Watching the Results?
Denny Wheeler
watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
Anyone else?
(more accurately, who else?)
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Clovis Man
>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
>Anyone else?
>(more accurately, who else?)
I'll tune in when the News Hour finishes (5 minutes or so).
--
Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Tonnie
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
>Anyone else?
>(more accurately, who else?)
No US channels over here - took a look at Huffington and the msnbc
countdown.
And now it is time to sleep, almost 3 o'clock.
(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
popular vote? Why not just use the popular vote like it is done
everywhere a.f.a.i.k. ? I really understand less of your system every
day...)
Goodnight ;o)
--
"He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, still dead."
Rowan Hawthorn
> It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> Anyone else?
> (more accurately, who else?)
Me. I have a small TV on the back corner of my desk so I can
watch/listen while I'm working, and for once I haven't changed channels
(Nothing else on tonight, anyway.)
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Denny Wheeler
<georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>
>>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>>(more accurately, who else?)
>
>I'll tune in when the News Hour finishes (5 minutes or so).
There are several 'live' maps online.
I have a number of 'em open:
electoral-vote.com
one from the Belfast Telegraph
CNN
and maybe the best, NPR.
Sean Cleary
I contributed slightly more than $8 to his campaign.
Follow the results by using the bottom of this page:
http://www.kssos.org/ent/johnson.html
Sean
Wes Struebing
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
>Anyone else?
>(more accurately, who else?)
>
You bet.
(and Obama has won both Penn. & Ohio) And New Mexico.
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Saint Shaffer
> watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
... who else?)
>
I've been so nervous about terrible surprises in this vote, awe're glued
to the tube here
in what a friend calls the "Specific Time Zone."
Emailed an old chum that while we wait and watch, the youngster who
spends one night a week here is using a game website that required him
to put in a password.
"How do you spend roffelmauow?" he inquired.
We looked at each other, then the kid, and finally worked out that the
keyword he needed was ROFLMAO. Seems odd, having to spell it out.
Still, when my daughter arrived at college seven years go she met a
roommate who in moments of amusement would say "LOL," as if it were a
regular word, rhymed with stall or doll.
Since I'm also at the laptop skimming vote stories, I sent the story to
a friend, who responds:
I'm taking the traditional Christmas approach to the elections: I'm not
watching news tonight, so I'll wake up tomorrow and be eager to find out
what Santa left under the tree: Barack or John. If it's not Barack, I'm
not leaving cookies and milk out next time.
How many more votes do you suppose he'd get if his name was O'Bama?
My response to the friend, of course: ROFFELMAUOW!
Erin
wrote:
> It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> Anyone else?
> (more accurately, who else?)
Eye yam, eye yam. I'm in my PJs, curled on the sofa, laptop on (to
the sites mentioned elsethread, plus www.pollster.com and facebook)
with my son and both dogs and a plate of crackers and cheese (carbs be
damned tonight -- either way, I'll need them -- either as comfort or
celebration!). I've got my Obama t-shirt to wear tomorrow (under a
sweater -- we're not allowed to wear political garb in the
classroom).
I'm repeating to myself, "you may not gloat, you may not gloat, you
may not gloat...". I have to be nice and I have to be the bigger,
more mature person. I have to work with her brother...I work with her
brother...be nice...
I won't relax about it until we're a year into his presidency :-)
Erin
Sean Cleary
> On Nov 4, 4:32 pm, Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> > It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> > watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> > So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> > Anyone else?
> > (more accurately, who else?)
>
> Eye yam, eye yam. I'm in my PJs, curled on the sofa, laptop on (to
> with my son and both dogs and a plate of crackers and cheese (carbs be
> damned tonight -- either way, I'll need them -- either as comfort or
> celebration!). I've got my Obama t-shirt to wear tomorrow (under a
> sweater -- we're not allowed to wear political garb in the
> classroom).
>
> I'm repeating to myself, "you may not gloat, you may not gloat, you
> may not gloat...". I have to be nice and I have to be the bigger,
> more mature person. I have to work with her brother...I work with her
> brother...be nice...
>
> I won't relax about it until we're a year into his presidency :-)
>
> Erin
With the lost of the north (PA, OH, as well as NY, IA, NM, MN, Wi,
and the whole north east)
McCain needs California
And he will not get it.
if the results go the way they are predicted,
Obama has just unofficially won.
Captain Jack
news:3qt1h4hvtqegrngcm...@4ax.com:
> It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> Anyone else?
> (more accurately, who else?)
>
> -denny-
Of course.
It's kind of like running your car off the road in the mountains- You know
the impact at the bottom is coming, you know it's going to hurt, and you
can't do anything about it at this point, but you can't close your eyes,
either.
For the record, the last Democrat I supported as President got his head
blown off in Dallas in 1963. I wish Mr.Obama better luck, for the sake of
the country. The only thing that concerns me more than President Obama is
the idea of "President Biden".
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go drape a black ribbon around the flag
on the wall and find that bottle of Bushmills...
The Cap'n
Kathy Fitz
Wait, what? What about Xkcd? I didn't know about that!
--Kathy, watching CNN's cool toys on the TV and msn.com on the
computer.
Clovis Man
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>
>>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>>(more accurately, who else?)
>>
>You bet.
>
>(and Obama has won both Penn. & Ohio) And New Mexico.
The New Mexico vote is following the exit poll projections.
Currently 55% Obama, 44% McCain with 1/3 of the precincts
reporting.
Yahoo/AP has the electoral vote race projected as Obama: 324,
McCain 124.
Rep. (now Senator-Elect) Tom Udall (D) is doing his acceptance
speech on KOB-TV. He's replacing Sen. Pete Domineci (R), who is
retiring for health reasons.
--
Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
"New! Do-it-yourself autopsy kits! Be the first on your block to get one!"
(Stolen with pride from alt.folklore.urban)
Sean Cleary
He is listed in the contest for state rep district 15 fyi.
Sean
Sean Cleary
Google has just added in CA, OR, WA as expected, FL and VA as not
really for sure expected.
Obama projected to have (over) 324 votes.
Sean Cleary
And all others, either with california added or not, will total over
270 with california.
So I am going off to play somewhere else,
But thank you for being there.
Sean
Erin
> On Nov 4, 4:32 pm, Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> > It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> > watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> > So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> > Anyone else?
> > (more accurately, who else?)
>
> Eye yam, eye yam. I'm in my PJs, curled on the sofa, laptop on (to
> with my son and both dogs and a plate of crackers and cheese (carbs be
> damned tonight -- either way, I'll need them -- either as comfort or
> celebration!). I've got my Obama t-shirt to wear tomorrow (under a
> sweater -- we're not allowed to wear political garb in the
> classroom).
>
> I'm repeating to myself, "you may not gloat, you may not gloat, you
> may not gloat...". I have to be nice and I have to be the bigger,
> more mature person. I have to work with her brother...I work with her
> brother...be nice...
>
> I won't relax about it until we're a year into his presidency :-)
>
> Erin
So, now that it's official, I STILL can't gloat...dang, being the
bigger person stinks :-)
I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
Desideria
*chortle*!!! (something most of us don't have to deal with...)
Desideria
Larisa
> On Nov 4, 4:32 pm, Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> > It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
> > watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
> > So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
> > Anyone else?
> > (more accurately, who else?)
>
> Eye yam, eye yam. I'm in my PJs, curled on the sofa, laptop on (to
> with my son and both dogs and a plate of crackers and cheese (carbs be
> damned tonight -- either way, I'll need them -- either as comfort or
> celebration!). I've got my Obama t-shirt to wear tomorrow (under a
> sweater -- we're not allowed to wear political garb in the
> classroom).
>
> I'm repeating to myself, "you may not gloat, you may not gloat, you
> may not gloat...". I have to be nice and I have to be the bigger,
> more mature person. I have to work with her brother...I work with her
> brother...be nice...
>
> I won't relax about it until we're a year into his presidency :-)
>
> Erin
I've been following the Google electoral map while on the phone with a
friend of mine in California who is watching the election on TV. And
no, I'm not relaxed yet either. What happened in 2000 and 2004 is
making me heartily paranoid.
LM
John W. Vinson
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>
>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>
>Anyone else?
>(more accurately, who else?)
>
>-denny-
I've been watching the PBS News coverage since 7 (MST). Impressive.
I just heard McCain's concession speech. I'll need to think about it but I was
very impressed with his grace in defeat, his willingness to support Obama, and
his hushing of the boos from the crowd. Really admirable!
--
John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com
Erin
wrote:
My son and I just said the same thing -- "that's the best speech I've
heard him give during the entire campaign."
John W. Vinson
>(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
>popular vote?
It could theoretically, but in practice it won't (can't) happen. Most states
are "winner take all" so if (say) Iowa goes 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain,
all of its electoral college votes go for Obama; this can (and has) lead to
minority candidates getting elected - but it is NOT a question of the
Electoral College voting against the will of the people.
Clovis Man
>On Nov 4, 7:33 pm, John W. Vinson <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
>> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>> >It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>> >watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>
>> >So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>
>> >Anyone else?
>> >(more accurately, who else?)
>>
>>
>> I just heard McCain's concession speech. I'll need to think about it but I was
>> very impressed with his grace in defeat, his willingness to support Obama, and
>> his hushing of the boos from the crowd. Really admirable!
>
>My son and I just said the same thing -- "that's the best speech I've
>heard him give during the entire campaign."
If he'd only done that *during* the campaign.
--
Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
Saint Shaffer
>
> For the record, the last Democrat I supported as President got his head
> blown off in Dallas in 1963.
Supported?
Dear, you were in kindergarten that year.
Sean Cleary
google xkcd kansas political race
or some such, xkcd kansas might be enough.
Fun stuff.
And real politics.
Los Angeles times carried an article on the guy, and may have
substantially contributed to his publicity and there by to his funds.
He is losing by about 50 votes with less than 5% of the votes in.
sean
Sean Cleary
amend that to lost:
D-Sean Tevis 4839 48% 4839 48%
R-Arlen H. Siegfreid 5264 52% 5264 52%
And for the poster above who supported Kennedy even if he could not
vote,
Obama does have a higher chance of being assassinated then most
presidents.
The bigots might still try.
Sean
Leigh Claffey
The bigots have already tried (stopped in the planning stages. both times).
--Leigh
Captain Jack
You don't have to be a registered voter to support someone, Dear.
And I was in first grade, not Kindergarten. I still remember vividly
hearing the news that someone had shot the President. I couldn't
understand why anyone would DO such a thing.
The fact still remains that I haven't *approved* of any President
between John Kennedy and George W. Bush. Granted, Bush has been quite a
dissapointment, but I approved of him wholeheartedly just after he was
first elected. My opinion of Bush didn't really start to cool off until
about two years ago.
As for the chances of an assasination attempt on Obama, I think it's
quite likely someone will *try*. I'd bet heavily against their chances
of success, however. Heck, if I wasn't way too old and out of shape,
I'd personally volunteer to be in Obama's Secret Service detail- as I
said before, the LAST thing I want is for Joe Biden to be sworn in as
President.
(pushes away soapbox)
OK, that's enough. What's done is done. I refuse to sink to the level
of those who screamed and moaned about Bush's election...and
re-election. It's time to sit back and see what America has voted for
itself.
To the future! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< CRASH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Cap'n
Beth Jackson
John (Wysard) Vinson:
><snip>
>I just heard
>McCain's concession speech.
("_Con_cession"..! Yes, thank you, John! --*That* was the word that
eluded me earlier this evening!!
<razzafrazza'd mental thesaurus!;>)
>I'll need to think about it
>but I was very impressed
>with his grace in defeat,
Boy, *I'll* say..!
>his willingness
>to support Obama,
>and his hushing of the boos
>from the crowd.
>Really admirable!
Yes. *Definitely.*
<respectful assertive nod>
And with that speech, imo, he makes *both* of them seem like more
intelligent, gentlemanly, and each "his own man & capable of thinking
mostly for himself -- rather than have someone else do it" guys than
I've seen *near* the "White-House possibility" in the last few *years*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Canvas Canary"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I love to paint, sing, am blonde & a bit flighty:)
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/canvascanary
*****************************
"Creative minds are seldom tidy." --Anon.
*****************************
"I'm out of bed, and dressed;
what more do you want?!" --Anon.
D.J.
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
]It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
]watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
]
]So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
]
]Anyone else?
](more accurately, who else?)
Nope, I had to get up early, so I went to bed rather than watch.
D.J.
--
http://star.drivein-jim.net/ Starship deck plans
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ Oct, 2008 AD&D pages
Tonnie
<jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:04:52 +0100, Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
>>popular vote?
>
>It could theoretically, but in practice it won't (can't) happen. Most states
>are "winner take all" so if (say) Iowa goes 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain,
>all of its electoral college votes go for Obama; this can (and has) lead to
>minority candidates getting elected - but it is NOT a question of the
>Electoral College voting against the will of the people.
Thanks John - but I have 1 other question. Al Gore won the popular
vote in 2000, yet Bush won the election. If you can explain that to me
I will be perfectly happy and offer you all the drinks and noshes
(with Dutch cheese) that you'd want ;o)))
--
The lonely one offers his hand too quickly to whomever he
encounters. Friedrich Nietszche
Tonnie
<georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>Erin <karen...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 4, 7:33 pm, John W. Vinson <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
>>> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>> >It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>> >watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>>
>>> >So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>>
>>> >Anyone else?
>>> >(more accurately, who else?)
>>>
>>> I've been watching the PBS News coverage since 7 (MST). Impressive.
>>>
>>> I just heard McCain's concession speech. I'll need to think about it but I was
>>> very impressed with his grace in defeat, his willingness to support Obama, and
>>> his hushing of the boos from the crowd. Really admirable!
>>
>>My son and I just said the same thing -- "that's the best speech I've
>>heard him give during the entire campaign."
>
>If he'd only done that *during* the campaign.
Personnally I am glad he didn't ;o))
--
Never try to outstubborn a cat. Robert A. Heinlein
Cindy Wells
news:dbu2h4lo17db2o1m0...@4ax.com:
<snip>
>
> Thanks John - but I have 1 other question. Al Gore won the popular
> vote in 2000, yet Bush won the election. If you can explain that to me
> I will be perfectly happy and offer you all the drinks and noshes
> (with Dutch cheese) that you'd want ;o)))
>
Bush won on the electoral college level (once Florida got through the
courts) by winning more of the "winner take all" states with a high
population (thus higher number of electoral votes). That's why it took
until the courts got through trying to determine what was up with the
chads on the ballots in Florida - those electoral college votes were
significant in the otherwise close race.
Cindy Wells
Kevin Ahearn
Keep in mind that no US President has been assassinated since 1963.
And no presidential assassination attempt has been anywhere close to
successful since 1981. These days, the President doesn't go anywhere
until the entire area's been inspected down to the last corner.
So, yeah, there'll be plenty of nutjob klansmen and white
supremacists and what have you willing to take a shot at Senator
Obama. But I don't think there's any reason to believe that anyone
will be successful at it.
--Kevin
Tonnie
Thanks Cindy - so this time we don't need to worry, it wasn't a close
race at all <g>
Ok, sigh of relief here. Can I offer you a drink and some Dutch
cheese? ;o)
--
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
(Buddha.)
John W. Vinson
It's for the same reason that Obama got 52% of the popular vote, but won the
electoral vote by 349 to 163 (not complete, there are two states still
counting votes). Since the winner in a state gets ALL of that state's votes,
no matter how close the win, it's not uncommon for such anomalies to happen.
Just for example, suppose a candidate won 98% of the vote in the ten biggest
population states in the country - and lost by 51-49 margins in the other
forty states. They'd have a huge majority in the popular vote, but would lose
the election since they only won ten states. The electoral votes are roughly
in proportion to the state's population but that doesn't prevent anomalies!
Jette
>
>
> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
0mn1vore
> Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
> (Buddha.)
C is for cookie.
That's good enough for me.
-- Cookie Monster
Thanks. I have nothing to say about your post, but the .sig brought a
smile to my face. :-)
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
That should probably be written:
no !@#$%^&*:@!semicolon
-- Larry Wall in <1997101618...@wall.org>
Two meter troll
>
> - Show quoted text -
i would not be to sure of his safety these days. in 1981 we lost a man
and we didnt have to much new oridinance. now the shooter dont have to
be within 2 miles of the target. I am never going to assume a
president is safe. but frankly i think that the vulerability is one of
the best things for the highest office in the land i wish there was
more of it. sometimes there are reasions for removing a person of
power by force. the reminder to that person of power that s/he is
still vulnerable is a valuable thing.
When i send a man to do something of great risk and his sucess or
failer to do that task impacts my survival it makes me take fewer
risks.
Tonnie
wrote:
>In <7ek3h45tcq4kb00k0...@4ax.com> Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:03:16 +0100, Tonnie said:
>
>> Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
>> (Buddha.)
>
>C is for cookie.
>That's good enough for me.
> -- Cookie Monster
>
>Thanks. I have nothing to say about your post, but the .sig brought a
>smile to my face. :-)
That is a good thing ;o)
Thanks for telling me (it is one of my favourites btw, and Kahlil
Gibran of course)
Tonnie
Thank you! I do my best to understand it, I really do.
P.S. you didn't tell me what you want to drink and/or snack ;o)
--
"He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, still dead."
John W. Vinson
>>Just for example, suppose a candidate won 98% of the vote in the ten biggest
>>population states in the country - and lost by 51-49 margins in the other
>>forty states. They'd have a huge majority in the popular vote, but would lose
>>the election since they only won ten states. The electoral votes are roughly
>>in proportion to the state's population but that doesn't prevent anomalies!
>
>Thank you! I do my best to understand it, I really do.
>P.S. you didn't tell me what you want to drink and/or snack ;o)
A cup of good coffee would be nice... thank you!
Chris Zakes
caused Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> to write:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>
>>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>>(more accurately, who else?)
>
>No US channels over here - took a look at Huffington and the msnbc
>countdown.
>And now it is time to sleep, almost 3 o'clock.
>
>(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
>popular vote? Why not just use the popular vote like it is done
>everywhere a.f.a.i.k. ? I really understand less of your system every
>day...)
>
>Goodnight ;o)
The electoral college can't *overrule* the popular vote, but their
votes go on a state-by-state basis. Occasionally--as others have
described--you get a situation where the overall popular vote goes one
way but the electoral vote goes the other way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College for more details.
People have been grumbling about it for years (usually right after
their candidate loses a close election) but so far, nobody has made a
serious attempt to change the system.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
A politician may be distinguished from a statesman in that the former is,
unfortunately, not dead.
Adapted from "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce
Chris Zakes
caused Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com> to write:
>Erin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>
>Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
<shrug> That's unsurprising. McCain was *not* their preferred choice,
after all. Go look at comments about him compared to other Republican
candidates from a year ago. As Republicans go, he's pretty liberal.
Sure, once he secured the nomination, most of them sucked it up and
voted for him anyway, but it's hardly surprising to hear
Monday-morning quarterback comments now.
Had Obama lost, you'd probably be hearing similar comments from the
Democrats.
Joyce of Pendle
> Tonnie wrote:
> >Thanks John - but I have 1 other question. Al Gore won the
> >popular vote in 2000, yet Bush won the election. If you can
> >explain that to me I will be perfectly happy and offer you all
> >the drinks and noshes (with Dutch cheese) that you'd want ;o)))
> It's for the same reason that Obama got 52% of the popular vote,
> but won the electoral vote by 349 to 163 (not complete, there are
> two states still counting votes). Since the winner in a state
> gets ALL of that state's votes, no matter how close the win, it's
> not uncommon for such anomalies to happen.
> Just for example, suppose a candidate won 98% of the vote in the
> ten biggest population states in the country - and lost by 51-49
> margins in the other forty states. They'd have a huge majority in
> the popular vote, but would lose the election since they only won
> ten states. The electoral votes are roughly in proportion to the
> state's population but that doesn't prevent anomalies!
It is just like a Parliamentary election (in Britain): the party
with most MP gets its man in as Prime Minister.
I know the Netherlands has a Queen, but how much power does she
have and who does the work?
--
Joyce of Pendle (surprised at how clueless she is about Europe).
--
"The spear in the Other's heart is in your own: you are he." -- Surak
http://www.flickr.com/photos/araqnid/
pendle atte boulsworth dotco_dotuk
Tonnie
wrote:
>The electoral college can't *overrule* the popular vote, but their
>votes go on a state-by-state basis. Occasionally--as others have
>described--you get a situation where the overall popular vote goes one
>way but the electoral vote goes the other way.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College for more details.
>
>People have been grumbling about it for years (usually right after
>their candidate loses a close election) but so far, nobody has made a
>serious attempt to change the system.
Thanks Chris, you all have been very helpful in explaining this (imho)
silly system <eg>
Can I offer you a drink and some Dutch cheese as well?
--
However long the night, the dawn will break. African Proverb
Tonnie
<pen...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>It is just like a Parliamentary election (in Britain): the party
>with most MP gets its man in as Prime Minister.
>
>I know the Netherlands has a Queen, but how much power does she
>have and who does the work?
Pfffttt.... difficult to explain if I cannot do it in Dutch. This is
from Wikipedia:
As queen, Beatrix wields more power than most of Europe’s reigning
monarchs. In domestic matters, she has little political say; however,
in international relations, the queen has much more latitude. It was
once reported that she threatened to dismiss a cabinet minister if he
turned down her request to open a Dutch embassy in Jordan.
=================
The Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy, and parliament therefore
has the last word. We have an elected government and a head of state,
Queen Beatrix.
The directly elected House of Representatives and indirectly elected
Senate together constitute the legislative assembly or parliament. The
House of Representatives is the more powerful of the two. This is
where government coalitions are formed and collapse, and where
ministers must come to defend their policies. No minister or
government can survive a vote of no confidence in the House of
Representatives.
(This was a copy/paste, too hard to explain in English <g>)
If you are interested (but why would you ;o)) you can read it here:
http://www.overheid.nl/english/aboutgov/government/centralgovernment
--
When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show.. When
you're born in America, you get a front-row seat. George Carlin.
Cindy Wells
news:7ek3h45tcq4kb00k0...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> Thanks Cindy - so this time we don't need to worry, it wasn't a close
> race at all <g>
> Ok, sigh of relief here. Can I offer you a drink and some Dutch
> cheese? ;o)
>
You're welcome. Just water for me; I don't want to try the cheese today,
my day put me too close to too many other migraine triggers to try any
new foods.
Cindy Wells
(thunderstorms approaching and I spent the day in a lab with bad
fluorescent lights (flickering bulbs are worse than dead ones). This
workspace had both.)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Erin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>
>Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
But, but...it worked before...!
<grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
That said - the USA made real history, last night.
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Wes Struebing
<jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>
>>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>>(more accurately, who else?)
>>
>>-denny-
>
>I've been watching the PBS News coverage since 7 (MST). Impressive.
>
>I just heard McCain's concession speech. I'll need to think about it but I was
>very impressed with his grace in defeat, his willingness to support Obama, and
>his hushing of the boos from the crowd. Really admirable!
As I said in other places, that was the McCain I remember from 'way
back when. And where was THIS McCain during the campaign?
Wes Struebing
Jackson) wrote:
>
>John (Wysard) Vinson:
>
>><snip>
>>I just heard
>>McCain's concession speech.
>
>("_Con_cession"..! Yes, thank you, John! --*That* was the word that
>eluded me earlier this evening!!
><razzafrazza'd mental thesaurus!;>)
>
>>I'll need to think about it
>>but I was very impressed
>>with his grace in defeat,
>
>Boy, *I'll* say..!
>
>>his willingness
>>to support Obama,
>>and his hushing of the boos
>>from the crowd.
>>Really admirable!
>
>Yes. *Definitely.*
><respectful assertive nod>
>
>And with that speech, imo, he makes *both* of them seem like more
>intelligent, gentlemanly, and each "his own man & capable of thinking
>mostly for himself -- rather than have someone else do it" guys than
>I've seen *near* the "White-House possibility" in the last few *years*.
>
Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but I was reading someplace
that TPTB wanted Palin to "say a few words" during the concession -
and McCain told them NO WAY! in no uncertain terms.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:36:04 -0700, John W. Vinson
Tonnie, (dear brat! <grin>), google "electoral college history", and
learn more about the institution than you'd ever want to know.
IMHO, it is more a vestige, anymore but there were (somewhat) sound
reasons for setting it up in the first place.
(oh, and it all depends - in close races - who wins the larger states
when assigning electoral college "votes". Oh, and the 270 "magic
number" is because there are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; 100
(to match the number of US senators, apportioned two per state), 435
(to match the number of representatives, apportioned by population of
a state) and three electors from the District of Columbia (which is
not part of ANY state; it is a Federal District). So, half would be
269; 270 assures a majority.
Wes Struebing
<jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:49:04 +0100, Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:36:04 -0700, John W. Vinson
>><jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:04:52 +0100, Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
>>>>popular vote?
>>>
>>>It could theoretically, but in practice it won't (can't) happen. Most states
>>>are "winner take all" so if (say) Iowa goes 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain,
>>>all of its electoral college votes go for Obama; this can (and has) lead to
>>>minority candidates getting elected - but it is NOT a question of the
>>>Electoral College voting against the will of the people.
>>
>>Thanks John - but I have 1 other question. Al Gore won the popular
>>vote in 2000, yet Bush won the election. If you can explain that to me
>>I will be perfectly happy and offer you all the drinks and noshes
>>(with Dutch cheese) that you'd want ;o)))
>
>It's for the same reason that Obama got 52% of the popular vote, but won the
>electoral vote by 349 to 163 (not complete, there are two states still
>counting votes). Since the winner in a state gets ALL of that state's votes,
>no matter how close the win, it's not uncommon for such anomalies to happen.
Not entirely, wys. Nebraska (and Maine) use proportional
determination. They are, however, the only states which do.
>
>Just for example, suppose a candidate won 98% of the vote in the ten biggest
>population states in the country - and lost by 51-49 margins in the other
>forty states. They'd have a huge majority in the popular vote, but would lose
>the election since they only won ten states. The electoral votes are roughly
>in proportion to the state's population but that doesn't prevent anomalies!
Got it in one!
Tonnie
<lcwel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> wrote in
>news:7ek3h45tcq4kb00k0...@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>
>> Thanks Cindy - so this time we don't need to worry, it wasn't a close
>> race at all <g>
>> Ok, sigh of relief here. Can I offer you a drink and some Dutch
>> cheese? ;o)
>>
>
>You're welcome. Just water for me; I don't want to try the cheese today,
>my day put me too close to too many other migraine triggers to try any
>new foods.
>
our water is very good ;o)
Sorry that you feel bad, hopefully it will pass soon.
--
Most people with low self-esteem have earned it. George Carlin.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:04:52 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tonnie <ton...@NOgmail.com> to write:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:32:36 -0800, Denny Wheeler
>><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>It's early--just a hair past 5:30 Pacific (8:30 Eastern) time--but I'm
>>>watching the election results avidly for the first time in many years.
>>>
>>>So far I've seen not much surprising, but then it is early.
>>>
>>>Anyone else?
>>>(more accurately, who else?)
>>
>>No US channels over here - took a look at Huffington and the msnbc
>>countdown.
>>And now it is time to sleep, almost 3 o'clock.
>>
>>(Btw what use it is to vote, if the Electoral college can overrule the
>>popular vote? Why not just use the popular vote like it is done
>>everywhere a.f.a.i.k. ? I really understand less of your system every
>>day...)
>>
>>Goodnight ;o)
>
>The electoral college can't *overrule* the popular vote, but their
>votes go on a state-by-state basis. Occasionally--as others have
>described--you get a situation where the overall popular vote goes one
>way but the electoral vote goes the other way.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College for more details.
>
However the electors are not BOUND to vote the way their state went.
(in reality, almost never have they not, though)
Joyce of Pendle
> Joyce of Pendle wrote:
> >It is just like a Parliamentary election (in Britain): the party
> >with most MP gets its man in as Prime Minister.
> >
> >I know the Netherlands has a Queen, but how much power does she
> >have and who does the work?
> Pfffttt.... difficult to explain if I cannot do it in Dutch.
Sorry, politics is hard enough to understand in ones native
language. :((
> This is from Wikipedia:
> As queen, Beatrix wields more power than most of Europe+IBk-s
> reigning monarchs. In domestic matters, she has little political
> say; however, in international relations, the queen has much more
> latitude. It was once reported that she threatened to dismiss a
> cabinet minister if he turned down her request to open a Dutch
> embassy in Jordan.
> =================
> The Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy, and parliament
> therefore has the last word. We have an elected government and a
> head of state, Queen Beatrix.
> The directly elected House of Representatives and indirectly
> elected Senate together constitute the legislative assembly or
> parliament. The House of Representatives is the more powerful of
> the two. This is where government coalitions are formed and
> collapse, and where ministers must come to defend their policies.
> No minister or government can survive a vote of no confidence in
> the House of Representatives.
> (This was a copy/paste, too hard to explain in English <g>)
> If you are interested (but why would you ;o)) you can read it
> here:
http://www.overheid.nl/english/aboutgov/government/centralgovernment
That's fascinating! So when you vote, you vote for the person you
want to be prime minister, or someone you want to have in
parliament, and the popular vote really does decide the winner.
I'll have to bring this to the attention of the Liberal Democrats,
who always get fewer seats than their share of the vote. The
British system favours a two-party system, by making it very hard
for a third party to get any seats, as does the US system.
I lived my first 21 years in the US, but I don't *really* understand
it. :-(
Thank you!
--
Joyce of Pendle.
Chris Zakes
caused Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> to write:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:05 GMT, Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Erin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>>
>>Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>>campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>>should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
>
>But, but...it worked before...!
>
><grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
>though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
>are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
Like the lady I heard on the radio, saying that if Obama got elected,
she wouldn't have to worry about her mortgage payments or gas prices
any more?
Cindy Wells
news:fqk4h49d676vh4e3l...@4ax.com:
<snip>
.
>>
> our water is very good ;o)
> Sorry that you feel bad, hopefully it will pass soon.
>
By morning I'll probably be fine. It's just tonight that will be a bit
rough.
Cindy Wells
Canth
IIRC, a New Zealander successfully built a Cruise missile from
commercially available parts & published his results on the Internet.
If you want to go big, something like that could be very effective.
Denny Wheeler
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but I was reading someplace
>that TPTB wanted Palin to "say a few words" during the concession -
>and McCain told them NO WAY! in no uncertain terms.
I really hope she'll now fade back into the obscurity she so richly
deserves. Probably won't, though. Which is good for Tina Fey.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Tonnie
<pen...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>That's fascinating! So when you vote, you vote for the person you
>want to be prime minister, or someone you want to have in
>parliament, and the popular vote really does decide the winner.
True. First you decide wich party you like (for me it was Green Left
<g> and from that list you can choose anyone you like, you don't need
to vote for the nr. 1. The biggest party will provide the prime
minister.
>I'll have to bring this to the attention of the Liberal Democrats,
>who always get fewer seats than their share of the vote. The
>British system favours a two-party system, by making it very hard
>for a third party to get any seats, as does the US system.
We do have a lot of parties, watch this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands
>I lived my first 21 years in the US, but I don't *really* understand
>it. :-(
<Sigh of relief, again> ;o))
>Thank you!
You're welcome ;o)
--
Some people have one of those days. I have one of those lives.
Tonnie
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>Tonnie, (dear brat! <grin>),
Pffftttt... thanks? ;o))
>google "electoral college history", and
>learn more about the institution than you'd ever want to know.
I know I know, but it is so much nicer when you guys explain it to me
;o) Gives me a chance to throw around drinks and Dutch cheese as well.
Thanks Wes! BOYC? Cheese? ;o)))
--
It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but
to create him. Arthur C. Clarke
MargW
I think it is a shame that McCain wasn't the republican candidate in the
2000 election. I think he would have made a good President, certainly
much better than Bush. The negative campaign and just plain smear
tactics that the Bushites used against him in North Carolina made sure
he wouldn't be the GOP candidate.
He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
whom the country was ready.
MargW
LJ Wolfe
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:44:03 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> The electoral college can't *overrule* the popular vote, but their
>> votes go on a state-by-state basis. Occasionally--as others have
>> described--you get a situation where the overall popular vote goes one
>> way but the electoral vote goes the other way.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College for more details.
>>
> However the electors are not BOUND to vote the way their state went.
> (in reality, almost never have they not, though)
I think in some states they are legally required to vote the way the state
(or part thereof for Nebraska and Maine) goes, but I'm pretty sure that
doesn't apply to all states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector
I remember hearing a story about one elector some decades back casting his
vote for Notre Dame's football coach, but since I can't find any reference
to it I'm going to class it as an urban legend (unless someone else's
google-fu proves stronger than mine *g*).
Morgan /|\
LJ Wolfe
<den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:04:36 -0700, Wes Struebing
> <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>> Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but I was reading someplace
>> that TPTB wanted Palin to "say a few words" during the concession -
>> and McCain told them NO WAY! in no uncertain terms.
>
> I really hope she'll now fade back into the obscurity she so richly
> deserves. Probably won't, though. Which is good for Tina Fey.
>
> -denny-
Actually, as I understand it Tina Fey would very much like Sarah Palin to
fade away, for political reasons as well as so she doesn't have to do her
anymore.
Ah, found the reference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/tina-fey-on-sarah-palin-i_n_134188.html
"If she wins, I'm done. I can't do that for four years."
Morgan /|\
Jette
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:57:04 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> to write:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:05 GMT, Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Erin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>>>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>>> Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>>> campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>>> should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
>> But, but...it worked before...!
>>
>> <grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
>> though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
>> are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
>
> Like the lady I heard on the radio, saying that if Obama got elected,
> she wouldn't have to worry about her mortgage payments or gas prices
> any more?
>
Blimey - he's President, not The Second Coming!
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Clovis Man
>I think it is a shame that McCain wasn't the republican candidate in the
>2000 election. I think he would have made a good President, certainly
>much better than Bush.
I agree with you, but better than Bush 43 is a far too easy a
goal. I had a lot more respect for McCain as maverick in 2000,
but I'm not sure how well he would have done against Gore. McCain
was knocked out of the 2000 race far too early to be vetted in
the way he was during this campaign.
He'd also have had to drag the right wing of the GOP to the
center, kicking and screaming all the way. That could have split
the party between the right wing social conservatives an the more
moderate Rockefeller republicans.
If he had won in 2000 (long odds, but possible), he would have
needed a VP who could wrangle Congress (think herding cats^100)
and fill in the gaps in his experience (economics and domestic
policy).
>The negative campaign and just plain smear tactics that the
>Bushites used against him in North Carolina made sure
>he wouldn't be the GOP candidate.
If God is an iron... Hiring the same man (Karl Rove) who
torpedoed his 2000 campaign.
>He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
>and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
>whom the country was ready.
You, me and a many other people. It may just be me, but I hear
something of JFK in Obama. I kept expecting to hear "ask not
what your country can do for you..." in his acceptance speech. In
the inaugural, perhaps?
--
Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Denny Wheeler
<georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>>He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
>>and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
>>whom the country was ready.
>
>You, me and a many other people. It may just be me, but I hear
>something of JFK in Obama. I kept expecting to hear "ask not
>what your country can do for you..." in his acceptance speech. In
>the inaugural, perhaps?
I doubt it, unless he specifically states he's quoting JFK. We *will*
hear, I suspect, a lot of "Yes, we can!"
(which I rather like)
Leigh Claffey
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:01:43 -0700, Clovis Man
> <georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>
>>> He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
>>> and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
>>> whom the country was ready.
>> You, me and a many other people. It may just be me, but I hear
>> something of JFK in Obama. I kept expecting to hear "ask not
>> what your country can do for you..." in his acceptance speech. In
>> the inaugural, perhaps?
>
> I doubt it, unless he specifically states he's quoting JFK. We *will*
> hear, I suspect, a lot of "Yes, we can!"
> (which I rather like)
>
> -denny-
Funny, I was hearing echoes of Churchill.... the whole blood toil sweat
and tears part of
one of his speeches
Here's a link to the speech in question.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/churchill.htm
the salient bit I'm referring to is really only a couple of disjointed
lines in a speech that otherwise basically
lifts the middle finger at Hitler....(or rather the two finger salute
since he is English)
"I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this
government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us
many, many months of struggle and suffering."
(...)
"I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will
not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at
this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go
forward together with our united strength."
Granted, this time we're talking about 2 wars we pretty much started
(or, if you prefer, 1 war we didn't exactly start but we sure have
completely f-d up (Afghanistan)
and one war we started on the basis of lies, lies and damned lies (Iraq))
and a financial crisis into which we're dragging the rest of the world,
but the situation is remarkably the same.
Only the details are different:
previous administration totally screwed the pooch damned near every way
possible
and the new guy has to come in and fix it and knows it's going to be
uphill...both ways...knee deep in snow...barefoot...carrying a 100lb
field pack...
to get us past this.
And of course there is always FDRs 'Fear Itself' speech
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
which actually is closer to the situation, but doesn't have the same
flavor as Obama was
giving his speech (the parts addressing the difficult road ahead) as
Churchill's words.
Currently thinking that somebody needs to incise on the wall over the
fireplace in the Oval Office
the words: "NEVER START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!" exactly where the POTUS
can see it every time he
looks up from his desk and make it a standing rule that they can't cover
it up...
--Leigh
David
<lcla...@comcast.net> typed:
I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
subjugated by an invader.
--
David
No email replies please.
The holy passion of Friendship is of so sweet and steady and loyal and
enduring a nature that it will last through a whole lifetime, if not
asked to lend money. |-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Leigh Claffey
> [Default] On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:17:05 -0500, Leigh Claffey
>> Currently thinking that somebody needs to incise on the wall over the
>> fireplace in the Oval Office
>> the words: "NEVER START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!" exactly where the POTUS
>> can see it every time he
>> looks up from his desk and make it a standing rule that they can't cover
>> it up...
>>
> I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
> subjugated by an invader.
I believe that is a true statement.
I know in 'modern times' (post 1800 anyway)
The British couldn't do it.
The Russians couldn't do it (and got their ass handed to them).
What in hell were we thinking?
--Leigh
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:13:05 -0700, Wes Struebing
><str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>>Tonnie, (dear brat! <grin>),
>
>Pffftttt... thanks? ;o))
>
>>google "electoral college history", and
>>learn more about the institution than you'd ever want to know.
>
>I know I know, but it is so much nicer when you guys explain it to me
>;o) Gives me a chance to throw around drinks and Dutch cheese as well.
>
>Thanks Wes! BOYC? Cheese? ;o)))
You bet, dear, Tonnie! A rose, perhaps? And almost any cheese will
do!
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:57:04 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> to write:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:05 GMT, Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Erin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>>>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>>>
>>>Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>>>campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>>>should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
>>
>>But, but...it worked before...!
>>
>><grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
>>though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
>>are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
>
>Like the lady I heard on the radio, saying that if Obama got elected,
>she wouldn't have to worry about her mortgage payments or gas prices
>any more?
>
Yeah - like that.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:57:04 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> to write:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:05 GMT, Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Erin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>>>>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>>>> Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
>>>> campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
>>>> should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
>>> But, but...it worked before...!
>>>
>>> <grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
>>> though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
>>> are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
>>
>> Like the lady I heard on the radio, saying that if Obama got elected,
>> she wouldn't have to worry about her mortgage payments or gas prices
>> any more?
>>
>
>Blimey - he's President, not The Second Coming!
True. But it is going to be difficult for him to fail (or seem to
fail) at anything just because he is who he is.
There are too many people in this country, I'm afraid, that are just
waiting (perhaps with bated breath) for him to stumble, so they can
say, "See? I told you so"
Matthew Russotto
"We" weren't, and aren't, trying to subjugate it. (at least
theoretically). At least, I haven't heard any proposals to install a
Presidentally-appointed governor or anything of the sort.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Clovis Man
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:01:43 -0700, Clovis Man
><georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>
>>>He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
>>>and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
>>>whom the country was ready.
>>
>>You, me and a many other people. It may just be me, but I hear
>>something of JFK in Obama. I kept expecting to hear "ask not
>>what your country can do for you..." in his acceptance speech. In
>>the inaugural, perhaps?
>
>I doubt it, unless he specifically states he's quoting JFK.
That's the way I see it happening. Something like this, perhaps:
"Forty eight years ago, another young President challenged the
American people with a call to service and sacrifice. That call
is as timely than it is now as it was then. So, in the spirit
and memory of John F. Kennedy, I call upon all Americans to 'ask
not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for
your country'."
Link to Kennedy's first inaugural
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm
It may just be me, but I heard some of the spirit of that speech
in Obama's acceptance speech.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1260781,obama-vistory-speech-grant-park-110408.article
That, and a some of FDR's first binaural.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
>We *will* hear, I suspect, a lot of "Yes, we can!"
>(which I rather like)
So do I, as long as there's substance behind the cheer.
Clovis Man
If we'd been thinking long term and stuck around after the
Mujahaden drove out the Soviets, we likely wouldn't have had the
Al Qaeda attacks on our embassies and the 9/11 attacks.
(If wishes were horses...)
>What in hell were we thinking?
Come on. Do I really have to answer this one? :(
Al Qaeda was aided and abetted by the Taliban government of
Afghanistan. If someone had given Bush 43 an industrial-
strength dope slap the first time he even considered his Iraq
misadventure, we'd have had the resources to properly prosecute
the Afghan war and reconstruction.
Wes Struebing
For once, I agree with you (Hey! Did the Sun stand still, or
something?) And I'm afraid that some of the stuff that we are (I
think rightly) being accused of are due to the fact we don't have the
troops on the ground to cope with the situation.
Wes Struebing
POINT! BOYC, sir?
Clovis Man
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:56:21 -0700, Clovis Man
><georg...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>>Leigh Claffey <lcla...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>>What in hell were we thinking?
>>
>>Come on. Do I really have to answer this one? :(
>>
>>Al Qaeda was aided and abetted by the Taliban government of
>>Afghanistan. If someone had given Bush 43 an industrial-
>>strength dope slap the first time he even considered his Iraq
>>misadventure, we'd have had the resources to properly prosecute
>>the Afghan war and reconstruction.
>
>POINT! BOYC, sir?
Excellent idea. Mike, I'll have a pint of Full Moon Winter Ale.
Two meter troll
> Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:01:43 -0700, Clovis Man
> ><george.r...@3lefties.com> wrote:
>
> >>>He's a victim of history - a good man who ran for President too late,
> >>>and against a younger, more charismatic and (at least to me) a man for
> >>>whom the country was ready.
>
> >>You, me and a many other people. It may just be me, but I hear
> >>something of JFK in Obama. I kept expecting to hear "ask not
> >>what your country can do for you..." in his acceptance speech. In
> >>the inaugural, perhaps?
>
> >I doubt it, unless he specifically states he's quoting JFK.
>
> That's the way I see it happening. Something like this, perhaps:
> "Forty eight years ago, another young President challenged the
> American people with a call to service and sacrifice. That call
> is as timely than it is now as it was then. So, in the spirit
> and memory of John F. Kennedy, I call upon all Americans to 'ask
> not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for
> your country'."
>
>
> It may just be me, but I heard some of the spirit of that speech
> That, and a some of FDR's first binaural.http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
>
> >We *will* hear, I suspect, a lot of "Yes, we can!"
> >(which I rather like)
>
> So do I, as long as there's substance behind the cheer.
> --
> Clovis Man (aka George Ruch)
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic."
> Arthur C. Clarke
I think there is. A friend mine that i am a bit closer to than blood.
is on the obama party and his voice is in much of the policy
statements on the web site. G is not a sit back and wait kinda guy. he
wont stop bothering folks till these things are done.
Something folks might want to think about: Obama cannot afford to
screw up.
If he cannot see this and he does screwup. he will recast that glass
thicker than ever before and it will be very long times indeed before
it cracks again.
Denny Wheeler
>Currently thinking that somebody needs to incise on the wall over the
>fireplace in the Oval Office
>the words: "NEVER START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!" exactly where the POTUS
>can see it every time he
>looks up from his desk and make it a standing rule that they can't cover
>it up...
Does that go with "Never go against a Sicilian when Death is on the
line"?
Inconceivable!
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
>subjugated by an invader.
I think Tamerlane did. Of course, his methods would be frowned upon,
today.
Leigh Claffey
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:17:05 -0500, Leigh Claffey
> <lcla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Currently thinking that somebody needs to incise on the wall over the
>> fireplace in the Oval Office
>> the words: "NEVER START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!" exactly where the POTUS
>> can see it every time he
>> looks up from his desk and make it a standing rule that they can't cover
>> it up...
>
> Does that go with "Never go against a Sicilian when Death is on the
> line"?
>
>
> Inconceivable!
>
> -denny-
*snort*
Just because it appears as a line of dialogue in TPB doesn't make it
less true.
(not sure about the veracity of the Sicilian quote, but what the heck:
yeah sure: that too).
--Leigh
Jette
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:29:37 +1030, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
>> subjugated by an invader.
>
> I think Tamerlane did. Of course, his methods would be frowned upon,
> today.
>
If he managed it, it was because they *let* him. :-)
Canth
wrote:
>Denny Wheeler wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:29:37 +1030, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
>>> subjugated by an invader.
>>
>> I think Tamerlane did. Of course, his methods would be frowned upon,
>> today.
>>
>
>If he managed it, it was because they *let* him. :-)
No it was because he didn't leave anyone alive to object. That was
part of the area that his armies stacked up the heads of all the
inhabitants into pyramids.
Canth
There have been quite a few comparisons to JFK, not only on-line but
in the press. I note that JFK was shot fairly early in his term, and
AFAIK no Catholic has made it to the White House since. Let us hope
that the comparisons don't continue to hold.
MajorOz
> Chris Zakes wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:57:04 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> > caused Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> to write:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Erin wrote:
>
> >>>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
> >>>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
> >>> Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
> >>> campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we
> >>> should learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
> >> But, but...it worked before...!
>
> >> <grins> (sorry, shouldn't grin like a Cheshire Cat, either). Even
> >> though I voted for the man, I have reservations, and I'm afraid people
> >> are gonna have almost completely unreasonable expectations for him.
>
> > Like the lady I heard on the radio, saying that if Obama got elected,
> > she wouldn't have to worry about her mortgage payments or gas prices
> > any more?
>
> Blimey - he's President, not The Second Coming!
You must not watch American network TV :)
cheers
oz, mourning the loss of David Brinkley's comment
Indiana Joe
<56d122e9-556b-4d9b...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
MajorOz <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> You must not watch American network TV :)
Who called it the Second Coming? I didn't see it on MSNBC or any of the
liberal blogs I read. Maybe on Fox or at Free Republic? :-)
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
india...@comcast.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Denny Wheeler
<lcla...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not sure of its veracity, but I am sure it's from TPB. <g>
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
As I said. His methods would be frowned upon.
(but they were effective)
Barry Gold
>>>> I believe that Afghanistan is a country that has never been completely
>>>> subjugated by an invader.
>>Denny Wheeler wrote:
>>> I think Tamerlane did. Of course, his methods would be frowned upon,
>>> today.
Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:27:54 GMT, Jette <boss...@scotlandmail.com>
>>If he managed it, it was because they *let* him. :-)
>No it was because he didn't leave anyone alive to object. That was
>part of the area that his armies stacked up the heads of all the
>inhabitants into pyramids.
There is a quote attributed to Tamerlane(*): When I attack a city, on
the first day my banners are white. If they surrender, I kill their
leaders and leave everybody else alone. On the second day, my banners
are red. If they surrender, I kill the men but leave the women and
children alone. On the third day, my banners are black, and I kill
everybody in the city.
There are times I think we need to adopt this motto, at least when
dealing with terrorists who have already attacked us -- and those who
shelter them.
(*) Actually, Timur the lame: he limped.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Alarums & Excursions, Xenofilkia: http://places.to/xeno
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Matthew Russotto
Indiana Joe <india...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article
><56d122e9-556b-4d9b...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> MajorOz <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>> You must not watch American network TV :)
>
> Who called it the Second Coming? I didn't see it on MSNBC or any of the
>liberal blogs I read. Maybe on Fox or at Free Republic? :-)
The reporting of some of the Vatican's statements about Obama made it
sound like the Pope thought he was the Second Coming -- specifically,
I'm talking about the stuff about bringing about peace on earth. The
actual statements were subtly but vitally different, of course.
Robert Miles
"Jette" <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
news:d_lQk.83124$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Erin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have to say, the concession speech McCain is giving now, is perhaps
>> the best speech I've heard him give in the past 2 years.
>
> Interesting to hear Republican supporters now criticising the McCain
> campaign style as "what lost them the election". One man said "we should
> learn - attacks and negative stuff doesn't work".
>
>
> Jette Goldie
.
It just adds support for the idea of putting None Of The Above
on the ballots so we can reject all the candidates.
Robert
saavik
Margo
David
<saa...@sympatico.ca> typed:
That would most likely result in your ballot being rejected as
incalid.
--
David
No email replies please.
Don't worry. Life's too long. |-- Vincent Sardi, Jr.
Canth
While that would be a way, it would not be aggregated ie "none of the
Above" write-ins would not be displayed as a total. Also, even if it
were aggregated and gained a majority vote, it would still have no
effect unless there was additional legislation to do something.
Ideally, all ballot papers and voting machines should have a "None of
the Above" option which is totalled and if is the majority,
invalidates all other standing candidates. No politician would
introduce such a piece of legislation for obvious reasons. IIRC,
Californians could possibly get a proposition up for that State, but
how it would get passed without Party support would be interesting -
that would really be grass roots democracy.