Heartland

I'm afraid of Americans.

xenophobia is a terrible condition.

Option a) McCain gets in, gets in a tangle with Russia over South Ossetia, doesn't hold back, and before he can say 'My Friends...' one more time, the west is on the brink of an all out nuclear conflict with Russia. Either that or McCain gets a heart attack after trying to pound his fist or raise his arm too high, Sarah Palin takes over and declares a WW3 on abortion clinics, evolutionists, loose women and what not instead... grim days. Option b) Obama gets in, starts quite well but unfortunately gets assasinated by a KKK-Republican-KBR axis of oil and ivory, and Biden takes over a shaken but safe hand. Obama for president, alas Biden to carry the torch...

TomK wrote:Option a) McCain gets in, gets in a tangle with Russia over South Ossetia, doesn't hold back, and before he can say 'My Friends...' one more time, the west is on the brink of an all out nuclear conflict with Russia. Either that or McCain gets a heart attack after trying to pound his fist or raise his arm too high, Sarah Palin takes over and declares a WW3 on abortion clinics, evolutionists, loose women and what not instead... grim days. Option b) Obama gets in, starts quite well but unfortunately gets assasinated by a KKK-Republican-KBR axis of oil and ivory, and Biden takes over a shaken but safe hand. Obama for president, alas Biden to carry the torch...

This sounds eerily foreboding and possible. I do fear for Obama's life if he's elected. There are many, many racist hillbilly motherfuckers in the United States. And these people do indeed cling to their guns and their superstitious religious intolerance like no other.

It's going to be... interesting.

Well, I think I can predict the future. Despite all odds, the White Guy will win (what do you expect from America?), and because he's a decrepit old fart, will kick the bucket the third week into office (perhaps with a little help by his Neo-Conmen friends, such as Karl "The Poison Murderer" Rove). Then the First Chick will sell Fort Knox for clothes and boots (not the worst thing, to be honest, although I'm sure she would look better without any of that junk), and push the red button as soon as she runs out of cash. Which will be very soon because America is broke. And that was it, then.

beatnick138 wrote: ...I do fear for Obama's life if he's elected...

Are you serious?

Despite all odds, the White Guy will win (what do you expect from America?)

You're a dick.

beatnick138 wrote:

TomK wrote:Option a) McCain gets in, gets in a tangle with Russia over South Ossetia, doesn't hold back, and before he can say 'My Friends...' one more time, the west is on the brink of an all out nuclear conflict with Russia. Either that or McCain gets a heart attack after trying to pound his fist or raise his arm too high, Sarah Palin takes over and declares a WW3 on abortion clinics, evolutionists, loose women and what not instead... grim days. Option b) Obama gets in, starts quite well but unfortunately gets assasinated by a KKK-Republican-KBR axis of oil and ivory, and Biden takes over a shaken but safe hand. Obama for president, alas Biden to carry the torch...

This sounds eerily foreboding and possible. I do fear for Obama's life if he's elected. There are many, many racist hillbilly motherfuckers in the United States. And these people do indeed cling to their guns and their superstitious religious intolerance like no other.

It's going to be... interesting.

Eh... that wasn't a prophecy. Though in all seriousness I think Obama will need a bit of extra protection, not just from a quite racist underbelly in America, but from criminal elements in the CIA whom he may try to reign in like Kennedy did. Dec 16th 2012 Manchester Utd 3 Crystal Palace 1.. lay your bets now, last game on Earth.. or is it... Freakin' Mayans.

Whatever you are smoking, you need to have words with your dealer.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Whatever you are smoking, you need to have words with your dealer.

Nah. Alcohol inspired amphetamine logic on the wire.. Seriously though, comes down to it, if Obama doesn't win we're all f**ked. Imho.

My idle thoughts at the moment are speculating on this fun scenario:

Current polls have Obama with an unassailable lead. But the Republicans have faced accusations of vote-rigging in the 2000 and 2004 elections, so what happens if they manage to steal this one too? The Second American Civil War?

markfiend wrote:My idle thoughts at the moment are speculating on this fun scenario:

Current polls have Obama with an unassailable lead. But the Republicans have faced accusations of vote-rigging in the 2000 and 2004 elections, so what happens if they manage to steal this one too? The Second American Civil War?

Be careful with the polls. As Mark Twain once quipped: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." There are some methodological problems with some of them (and this is why they have been varying so wildly). The biggest problem is that they have been "weighting" self-identified Democratic voters more, on the assumption that they will turn out more. For what it's worth, there are a few polls that have Obama ahead by less than one percentage point, and overall, Obama's lead seems to be shrinking. Will it shrink enough for McCain? It's hard to tell. Early voting polling seems to indicate about an even split. I'd view all poll numbers with a very jaundiced eye at this point.

My opinion is that this election is, at this point at least, too close to call. There are a number of issues that may be skewing the poll numbers in addition to the one mentioned above: including the possibility that some of the "likely voters" responding in favor of Obama are not actually registered to vote. This is something I noticed in my politics class this semester: a lot of students that intended to vote for Obama never registered, and the deadline is past (they didn't know this until I mentioned it in passing while discussing the responsibilities of the Texas secretary of state). Furthermore, many of these polls are done by telephone during the "dinner hour"--many of those likely to vote for McCain might not answer the phone at all during that period (family values, etc), or, if they did, might not respond to the pollster. The so-called "Bradley effect" may play a role as well, insofar as people may say publicly that they will vote for Obama, but privately may not be willing to vote for a black man. I have also seen little data on the so-called PUMA's, and how they might break. They are a sizable bloc within the Democratic party, and the more vocal members of the group have been supporting McCain. It's very hard to quantify how much Obama has been able to do to restore party unity.

On the subject of vote rigging, one might add that Obama's old friends ACORN have admitted that about 30% of their registrations are fraudulent. They're now subject to DOJ investigations in a number of states. There is also the matter of foreign--which is to say, illegal--donations to the Obama campaign. Right now it looks like his campaign is in violation of Federal election law. I doubt any investigations will be launched, but a defeated opponent might have standing to bring suit against him in Federal court (I am thinking of his primary opponents) for breach of election law. Such a lawsuit would have to happen prior to his taking office though, I think, so I would not expect to see it.

I like that Mark Twain quote. And I agree that the "Bradley effect" is a potential spanner in any pollster's works.

I think whoever wins, there should be some serious questions asked about the way voter registrations and the actual voting itself is done. But I guess, like after the 2000 and 2004 elections, the winner won't want to question the system which put him in power, and the loser won't be able to do anything about it.

markfiend wrote:I like that Mark Twain quote. And I agree that the "Bradley effect" is a potential spanner in any pollster's works.

I think whoever wins, there should be some serious questions asked about the way voter registrations and the actual voting itself is done. But I guess, like after the 2000 and 2004 elections, the winner won't want to question the system which put him in power, and the loser won't be able to do anything about it.

Personally, I favor a requirement to provide proof of ID to vote, and proof of citizenship to be allowed to register to vote. Hell, require proof of citizenship at the polling place. This is the sort of thing that strikes me as a common sense, but it never manages to get through Congress it seems. Someone always screams "disenfranchisement!" since not everyone can afford a driver's license/state issued ID or what-have-you. They're not expensive. If somebody can't afford one, I think they've probably got bigger problems than an election to be concerned about.


edit: on the subject of polling, this is interesting.

I've just seen a blog post elsewhere calling Palin 'Caribou Barbie'

sultan2075 wrote:Personally, I favor a requirement to provide proof of ID to vote, and proof of citizenship to be allowed to register to vote. Hell, require proof of citizenship at the polling place. This is the sort of thing that strikes me as a common sense, but it never manages to get through Congress it seems. Someone always screams "disenfranchisement!" since not everyone can afford a driver's license/state issued ID or what-have-you. They're not expensive. If somebody can't afford one, I think they've probably got bigger problems than an election to be concerned about.

Proof of ID is a good idea, but the only thing that is proof of citizenship is a passport and an awful lot of sepos don't have one or don't want one. A state-issued ID is available to non-citizens (in some cases even if those people are not in country legally).

Can I ask a favour? That we stop using the term "disenfranchised"? It's bastard english. Either you are enfranchised (i.e. that you have been given the franchise, and can vote), or you're not. You can be "unfranchised" (or similar), but not "disenfranchised".

There's also have the problem of mail in-votes. Its pretty hard to check ID if somebody is mailing in a vote.

EvilBastard wrote:Can I ask a favour? That we stop using the term "disenfranchised"? It's bastard english. Either you are enfranchised (i.e. that you have been given the franchise, and can vote), or you're not. You can be "unfranchised" (or similar), but not "disenfranchised".

I don't know, as a word for removing the franchise from someone, 'disenfranchised' seems a good choice to me.

Yeah, I'll go with mf here, its a valid word for someone who's "franchise" has been removed, which is different from never having had one. Its in the dictionary.

I do like to make fun of people who say "unthaw" though... as in "I just unthawed the turkey, its ready to cook!". (So that would be frozen now then?)

markfiend wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:Can I ask a favour? That we stop using the term "disenfranchised"? It's bastard english. Either you are enfranchised (i.e. that you have been given the franchise, and can vote), or you're not. You can be "unfranchised" (or similar), but not "disenfranchised".

I don't know, as a word for removing the franchise from someone, 'disenfranchised' seems a good choice to me.

Does that mean someone can also be re-enfranchised then?

Kind of like with a come-back for artists you know; you once climbed up there and became 'the man' [enfranchised], then only weirdo's continued buying your records so you virtually stopped being an artist [disenfranchised], and finally you decided to give it another go and released a new album after 19 years [re-enfranchised].

Don't ask me, I didn't do it.

more-sedatives-pls wrote:
Kind of like with a come-back for artists you know; you once climbed up there and became 'the man' [enfranchised], then only weirdo's continued buying your records so you virtually stopped being an artist [disenfranchised], and finally you decided to give it another go and released a new album after 19 years [re-enfranchised].

Well played

And more on the subject of polling . It really makes me wish my stats professor had spoken English. Maybe I would have learned something from him.

markfiend wrote:I've just seen a blog post elsewhere calling Palin 'Caribou Barbie'

....she worths two small strokes at four feet

markfiend wrote:Oh come on, seriously? "Noun verb POW" McCain? The man they're calling "McSame"? 100 years in Iraq?

BushCo's constant erosion of the constitution has to stop. And it won't under McCain.

McCain so senile he doesn't even know how many houses he owns. And yet Obama is the "elitist"?

Just because "they're" claiming it will be 4 years of the same, doesn't mean it will be. For one thing, John McCain isn't a daddy's boy pinhead. You may not like the things he stands for, but he obviously has a hell of a lot more inside his head than George does. Yes, thinking that we should continue a war we started for a good long time is wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean that Obama will remove our troops immediately. He can promise all kinds of stuff that he won't end up delivering. Every one of them does it.
Bringing everyone home from the war as soon as we can actually might not be a good or safe idea. The fairy tale world we don't live in would make that an ideal situation. The reality could end up being very dangerous.
I don't think McCain is senile. Why anyone would ask, or care how many homes he owns is beyond me. Rich guys own a lot of stuff. That's the way it is. Lots of other rich people own loads of property or businesses. I think if you asked that creep Donald Trump how much stuff he owned, he wouldn't be able to immediately answer that question, either.
I really wish all of the ire that's been thrown John McCain's way had been thrown at George Bush, instead. He really deserved it much more. Unfortunately, at that time, all of the ugly, better than thou opinions were being thrown around by the Republicans. We now have unwarranted arrogance being shown by both parties. Suddenly, both sides feel justified in thinking anyone that doesn't agree with them is an ignorant peasant.

BlueLamp wrote:Just because "they're" claiming it will be 4 years of the same, doesn't mean it will be.

It's hardly likely to be different under a man that has voted against BushCo's policies in the Senate approximately 1% of the time IIRC.