U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

jbg · July 9, 2008

And yet you would defend the neocons in power who would override the constitution so the Executive Branch could exercise warrantless wiretapping. Odd.

There's a difference between war-type activities and targeting patriotic people such as John Lindsay and (former Canadian) John Kenneth Galbraith. Nixon wailed away on perceived leftists, many of whom were unquestionably loyal, good citizens. The U.S. was not built for cowards afraid of free speech. We do not, however, have to allow for seditious, warlike communications.

There is a big difference.

BubberMiley · July 9, 2008

We do not, however, have to allow for seditious, warlike communications.

But your law calls for a warrant.

jbg · July 10, 2008

But your law calls for a warrant.

Unless statutory and/or case law provides otherwise, partially correct. You need to read the actual text (link):

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What the amendment says is that the search cannot be unreasonable. Courts have construed the Fourth Amendment to express a strong preference for a warrant, and to some extent an officer is taking an unnecessary risk of proceeding without a warrant. With a warrant there is almost no chance that a search will be found to be unreasonable; without one a very good chance.

The Constitution simply does not require a warrant for searches and/or seizures.

Edited July 10, 2008 by jbg

moderateamericain · July 10, 2008

Unfortunetly he is right, However I am extremely opposed to wire taps without a warrant. Theres no way for the people to Check the government on it since its obviously secret. This could become a serious source of corruption.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2008

Unfortunetly he is right, However I am extremely opposed to wire taps without a warrant. Theres no way for the people to Check the government on it since its obviously secret. This could become a serious source of corruption.

OK...but we have to make the distinction between domestic / international intelligence gathering and prosecution by the government. Many people don't realize that the very use of public infrastructure affords them no privacy (e.g. Senator Obama just backed FISA provisions to indemnify service providers). The legal matter for citizens is that government may not be able to obtain a conviction because of the "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" absent a warrant. In practice, we actually give away more personal data/information voluntarily through transactions than the government would ever collect on their own...it is collected and packaged for sale as "market research".

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2008

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Jesse Jackson is following the script with a crude comment about Senator Obama's condescension of "blacks". Frankly, I am surprised that the black poop didn't start flying long before this; Bill Cosby sure got his share and he wasn't running for public office. Jesse (The Challenger) and Barack (The Compromiser) were sure to butt nuts...errr heads....and I guarantee we will be treated to yet another comparison between privileged "house negroes" and despised "field slaves".

Jackson's castration for Senator Obama is filled with historical imagery. The Democrats have a unique way of establishing party unity! :lol:

I wish William F. Buckley were still alive to goof on this.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102008/news/..._job_119244.htm

sharkman · July 11, 2008

I listened to several American news outlets today and heard nary a peep about Jackson's comments. Typical, not wanting to do anything to hurt Obama's chances, or defile the great Jackson. Apparently he said lots worse about Obama that Fox declined to even release.

Jackson should be sent out to pasture for this. Could you imagine if Imus had said such a thing? A lynching mob would have formed outside his studio in short order and given him the necktie treatment. But Jackson gets a pass. Pathetic.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2008

I listened to several American news outlets today and heard nary a peep about Jackson's comments. Typical, not wanting to do anything to hurt Obama's chances, or defile the great Jackson. Apparently he said lots worse about Obama that Fox declined to even release.

Jackson's comments were given #1 or #2 lead in for many media outlets, along with Iranian missile tests for the past 24 hour cycle. This includes his apology, and Congressman Jackson's (Jesse's son) criticism of his father.

Jackson should be sent out to pasture for this. Could you imagine if Imus had said such a thing? A lynching mob would have formed outside his studio in short order and given him the necktie treatment. But Jackson gets a pass. Pathetic.

This is only the beginning of stresses between old and new guard control of not only the Democratic Party, but also the so called "black leadership". Sharpton will be next.

BubberMiley · July 12, 2008

I listened to several American news outlets today and heard nary a peep about Jackson's comments. Typical, not wanting to do anything to hurt Obama's chances, or defile the great Jackson.

Typical insofar as it fits with your perception of right-wing victimhood in the corporate media, seeing as it was a lead story on all the outlets. Meanwhile, John McCain comes out with an ad saying 300 economists support his shaky economic plan and, when questioned, many of the 300 claim to not know about it, reject it, and endorse Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/m...o_n_112147.html

Seems to me if Obama came out with such a misleading ad, you'd hear about it for weeks.

SuperFreak · July 13, 2008

I listened to several American news outlets today and heard nary a peep about Jackson's comments. Typical, not wanting to do anything to hurt Obama's chances, or defile the great Jackson. Apparently he said lots worse about Obama that Fox declined to even release.
Jackson should be sent out to pasture for this. Could you imagine if Imus had said such a thing? A lynching mob would have formed outside his studio in short order and given him the necktie treatment. But Jackson gets a pass. Pathetic.

Actually I think Jessie's comments help Obama. Jessie is seen as an extreme black politican that white voters wouldn't want to elect. By critizing Obama about not respecting blacks it helps him seem more moderate and its harder to paint him as an extremeist if another extremeist critizes him.

Jessie is black and he was making comments about a black politican concerning black people. He's allowed to do that and its compleltey different than if Imus had made the same comments.

jbg · July 13, 2008

Actually I think Jessie's comments help Obama. Jessie is seen as an extreme black politican that white voters wouldn't want to elect. By critizing Obama about not respecting blacks it helps him seem more moderate and its harder to paint him as an extremeist if another extremeist critizes him.
Jessie is black and he was making comments about a black politican concerning black people. He's allowed to do that and its compleltey different than if Imus had made the same comments.

That worked with Bill Clinton and Sister Souljah. It won't work here. It will have the same impact that Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remarks had in either the 1984 or 1988 campaign (I forget which one). Further, the rift shows a lack of leadership ability on Obama's part.

BubberMiley · July 13, 2008

Further, the rift shows a lack of leadership ability on Obama's part.

Know what shows a lack of leadership ability? This.

Edited July 13, 2008 by BubberMiley

WIP · July 13, 2008

Unfortunetly he is right, However I am extremely opposed to wire taps without a warrant. Theres no way for the people to Check the government on it since its obviously secret. This could become a serious source of corruption.

Do you get an uncomfortable feeling that since Democrats and the Obama team in particular, are expecting to ride a big wave of disgust with Republicans into office this fall, that, instead of reforming the system, they are looking at how they can use the expansion of executive powers by the Bush Administration for their advantage!

GostHacked · July 13, 2008

Know what shows a lack of leadership ability? This.

That was awesome. Shows that these leaders need a queue card and a podium to make speeches. They cannot handle these questions on the fly.

'Check my voting record!!!' HAHAH McCain you should check your OWN voting record.

Viagra should not be covered.

Birth Control should be covered. Plain and simple, and the majority of people will agree that should be the case.

This is a good set up for how he handles everything else.

bush_cheney2004 · July 14, 2008

Looks like the New Yorker has found an easy way to bump up sales....Obama satire to the max! Mad Magazine couldn't have done a better job.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

August1991 · August 21, 2008

The director of a new national poll out today says it offers more proof that negative politics works.
The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey says that after several weeks of unrelenting attacks in TV ads and stump speech, John McCain has cut a 12-percentage-point gap with Barack Obama to 2. The Democrat leads 45 percent to 43 percent, but that's a statistical tie.

The poll also found that more voters believe that McCain has the experience to be president, while more than a third have concerns about Obama's patriotism.

Also, Obama's favorability rating has dropped from 59 percent in June to 48 percent, and his negative rating has risen from 27 percent to 35 percent during the same period. McCain's favorability numbers have barely shifted, according to the poll.

"All the negative attacks from the McCain campaign seem to have been paying off," Times poll Director Susan Pinkus said in the newspaper's online story.

Boston Globe

I love American politics because I love the freedom of an individual to discover.

The Boston Globe declares that Obama's polling failure (and McCain's polling success) is due to negative ads.

Let's wait and see. Ordinary Americans will decide. What a country!

----

Thread drift ahead!

If anyone around the world claims that America is an oligarchy or a false democracy, they are wrong. Obama and McCain are two very different candidates, with very different views. No one knows who will be president next year.

America is a true democracy. A tremendous amount of power and money will change hands in November, peacefully. Everyone around the world knows that America will have a President next year but no knows who it will be.

You Americans transfer power peacefully from one hand to another, often between people who strongly disagree. George W. Bush will possibly pass the White House to Barack Obama. If you are American, be proud of your country. You have achieved the most difficult task of a civilized society: The peaceful transfer of the State's power without death or violence. The UK has not achieved this, nor China, France or Russia. You Americans have done it for over two hundred years.

If you are American, be proud of your Constitution and how your politicians respect it. America is a civilized country. You transfer State power peacefully.

Edited August 21, 2008 by August1991

jbg · August 21, 2008

You Americans transfer power peacefully from one hand to another, often between people who strongly disagree. George W. Bush will possibly pass the White House to Barack Obama. If you are American, be proud of your country. You have achieved the most difficult task of a civilized society: The peaceful transfer of the State's power without death or violence. The UK has not achieved this, nor China, France or Russia. You Americans have done it for over two hundred years.
If you are American, be proud of your Constitution and how your politicians respect it. America is a civilized country. You transfer State power peacefully.

Thanks for the compliment.

Did you mean "UK"? I don't remember large amounts of violence when Major handed off to Blair, or Wilson (or whoever was PM in early 1979) to Thatcher. Or for that matter Macmillan to Wilson

August1991 · August 22, 2008

Did you mean "UK"? I don't remember large amounts of violence when Major handed off to Blair, or Wilson (or whoever was PM in early 1979) to Thatcher. Or for that matter Macmillan to Wilson

The UK is a constitutional monarchy. The head of state is the Queen and while a whole series of traditions now circumscribe her role, it remains that the State's power is not passed when one PM replaces another. In the midst of a constitutional crisis for example, the British would look to the queen for guidance.

In most countries, it is a nerve-wracking experience to pass power from one person to another. Alot of people simply don't want to give it up. Cuba is a typical case.

bush_cheney2004 · August 22, 2008

...In most countries, it is a nerve-wracking experience to pass power from one person to another. Alot of people simply don't want to give it up. Cuba is a typical case.

Your observation is particularly significant given the vast sums of monied power and special interests that wish to influence the outcome (as you described). For all their power and might, nobody knows who will be the next president.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

August 24, 2008

Dems give Michigan and Florida full voting rights

Well isn't that special. Now that everything's been decided, Michigan and Florida have full voting rights. :rolleyes:

Born Free · August 26, 2008

Dems give Michigan and Florida full voting rights
Well isn't that special. Now that everything's been decided, Michigan and Florida have full voting rights.

However, lets not forget that they did break the primary rules........

August 26, 2008

However, lets not forget that they did break the primary rules........

So why are they getting "full voting rights" now when it means absolutely nothing? It's pointless, which was my point. In other words, I can't see them breathing a sigh of relief and jumping for joy because they get a 'voice' after the decision has been made. Their primary votes meant nothing. Whether they have "full voting rights" or no voting rights at all makes no difference now.

Born Free · August 26, 2008

So why are they getting "full voting rights" now when it means absolutely nothing? It's pointless, which was my point. In other words, I can't see them breathing a sigh of relief and jumping for joy because they get a 'voice' after the decision has been made. Their primary votes meant nothing. Whether they have "full voting rights" or no voting rights at all makes no difference now.

I'd say that the voters in Michigan & Florida got their just desserts for being so flagrant. Read your story link again. You might notice the likely reason behind the move.

Democrats hope the gesture will strengthen their standing in two important battleground states while ending a contentious chapter of the nominating process.

In other words, I'd say it's the fear of Democrats in those two states voting for McCain as a backlash/protest scenario.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Born Free

August 26, 2008

I'd say that the voters in Michigan & Florida got their just desserts for being so flagrant.

If the voters in Michigan and Florida were the ones who made the decision to move their primaries up, you just might have a point.

Read your story link again. You might notice the likely reason behind the move.

No need to read my story link again because I'm saying it doesn't matter what the reasons are; it's a pointless decision.

Democrats hope the gesture will strengthen their standing in two important battleground states while ending a contentious chapter of the nominating process.
In other words, I'd say it's the fear of Democrats in those two states voting for McCain as a backlash/protest scenario.

And I'm saying I doubt whether giving them a voice when they know their voice doesn't count, when they know their votes didn't count, won't placate anyone.

Born Free · August 26, 2008

If the voters in Michigan and Florida were the ones who made the decision to move their primaries up, you just might have a point.
No need to read my story link again because I'm saying it doesn't matter what the reasons are; it's a pointless decision.

And I'm saying I doubt whether giving them a voice when they know their voice doesn't count, when they know their votes didn't count, won't placate anyone.

Its not my point. Its the point being touted in the story line. Frankly, I dont give a damn.

As mentioned before, the rules established by the DNC were quite clear on the matter. The State parties elected to ignore the rules and the DNC called their bluff. Would you expect the tail to wag the dog?