So what happens this time?
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
FWIW... come 1pm I think you should start another thread Russell... this one is gonna be unmanageable well before then....
Go PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM....!!!!
:)
-
According to the electoral vote thing:
"Connecticut is not listed because it is simply a rerun of the primary with Republicans getting to vote this time. While ideologically interesting, it has no effect on control of the Senate since the two leading candidates are both Democrats..."
So the predictions of 51-49 Dems in the Senate are including Lieberman on the Dems side. This is contrary to our system which tends to put Independents & minor parties on the minority (opposition) side (well, in Britain where they have lots of parties they do). They look to be counting Bernie Sanders in Vermont a Dem as well. Looks more like 49-all with 2 Independents to me.
As for the quality of the Democrats, they *may* be a bunch of fuckwits, but the Republicans have *proved* themselves to be a bunch of fuckwits. And corrupt hypocrits to boot. Like any political team, the proof will be in how they carry themselves over the next two years.
-
Nancy Pelosi is way left, further left than mainstream NZ positions. I would happily have Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson before I had Nancy Pelosi in power anywhere. Clark is a serious politician , Pelosi is not.
It is not just that she is left, she is incoherent. I have seen her on CSPAN and her "speeches" are an illogical ramble of unrelated thoughts blurted out. The Dems have much better candidates for speaker than her.
-
Nancy Pelosi basically represents here constituency of San Franciso's 8th District: Left-leaning, gay-friendly and cross-cultural.
Some of that background may be of use brokering deals between the factions but certainly there would be much pressure on her to keep the messages moderate so the Democrats may fight the Presidentials from the centre.
These years of Prsident Bush have focussed minds too greatly on a single figure perhaps: Just because she's coralling the cats doesn't mean they'll be meowing to her tune.
-
I didn't say anything about 9/11 but now you mention it I have a ton of questions about all that that would be nice to have answered.
Dick Cheney has repeatedly told the media that he agonised over the shoot down decision in relation to flight 93.
As the NORAD tapes show NORAD and he did not even know that flight 93 had been hijacked at the time it fell out of the sky.
So on the face of it the Vice President decided to lie to use 911 as an opportunity to make himself look like a big man who had his finger on the pulse in the WH bunker when in fact he was as blind as everybody else on the day.
Perhaps that was silly of Dick.
Meanwhile...
Dick Cheney and the Dim Son refused to testify for to the 911 commission for months. What is that about?When they finally did so they did so, together, unsworn and in secrecy. What is that about?
We don't know for a fact that Cheney told the commission a bunch of lies about 911. But it seems highly likely since we do know that NORAD told a bunch of lies on numerous occasions and that the 911 commission asked the FAA and DOD to conduct investigations into why they were lied to.
So who exactly is silly again?
Perhaps since you are in New Orleans you should explain how Bush came to publicly state that nobody could have expected the levees to break? (When video of a conference with FEMA shows him being informed of the possibility.)
Probably just like how nobody could have expected planes to be used as weapons when in fact the Pentagon had run an exercise involving the crashing of an airliner into their building?
........ since you asked....
-
James Bremner:
I bet none of you know much about Nancy Pelosi, the loony tunes San Fran lib who would become speaker if the Dems win. Well, Osama, Al Zawaheri, Kim Jong Il, Armdinajad the head hackers in Iraq and various other assorted despots will be happy campers indeed if Nancy is the new Speaker. She sees terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Not much use if you become one of the people who have to jump 100 floors to your death (like the people in the top floors of the WTC on 9/11) in the next terrorist attack that she would make much easier for terrorists to successfully launch , if she got her way.
snip
"Would that be the same bush that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to occur?"
I see loony tunes exists in NZ as well as San Fran. Do you seriously think that any American would have allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? I mean seriously?! To describe such views as "silly", is an insult to "silly'.
How silly.
-
she is incoherent. I have seen her on CSPAN and her "speeches" are an illogical ramble of unrelated thoughts blurted out.
She needs to get one of those earpieces the prez uses.
-
"Would that be the same bush that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to occur?"
I see loony tunes exists in NZ as well as San Fran. Do you seriously think that any American would have allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? I mean seriously?! To describe such views as "silly", is an insult to "silly'.
I won't rehearse the arguments here (Alistair has already kindly done so, cheers mate!), but I do indeed believe this. However, I don't take it as an article of faith; I suspect you'd find it hard to believe that I didn't _want_ to believe that the president and his cronies allowed these events to occur. But the evidence suggests that they did. I find it interesting that you have only ad-hominem arguments to offer as rebuttal.
Would evil men lie to hold on to enormous power and wealth? Would they betray their country for the same reason? I'd have to say the evidence points to a "yes" answer to both of these questions.
-
Over here it is the left that does vote fraud, you wont get that from sites like Salon.com and CNN which are solidly left media outlets. Be very skeptical of the US MSM, there is no doubt which way they lean.
Just one example for you: The FBI has an investigation of a left group called ACORN in Missouri for 35,000 fradulent voter registrations. 35,000!! That is a lot of fraud. Also apparently there are 10,500 dead people registered to vote in Missouri as well, and I would happily bet which way they will "vote".
I will try and find a blog with a consolidated list of dodgy Dem tactics andf post it on this site. It doesn't make pretty reading.
-
Yeah ditto Alastair
-
Danyl Mclauchlan
What specifically?
-
Over here it is the left that does vote fraud, you wont get that from sites like Salon.com and CNN which are solidly left media outlets. Be very skeptical of the US MSM, there is no doubt which way they lean.
Just one example for you: The FBI has an investigation of a left group called ACORN in Missouri for 35,000 fradulent voter registrations. 35,000!! That is a lot of fraud. Also apparently there are 10,500 dead people registered to vote in Missouri as well, and I would happily bet which way they will "vote".
I will try and find a blog with a consolidated list of dodgy Dem tactics andf post it on this site. It doesn't make pretty reading.
When the bush-bots start dragging out the myth of the "liberal media", you know they're desperate. :)
-
Nancy Pelosi is way left, further left than mainstream NZ positions.
We're talking about the same Nancy Pelosi right?
The one that voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and against the Gun Ban Real Act, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act and repealing the Estate Tax?
Or are you using the word "left" in the "not sufficiently committed to bringing about the end of the world" sense?
Her voting record shows her as a moderate, even slightly conservative versus politicians here. Her positions on specific policies have changed over time, but that's what happens to any reasonable politician's policies at the world (and their voters' interests) changes. Repeating "stay the course" doesn't convert obstinancy into a virtue, you know.
-
Specifically? I think my point is pretty obvious, but just to spell it out:
First you argue that Nancy Pelosi will make it 'easier for terrorists to attack America' (I hear she also plans to drown puppies and poison wells).
Well, Osama, Al Zawaheri, Kim Jong Il, Armdinajad the head hackers in Iraq and various other assorted despots will be happy campers indeed if Nancy is the new Speaker. . . in the next terrorist attack that she would make much easier for terrorists to successfully launch , if she got her way.
Then - on the subject of President Bush's accountabilty for the 9/11 attacks you wrote:
I see loony tunes exists in NZ as well as San Fran. Do you seriously think that any American would have allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? I mean seriously?! To describe such views as "silly", is an insult to "silly'.
How silly.
Don't you see the comic juxtaposition there? Maybe you don't.
-
OK, I'm going to give a big brickbat to local media for not asking the most obvious, and relevant, question: Would a Democrat controlled Congress actually be more or less protectionist? From my read, if the Republicans get their clocks cleaned it's going to be socially moderate, economically liberal Reps in the Northeast and Southwest who are going to get shafted. OTOH, it's going to be protectionist US unions,agricultural lobbyists and corporates looking for payback from Perlosi and Harry Reid.
-
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/signorile-interviews-fallen.html
...in which Michelangelo Signorile interviews the male sex worker at the centre of the Haggardgate fundie gay sex imbroglio
Craig Y.
-
Anyone else amused by americablog's hour-by-hour grimacing Satorum countdown? Classic.
-
Impeach Bush, on what basis? There have been several full on investigations of the use of intelligence pre Iraq in both the US and the UK and it was found that there was no misuse or manipulation. Bad intelligence yes, but that is the CIA's fault, not the White House
How does it help progress any of the major challenges in the US or the world to day to have an impeachment hearing that won’t result in an impeachment?
All the great "impeach Bush" reasons have been found to have no substance. That Salon list that was referred to in an earlier post was a load of rubbish for the most part. Just one example of so many, all the stuff about Karl Rove leaking Joe Wilson's wife's name was found to be a load of BS. Richard Armitage, Colin Powel's 2nd in charge at the State Dept let that name slip (not that is was illegal anyway, Valerie Plame hadn’t been under cover for years, she had a desk job at Langley). -
About this time last year I did a basic comparison of the most recent three elections in the US, Australia, UK and NZ to see roughly how many contested seats (MPs/congressmen) changed parties or representative. The results shocked me, although sadly I can't find the report I wrote.
From what I recall the US has had in the last three terms something like a 1-3% turnover rate, compared to 10-25% rate in the other three countries looked at. There could be several possible reasons for this: high satisfaction with incumbants, strong support for one particular party, corrupt practices at the voting booth, low voter turnout or gerrymandered districts. Possibly all are present in some degree. I suspect that gerrymandering has played a large part in this, and that in fact many congress districts are practically invulnerable, even in a climate of great disatisfaction - hooray for a largely politicised electoral districting process. Some groups in the US are working on changing this, but it won't be easy.
I had a brief look at the Congressional districts today, and some of them do look rather odd to say the least. Take a look at some of the bigger states, where there are large, diverse populations:
COngress District Map site: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#caLinks about redistricting and gerrymandering
Article on Gerrymandering: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/15878
Redistricting Resource Centre: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/redistricting.html
Report on Redistricting: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/redistricting.html
Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering -
Craig, you are quite correct, A Dem House will be much more protectionist. Forget a free trade agreement for NZ. They wont care if Doha goes no where.
-
Ben,
Excellent insights into the state of US democracy.... many US seats look like the long intestine of a cow.... they have taken gerrymandering to a new level.
Somewhat novelly for the US - normally for everyone else - the DNC decided in its "50 State Policy" - to actually stand in all races this year (they didn't quite make it but they tried.) From an NZ perspective this is bizarre... does the National Party consider for a moment not standing in Mangere?
And then there is the $$$. I read somewhere a while ago that the most correlative function in any analysis of US elections is that between the candidate that spends the most $$$ and the candidate that wins.
Consequently you end up with a senate and house full of millionaires.
-
Not so fast James. Congress is elected on a vaguely more democratic base than the Senate (where blades of grass roughly equal representation).
So, why your urban population should continue to funnel tax $$s to a few rural land owners *and* pay higher prices for their food should be a no-brainer to answer for most house democrats.
The GATT and NAFTA are long gone and those were the FT agreements that most affected working class urban Democrats.
-
Hi James,
So what are the implications? I bet none of you know much about Nancy Pelosi, the loony tunes San Fran lib who would become speaker if the Dems win. Well, Osama, Al Zawaheri, Kim Jong Il, Armdinajad the head hackers in Iraq and various other assorted despots will be happy campers indeed if Nancy is the new Speaker. She sees terrorism as a law enforcement issue.
This is a common Republican talking point that has also been hurled at Murtha, Kerry, etc, etc. If you go and look at the original statements it's fairly silly: Pelosi's comments came in the context of demanding additional resources for law enforcement, both domestically and internationally. In another case she was bagged for declining to use the word "war" in an interview where she actually said: "We're in a struggle against terrorism throughout the world ..."
Murtha's crime was saying: "[T]he heart of terrorism is not in Iraq. The heart of terrorism is worldwide and you have to do it internationally."
The implication seems to be that if you don't endlessly repeat the phrase "war on terror" you somehow want the terrorists to win. Frankly, I don't think the war will be won on the basis of vocabulary ...
Not much use if you become one of the people who have to jump 100 floors to your death (like the people in the top floors of the WTC on 9/11) in the next terrorist attack that she would make much easier for terrorists to successfully launch , if she got her way.
Could you explain this? Law enforcement seems highly salient to the task of detecting and foiling terrorist groups; it's reasonable to say that if law enforcement agencies had been better co-ordinated, the 9/11 attacks might well have been prevented.
The comparison that's often raised is with the British government's pursuit of the IRA, which bore fruit when it was identified and conducted as a law enforcement issue.
-
James might find the discourse a bit more to his liking over at your blog Craig.
Your question about protectionism is a red herring as well as being a load of bollocks.
The US did not agree to a free trade deal with Australia on agriculture. And neither Dems nor Repubs will do so with NZ. And we do not want to grant US pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to rip us off on drugs. There will not be a deal either way notwithstanding the words of our great leaders.
Meanwhile whether the republicans or Dems are more protectionist is in huge part a tossup.
And that is assuming that protectionism is bad anyway.
My beef with protectionism in the US has never been that it is perse a bad thing but rather that they are outright hypocrits. Using the IMF and world bank to force unregulated financial markets and free trade on the third world and simultaneously running keynsian protectionist monetary policy backed up by militarily conducted protection of their oil currency position and a hugely protectionist domestic market.
Finally who raised trade policy? Isn't this election about the rule of law and war crimes?
-
Danyl Mclauchlan
How will the Dems make life is easier for terrorists? Where have you been hiding?
The Dems are against the Patriot Act, and are on record as saying they would do what they can to repeal it. The Patriot Act allows the CIA to talk to the FBI and local law enforcement to tell them that they might be a terrorist cell they need to watch. Isn't the idea of not allowing the intelligence and law enforcement branches of government to talk to each other insane? According to the 9/11 Commission, this was one of the most critical failings that led to the 9/11 not being uncovered. And Nancy wants to get rid of it. Pelosi voted for the Patriot Act the first time around, but she and her collegues almost succeeded in having it not be renewed a short time ago.
The Dems are against the NSA listening in on calls that suspected terrorists make from outside the US to phone numbers in the US. So if an Al Qaeda guy is caught in Pakistan, and his address book or laptop is catured with a bunch of phone numbers, Pelosi does not want to allow the NSA to listen in on any calls made to those numbers. Isn't that just nuts?
The Dems are against "following the money", and want to shut down the program that was set up after 9/11 with everyone's (Dem and Repub) agreement to use the SWIFT system to track terrorists money transfers. How stupid is that?
So, yes absolutely, abandonig those 3 programs would make life easier for terrorists to plan and execute attacks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.