MFL: Al gore would have been a disaster. Probably still better than Obama though.

Welcome to the retard list!

Dr Dreidel: fickenchucker: Aren't most of you forgetting the issue was selective recounting versus a complete recount? The clusterfark in progress was halted because it was unconstitutional--end of story.

Forgive my ignorance (I'm used to a SCOTUS that's comfortable going outside the lines in their rulings), but couldn't SCOTUS have said "Florida, if the state decides that a recount is necessary to determine the winner of an election, must either recount ALL votes cast in the state, or CANNOT continue the recount"?

The State had already decided it was done counting after the first recount. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a second recount must be done. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

Richard Flaccid: I don't think that we would have been any better off with a batshiat crazy guy obsessed with finding a fictional creature and guy who was busy farking around on his cancer ridden wife.

Are you pretending to be a retarded troll, or are you a retarded troll?

a) Basing your rhetoric on a cartoon by politically ignorant "libertarians" is worse than parroting FoxNews.

b) Climate Change isn't fictional; it's occurring, and the only debate is the extent of humankind's effect.

c) Edwards was Kerry's running mate, not Gore. Gore had Lieberman.

You really should be ashamed of your stupidity.

fickenchucker: Aren't most of you forgetting the issue was selective recounting versus a complete recount? The clusterfark in progress was halted because it was unconstitutional--end of story.

Let's make it as simple as possible.

The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

The main issue was the state standard that a ballot was legal if it was "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'; Scalia et al decided that was a bad idea...but only wanted to invalidate that in this particular case at that particular time.

The court essentially said that a full state recount would have cause irreparable harm to Bush. Voters? Fark them.

From the dissents:

To stop the counting of legal votes, the majority today departs from three venerable rules of judicial restraint that have guided the Court throughout its history. On questions of state law, we have consistently respected the opinions of the highest courts of the States. On questions whose resolution is committed at least in large measure to another branch of the Federal Government, we have construed our own jurisdiction narrowly and exercised it cautiously. On federal constitutional questions that were not fairly presented to the court whose judgment is being reviewed, we have prudently declined to express an opinion. The majority has acted unwisely.
...
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

strathcona: MFL: Al gore would have been a disaster. Probably still better than Obama though.

Welcome to the retard list!

That farker should have been a founding member of your list.

Link

MindStalker: The State had already decided it was done counting after the first recount. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a second recount must be done. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

The Republican Secretary of State with special interests interpreted the law to say that the recount should end. The Florida Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on Florida law, said that the judgment was erroneous and called for the recount to continue.

The US Supreme Court stepped in in an unprecedented way to interpret state law and called for a halt of the recount. It was an unabashed overstepping of the SCOTUS, and it's just precious when I hear those who generally call for "states rights!" to say that what the SCOTUS did was justifiable.

penetrating_virga: NateGrey: Richard Flaccid: I don't think that we would have been any better off with a batshiat crazy guy obsessed with finding a fictional creature and guy who was busy farking around on his cancer ridden wife.

Well now we know what the racist Republicans think.

That's your proof? Some nuts blog entry and an inane Fark thread?

Face it.. you are the very definition of butthurt.

lol really? I think this is more butthurt than anything in this thread. Gonna cry to the mods more? You should really try FreeRepublic, they have your hillbilly views unfiltered.

/Vote Republican

MFL: lennavan
Think they're as tasty as the GOP tears have been for the past 3 and a half years of an Obama presidency?

That's because they are tears of joy. Obama destroyed the DNC's "permanent majority" in less than 18 months and "motivated" the GOP to get off life support and back into the fight. It's truely a miracle what that man has done for the republican party. He will be sorely missed next year.

I cannot begin to tell you how excited I am to taste the next batch of tears this November.

Madbassist1: Yup thats some quality butthurt goin on there. Too bad its all true. Every...single...bit.

I'd recommend a topical cream, but after 10+ years, your condition is probably chronic.

KingPsyz: lennavan: qorkfiend: Some likely examples?

a) GOP Claims Gore couldn't keep America safe, one term

b) No Iraq invasion, rapid response and carpet bombing of Al Queda strongholds in Afghanistan.

c) Gitmo would have never been a thing, no torture of captives.

d) No outing of CIA agents

And that's just the 9/11 stuff. Think of all the other disaters that would have been averted, the huge political divide in this country would have likely been avoided or diminshed greatly. No EPA deregulation. No rollbacks on enviromental policy. Likely increase in alternative fuel research and spending. I could go on and on.

Social Security "lockbox", no NCLB, no Medicare Part D...

A good list, now let me add one more detail to set off a whole new slew of things that would have been different. Bush appointed Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Could you imagine re-writing the last 6 years of SCOTUS rulings with Gore appointed judges joining the majority?

For starters, we wouldn't have Citizens United.

It really would be a total alternate reality from what we know now. Someone get the slider device from Jerry O'Connell stat.

It sure puts a teenie dent in that "both sides are the same" argument.

NateGrey: penetrating_virga: NateGrey: Richard Flaccid: I don't think that we would have been any better off with a batshiat crazy guy obsessed with finding a fictional creature and guy who was busy farking around on his cancer ridden wife.

Well now we know what the racist Republicans think.

That's your proof? Some nuts blog entry and an inane Fark thread?

Face it.. you are the very definition of butthurt.

lol really? I think this is more butthurt than anything in this thread. Gonna cry to the mods more? You should really try FreeRepublic, they have your hillbilly views unfiltered.

/Vote Republican

I understand.. the SCOTUS has you all worked up this week... but calm down... I don't understand what you're linking to or what point you are trying to make? Who's crying to the mods? And what would that get a farker anyway? You sound unstable.

CPennypacker: Can you even imagine what the country, even the world would be like if the supreme court didn't give Bush the election? Don't think about it too hard unless you have antidepressants nearby.

Maybe I could still own the house I was living in at the time.

Jake Havechek: Saddam was contained, he wasn't going to do shiat, Bush had a childish vendetta that ended up with thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians dead and a shattered country, ripe for takeover by radicals and a newly hard-lined Iran.

Not to mention one hell of a debt problem here.

Salt Lick Steady: MindStalker: The State had already decided it was done counting after the first recount. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a second recount must be done. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

The Republican Secretary of State with special interests interpreted the law to say that the recount should end. The Florida Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on Florida law, said that the judgment was erroneous and called for the recount to continue.

The US Supreme Court stepped in in an unprecedented way to interpret state law and called for a halt of the recount. It was an unabashed overstepping of the SCOTUS, and it's just precious when I hear those who generally call for "states rights!" to say that what the SCOTUS did was justifiable.

Yeah, it could be interpreted that way, I guess it depends upon how you view the election. I view it as a formality that the States go through in order to pick their Electoral College, in which case the exact process of this formality is left up to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the State, in which the Judicial Branch would only get involved if there was serious conflict over the rules between these two branches, or the Electoral College members themselves (a states rights version). Or the other view is that it is a process in which we elect our President in which the Presidential Candidates themselves can sue over the issue that the rules weren't being properly followed.

Can we get a DO OVER?

The_Sponge: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The_Sponge: Is this the thread where some people proudly proclaim that 9/11 would have never happened if President Gore had been in office?

No, but apparently it's the thread where you don't read the thread, moron


Well f*ck you too, homie. I was referencing comments from previous threads.

Well here, let me help then;

Is this the comments from previous threads where some people proudly proclaim that 9/11 would have never happened if President Gore had been in office?



Why I outta...

The_Sponge: Difficulty: quote must use same hyperbole as you.

that is where you failed...

KingPsyz: the huge political divide in this country would have likely been avoided or diminshed greatly.

Umm.

Do you not remember the 90s? Bush campaigned on being "a uniter, not a divider." Of course, that was a bald-faced lie. But the reason he said that was because left and right were very much at each other's throats then, too.

In the wake of September 11th, the whole country came together as one. The GOP saw that as an excuse to let crony capitalism run wild, shred the bill of rights, and plunge us into endless war. Back then, I considered myself a libertarian who voted republican so needless to say, by 2004 I was fed up with BushCo. I did vote for him in '04, but for a very simple reason: I wanted him held accountable for the mess he was making. If Kerry had won, Bush, Rove, Satan and Pals would have claimed that the reason the country was going over the cliff by 2008 was because Kerry took all their brilliant plans and shiat incompetence all over them.

I also voted for Obama in 2008; I knew that McCain, especially after he teamed up with Caribou Barbie, was going to be Bush's third term. I didn't have a lot of hope that Obama would do anything good, but I figured he was the chemotherapy needed to get the Bush corporatist cancer out of the GOP.

At this point, I'll write in Ron Paul if he can't pull off a delegate upset at the convention. I don't agree with everything he says, but I trust him to have integrity, to not be for sale to the highest bidder, to at least make the honest effort to stop the EndlessWar™, and to work to get Federal spending under control before the gov't has to default on its debt or we go into a Weimar spiral.

With a report from the Clinton transition team on how terrorism would be the "paramount issue" in the 21st century, what was AG John Ashcroft's first official meeting about?


Porn.

The_Sponge: Headso: The_Sponge: Difficulty: quote must use same hyperbole as you.

that is where you failed...


My apologies...I shouldn't have used your quote.....but the other two definitely deserved to be mentioned.


The milenko quote was very nuanced too, he wasn't even saying anything but advocating the idea that life is almost completely random and any change could have ripple effects that can't be foreseen. Mine was closer to your hyperbolic post than his.

SouthernFriedYankee: KingPsyz: the huge political divide in this country would have likely been avoided or diminshed greatly.

Umm.

Do you not remember the 90s? Bush campaigned on being "a uniter, not a divider." Of course, that was a bald-faced lie. But the reason he said that was because left and right were very much at each other's throats then, too.

In the wake of September 11th, the whole country came together as one. The GOP saw that as an excuse to let crony capitalism run wild, shred the bill of rights, and plunge us into endless war. Back then, I considered myself a libertarian who voted republican so needless to say, by 2004 I was fed up with BushCo. I did vote for him in '04, but for a very simple reason: I wanted him held accountable for the mess he was making. If Kerry had won, Bush, Rove, Satan and Pals would have claimed that the reason the country was going over the cliff by 2008 was because Kerry took all their brilliant plans and shiat incompetence all over them.

I also voted for Obama in 2008; I knew that McCain, especially after he teamed up with Caribou Barbie, was going to be Bush's third term. I didn't have a lot of hope that Obama would do anything good, but I figured he was the chemotherapy needed to get the Bush corporatist cancer out of the GOP.

At this point, I'll write in Ron Paul if he can't pull off a delegate upset at the convention. I don't agree with everything he says, but I trust him to have integrity, to not be for sale to the highest bidder, to at least make the honest effort to stop the EndlessWar™, and to work to get Federal spending under control before the gov't has to default on its debt or we go into a Weimar spiral.

I do remember the time, I was just starting to get involved in politics at the time and what we now consider the political climate, that was a water fight on a hot day at the park compared to now.

Also consider, if Gore was president and 9/11 happened as we know it (quite possibly different as the person him and Clinton appointed kept trying to warn of an attack by OBL) then it's quite likely that the political capital earned through the crisis would not have been squandered is it was by Bush & Co.

Debeo Summa Credo: It took many many chefs to create the shiat sandwich we're eating now, and trying to pin it all on one party, like frank and f&f, is silly.

Yeah, but the Iron Chef running it all was the Bank of Japan. They flooded the world with liquidity to win the trade war. This created the global carry trade which caused the asset bubble. And isn't it funny how nobody mentions this? They're all over China about currency manipulation, and rightly so, but nobody ever biatches about Japan, because our own banksters made fat stacks off that crap.

Jake Havechek: malaktaus: If you think a stolen election is acceptable and we should all just forget it and move on while the people responsible go unpunished (and when many of them are still in influential positions, like the Supreme Court), you're basically a fascist and you're destroying America.

Well, what the fark are we supposed to do about it? All we can do is make sure it never happens again.

YEAH, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.

Wasn't Clinton offered bin Laden twice, and punted both times?

SouthernFriedYankee: Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.

Wasn't Clinton offered bin Laden twice, and punted both times?

Quiet, you! We don't speak of that when trying to blame Bush.

Salt Lick Steady: MindStalker: The State had already decided it was done counting after the first recount. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a second recount must be done. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

The Republican Secretary of State with special interests interpreted the law to say that the recount should end. The Florida Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on Florida law, said that the judgment was erroneous and called for the recount to continue.

The US Supreme Court stepped in in an unprecedented way to interpret state law and called for a halt of the recount. It was an unabashed overstepping of the SCOTUS, and it's just precious when I hear those who generally call for "states rights!" to say that what the SCOTUS did was justifiable.

So you are saying the federal courts shouldn't have any jurisdiction over how votes are counted within an equal protection/voting rights act context?

SouthernFriedYankee: Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.

Wasn't Clinton offered bin Laden twice, and punted both times?

Clinton punted on getting an annoying extremist. Bush shut down the office that was working on finding the man behind 9/11.

Yeah, those two things are entirely the same.

SouthernFriedYankee: Wasn't Clinton offered bin Laden twice, and punted both times?

Didn't Republicans claim that Clinton's attacks on Bin Laden's camp were an example of "Wagging the Dog?"

Was Clinton supposed to have pre-cogs in the White House to tell him what would happen after he left office?

SouthernFriedYankee: Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.

Wasn't Clinton offered bin Laden twice, and punted both times?

"Offered"? No, he was never offered bin Laden. He was pilloried by the GOP for shooting missiles at place he was 2 minutes before.

Face it: Bush and co. did not give shiat about bin Laden or al Qaeda, and we paid the price for it.

Dan the Schman: b) Climate Change isn't fictional; it's occurring, and the only debate is the extent of humankind's effect.

Correct. However, that's the whole of the debate, because if mankind is not the cause, there's precious little we can do about it. And I lean toward believing that geological and solar cycles are the culprit, not SUVs and such.

I also know that carbon offset derivatives markets will not fix anything even if mankind is causing it. But then, they aren't designed to fix anything. Goldman Sachs and Al Gore dreamed that shiat up to replace the CDO scam after the real estate bubble burst, which they knew was going to happen. It's just another way for banksters to get free $$.

Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.


The public closure of the bin Laden office at the CIA was because the manhunt on the ground for bin Laden's courier was transitioned to DEVGRU and Seal Team 6 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only reason you find your "fact" important is because at the time of the public closure the press was up in arms over it's closure because they believed it was the end of the bin laden hunt. But the press only thought that because nobody in the administration or the CIA of DEVGRU or Seal Team 6 was interested in leaking the real details for political gain. And somehow in the intervening two years since Bin Laden's death and the leak of the operational details to the press you have failed, repeatedly, to educate yourself and still announce the closure of the CIA bin Laden office like it actually means something.

In short: You farking idiot. Read a book.

RolandGunner: Jake Havechek: Bush shut down the bin Laden office at the CIA. This is a fact.


The public closure of the bin Laden office at the CIA was because the manhunt on the ground for bin Laden's courier was transitioned to DEVGRU and Seal Team 6 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only reason you find your "fact" important is because at the time of the public closure the press was up in arms over it's closure because they believed it was the end of the bin laden hunt. But the press only thought that because nobody in the administration or the CIA of DEVGRU or Seal Team 6 was interested in leaking the real details for political gain. And somehow in the intervening two years since Bin Laden's death and the leak of the operational details to the press you have failed, repeatedly, to educate yourself and still announce the closure of the CIA bin Laden office like it actually means something.

In short: You farking idiot. Read a book.

Do you have a right wing blogger post you can link too so that I can verify? Thanks.

lennavan: SkinnyHead: WTF Indeed: It's actually stated in the decision that no judge or court should ever use this decision as precedent.

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

And it wasn't just the SCOTUS Bush v. Gore case that stole the election. Gore also won the popular vote. The electoral college is seriously the stupidest farking idea ever. Politicians completely ignore huge populous states like Texas and California and spend all their damn time in Podunk, Ohio.

That's the point.

The Electoral College does 2 things.

1. They are the check on the president in order to make sure that the person elected is qualified. (Hence they are not bound to the candidate voted on by their state, and the HofR can protest their votes) This helps to avoid a demagogue being elected by the stupid population which is what the founders feared.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

2. It's a small state check on the large states, just like the senate. The founders didn't want NY and VA to choose the president everytime. You need to win the small states, (and thus speak to their interests), in order to win. We are a nation of united states. 50 of them and they all get some small say. Not just the now largest states of CA and TX. CA and TX get to say whats in all school textbooks (practically) and look how well that's working. Do we really want just those two and NY to pick every president? Ugh.

Gwyrddu: Geotpf: Gore campaigned horribly and had an unnecessary challenge from the left from Nader. Seriously, Nader's voters thought Gore wasn't enough of an enviromentalist. How retarded is that in retrospect?

I came close to voting for Nader, but it was mainly because Gore picked Lieberman as his VP. Even back then I hated that prick, and Gore went out of his way to distance himself from everything Clinton has done to pick up some imaginary middle while ignoring the left who shared his actual beliefs.

The Supreme Courts decision was pretty appalling, but honestly it should have never gotten to that point.

I voted for Nader (in a safe state) for precisely these reasons. Gore ran a terrible campaign, and chose that farking toad to be one bullet away from the Big Button.

NateGrey: Do you have a right wing blogger post you can link too so that I can verify? Thanks.


Here is the far right wing New York Times article on the hunt for bin Laden. The new, secret, program was called "Operation Cannonball".

Also, in full disclosure, here is an interesting article in 2008 when the NYT announced it had uncovered the existence of Operation Cannonball.

In hindsight the top secret document that the NYT reported on in 2008 didn't give the whole picture of what Operation Cannonball was actually working on.

CPennypacker: Can you even imagine what the country, even the world would be like if the supreme court didn't give Bush the election? Don't think about it too hard unless you have antidepressants nearby.

Actually, I have thought about it multiple times. If it weren't so bleedingly obvious as a starting point (and a bit too recent), it would make an interesting alt-history novel. Or alt-history/future.

I think the world would be a better place. 9/11 would still have occurred--I suspect much earlier, in fact, given the likely extreme political turmoil. Afghanistan would have happened; Iraq would not have. The Bush tax cuts wouldn't have occurred, but the housing bubble would have continued unabated. The 2004 election would have been won by John McCain (hard to guess at a running mate, though Mitt Romney wouldn't have been out of the question), unless something amazing happened in Gore's term, but it would have been more a 2000 McCain--possibly. The equivalent to the Tea Party would have created by Fox News in 2006 after a Democratic takeover in Congress, sealing a giant win for McCain in 2008 (over Hillary Clinton) despite the economic downturn starting in 2006 after McCain's tax cuts of 2005. The Democrats retake Congress in a big way in 2010, though.

No one--at the national level--would ever have heard of Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, or Barack Obama.

This year's election would be a race between McCain's VP and Olympia Snowe, who changes parties in 2011 and wins the 2012 election.

historycat: lennavan: SkinnyHead: WTF Indeed: It's actually stated in the decision that no judge or court should ever use this decision as precedent.

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

And it wasn't just the SCOTUS Bush v. Gore case that stole the election. Gore also won the popular vote. The electoral college is seriously the stupidest farking idea ever. Politicians completely ignore huge populous states like Texas and California and spend all their damn time in Podunk, Ohio.

That's the point.

The Electoral College does 2 things.

1. They are the check on the president in order to make sure that the person elected is qualified. (Hence they are not bound to the candidate voted on by their state, and the HofR can protest their votes) This helps to avoid a demagogue being elected by the stupid population which is what the founders feared.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

2. It's a small state check on the large states, just like the senate. The founders didn't want NY and VA to choose the president everytime. You need to win the small states, (and thus speak to their interests), in order to win. We are a nation of united states. 50 of them and they all get some small say. Not just the now largest states of CA and TX. CA and TX get to say whats in all school textbooks (practically) and look how well that's working. Do we really want just those two and NY to pick every president? Ugh.

Umm if there was no electoral college no states would pick a president, the majority of the nation would.

This is the excuse most right wingers pull out though because they know they have some small states with lots of electoral votes locked up because they don't mind voting against their own interests.

New Yorker has to share its "Butthurt of the Century" award with quite a few people in here.

KingPsyz: Umm if there was no electoral college no states would pick a president, the majority of the nation would.

This is the excuse most right wingers pull out though because they know they have some small states with lots of electoral votes locked up because they don't mind voting against their own interests.

We were never intended to be a democracy. One half of one branch was through direct election, we were intended to be a republic.

I certainly don't want the criminally stupid electing the president without some check. Look at how sane Congress is and tell me the same wouldn't happen to the rest of the government.

It may help the GOP in lots of small states, but the big states CA and NY lean dem and the swing states make the difference. Your problem isn't with the small stupid states, but with the party of the small stupid states.

Debeo Summa Credo: Deucednuisance: Bhasayate: That's right - Republicans wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "doing a tremendous job".
Good thing that Freddie and Fannie weren't the source of the Bubble, although they improperly tried to profit from it.

F & F are not blameless, but they're not the boogiemen the Right portrays them as.

You are correct, but wall street isn't the boogeyman the left makes them out to be. We had a global asset bubble. It was partially inflated from the supply side - excessively low interest rates, expansion of credit and lowering of standards by financial institutions, continued growth and lending into the asset bubble by government backed Fannie and freddie, etc., but also by the demand side - millions of homeowners in the US and elsewhere bidding up real estate prices over 200% in some areas over a 5-7 year time frame.


I must politely disagree. There was an asset bubble to be sure, but the rise in house prices was coupled with the ease of getting credit (how can housing prices continually go up when real wages have been on a decline- only one answer, credit). Why was there such an expanded interest (no pun intended) in lending? At that time there was a massive hunger on Wall Street for debt derivatives of any quality, they were making substantial profits for anyone bundling up those bits of loans. The hunger for these derivatives (make any loan! I can get it off your books in chunks, just get someone- anyone to Sign!), caused the banks and rating agencies to lower their standards. Thus began a vicious cycle as standards got lower and lower and the housing prices went higher and higher all primed and waiting for the balloon to pop.

The sheer amount of fake money created by selling off this debt (frees up the reserve ratio to make other loans) guaranteed that we would have the the crash that we did. If it was anything else the market would've corrected slowly but that's not what happened.

wall street isn't the boogeyman the left makes them out to be.

I'm on the Left and I don't see Wall Street as a boogeyman. I picture it more as a chained up Panther in my backyard. It does it's function and keeps the deer and other Vermin out of my vegetables. However, I would never forget what it is, a carnivore that eats meat. It doesn't care what kind of meat, rabbits, deer, me, or the kid next door. It's not a tame pet and must always, always, be watched and chained.

historycat: KingPsyz: Umm if there was no electoral college no states would pick a president, the majority of the nation would.

This is the excuse most right wingers pull out though because they know they have some small states with lots of electoral votes locked up because they don't mind voting against their own interests.

We were never intended to be a democracy. One half of one branch was through direct election, we were intended to be a republic.

I certainly don't want the criminally stupid electing the president without some check. Look at how sane Congress is and tell me the same wouldn't happen to the rest of the government.

It may help the GOP in lots of small states, but the big states CA and NY lean dem and the swing states make the difference. Your problem isn't with the small stupid states, but with the party of the small stupid states.

Are you saying the majority of Americans are criminally stupid? Because we're farked regardless then.

historycat: [The electoral college is] a small state check on the large states, just like the senate. The founders didn't want NY and VA to choose the president everytime. You need to win the small states, (and thus speak to their interests), in order to win. We are a nation of united states. 50 of them and they all get some small say. Not just the now largest states of CA and TX. CA and TX get to say whats in all school textbooks (practically) and look how well that's working. Do we really want just those two and NY to pick every president? Ugh.

If a hypothetical presidential candidate won 88% of the vote from each of the largest 5,000 cities in America and 0% of the vote from everywhere else in the country, they would lose the election (assuming uniform turnout). This list of 5,000 cities includes noted political havens like Tonganoxie, KS; Duryea, PA; Hollywood, SC; and San Diego, TX that all have fewer than 4,500 residents. Do you think the interests of any of those towns has much to do with the interests of NYC, LA, and Chicago? That notion is insane. Switching to a national popular vote would not allow presidents to just focus on winning New York, California, and Texas. If anything, it would encourage states to improve their voter turnout since they'd have to do that to get the biggest influence possible on the national outcome.

Serious Black: historycat: [The electoral college is] a small state check on the large states, just like the senate. The founders didn't want NY and VA to choose the president everytime. You need to win the small states, (and thus speak to their interests), in order to win. We are a nation of united states. 50 of them and they all get some small say. Not just the now largest states of CA and TX. CA and TX get to say whats in all school textbooks (practically) and look how well that's working. Do we really want just those two and NY to pick every president? Ugh.

If a hypothetical presidential candidate won 88% of the vote from each of the largest 5,000 cities in America and 0% of the vote from everywhere else in the country, they would lose the election (assuming uniform turnout). This list of 5,000 cities includes noted political havens like Tonganoxie, KS; Duryea, PA; Hollywood, SC; and San Diego, TX that all have fewer than 4,500 residents. Do you think the interests of any of those towns has much to do with the interests of NYC, LA, and Chicago? That notion is insane. Switching to a national popular vote would not allow presidents to just focus on winning New York, California, and Texas. If anything, it would encourage states to improve their voter turnout since they'd have to do that to get the biggest influence possible on the national outcome.

we have a winner...

The electoral college is an outdated protection to help counter the rapid outward expansion of the states towards the west and the resulting sparse population, as well as a political climate where you had states fighting keep slaves while other states were pulling away from the notion.

Even states themselves mean less then they once did and serve more for personal identity and mailing than for anything else.

Facts are the loss of the electoral college is a scary prospect for the GOP, it will make their canidates more subject to public opinion.