"One Vote Away"

[BewareofNick]

RE:

 

>Don't put that one in the win column just yet BofN. More

>recent polling of the Florida race shows Jeb over 50% and

>even leading over McBride in what is McBrides signature

>issue of education 49-47.

 

Jeff, what you're seeing their is the lift that Jebbie gets every time Dubya hits town for him. It usually goes away shortly thereafter. I haven't counted him out yet by any means, but the latest poll I saw showed Bush leading by 4 points, with a 4 point margin of error: a statistical dead heat.

 

>McBride was horrible on the statewide televised debate

>hosted by Tim Russert and he's not running a very good

>campaign. However these midterm elections are all about

>turnout so the Dems still have a shot if they can get a good

>turnout. If you want to see Jeb gone and you're a Florida

>voter better not miss this one.

 

No doubt that McBride didn't do all that well in the Rusert debate, but coming off as an anti-politician could work in his favor. McBride has been compared to Jeb's predecessor, the late Governor Lawton Chiles. That's a good thing for McBride.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest Not2Kinky4me]

I hate to minimize or simplify most of your replies, but if you havent noticed, a fair amount of politicians are bastards regardless as to their party affiliation.

 

Here is one example of why (out of thousands)all politicians are responsible for moronic, immoral tax laws... the capital loss deduction limitation is $3,000. per year. So if Blow-Joe had $300,000 in realized capital gains in 1999, he had to pay the full tax on those realized profits. The year following in 2000, Joe-Blow had 150,000 in realized capital losses - essentially giving up half his previous years taxed profits. He can only deduct $3,000 of those losses against his other income and must carry the remainder forward to future tax years. It will take Joe-Blow 50 years to deduct these losses should he live long enough yet the govenment took the tax oh the profits on the money he lost.

 

This $3,000 loss limitation deduction has been in force since about the late 1960's or early 70's. Unlike other deductions like exemptions, standard deductions etc, the capital loss deduction has not increased with the cost of living index each year. That capital loss deduction should be about 25,000 in todays dollars taking inflation into account. So both the Dem's and Rep's have for years been comfortable taxing you on gains in one year, and telling you tough luck in the next if you lost money. Neither the Dem's or the Rep's have ever done anything to date to make this fair for taxpayers. NONE OF THEM. As far as Im concerned, they only do things for which their constiuents press on them. Thus the poor/low income and the elderly, the 2 largest groups in the Nation, are heard the most.

 

I dont care what argument any of you make, there will always be an educated and knowledgeable politician that can debate and poke holes in your specific position.

 

Bottom line, No politician can satisfy everyone and most of them are morons. If the Leftys take the Senate, they'll lose it later on and vice versa. Its ebb and flow, back and forth and never the end of the world. The political landscape may change for a while but it nots permanent.

 

The most important message I can send is its best to be a Non-partisan but if you insist on being a Dem, Rep or Ind, then dont vote right down your partys line out of ignorance. Vote for whom you truely believe will do the best job. If your not informed with the major issues, then dont vote as its a disservice to all. You may actually vote for a bad apple and regret it later.

 

No one politician will match your opinions and beliefs 100% at all times so try to get fully informed, find the best dude and get out and vote!

[Guest 7Zach]

I agree with what you said about nixon, reagan, and prob bush, Sr. I had outrage over all those, but it never was proven, was it? But on the facts, I don't recall Nixon ever being put under oath for testimony, was he? Because if not, then not on point.

 

What you said about Bush, Jr. and stealing the election is wrong on the facts; overwhelmingly partisan, narrow, and a lack of understanding about the court system and the interplay between federal and state law. Importantly, again, since you prefer to repeat the same arguments, there is a constitutional deadline to certify the vote count. Finally, you want to register and bus in people who have never voted before, who live on the streets, plan early, give seminars, and go into the booth with them to ensure that they can read the ballott.

 

I haven't complained about NJ, but it is curious that the absentee ballots already case were not enough in themselves to disallow the new ballott. But that Supreme Court had held as a matter of state law that it is imperative that people have a choice in an election.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

those reasons being the simple possession of mar on federal property or better, in national parks (have seen a couple of joints prosecuted); large amounts being manufactured, transported, possessed, etc., and by statute, part of a charge of essentially dealing. These charges are common, and prob account for the majority or near majority of federal caseload.

Cal is free to decriminalize marij. in its state courts. The feds pressured against it, but Cal did it. The feds could have taken a harder position, and conditioned federal funds upon Cal not doing so (that's how the state statutes increased the drinking age to 21 - Texas and La had always had a lower one and resisted doing it. La only did it when it became clear they would lose highway funds, and I am almost sure that it was the last state to raise the age limit.)

But because the state has stated that it is no crime or just a civil penalty (fine only), the feds can still prosecute for federal reasons anyway.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE:

 

that's funny, especially the black hills part. Hayes was elected by the House of Rep because La and either Ms or Fl's representatives agreed to vote for him and against Tilden, in exchange for federal troops being removed from their respective states. The withdrawal of federal troops ended Reconstruction. Within 10 years, you had the start of state's slave codes again, including segregation on the railroads, etc. But by the way, the first instance of segregated bathrooms in public buildings was ordered by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. Only one cabinet member refused, Herbert Hoover, a Republican. Pretty funny.

Hmmm, let's see, who is on Mt. Rushmore. Certainly not that guy with the long blond hair who was last in his class at Westpoint.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

That's an interesting concept, the educated voter. That's the very reason that voting was first restricted to landowners, because it ws assumed that they were better informed.

I voted this week, and split the ticket. It's always been a problem to reach the voters - either you paid $2 (that was one primary reason the bill was withdrawn the first time - it was associated with buying votes); serving liquor; or developing a catchy phrase (Ha Ha, who's your pa?) or, if lucky enough, an issue that could be distilled to a couple of sentences. As issues become more complex, it is harder to reach the electorate with info. And it seems unfair, cuz the vote of those who read or care is cancelled out by those who don't care.

And i'll finish pontificating, that's the reason for the electoral college - it was part of the checks and balances, and to prevent one candidate from so inflaming the voters in one area of the country, or one element of the country, that a majority of votes cast by that group would ensure an election - as opposed to the country at large.

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

I have no clue what your point is x( .

 

However, check your handy Cabinet Member Fact Book ;-) . Herbert Hoover did NOT serve in Woodrow Wilson's Cabinet.

 

OK, I give up...who was the long-haired slug who was last in his class at West Point? :+

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

"Thus the poor/low income and the elderly, the 2 largest groups in the Nation, are heard the most."

 

Uh huh. Right.

 

And, Santa blows Rudolph :9 .

 

And, the Easter Bunny is a fantastic bottom .

 

And, Elvis has been reincarnated as the proprietor of a male escort review website. }>

[alanalt]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

>That's an interesting concept, the educated voter. That's

>the very reason that voting was first restricted to

>landowners, because it ws assumed that they were better

>informed.

 

Only partially correct. The biggest reason was that it was assumed that landowners, people with property to protect, would always act in their best interests and therefore the best interests of the state. It wasn't necessarily that landowners were better educated, but that their 'stake' in the country would better motivate them to select candidates who would 'protect' that 'stake'... A question of motivation over education.

 

 

 

>And i'll finish pontificating, that's the reason for the

>electoral college - it was part of the checks and balances,

>and to prevent one candidate from so inflaming the voters in

>one area of the country, or one element of the country, that

>a majority of votes cast by that group would ensure an

>election - as opposed to the country at large.

 

And it worked really well in 1860...;-)

[alanalt]

RE:

 

>the latest poll I saw showed Bush leading by 4

>points, with a 4 point margin of error: a statistical dead

>heat.

 

Which could also be an 8-point lead...;-)

 

Alan (devil's advocate)

[alanalt]

RE:

 

Don't be too hasty...;-)

 

I would agree with half of that, which is the 'elderly' do exercise a disprportionate influence in politics today. That's because they actually have free time on their hands to write elected officials, attend conventions and above all, VOTE.

 

As someone who's worked on the 'inside' of politics for more than a decade I can tell you that few politicians will 'ever' ignore the seniors...

 

Alan (political junkie)

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

Wow...I started a popular thread that isn't about my ass or sucking dick. I wonder if I should take this as a sign.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Another aspect to the (nearly) evenly divided Senate that's scary is that we could potentially see a rerun of Florida in 2000 (possibly in multiple states), resulting in control of the Senate being decided by one or two extremely tight races, the results of which are not backed by widespread confidence. That's not going to do much for Americans' faith in their democracy, let alone our credibility as one.

 

For example, in Minnesota apparently they're not going to count any absentee ballots that came in for Wellstone before he died, but they will count the ones that came for Coleman before Wellstone's death. If the final count yields a margin of victory for Coleman smaller than the number of Wellstone absentees, then uh-oh. Even worse would be races plagued with voting irregularities and misconduct that call the outcome into question.

 

In other words, not only could control of the Senate switch, it could switch due to the results of a race nobody really knows who won. Deja vu, anyone?

 

Of course, Chafee and McCain are looming on the sidelines as potential switcheroos. But it'd be nice if the Democrats could keep the Senate without having to keep it that way.

 

What does it say about the state of affairs in this country that the electorate is so polarized that our elections are (potentially) going to be decided by isolated flukes?

[trilingual]

>That's not going to do much for Americans' faith in their democracy, let alone >our credibility as one.

 

My faith in American democracy would get a big boost if my fellow Amurricans would just get over their utter self-absorption and GET OUT AND VOTE!!! That would go a long way towards electing candidates who have some legitimacy, whatever their political views are.

 

There are a few other things that would boost my faith in American democracy, like a revival in teaching of high school Civics classes, so people might have a remote clue about how their government is organized, and how politics works.

 

Another would be more politicians like Paul Wellstone, who say what they mean and stand for some set of principles, instead of trying to hide what they are by masquerading as some inoffensive M-O-R pol only for the purpose of getting elected. I don't like his politics, but what truly disgusts me about Dubya is his utter, rock-bottom, through-and-through phoniness. To gain and keep power, he tries to present a moderate, "uniter-not-divider" image. His deeds, as opposed to his words, reveal him as an extreme rightist. He's entitled to his loathsome views, but if they're what he believes and is working for, he should put them out in clear public view, the way Paul Wellstone or Barry Goldwater did with their political beliefs. At least with those men you knew what you were voting for, and you could choose to support or oppose them based on their honest viewpoints and positions. Who could tell listening to Shrub (or some other politicians, for that matter - he's not the only culprit) WHAT he really stood for? In Shrub's case, it's only after he got parachuted into the job by a Supreme Court paying back favors that we find out that he's a stealth candidate for the extreme right wing. There's nothing centrist or unifying about him.

 

My faith in American democracy would also be boosted if we could find a way to make it possible again for our best and brightest to run for office. We've managed to put so many landmines in the way, and made it so unattractive and unappealing (not to mention impossible) for anyone to run who has ever expressed a strong opinion or committed some pecadillo in their distant past that all we get is people whose only goal in life was to please everyone so they can get elected. Of course, that means that most of those people have never experienced real life as real people live it. We've also allowed the system to be corrupted so that it's almost impossible for anyone but a multi-millionaire to run for Congress or the Presidency. How is it good for America when it's rapidly becoming a government of the plutocrats, by the plutocrats and for the plutocrats?

 

Finally, it would restore my faith in American democracy if my fellow Amurricans would bestir themselves from their incredible passivity. If the events of 9/11, the collapse of their very own savings and retirement funds because of rampant corruption and greed, and the threat of a questionably justified war hasn't moved them from their sofas and remote controls, I can't begin to imagine what would. And when you add to the passivity of the general public the exceptional phoniness of the modern American political process, the wide-spread ignorance about how it works or why it's important, the takeover of the system by the "rich and would-be famous," and its infiltration by the religious right, I can't help worrying that the U.S. may really be on a long downhill slide. Contrary to popular mythology about the invincibility and inevitability of America, even a society like this one can fall into decline when people no longer care about its democracy and its values, or even understand what they're about.

 

Maybe I'm just being too pessimistic, but there are signs of serious rot in our system, and if it's unchecked it will only spread. On the other hand, maybe I'll be pleasantly shocked by the election results next week and it'll turn out I've given my fellow Amurricans less credit than I should. Once in a while, even in these strange times, they surprise the hell out of me by briefly coming out of their cocoons and doing intelligent things on Election Day! :-)

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Another would be more politicians like Paul Wellstone, who

>say what they mean and stand for some set of principles,

>instead of trying to hide what they are by masquerading as

>some inoffensive M-O-R pol only for the purpose of getting

>elected.

 

One reason we don't have more Wellstones, I suspect, is that most states, unlike Minnesota, nominate their candidates through a primary system, rather than caucuses, which, as I understand it, tend to be more activist-driven, so that the "true believers" have more influence over what candidate represents the party. It's probably easier to run an effective grassroots campaign in such a system than through the primaries, where it's a more media-driven process.

[taylorky]

WOW..... ...LOL for a second i thought my dad had written this post!!!passionate...nothing can be added..............taylor@14:43-11/01/02

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

Furreners...Furreners...they're everywhere...Watch out!! }>

 

I'm not supposed to tell anybody (I'm sworn to secrecy), but I'll share it here cuz I know it will go no further: the stealth invading force from the north will descend onto our sacred territory via a little known route through Flin Flon. x( Unsavory Albertans are conspiring to execute this insidious plan. ;-)

 

Many here in the south will initially resist, but these intruders are wily. Their secret weapon is the Flames. :7

 

Watch the intrudees suckumb :o to the power of the purses. :+

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

Devils and their advocates pretend to live among ice dwellers. ;-)

 

Don't be fooled. The Flame always melts them. }>

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

I'll see your decade and raise you two }> .

 

As for the disproportionate political influence of the elderly, I'll give you a measure of that influence in two words: prescription drugs. x(

 

Mark

(Bigger political junkie) :+

[Rick Munroe]

>maybe I'll be pleasantly

>shocked by the election results next week and it'll turn out

>I've given my fellow Amurricans less credit than I should.

>Once in a while, even in these strange times, they surprise

>the hell out of me by briefly coming out of their cocoons

>and doing intelligent things on Election Day! :-)

 

I really hope you're going to be surprised in the next few days, trilingual. I haven't had a chance to thank you for this thoughtful post...and I hope your (and my) pessimism is quickly abated.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE:

 

above was in response to comment on black hills, and custer was the blond, long-haired guy - last in his class.

 

Re: Hoover - I have seen references to Hoover as cabinet rank as head of the Food Administration. He then was appoined head of the Relief Administration, which was in the Cabinet, organizing aid to Germany after WWI.

 

"Within a month and half of its formation, the commission delivered more than 60,000 tons of food to Belgium. Delivery continued throughout the war, so it came as no surprise that in 1917, when America entered the conflict, President Woodrow Wilson made Hoover the U.S. food administrator. Wilson also chose him to head the American Relief Administration, a new federal agency set up to oversee the feeding and clothing of Europe during the war's last months and afterward. The experience gave Hoover a taste of power (the legislation granted him broad powers to set prices and control production and distribution) and the experience of what government could do when it had the support of the people. Americans reacted positively--often eagerly--to "meatless" and "wheatless" days, during which food was saved to be sent to the hungry in Europe. The word Hooverize, meaning to economize, entered English usage, as did the "Hoover apron," worn by gardeners growing food to help out. Both words are still in the dictionary."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=41899

 

It's hard to imagine how respected Hoover was prior to his being President:

"Right after World War I, Harvard law professor Felix Frankfurter, who was later to sit on the Supreme Court, called Hoover "a truly great man." And in 1920, no less a figure than Franklin Roosevelt, who was to defeat him so overwhelmingly in 1932, wrote a friend that "I had some nice talks with Herbert Hoover before he went West for Christmas. He is certainly a wonder, and I wish we could make him President of the United States. There could not be a better one." (from same article).

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

the reference to 1860 is lost on me....

[Guest Dan]

>>well, he lied under oath to keep from having to pay

>>potentially millions in a civil lawsuit. After being caught,

>>he settled the lawsuit for close to a million. So big deal,

>>it was just a deposition, huh, over sex.

>>Maybe so, but the Arkansas Supreme Court, a majority of whom

>>were Democrats, thought it serious enough to disbar him for

>>that act alone. And the judge in the civil case was a

>>student under Clinton and appointed to the bench by him.

>>It's not just Clinton, it's people at the top of the game in

>>either party- they all are used to a sense of entitlement

>

>Nixon: Watergate

>Reagan: lied to Congress about the Iran Contra affair.

>Never held accountable for it (of course, the fact that he

>couldn't remember anything was probably legit in his case)

>Bush, Sr.: lied to Congress about the Iran Contra affair.

>Never held accountable for it. Where was the moral outrage

>here?

>Clinton: lied about getting a blowjob.

>Dubya: squandered the budget surplus achieved under the

>Clinton administration. With the help of brother Jeb,

>Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and the US

>Supreme Court, stole the election from Al Gore, who if

>nothing else still won the popular vote.

 

There was an interesting article in the L.A. Times about a year ago. It compared the different methods that the Gore and Bush camps were requesting for the recounts. Under the preferred Gore method, Bush won. Under the preffered Bush method, Gore won. So, let's give this one a rest, okay?

>

>But Clinton is immoral? Guess this lets you know where

>people stand.

 

yes, he is. And he and the other presidents that have had nooky in the Oval Office are/were disrespectful meglomaniacal soiciopathic slime bags.

>

>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

 

Dan Dare

http://gaydar.co.uk/dandarela