A Series of Election-Related Posts

There's a series of election-related posts on my main blog:

Hypothetically Speaking ...

The Counter-Debate: McKinney and Nader on Democracy Now!

Obama Gaining Strength Where It Counts

White Man's Burden

and you may comment on any them here:


McJ's picture

That picture is hilarious!

McCain looks like he is about to grab Obama's ass.
Very presidential!
laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

This comment seems to be

This comment seems to be going to the wrong post, I meant it for the debate between McKinney and Nader post. A question for you, WP: If you can imagine us busting out of the two party lock, how could you see it happening? A lot of people voted for Perot, more I think than any 3rd party candidate before. How long do you think it would take to spread populace support around? Or do you think it will never happen?

all the election-related stuff ...

I've patched all the election-related stuff on my main blog to this one comment thread; sorry for any confusion ...

As for voting ... You can vote for anybody you want, as many times as you want, but it won't change anything, because in modern America it's the people who count the votes that matter, not the people who cast them. In my opinion the main contribution made by the so-called "third party" candidates consists in their bringing important issues and forbidden viewpoints onto the national scene for just a little while, before they get swallowed up by all the nonsense...

As for "busting out of the two-party lock" ... the only way I can imagine us doing that would be by first busting out of the national media lock. But the only way I can see that happening is a complete breakdown of the national infrastructure.

People will watch TV until and unless there's no electricity available, and then they'll burn up batteries or run generators to watch it anyway. In other words, I don't expect any breakdown -- not even a decrease -- in mass media control, absent a breakdown in mass communications ... and if that happens, we're probably talking about a failed state run by warlords, in which voting would be even more irrelevant than it is now.

A hundred years ago, the

A hundred years ago, the Socialists were strong in this country, real progressives like La Follette were seen and heard.
With the the hysterical patriotic crack down on reds during and after the war, (WWI), much of the punch was removed from the left.
The "left" now is a shadow of the left which once existed.
The post WWII era brought corporate control into full sway and it has not stopped, I do not think it will be stopped until the last oil is used by the last bomber.

There will be rioting in the streets

but in defense of the election of another war-monger. Much liberal angst as they are beaten by police and arrested en masse, but religious leaders and pundits will rein in the riots, comforting them with thoughts of "electoral reform" and training for cops.

I have yet to meet a Democrat mainstream type who will even admit that the 2004 election was stolen, or that the electoral process itself is bankrupt. All the liberalists' "election protection" activities include two steps: (1) toll-free numbers to lawyers, and (2) lawyers inform people to "demand" a provisional ballot. We already know that hundreds of thousands of such provisional ballots were destroyed and/or uncounted in 2000 and 2004, and that similar numbers were illegally kept off the rolls to begin with. Yet they roll along, pretending that there is some integrity in this system, despite the billion-dollar campaigns and the Wall Street/war machine money, the fake debates and personality cults, the massive disenfranchisement of people of color, the "broken" ballot boxes and shortages of same in minority communities, and, of course, the fact that THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN OUTRIGHT. What the f***?

that's what I thought in 2004

I thought people would get out in the streets and make a big scene about the election having been stolen, but nothing of the sort occurred. Then again Obama is a bit more magnetic than Kerry so people might make a bit of a fuss ... but my question is about Obama himself: What do you think HE would do?

After the 2004 election was obviously stolen he made a comment to the effect that "there were irregularities on both sides" and that was that.

Would he do the same thing again? I wouldn't bet against it. What are his options? None of them are appealing.

Obama is a constitutional lawyer

Obama taught constitutional law and argued in front of the Supreme Court. It's hard for me to believe that he wouldn't TRY to do something -- I mean whether he actually believes in the ideal of American justice is one question by itself, but he's got his professional mojo to protect in any such case. I don't like him, personally, but I don't yet think he's a coward. I believe I'll hide and watch on this one issue.


"It may be thought that I am prejudiced. Perhaps I am. I would be ashamed of myself if I were not." Mark Twain

When did Obama argue in

When did Obama argue in front of the Supreme Court? It seems that should be more publicized than it is.

I guess I was wrong about that--

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. He was editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years -- but he never aruged in front of the Supreme Court so far as I can tell from his Wikipedia bio.

It seemed to me as I wrote that I had heard it somewhere, that he had argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I see now that was probably wrong.

Apologies. No harm intended.


"It may be thought that I am prejudiced. Perhaps I am. I would be ashamed of myself if I were not." Mark Twain

What if McCain steals the election - Hypothetically Speaking

In your scenario, what would the voters do? I think they would be visibly upset. Then Bush gets to declare a state of emergency, call out his troops (who have been recently deployed from Irag to USA for just such a situation) to help calm the domestic disturbance, suspend election results, and I think that is called a coup. Don't forget, he's been preparing - owns the banks now, has issued law that gives him unilateral power in case of domestic unrest. Oops - small error - wherever you see the name Bush, replace with Cheney, et. al.

I like your blog.

You are scaring me WP

Not three times in a row!

I'm betting that the 'lesser of evils' "O" is the designated winner.

But then the ACORN diversion could well be a psyops operation to cover up the real fraud.

And the voters won't even notice.

Without question I expect

Without question I expect huge rioting if Obama loses-especially if it's very close.
But seriously,the only time that I see Rupubs limiting voters access is when there are felons,the dead, snow white or Fred Flintstone trying to cast votes.
If the Dems consider these actions "stealing an election", then they are breathtakingly clueless.
Radical black groups such as "ACORN", their motives and actions are the true definition of vote fraud.

you couldn't be more wrong if you tried

and I'm not convinced you're not trying!


If this election does go ahead will Obama fight if he loses to the machines etc etc???? Does anyone really know who this man is.
I will say there was quite a vicous streak in the pro Obama camp during the primaries so maybe they will fight. But of course it depends what their motives were. Were the people behind the internet screen really his supporters any way. He does seem to have Wall Street backing and they might use their influence whatever that amounts to. There may even be a vote hacking war with Bush declaring a national emergency. Wall street would be capable or orchestrating such an event.
I say his hands are tied by having no legal way of challenging the results and even if he did there would be a major clamp down on any justice.
The media will simply forget he exists and screen whatever they want to tell you all. If there are riots they wont be televised. Martial law is comming and Bush/Cheney will still be squatting in your white house next year bar some happy event's like Cheney having a fatal heart attack and Bush getting a good dose of Polonium-210 . Whatever happened to that teapot?
I'm tend to think neither McCain or Obama will be crowned. The GOP selection of Sara Palin was ludicras. When that announcement was made It occured to me that they had no intention of making McCain president. This might be a truely bizzare diversion. Just goes to show what a bunch of suckers so many people are. The rest of us are just dizzy wondering what is actually going down.
The standard of your presidential debate was way above what screened here on TVNZ last week. There were no allotted speaking times and the PM eventually had to shout over the top of the opposition leader or she would have just been left there, unable to even get a word in. It certainly was not a debate in any sense and simply descended into a screaming match. And the commentary from our media was obscene. Many said John Key stood up to Clark (by not allowing her to speak)
I can tell you NZ is ripe for a Neocon revolution and I'll bet the Nats have ordered the voting machines already. They, "Kiwi Neocons" are all over our news blogs and draw salaries our Tony O'reilly Neocon owned media. They relentlessly scream tax cut and beneficiary bludgers etc etc. We are lining up to be just like ya'll only many regular kiwi's aren't aware of it. Good old kiwi blokes are being suckered into voting National because they are hoping National will put womens rights back a few decades, what they don't realise is their own rights and working conditions are also up for grabs. As for our women, most of them have no clue whats up and wouldn't believe you if you told them. Many ware working 24/7 on the double shift and don't actually get the time to read a newspapaer of even spend time on the net, so they are easily tricked.

McJ's picture

I don't believe you will see

I don't believe you will see any kind of uprising by the people if the election is stolen. They didn't the last two times. Why would they this time? They will believe whatever the MSM tells them to believe.
Obama appears to be more of a fighter than the last two Dem hopefuls but he's bought and paid for, so the decision to fight is probably not his. Who knows, maybe the big boys are in some kind of power struggle and we will get to see the candidates duke it out on the national stage.
This 'brilliant strategy' by the Obama campaign is an interesting twist.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

I tend to think it's a set up

The corporate media and polls set this up to look like an Obama landslide. When we wake up to find McCain 'won,' this time it will be too much to take for many. Yes, people didn't react the first two times; but things are much worse now. Reality has begun to truly bite. Because the theft will be so obvious, some people can be expected to snap. This will trigger the long-awaited Martial Law orders. But from there on in, it's not clear to me that the military will follow the orders.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.