Election Cheats

Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?

Isn't this too political for here

Anybody has to be better than Mugabwe, but just how good will the other guy be?

I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....

it worked for shrub

Err... that's who I was talking about.

Don't tell me someone else has cheated as well?

Biggy on the Run wrote: Err... that's who I was talking about.

Don't tell me someone else has cheated as well?

Tis the first name that floated up with the condoms and used sanitary appliances in the cess pool that is my mind

All this talk of the African not-very-comedy-bond-villain, however, confused me

PS, my 2nd thought was..."what, the septics rigged the maths poll and still lost?"

EdelBrock wrote: I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....

Our countries say it is unfair, some kind of dictatorship. On the other hand, all the business men who spoil the country of its goods say nothing and pray for Mugabe to stay in power.

Come one John-Henry. This is an African country 90% of the world population do not know. They can do it if W did it in the mighty USA...

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....

Our countries say it is unfair, some kind of dictatorship. On the other hand, all the business men who spoil the country of its goods say nothing and pray for Mugabe to stay in power.

Come one John-Henry. This is an African country 90% of the world population do not know. They can do it if W did it in the mighty USA...

If he was ousted, who would take his place? The only way to get population backing as we want it, is for the population to care about things outside the immediate nessesities.... and that just isn't going to happen. The person that takes his place will be no different, and if he is, he'll be assasinated and replaced by another dictator. The only way to fix such messes is to clean house and start over.... and you can see how much the world screams over Iraq.... everyone wants change, but doesn't want to pay for it.... they think they can purchase it with someone else's credit card....

As for W 'stealing' the election, I think its simply BS. The election was close, and problems happen in every election... its just that all other elections weren't as close, so the problems didn't make it to the front page.... Look at what is happening with the Clinton/Obama thing right now... who ever wins is going to have a large albatross around thier neck because of the Ohio/Florida mess. Cheating will be in the air for that too, only because the losers of a close race wanted to win.

EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.

A Freudian slip?

Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.

The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.

As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.

I remember when EdelBrock's four year-old just wrote the signature. Now she appears to have mastered whole posts.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.

A Freudian slip?

Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.

The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.

As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.

yer right it is Michigan, well their almost the same state, eh?... close enough for public schooling

But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.

As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certian areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic governement we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate nessecities of everyday life.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.

A Freudian slip?

Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.

The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarrassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.

As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.

yer right it is Michigan, well their almost the same state, eh?... close enough for public schooling

But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.

As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certain areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic government we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate necessities of everyday life.

there their

Look them up in your Webster's and not just for meaning but also for spelling.

You can have there's and you can have theirs. One is, and one is possessive.

Did I tell you that English isn't my native language.

EdelBrock wrote: yer right it is Michigan, well their almost the same state, eh?... close enough for public schooling

But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.

What Clinton is doing is not election fraud on a par with ballot stuffing, voter challenges, dead people voting, day-long waits in poor African-American precincts, or rigged Diebold machines.

But it is dishonest. Democratic Party rules specified that states would not have their delegations seated if they held their primaries too early in the season. Michigan and Florida ignored those rules and held their primaries too early in the season. The Democrats therefore made it clear, well in advance of the elections, that the delegations from those states would not be seated at the convention. In deference to Party rules, Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot in Michigan; Clinton alone kept her name on the ballot, noting that it didn't matter if she kept her name on the ballot, because the votes wouldn't count anyway.

Only now that she's losing and desperate, she wants those votes counted-- notwithstanding that hers was the only name on the ballot. In Florida, Obama and Clinton were both on the ballot, but as in Michigan, neither candidate campaigned. And again, as with the Michigan vote, now that Clinton is losing, she wants the Florida vote counted.

Honest? Or dishonest? As in Michigan, neither candidate campaigned, and because both candidates had their names on the ballot, one could argue that the election was fair. I think that's a specious argument. That early in the season, Clinton had the best name recognition of all the candidates, and was the heavy favorite to win. She was considered the presumptive Democratic nominee. In a contest where none of the other candidates campaigned against the presumptive nominee, and in which none of the candidates had been heard on the national stage yet, it's virtually guaranteed that the presumptive nominee-- Clinton-- would have won those early contests. As we've seen since then, however, once the candidates had an opportunity to present their case to the voters, Clinton crashed and burned. Therefore, to attempt to count the votes in Michigan and Florida, while not quite rising to the level of outright election fraud, is certainly dishonest.

EdelBrock wrote: As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certian areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic governement we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate nessecities of everyday life.

Your command of geography is stunning.

Reminds me of the lass who asked if Europe was a country...

Northern Africa? Southern Africa?

I was talking about South Africa and Zimbabwe-- both southern african states.

Now, if you want to say that democratic government depends on the desire of the people, then I'd say that the outcome of the recent election in Zimbabwe indicates a strong desire for democratic government, Mugabe's thugs notwithstanding. He's ruined the country, and the people want him out-- and have expressed that desire for at least the last 20 years, at great personal risk.

Your theories on Zimbabwe's elections aren't even remotely grounded in any discernible facts. Back to public school, Billy Madison.

Whether or not Mich/Flor is counted doesn't really matter... it will devestate the Democratic party no matter how its done. Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.

Wow, I stated I didn't know much about S. Africa, then you want to tell me how I don't know much about it..... not really seeing the reasoning behind that? and simply because people are voting and desiring someone outta office, doesn't mean they have thier priorities outside the immediate nessecities, have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....

EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.

Obama is ahead, and you think he should go to the loser and ask to be her VP?

Not gonna happen, least of all because he's ahead-- there's too much animosity between the camps for them to be an effective election team, and post-election, Obama would be relegated to a ceremonial role as Billy Bob steps in to take his place...

Not gonna happen.

EdelBrock wrote: Wow, I stated I didn't know much about S. Africa, then you want to tell me how I don't know much about it..... not really seeing the reasoning behind that? and simply because people are voting and desiring someone outta office, doesn't mean they have thier priorities outside the immediate nessecities, have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....

Well, I wouldn't have said anything about it, except you were confusing geographic regions with nation-states, and then commenting on events in those nation-states, when you clearly don't understand enough about events there to make an informed comment.

And I'm not claiming any special expertise on Zimbabwe myself, but then again, I'm not espousing wild theories, ungrounded in any discernible fact, about a region I know nothing about, either.

Surely you can understand my reasoning now?

EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.

Read it and weep: More likely to be Obama/Gore than Clinton/Obama.

EdelBrock wrote: have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....

I really should have addressed this, but I was in a hurry to unplug and catch the bus.

I wouldn't call being part of an occupying military force "living in a third world country." Rather, I'd say that you know absolutely nothing about living in a third world country if you're occupying that country. If you want to live in a third world country to gain some perspective, you've got to put the assault weaponry down, and actually live, work, and play with the common people of that country, as close to being "one of them" as you can be when you're a relatively rich westerner who will one day return to his privileged western life.

Bringing it back to the political arena, so I'm not picking on you, think of it this way: If you're from a privileged background, you're not likely to know what it's like to be a working family struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. Oregon's Governor Kulongoski announced last year that he would live on food stamps for one week. It's an admirable effort to raise awareness, but if politicians really want to know what it's like, try living on food stamps for a year...then tell us what you know about trying to survive in this economy.

Thinking you understand what it's like to live in a third world country when you've only been part of an occupying military force in that third world country is even less similar to reality than thinking you know what it's like to be a working family by living on food stamps for a week, or having a few town-hall meetings every election cycle. You'd have more potential to learn about that third world country traveling there as a civilian for a short period of time than you would have living there as part of an occupying military force for a longer period of time.

Hillary could still ask Bill to be VP.

I'd like to see that.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.

Read it and weep: More likely to be Obama/Gore than Clinton/Obama.

EdelBrock wrote: have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....

I really should have addressed this, but I was in a hurry to unplug and catch the bus.

I wouldn't call being part of an occupying military force "living in a third world country." Rather, I'd say that you know absolutely nothing about living in a third world country if you're occupying that country. If you want to live in a third world country to gain some perspective, you've got to put the assault weaponry down, and actually live, work, and play with the common people of that country, as close to being "one of them" as you can be when you're a relatively rich westerner who will one day return to his privileged western life.

Bringing it back to the political arena, so I'm not picking on you, think of it this way: If you're from a privileged background, you're not likely to know what it's like to be a working family struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. Oregon's Governor Kulongoski announced last year that he would live on food stamps for one week. It's an admirable effort to raise awareness, but if politicians really want to know what it's like, try living on food stamps for a year...then tell us what you know about trying to survive in this economy.

Thinking you understand what it's like to live in a third world country when you've only been part of an occupying military force in that third world country is even less similar to reality than thinking you know what it's like to be a working family by living on food stamps for a week, or having a few town-hall meetings every election cycle. You'd have more potential to learn about that third world country traveling there as a civilian for a short period of time than you would have living there as part of an occupying military force for a longer period of time.

As for Obama, I'm GLAD he won't be VP for Clinton. If he did it, it would be Dems in the White House for 16 years I guarantee it! I sure as hell don't want that!

If Obama stepped out of the race, it would be like nothing else done in politics. He would be seen as humble and unselfish, trying to keep his party together under the stress of a screwed up primary. He would lengthen his political career by a further 8 more years. He would be the embodiment of change in politics, so though he would be VP, he would hold a very strong presence as a leader in the party. No one could defeat him for years to come...... not doing this is an unwise choice for the Dems..... I hope to God he doesn't get this epiphany and go this route.....

As for my 'lack of knowledge', where you may have some point, I lived very close to many Iraqis during the beginning of the occupation, were they still acted fairly normal. I knew thier personalities, their loves/hates, and desires. I was personally very close to them.
Whereas you may have a point that having weapons does change things, its closer to living with them than others have experienced.

EdelBrock wrote: As for Obama, I'm GLAD he won't be VP for Clinton. If he did it, it would be Dems in the White House for 16 years I guarantee it! I sure as hell don't want that!

If Obama stepped out of the race, it would be like nothing else done in politics. He would be seen as humble and unselfish, trying to keep his party together under the stress of a screwed up primary. He would lengthen his political career by a further 8 more years. He would be the embodiment of change in politics, so though he would be VP, he would hold a very strong presence as a leader in the party. No one could defeat him for years to come...... not doing this is an unwise choice for the Dems..... I hope to God he doesn't get this epiphany and go this route.....

Don't worry, there's as much chance of that happening as there is of McCain stepping out in favor of Romney. :p

EdelBrock wrote: As for my 'lack of knowledge', where you may have some point, I lived very close to many Iraqis during the beginning of the occupation, were they still acted fairly normal. I knew thier personalities, their loves/hates, and desires. I was personally very close to them. Whereas you may have a point that having weapons does change things, its closer to living with them than others have experienced.

I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans" ) who aren't actively resisting the military occupation. Still, one wouldn't presume that those Chinese soldiers, living on their military base, and only venturing out in heavily armed units, really know anything about life in America, based on their limited exposure to a few turncoats, would one?

NOOLigan wrote: Hillary could still ask Bill to be VP.

I'd like to see that.

Note to Billy Bob when you and Hillary are in town next week: Monica lives a few blocks away from me... Just in case you've got nothing to do while Hillary's trying to scrounge up some votes in Obamatown.

Biggy on the Run wrote: Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?

no oil, no care from the leaders of the international community, just sound bites

DigiDiz wrote:

Biggy on the Run wrote: Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?

no oil, no care from the leaders of the international community, just sound bites

What I'm finding funny, is that he rigged the election, and still managed to lose.

Good. I saw this on the news last night and laughed. A few weeks ago, a British Reporter investigated the electoral roll and half of the people on it had been dead for over ten years. Luckily the world took notice, making it difficult for him to cheat any further.

Dodjem wrote: Good. I saw this on the news last night and laughed. A few weeks ago, a British Reporter investigated the electoral roll and half of the people on it had been dead for over ten years. Luckily the world took notice, making it difficult for him to cheat any further.

Send this reporter in Marseilles. The last local elections seemed to have been a real cheat. Hundreds of people did vote blank (highest rate on the whole territory). Tell me how hundreds of people strangely appeared in one week just to vote blank ? Quite strangely, this was in two aeras the left was to win... so that Marseilles was to turn left. The right won in the whole city with a mini minor advantage. That looks like Sarkozy's way of doing... What can we expect from this crap who is friend with W, Putin, Berlusconi and Khadafi...?

Better. In Perpignan, a member of Sarkozy's party, had been caught cheating. He was adding votes he had in his socks... But someone saw him. The mayor of Perpignan is a Sarkozy close friend...

Reject Sarkozy's application for NATO. Send us bombs and GIs, we are no better than an any evil country.

I read somewhere that Mugabe is ready to leave. Good news ?

... without a doubt

Bloody HELL...we all CHEAT a bit,no?Life is tough at the BOTTOM FRADs.I've BEEN there.Ok get back to your serious DEBATE!

You're only cheating yourself

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans" ) who aren't actively resisting the military occupation. Still, one wouldn't presume that those Chinese soldiers, living on their military base, and only venturing out in heavily armed units, really know anything about life in America, based on their limited exposure to a few turncoats, would one?

I wasn't talking about my translators, to whom I was very close, but actual people that lived outside the wall. People that had no loyalty to the US or Iraq, as the majority of the population doesn't have such loyalty. You assume way too much.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans" ) who aren't actively resisting the military occupation. Still, one wouldn't presume that those Chinese soldiers, living on their military base, and only venturing out in heavily armed units, really know anything about life in America, based on their limited exposure to a few turncoats, would one?

I wasn't talking about my translators, to whom I was very close, but actual people that lived outside the wall. People that had no loyalty to the US or Iraq, as the majority of the population doesn't have such loyalty. You assume way too much.

Well, let's assume that you actually do have your finger on the pulse of the average Iraqi. What I find interesting in that is that you argue that the Iraqis aren't capable of democratically governing themselves, because their ideas and values are not the same as ours. Which, of course, is really an argument that the U.S. rationale for invading Iraq, whether it was to destroy WMDs, or to spread democracy, was misguided from the moment it was conceived.

Now, still assuming that Iraqis don't really care about self-government (as we conceive it), I don't think you can assume that your Iraqi observations apply in Zimbabwe...