A proportional designation would erase that difference, although smaller states would retain their larger voice in the system. As a compromise, I like the way Maine and Nebraska do it-- by congressional district, plus at-large for the two senators. If those states can make the change, others could do it too, if the people want it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Around and around the crank doth turn,
simply just making our stomachs churn.

Republicans cannot be flogged too often. Cute picture though, whatever you meant to say.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Republicans cannot be flogged too often. Cute picture though, whatever you meant to say.

It's a commentary on a conversation obsessed with doing the above about something that happened 12 years ago that just won't die... It would've appeared immediately thereafter the post I wanted to, but then you began replying to people en masse. Ah well. C'est la vie!

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Aramea

I agree, Eric.

There is something to be said for not letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". I am as disappointed as anyone that Obama has adopted much of Bush's foreign policy, but that is because the country wants it. For some reason Americans feel safe when we piss off already pissed off people. Obama thought he could change that and he was mistaken. It is really that simple.

That seems to be the newest slogan of the Democratic party. It's the latest cop out for those who wish not to see the dangerous situation.

“The Obama administration has embraced the policies of George W. Bush, and then gone much further,” Stein said. “Wall Street bailouts went ballistic under Obama—$700 billion under Bush, but $4.5 trillion under Obama, plus another $16 trillion in zero-interest loans for Wall Street. Obama continues offshoring our jobs. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA, which was carried out under George W. Bush. It was vastly expanded under Obama to labor abusers in Colombia, and to Panama and South Korea. The Transpacific Partnership, being negotiated behind closed doors by the Obama White House, is NAFTA on steroids. It continues to send our jobs overseas. It undermines wages at home. It overrides American sovereignty by establishing an international corporate board that can overrule American legislation and regulations that protect workers as well as our air, our water, our climate and our food supply.”

Obama, who has claimed the power of assassinating U.S. citizens without charge or trial, increased the drone war and has vastly expanded the wars in the Middle East. He is waging proxy wars in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. His assault on civil liberties—from his use of the Espionage Act to silence whistle-blowers to Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act to the FISA Amendment Act—is worse than Bush’s. His attack on immigrant rights has also outpaced that of Bush. Obama has deported more undocumented workers in four years than his Republican predecessor did in eight years. There is negligible difference between Obama and Romney on the issue of student debt, which has turned a generation of college students into indentured servants. But the most important convergence between the Republicans and the Democrats is their utter failure to address the perilous assault by the fossil fuel industry on the ecosystem. It was Obama who undercut the international climate accord reached last year at Durban, South Africa, saying the world could wait until 2020 for an agreement.


Obama is promoting oil drilling in the Arctic, where the ice cap has already collapsed to one-quarter of its size from a couple decades ago, and he’s opened up our national parks for drilling. He has given the green light to fracking. He has permitted the exhaust from shale oil [extraction] to go into the atmosphere. He is building the southern pass of the Keystone pipeline. He brags that he has built more miles of pipeline than any other president.

Yeah, that's all about expecting perfection. Tell this child and the hundreds just like him, that great slogan about perfection.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's quite a lot of mishmash that adds up to nothing. Something one might expect from Faux News.

The only issue was Florida. Gore lost it by less than 500 votes. Nader took nearly 100K votes. Just about every analysis I've seen shows most of those Nader voters were progressive voters and never would have voted for Bush. At worst, they would have stayed home; at best, they would have gone to Gore. It's very hard to imagine that 0.5% would have not voted Gore.

You're trying very hard to justify Nader; why is that?

Voting has consequences. We seem to need to learn that lesson every time.

Oh man, you're gonna love to hate me for this. In 2000, I turned 18 and voted for the first time. In Florida. For Nader.

I registered as a Republican in the start of the year, and my vote was a protest vote against Bush's changes to the party platform later in the year, after he won the primary. That was the last time all references to "limited government" and "individual rights" were seen in the official party papers.

Those concepts remain a large part of the propaganda, but it's not part of the "official" plan anymore.

Gore was never on my radar. What a chump.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Tell this child and the hundreds just like him, that great slogan about perfection.

And yet you're casting your vote for the guy who did that to this kid and hundreds of others? The mind boggles; I had the impression that you were ethical.

Originally Posted by Deb C

That seems to be the newest slogan of the Democratic party. It's the latest cop out for those who wish not to see the dangerous situation.



Yeah, that's all about expecting perfection. Tell this child and the hundreds just like him, that great slogan about perfection.

Been using that expression for years, so it's not exactly new. Your attempt at shaming me and others into your position should tell me something, but I simply lack the people skills to analyze it.

It is not a cop out to say that targeted attacks are better at managing collateral damage than the indiscriminate mass bombing that Bush used in the Iraq War. I don't like drones and I said as much above. If Republicans regain the White House, we are looking at potential "Shock and Awe II" in Iran. I really hate S&A warfare, so I look at the current situation as an improvement.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Been using that expression for years, so it's not exactly new. Your attempt at shaming me and others into your position should tell me something, but I simply lack the people skills to analyze it.

It is not a cop out to say that targeted attacks are better at managing collateral damage than the indiscriminate mass bombing that Bush used in the Iraq War. I don't like drones and I said as much above. If Republicans regain the White House, we are looking at potential "Shock and Awe II" in Iran. I really hate S&A warfare, so I look at the current situation as an improvement.

It wasn't an attempt to shame you. It was a photo of reality. It's something that has been banned from TV and other medias because it touches one's heart. And, for heavens sake, the powers that be can't afford for that to happen.

The war in Vietnam was ended, partially, because the American people actually saw the carnage on the nightly news.