I got to agree with the author here. This is just wacky. The refusal of significant portions of the electorate (both now and in 2000 ) to believe that Presidential elections are legitimate is a dangerous thing for our democracy.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/19/poll-majority-of-republicans-believe-acorn-stole-the-presidential-election.aspx
QuotePoll: Majority of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Presidential Election
Katie Connolly
As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.
On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.
Barack Obama won the election by an easy margin. In the end, it wasn't even close. John McCain knew that and delivered his concession speech before 9:30 p.m. Obama didn't just win in the urban areas where ACORN could actually be seen as a force—and which would likely have voted for him regardless of ACORN's participation. He won in places like North Carolina, where ACORN had just eight staffers. There's been no formal challenge to the electoral validity of the votes.There's simply no proof to back up claims that ACORN tampered with ballots. But there is evidence of irresponsible reporting catalyzing misguided fears.
Advertisement
In September, Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin at California's Occidental College released a study of media coverage of ACORN. Among their many findings was this laundry list regarding stories about ACORN's alleged involvement in voter fraud:
* 82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
* 80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
* 85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
* 95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
To be sure, ACORN has some serious credibility problems, including those infamous videos of ACORN staffers handing out advice about how to fool the IRS as well as an embezzlement scandal. The organization is indeed compromised. But that's even more reason why it's almost unimaginable that it could engineer a massive deceit on the American people and fraudulently steal an election. It's hard to conceive that hundreds of volunteers with clipboards and voter-registration papers were engaged in an elegant (and enormous) conspiracy to cheat and thieve a national election, or that such drastic measures were necessary in a fight against an unpopular incumbent party.
The conservative obsession with ACORN is sad and culturally debilitating. For some, it's politics as usual. Demonize the other side until you get the power back. But for others it's evidently an expression of fear of a world where poor people of diverse ethnic backgrounds become a mobilized political force. For its part ACORN hasn't been very virtuous, but it's far from the "criminal enterprise" that Rep. Steve King or Rep. Darrell Issa would have you believe. It actually does have a history of doing socially constructive work in low income and disenfranchised communities, legitimately helping people file taxes, register to vote and find employment. The people they serve—underprivileged, mainly nonwhite, inner-city dwellers—also happen to vote for Democrats, which is exactly why they're such a prime target of conservative animus. But ACORN's now public improprieties doesn't make it even remotely capable of stealing a hard-fought presidential election. If it did, America would have much bigger problems on its hands than some hookers trying to cheat on their taxes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2009, 08:36:21 PM
I got to agree with the author here. This is just wacky. The refusal of significant portions of the electorate (both now and in 2000 ) to believe that Presidential elections are legitimate is a dangerous thing for our democracy.
These days, they probably are legitimate.
Still, the irony is that back when Americans thought that the elections were legitimate, they weren't.
Would love to see the survey question. Took a quick look at Public Policy Polling's website and their language is exactly what is reported in the article.
I think questioning 2000 elections is more than legitimate (2004, not so much). The margin of victory was so ridiculously small that practically anything could've swung it either way. Of course, the same would apply in case Gore won, but that's not how history unfolded.
Fox News has done it's job well.
QuoteIn September, Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin at California's Occidental College released a study of media coverage of ACORN. Among their many findings was this laundry list regarding stories about ACORN's alleged involvement in voter fraud:
* 82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
* 80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
* 85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
* 95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Well, there you have it - if a story about ACORN doesn't mention US Attorney scandals, and "allegations" that Republicans kept poor people from voting, then obviously it is biased.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:23:59 PM
Well, there you have it - if a story about ACORN doesn't mention US Attorney scandals, and "allegations" that Republicans kept poor people from voting, then obviously it is biased.
Obviously the whole article is pure spin, but if the headline fact is true it's still very damning, spun article or no.
I chalk it up to the halo and horns effect: people are inclined to answer in a way that is negative when asked a question about a person they don't like.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 08:51:30 PM
I think questioning 2000 elections is more than legitimate (2004, not so much). The margin of victory was so ridiculously small that practically anything could've swung it either way. Of course, the same would apply in case Gore won, but that's not how history unfolded.
The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:35:38 PM
I chalk it up to the halo and horns effect: people are inclined to answer in a way that is negative when asked a question about a person they don't like.
You are wise beyond your years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:23:59 PM
Well, there you have it - if a story about ACORN doesn't mention US Attorney scandals, and "allegations" that Republicans kept poor people from voting, then obviously it is biased.
Obviously the whole article is pure spin, but if the headline fact is true it's still very damning, spun article or no.
Meh. Nutty people think nutty things, or respond as such in polls. So what?
I am sure you can find equally stupid shit from the other side. Hell, I still remember Dems who were certain Bush was going to stage a coup rather than give up power, or who insisted that he had some deal going with the Saudis after 9/11. How long did the bullshit about him letting bin Ladens family leave even when all flights were supposedly banned go on?
How many people who identify has as "Democrats" buy into Michael Moores bullshit? 50%? Probably.
The coming conflict will be a true civil war instead of a regional conflict.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:35:38 PM
I chalk it up to the halo and horns effect: people are inclined to answer in a way that is negative when asked a question about a person they don't like.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
Meh. Nutty people think nutty things, or respond as such in polls. So what?
I am sure you can find equally stupid shit from the other side. Hell, I still remember Dems who were certain Bush was going to stage a coup rather than give up power, or who insisted that he had some deal going with the Saudis after 9/11. How long did the bullshit about him letting bin Ladens family leave even when all flights were supposedly banned go on?
How many people who identify has as "Democrats" buy into Michael Moores bullshit? 50%? Probably.
Michael Moore cherry-picks and misrepresents data, and offers bullshit rebuttals of counterarguments. Buying into Michael Moore (as heinous as it is) is still very different from thinking something that is false is true.
QuoteI got to agree with the author here. This is just wacky. The refusal of significant portions of the electorate (both now and in 2000 ) to believe that Presidential elections are legitimate is a dangerous thing for our democracy.
Believing that an election should be decided by the majority of voters is "dangerous to our democracy"?
Compare numbers who don't believe in the 2004 election with the 2008 election; I'd say a better comparison, but the numbers are way off, as Obama won in something close to a landslide, while Bush certainly didn't.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:23:59 PM
Well, there you have it - if a story about ACORN doesn't mention US Attorney scandals, and "allegations" that Republicans kept poor people from voting, then obviously it is biased.
Obviously the whole article is pure spin, but if the headline fact is true it's still very damning, spun article or no.
Meh. Nutty people think nutty things, or respond as such in polls. So what?
I am sure you can find equally stupid shit from the other side. Hell, I still remember Dems who were certain Bush was going to stage a coup rather than give up power, or who insisted that he had some deal going with the Saudis after 9/11. How long did the bullshit about him letting bin Ladens family leave even when all flights were supposedly banned go on?
How many people who identify has as "Democrats" buy into Michael Moores bullshit? 50%? Probably.
Percentages made up by Berkut are false? Almost certainly. Of Course nutty people buy into nutty stuff. That's why Atlas Shrugged still sells.
Public Policy Polling is a polling service for Democratic candidates. The poll question was:
"Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately
won the Presidential election last year, or do
you think that ACORN stole it for him?"
Talk about loaded questions! :lol: If you don't think that Obama won "legitimately" your only option is to buy into some wacky conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:
So, I wouldn't take this poll too seriously. Certainly the people who wrote the questions didn't.
The whole poll is the second page of http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1119.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1119.pdf)
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 08:51:30 PM
I think questioning 2000 elections is more than legitimate (2004, not so much). The margin of victory was so ridiculously small that practically anything could've swung it either way. Of course, the same would apply in case Gore won, but that's not how history unfolded.
The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2009, 10:31:15 PM
Percentages made up by Berkut are false? Almost certainly. Of Course nutty people buy into nutty stuff. That's why Atlas Shrugged still sells.
Your fixation on Rand-bashing is getting disturbing. It's almost to the point of Spellus's fixation on bashing female politicians and suggests an underlying psychopathology. :(
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 08:28:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2009, 10:31:15 PM
Percentages made up by Berkut are false? Almost certainly. Of Course nutty people buy into nutty stuff. That's why Atlas Shrugged still sells.
Your fixation on Rand-bashing is getting disturbing. It's almost to the point of Spellus's fixation on bashing female politicians and suggests an underlying psychopathology. :(
His dislike of Rand is the sanest part of him.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 07:39:01 AM
Talk about loaded questions! :lol: If you don't think that Obama won "legitimately" your only option is to buy into some wacky conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:
The specificity of the conspiracy is loaded, I agree. But what non wacky conspiracy theory could you have if you though Obama didn't win legitimately?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
His dislike of Rand is the sanest part of him.
-_- It feels like it's beyond mere 'dislike' to me. :)
Congress needs to do a full and comprehensive investigation of ACORN anyway, as do the Feds such as FBI, and the many states that now have ACORN under charges or some sort of investigation. No surprise there, but if that isn't done, then we continue to allow problems to continue. Look at Minnesota between Franken and (I forget the other guy's name). Just a few thousand votes. While there are allegations of ACORN with many thousands of fraudulent votes in many states. Thankfully most of those votes probably never are cast, or get entered onto the voter rolls, but if a few thousand bogus votes can occur in a tight race it makes the difference.
Conversely I don't see many large cases of Republican voter fraud, nothing like a national organization, tax payer funded, like ACORN. So yeah, people may blow it out of proportion but there are problems, and the perceptions make things worse.
Many ACORN members have tried to come forward on various issues, from funding to other things. Some were high level managers in some offices. They haven't gotten very far, mainly due it seems to politics and lack of desire politically to do anything, and some are afraid to go too far. The Congress should be all over this and get this stuff out in the open and investigated.
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 08:28:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2009, 10:31:15 PM
Percentages made up by Berkut are false? Almost certainly. Of Course nutty people buy into nutty stuff. That's why Atlas Shrugged still sells.
Your fixation on Rand-bashing is getting disturbing. It's almost to the point of Spellus's fixation on bashing female politicians and suggests an underlying psychopathology. :(
Only seems that way to you cause you seem to like it. I imagine Marxists are similarly crestfallen by anti-communists and other rational people.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 09:14:47 AM
Only seems that way to you cause you seem to like it. I imagine Marxists are similarly crestfallen by anti-communists and other rational people.
Your analogy doesn't quite work due to the fact that I'm not an Objectivist. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 07:39:01 AM
Talk about loaded questions! :lol: If you don't think that Obama won "legitimately" your only option is to buy into some wacky conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:
The specificity of the conspiracy is loaded, I agree. But what non wacky conspiracy theory could you have if you though Obama didn't win legitimately?
If you thought that he won "just 'cause he was black," you could claim that he didn't win "legitimately" and still not believe in crackpot conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, one cannot accept that the question is bogus and not also accept that it was deliberately so. :P
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 09:03:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
His dislike of Rand is the sanest part of him.
-_- It feels like it's beyond mere 'dislike' to me. :)
He's just showing off for the cool kids.
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 09:22:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 09:14:47 AM
Only seems that way to you cause you seem to like it. I imagine Marxists are similarly crestfallen by anti-communists and other rational people.
Your analogy doesn't quite work due to the fact that I'm not an Objectivist. :(
But crazy people believe that all disagreements with them are due to some weird conspiracy or belief system held by their opponent, so Raz will probably see your denial here as proof that his statement is true.
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 09:03:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 20, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
His dislike of Rand is the sanest part of him.
-_- It feels like it's beyond mere 'dislike' to me. :)
He's just showing off for the cool kids.
It's true. I just wish some cool kids would show up. :(
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 09:39:26 AMIf you thought that he won "just 'cause he was black," you could claim that he didn't win "legitimately" and still not believe in crackpot conspiracy theories.
Doesn't legitimately just mean legally? So even if he won just because he's black, that's legal. If he didn't win the election legitimately then you need a conspiracy theory.
The anti-Randians are almost as uncool as the Randians. :whogivesafuck:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 09:47:09 AM
Doesn't legitimately just mean legally? So even if he won just because he's black, that's legal. If he didn't win the election legitimately then you need a conspiracy theory.
Are you talking about what i think, or about what the poll question was asking? If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue? The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.
If you want to argue that the question was well-written (or that it was poorly-written but we should accept the implications of its responses as legit anyway), then by all means we can debate either of those. I don't think we should debate them on the basis of which definition of "legitimate' we choose to favor, though.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
Are you talking about what i think, or about what the poll question was asking? If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue? The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.
Well I don't think that defining legitimate as legal, in terms of elections, is a narrow definition. For example in the developing world if there's a question of fraud or anything like that the election is 'illegitimate' and that's the word in common currency, not in it's most technical definition. A legitimate election is one that is free and fair and in which the votes are counted.
So if you don't think that the election of Barack Obama was legitimate then I think you have to fall back on a crazy conspiracy theory.
QuoteIf you want to argue that the question was well-written (or that it was poorly-written but we should accept the implications of its responses as legit anyway), then by all means we can debate either of those. I don't think we should debate them on the basis of which definition of "legitimate' we choose to favor, though.
No, I'm past the question. It's badly written.
As grumbler said, why are you picking out one definition of legitimate but leaving out others? I doubt it is because you find the crazy Republican narrative appealing.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 10:10:36 AM
As grumbler said, why are you picking out one definition of legitimate but leaving out others? I doubt it is because you find the crazy Republican narrative appealing.
When you are talking about the formation of a government I think legitimate only has one meaning. If a government is illegitimate it is illegal: it came to power by a military coup or by a fraudulent election. That is how the word legitimate is used in popular discourse about governments. It's not a highly technical and narrow definition. And I'd add that when you're talking about the American 'accepted standards and principles of an election' I'd consider that to mean the election was free, fair and the votes were counted.
Quote from: Scipio on November 20, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.
But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 20, 2009, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: Scipio on November 20, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.
But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.
Any way you look at it, it was quite a surreal situation (and way more than that in hindsight, given the implications of the eventual outcome).
Whatever. Fuck. Don't blame me, I wrote in Charlton Heston.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2009, 09:54:34 AM
The anti-Randians are almost as uncool as the Randians. :whogivesafuck:
Anti-Randian is like anti-communist. It's not cool or uncool. It's the norm.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 09:41:39 AM
But crazy people believe that all disagreements with them are due to some weird conspiracy or belief system held by their opponent, so Raz will probably see your denial here as proof that his statement is true.
Ah, gotcha. So in my denial I will definitely be lying. Because I have some compelling reason to lie about this. :yes: :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 10:43:07 AM
Anti-Randian is like anti-communist. It's not cool or uncool. It's the norm.
Nope, the norm is "I don't know who Rand is and don't care." ^_^
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 10:13:10 AM
When you are talking about the formation of a government I think legitimate only has one meaning.
What if you are talking about a poll?
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Okay. But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government?
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue? The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.
I think somebody has hacked grumbler's account.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Okay. But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government?
children born out of wedlock
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Okay. But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government?
Justice Antonine Scalia: "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires." Clearly, counting first and ruling afterward would be legal, but still, as Scalia notes, not without danger to "legitimacy."
"I think Obama is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate president without profound character changes."
Okay (and I agree with his point) but wouldn't you say that's the most technical understanding of the word 'illegitimate' and not how it is commonly used?
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 12:10:09 PM
"I think Obama is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate president without profound character changes."
Who's that?
Hypothetically me.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 12:10:46 PM
Hypothetically me.
Okay. The word that would jar with me and I'd quibble with would be 'illegitimate' - I think that's the case for most people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 12:10:12 PM
Okay (and I agree with his point) but wouldn't you say that's the most technical understanding of the word 'illegitimate' and not how it is commonly used?
No, I think he was using it as he said; having the "public acceptance democratic stability requires." That means something more along the lines of the usual and expected than the legal, IMO.
Whether he is correct that recounts like those the USSC siopped in Florida undermine democracy isn't really an issue here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 12:13:02 PM
Okay. The word that would jar with me and I'd quibble with would be 'illegitimate' - I think that's the case for most people.
I'ma gonna agree with you on this. If the statement were "I think Gore is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate presidential
candidate without profound character changes" I think garbo's point would be made in the sense that he uses the word.
In 2000 it was forgivable, the victory margin was very small and very contrversial.
Obama though won quite overwhelmingly. Its just dumb to call fraud this time,
Quote from: Tyr on November 20, 2009, 01:03:26 PM
In 2000 it was forgivable, the victory margin was very small and very contrversial.
Obama though won quite overwhelmingly. Its just dumb to call fraud this time,
Agree, but don't know the extent to which people are actually calling fraud this time.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 12:53:18 PM
I'ma gonna agree with you on this. If the statement were "I think Gore is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate presidential candidate without profound character changes" I think garbo's point would be made in the sense that he uses the word.
Fair, although if that candidate was to win, I wouldn't hypothetically start viewing him as legitimate. I wouldn't be prepared to accept him as the rightful president because even though he managed to get elected it was through deception.
Which, of course, could stem from my misuse of the word.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 01:18:43 PM
Fair, although if that candidate was to win, I wouldn't hypothetically start viewing him as legitimate. I wouldn't be prepared to accept him as the rightful president because even though he managed to get elected it was through deception.
Which, of course, could stem from my misuse of the word.
I guess I should have seen this implication of your statement, and now that you have pointed it out I withdraw my objection.
Could Obama lose in 2012? Maybe to Palin-Beck?
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 03:35:02 PM
I guess I should have seen this implication of your statement, and now that you have pointed it out I withdraw my objection.
Yeah and while that is somewhat loony as it is closely related to the statement that "All the people who voted for that candidate must have been deluded", it is a far cry from believing that ACORN stole the election.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 20, 2009, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: Scipio on November 20, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.
But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.
The Fla Supreme Court didn't have the ability to "hand it to Gore" - the best they could do would be to keep counts going and run out the clock. The end game would then be either the Florida legislature selecting an electoral slate or the whole election being decided in the House. Either way, Bush would still win.
Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.
That's OK, Diebold stole the 2004 elections for the Republicans. So everybody's even.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2009, 06:13:57 PM
Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.
My vote goes to Kelo. It's not Dredd Scott, but it's bad. Look up what has happened to that property since...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2009, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2009, 06:13:57 PM
Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.
My vote goes to Kelo. It's not Dredd Scott, but it's bad. Look up what has happened to that property since...
:lol:
"... In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo's home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. In November 2009, Pfizer announced it would close its New London research facility."
Quote from: Jaron on November 20, 2009, 03:47:02 PM
Could Obama lose in 2012? Maybe to Palin-Beck?
Hopefully the GOP will be smart enough to encourage that thought. Keep the Dems stupid and clueless thinking Palin will run than bring out a real candidate when it's too late to gear up the attack machine.
Quote from: Strix on November 20, 2009, 06:38:57 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 20, 2009, 03:47:02 PM
Could Obama lose in 2012? Maybe to Palin-Beck?
Hopefully the GOP will be smart enough to encourage that thought. Keep the Dems stupid and clueless thinking Palin will run than bring out a real candidate when it's too late to gear up the attack machine.
A real candidate. Like Huckabee or Romney. :lol:
The next Republican is going to be a sacrificial lamb. No one worth their salt is going to challenge Obama in 2012.
Indeed. Obama has been doing such a phenomenal job.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Indeed. Obama has been doing such a phenomenal job.
glad you've seen the light.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Indeed. Obama has been doing such a phenomenal job.
Reagan was in much worse shape at this point in his first term.
Obama is no Reagan. Flash in the pan, baby! :yeah:
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 08:37:18 PM
Obama is no Reagan. Flash in the pan, baby! :yeah:
Clintonites everywhere believed similar things during the primary after Iowa. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 08:37:18 PM
Obama is no Reagan. Flash in the pan, baby! :yeah:
You've been saying that for years now. A huge monument will be built to his memory right next to the Lincoln Memorial, and the Democratic Party will be in power for 30 years, and you'll still be saying that.
Quote from: Jaron on November 20, 2009, 03:47:02 PM
Could Obama lose in 2012?
Yes.
QuoteMaybe to Palin-Beck?
No.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 20, 2009, 08:47:56 PM
You've been saying that for years now. A huge monument will be built to his memory right next to the Lincoln Memorial, and the Democratic Party will be in power for 30 years, and you'll still be saying that.
Years? I only started talking about Obama last year. :mellow:
Also, Obama doesn't really seem to do shit...other than being a symbol for hope.
Eh. I supported Obama as much as one could in 08, but my faith in him and the DNC is wavering at the moment. They need to pull themselves together and lead the country in a clear direction.
Quote from: Jaron on November 21, 2009, 02:02:11 AM
Eh. I supported Obama as much as one could in 08, but my faith in him and the DNC is wavering at the moment. They need to pull themselves together and lead the country in a clear direction.
The direction is clear. Palin or Obama. Choose.
With options like those, there is no real choice. I'd rather the country stagnate and do nothing under Obama than swing hard right under Palin.
:Lame:
There are retards everywhere. What % of Americans thought that Obama could walk on water and heal the blind? :contract:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 21, 2009, 01:12:17 PM
There are retards everywhere. What % of Americans thought that Obama could walk on water and heal the blind? :contract:
Well I've never seen him wet and everyone around him seems to be able to see.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 21, 2009, 01:12:17 PM
There are retards everywhere. What % of Americans thought that Obama could walk on water and heal the blind? :contract:
Hmm...
0?
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 21, 2009, 01:12:17 PM
There are retards everywhere. What % of Americans thought that Obama could walk on water and heal the blind? :contract:
Every Democrat...which includes me. :weep:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2009, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2009, 06:13:57 PM
Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.
My vote goes to Kelo. It's not Dredd Scott, but it's bad. Look up what has happened to that property since...
Kelo was based on pretty solid precedent though. The Supreme Court became the popular villain in that case, but the CT legislature were the ones who actually did it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2009, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2009, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2009, 06:13:57 PM
Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.
My vote goes to Kelo. It's not Dredd Scott, but it's bad. Look up what has happened to that property since...
Kelo was based on pretty solid precedent though. The Supreme Court became the popular villain in that case, but the CT legislature were the ones who actually did it.
Yep. Using eminent domain to take property for developers is terrible policy IMO, but I it's not the role of the Court to decdie if laws reflect good or bad policy. On reflection, I think that they got this one right. I'm not sure if the feds using emient domain like this would pass muster, but the states can do it.