That post really didn't have very much to do with mine.

I think McCain is running a pretty crappy campaign, and I've criticized a couple of his ads specifically on here. That said, I think Weaver is a little bitter at being ousted before the success really rolling in during the primaries, after being with him for so long.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think McCain is running a pretty crappy campaign, and I've criticized a couple of his ads specifically on here. That said, I think Weaver is a little bitter at being ousted before the success really rolling in during the primaries, after being with him for so long.

I'm sure that's part of it. But I think he, like Salter, is also invested in the "McCain mystique" on a level that most campaign flacks--certainly not the Steve Schmidts of the world--can identify with.

dajafi wrote:That post really didn't have very much to do with mine.

You are saying that his longitme ally called him out for running the wrong approach. I'm saying that it might work evenso, and he has some room to play with because of likely cheating. These guys don't really know what to do or say, they listen to advisors ... it's all a manipulation. No one says what they really think or does what they really believe in at this level.

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:That post really didn't have very much to do with mine.

You are saying that his longitme ally called him out for running the wrong approach. I'm saying that it might work evenso, and he has some room to play with because of likely cheating.

PtK, you've suggested McC "will steal" about 5% of the votes cast for president, implying that roughly that share of the vote will be fictitious.

Do you have any basis for that estimate?

drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:That post really didn't have very much to do with mine.

You are saying that his longitme ally called him out for running the wrong approach. I'm saying that it might work evenso, and he has some room to play with because of likely cheating.

PtK, you've suggested McC "will steal" about 5% of the votes cast for president, implying that roughly that share of the vote will be fictitious.

Do you have any basis for that estimate?

My basis is that I've heard enough analysis that claims they can't do to much more without risking getting exposed. The powers that be, may or may not be committed to McCain, but they do not want to let the Dems back in the White House. So if Obama were to win 51.5 to 48.5, then Obama would lose. This is pure conjecture by me on the exact percentage, but I'm quite certain that cheating will occur in many places, whether it's long lines and messed up voter roles to dis-enfranchise, or whether its rigged machines with no paper trail and not proof of their efficacy.

In other words, anything that occurs that doesn't go according to what you'd like to see happen has a conspiracy wrapped up in it somewhere.

VoxOrion wrote:In other words, anything that occurs that doesn't go according to what you'd like to see happen has a conspiracy wrapped up in it somewhere.

What do you want me to do Vox? I will never be able to prove anything to you and others satisfaction. Doesn't mean Im' whacko. Doesn't mean that the things I've heard, read, are not accurate or reasonable. I truly believe that there will be cheating to give votes to McCain. How much, will it matter? I don't know... but Bush clearly lost both of the last elections.

I'm all for a new Constitutional Congress. Let's update and improve the system. I believe in technology, used properly we could facilitate way more participation and have much greater accuracy. We could use thumb prints and retinal scans. Allow people to be anywhere in the world on a secure network and see the voting relevant to their state and district. We could allow voting to happen over a long 3 day weekend, national holiday with no publicized exit polls or early counts until the voting is closed. There are many things we could do.

Diebold and others refusals to allow any kind of checks to their systems, the head of Diebold on the record saying to thing to the effect of "i won't let Bush lose..." excuse me if my confidence is way down. It's rarely a Democrat in conspiracies like this and don't give me 50 year old stuff like daly in Chicago or JFK.

I'm not a political scientist, historian or journalist. But I believe I have a perspective and view that is reasonable and well founded.

Philly the Kid wrote: The powers that be, may or may not be committed to McCain, but they do not want to let the Dems back in the White House. So if Obama were to win 51.5 to 48.5, then Obama would lose. This is pure conjecture by me on the exact percentage, but I'm quite certain that cheating will occur in many places, whether it's long lines and messed up voter roles to dis-enfranchise, or whether its rigged machines with no paper trail and not proof of their efficacy.

Who are the "powers that be?" Do you have evidence of cheating? How are long lines cheating? Do you have evidence anyone purposefully disenfranchised a voter for political gain? What about rigged voting machines?

I will never be able to prove anything to you and others satisfaction. Doesn't mean Im' whacko. Doesn't mean that the things I've heard, read, are not accurate or reasonable. I truly believe that there will be cheating to give votes to McCain. How much, will it matter? I don't know... but Bush clearly lost both of the last elections.

It'd be nice if you could prove it to one person. Or provide evidence to back up your claims. And no, Bush didn't clearly lost anything in the last two elections. If it were clear everyone here would know all of the evidence.

Are you aware that in 2000 the networks announced the polls had closed in Florida at 7 pm eastern, even though the Panhandle's polls were open another hour? At 7:30 they called Florida for Gore. As a result there were few voters during that last hour. Estimates are that Bush lost a 10,000-15,000 vote margin in that hour. If the networks had kept quiet, all the Florida nonsense would've been irrelevant. Yet I rarely hear Republicans talking about a conspiracy. If the Republicans conspired, surely the Democrats did too.

Diebold and others refusals to allow any kind of checks to their systems, the head of Diebold on the record saying to thing to the effect of "i won't let Bush lose..." excuse me if my confidence is way down.

That'd be great, except he never said that. A simple Google search would tell you what did happen. He sent out a fundraising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

I have no idea if he ever even read the letter, but it's still a big leap to use this as complete evidence that Ohio voting machines were tampered with. Is there something wrong with Walden O'Dell supporting a candidate? If the head of the American Federation of Teachers said he was committed to helping Obama win the Presidency, should we conclude that since voting is in the schools something sinister is going on?

HBO put on a fascinating documentary called "Hacking Democracy." In it, they showed that it's possible to rig the Diebold machines. They showed several instances of Republican AND Democratic candidates that experts concluded that someone may have rigged machines. They did not have any evidence that anyone actually did or that it in any way influenced either the 2000 or 2004 election. That doesn't mean that someone didn't put the fix in. There just isn't any evidence to support that.

I believe I have a perspective and view that is reasonable and well founded.

You have a perspective that's based on inaccurate or exaggerated information that is somehow extrapolated to draw conclusions that are unwarranted. People don't gang up on you because they think you're "whacko." They gang up on you because you throw out wild ideas and present them as fact. They gang up on you because you're lazy in providing supporting facts. All I had to do was enter "diebold deliver ohio for Bush" in Google and click on the first result to get the real information. The more controversial a statement you make the more people will demand evidence to support it.

You may be right. Bush may have cheated to win the last two elections. There's just never been evidence to support that theory. I've never liked the Bush political machine, partly from first hand interaction. I've never voted for George W. I'd like to believe he cheated. I won't without proof.

Philly the Kid wrote:Doesn't mean Im' whacko.

Yes it does.

Doesn't mean that the things I've heard, read, are not accurate or reasonable.

Yes it does.

But I believe I have a perspective and view that is reasonable and well founded.

No it isn't.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

I'll never get the lefts facination with this kind of politicing. Demand that that the right has no solutions and only seeks to frighten people while.... offering no solutions and attempting to frighten people.

I guess if you make your slam in the context of inventing things that people are saying about you it's not a slam?

The funny thing is, I think most of Obama's comments on these things make him come off looking like a weak victim - I have no facts to support it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the reason he can't push past 50%.

Politics is pretty lame, eh Vox?

Don't you start.

Just so I have this straight. PtK, who generally mistrusts almost everything about government and doesn't want anyone anywhere to have any personal information on him whatsoever, is in favor of voting via fingerprints and retinal scans? He keeps an elaborate, time-consuming, cypher-based accounting system to avoid having to give his name and address to Visa or Paypal, but he wants to go to his local municipal building to have his eyeball scanned with a laser? Peculiar.

Philly the Kid wrote:
I'm not a political scientist, historian or journalist. But I believe I have a perspective and view that is reasonable and well founded.

That is good and you are entitled to your beliefs. The problem is, though, the actual political scientists, historians and journalists disagree.

Fox News producer Trish Turner asks the 84-year-old senator about his plans as he walks into the Hart Senate Office Building. He puts his arm around her and says, “Nice to be with you. Someone told me, the thing to do is, I ought to be surrounded by beautiful women.”

Ted Stevens, class act.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Fox News producer Trish Turner asks the 84-year-old senator about his plans as he walks into the Hart Senate Office Building. He puts his arm around her and says, “Nice to be with you. Someone told me, the thing to do is, I ought to be surrounded by beautiful women.”

Ted Stevens, class act.

This post isn't very helpful without pictures.

(j-hoya, does the name "William Donald Schaefer" mean anything to you? He's the Dem Stevens, playing in a lower league. But I really think they might be the same guy.)

Former Gov. of Maryland?

I think he endorsed Ehrlich for reelection (if I'm thinking about the same guy) so he's sort of our problem/embarrassment as well.

I did a google image search of the name. Nothing stood out. Dunno what she actually looks like.

I think anyone who makes it to 84 deserves to be able to do something like that.

jerseyhoya wrote:Former Gov. of Maryland?

I think he endorsed Ehrlich for reelection (if I'm thinking about the same guy) so he's sort of our problem/embarrassment as well.

I did a google image search of the name. Nothing stood out. Dunno what she actually looks like.

That's the guy. He still has--or had, almost a decade ago when I was in grad school and living in MD--a job as, I think, state comptroller. Despite being senile and, so it seemed, pretty much innumerate.

World-class sexist and, I think, at least a little corrupt, though maybe not at the level of Teddy Tubes.