You mean like when Nader handed Gore a loss in 2000?
Far more Democrats voted for Bush than there were Nader voters in total. Then there's the almost inconsequential matter that Gore would have won with a statewide recount under any scenario, but the election was stolen by corrupt Republicans at the state and national level.
You're an idiot. You have absolutely no freaking clue how much you depend on the states you seem to think are a 'drain'.
Or maybe he does, as the only thing you could point to would be grain and sugar beets in the midwest. Which California can easily trade for with all their fresh produce...
In particular, this one pays far more than it takes
The only red state to pay more out is Texas, and there it's just breaking even.
I still say the North should apologize for all that unpleasantness in 1860-65, tell them they're free to go, and throw in some cash and parts of the Midwest as a goodwill gesture. Buh-bye, don't forget to write!
In that case, how many trillions will the South be paying out as reparations for slavery?
Do you tell a rape victim to win the heart and mind of the rapist? Or do you tell her to use an overwhelming force of a spray or a gun? Israel is the rapist. It struck back.. It won. I am pretty sure all normal people would blame the situation on the rapists.
FTFY. Israel was founded by a bunch of immigrants on other peoples land. Israel expanded that land grab with another following the the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt. Israel has pursued policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid for decades. Israel bombs who it wants, when it wants, with the protection of the American Security Council veto pen.
But yeah, its all Hamas's fault. Because they shot a rocket back.
there is SO MUCH land that the arabs could give to their brothers.
I can't believe you just typed all that bullshit with a straight face. Why is it the responsibility of other Arab nations to make up for the land that Israel has stolen? Would you vomit out the same nonsense but in reverse - that Jews living in the U.S. or Europe should open their homes to Israelis to solve the conflict?
this is, down deep, a war on ideology.
not about land.
Of course it's about land. The land that was stolen by a bunch of Zionist immigrants from the people that actually lived there. Which is why you're so eager to make it about everything but land....
As if your response would be any different if it was your family ethnically cleansed from your ancestral homeland by a bunch of immigrants. A bunch of immigrants who shot you whenever they felt like it, bombed you whenever you felt like it, kept what was left of your family under the thumb of apartheid, going so far as to publicly admit to starving you into submission, I'm sorry, "on a diet".
Pull your head out of your ass and stop pretending that Palestinians are bunch of raving anti-Semites without real and longstanding grievances.
You realize that's a farce, right? That the current round of hostilities did not start with rocket attacks, but with Israelis shooting a kid playing soccer and firing a tank shell into a tent of mourners, right? That if it was your family being shot and bombed and humiliated and having it's land stolen and olive trees burned to make room for immigrants that you'd be out there saying "lets shoot off every rocket we have", right?
And if they do this long enough, this NOT firing of missiles, then there will be peace.
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land. Which is why they've yanked away the peace football time after time, even when Palestinians are willing to make massive concessions on the West Bank or Jerusalem. Which the Israelis have no claim to under international law, since it's territory they conquered in a war of choice they started in 1967, with a sneak attack on Egypt.
Dude, you're projecting. The Palestinians were willing to make massive concessions on territory, when by right they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. But Israel always finds some excuse to yank the peace football away at the last second.
Clinton blamed
The Clinton who, like most American politicians, gave billions to Israel while covering their asses with the Security Council veto pen? Not the most unbiased source there....
Looks like you made one...to ignore Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian lands, the frequent bombings/shootings of Palestinians that has killed a couple people a week over the last couple years, or the fact that Israel has zero claim to the West Bank, to the Gaza strip, or Jerusalem. Because you cannot claim territory via conquest, and Israel started the 1967 war (where they grabbed all that territory) with a sneak attack on Egypt.
The issue I have (and many others) is the forced change being implemented at a what I would call a rushed time frame.
In what mirror universe is that? In this one, the U.S. periodically gets together with other G7 nations to kick the Kyoto can (itself a half-measure) down the road so it's always 10 years off.
The time to prevent serious climate change came and went 20 years ago. Now the hope is to keep the temperature increase from being catastrophic.
the planet is billions of years old, humans have been here for a few hundred thousand years, in one form or another. We have gone from fully covered with ice to other climates over the ages. We happen to live in an ideal climate for us right now and it makes sense to want to keep it that way.
Ah, the old "climate change has happened before" canard. Nevermind that it's not usually this fast, or that rapid climate change has coincided with mass extinctions.
We happen to live in an ideal climate for us right now and it makes sense to want to keep it that way.
Riiiight. How much money will be spent on Hurricane Sandy? How much money was spent on tornadoes and wildfires this year? Warmer weather + humidity = more powerful storms. How about your air conditioning bill? Enjoyed paying higher prices for pork, chicken and beef due to the drought-induced shortage of corn?
The costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
No, the reason Hamas wants the Israelis out is because it is commanded in the Qur'an.
Absurd islamophobic bullshit. No, they're pissed because their land has been stolen, their people have been bombed, and they have been humiliated and starved.
You'd be just as pissed if it was you in their place.
Hmm, you mean, it'd be like what the Arabs (and Europeans) have done to the Jews for millenia?
You mean your highly selective history? How about when Jews were treated vastly better by said Arabs as opposed to Europeans?
Regardless, how does the fact that Jews have been screwed over many many many times in the past justify the last 64 years of them screwing over the Palestinians. How does that work, exactly. Which Arab nations are busy ethnically cleansing Jewish people from land they've lived on for centuries, keeping them under the thumb of apartheid, or kill a couple Jews a week until the population gets pissed off and strikes back, at which point the government bombs the ever loving shit out of them while claiming "self-defense"?
Israel attacked the Palestinians first. They're very quick to tell what's been fired out of Gaza, not so quick to tell you what they've been firing into Gaza on a regular basis, killing nearly 200 people in the last couple of years. Before the current outbreak of mass hostility, a kid was shot in the head while playing soccer, and a tank shell was fired into a tent with mourners.
From 2000 years go, meaning their claims were based on nothing more than a romantic idea - kind of like Manifest Destiny. Whereas there are still some Palestinians who still own keys to the houses they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948, much less 1967.
Both populations grew mostly in the last century and a half.
Other than Israel's policy of subsidizing Jewish immigrants, of course. A Russian Jew can immigrate and enjoy more rights, money, and land than a Palestinian who's family had been living on the land for a dozen generations.
And yes, the fact that half the bloody world tried to exterminate the Jews in the 1940's
Which gives them the right to screw over another group of people?
What would your response be if a bunch of immigrants ethnicially cleansed your family's asses off their ancestral homeland - and then periodically shot or bombed what was left of your family while keeping you in an open-air concentration camp?
Anyone who ignores the history of the Palestinian people or pretends there aren't encyclopedias filled with extreme quotes from Zionists is a sophist.
Seriously. I voted for the guy who said he's end the wars
He's started several new ones, and the Iraq "withdrawal" his fans give him credit for was negotiated by Bush. Obama wanted to extend the occupation, but the Iraqis refused Obama's demand of American immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
and raise taxes, because there's a deficit, yo
Extended the Bush Tax Cuts and used the resulting deficit hysteria to push his Catfood Commission's recommendations to slash social spending, particularly on earned benefits. Which in the case of Social Security, has never contributed one cent towards the national debt. As opposed to corporate tax cuts, which he wants more of.
The guy who implemented the Heritage Foundation's plan for healthcare, which was based on the idea of individual responsibility paired with a fair and transparent dealing from the insurers.
It has nothing to do with responsibility, and everything to do with killing the possibility of getting single payer while rescuing the dying insurance industry with millions of new customers.
The guy who overthrew the Libyan government under force of arms with four American fatalities, and didn't do the same in Syria because he thought it was too risky.
The guy who overthrew Gaddafi because he was "killing his own people", but continued selling arms to the Yemeni and Bahrain governments as they led brutal crackdowns on their own protestors.
Oh, and he's on the right side on the inclusion of gays
After kicking a thousand gays out of the military when he could have halted DADT with the stroke of a pen, either using a stop loss order or under DADT itself, which allows the SecDef to declare discharges would 'not be in the best interest' of the military.
And he spent years saying he had to defend DOMA in court, only to turn around and say he would no longer do so. Still enforcing it, though, until it is eventually struck down or upheld.
And, if that weren't enough, his equivocation on favoring gay marriage have also come with statements supporting the rights of states to ban it. Yes, the first black president has taken a full "state's rights" position on another minority.
women
Overruled the FDA on Plan B, exactly the sort of political decision he campaigned against. And there was all that contractor rape from Iraq that he swept under the rug, or the billions he continued giving to Mubarak before he was forced from power, when Mubarak was known for using rape as a torture device.
immigrants
Deported them at a much higher rate than his Republican predecessor, until the election started to heat up and he needed latino support to get re-elected.
other basic-human-freedom issues
Like being worse than "sharia law" countries on the most central of civil rights: the right to a fair trial?
Just not on any issues that "conservative" voters actually care about.
Because "conservative voters" tend to be political hacks, just like Obamabots. What you raised holy hell about when it was their guy doing it ("perjury", draft dodging, deficits, warrantless wiretapping, war without authorization, Unitary Executive) doesn't even get you to roll out of bed in the morning when it's your guy doing it.
Right, because the power of the president is totally totally TOTALLY constrained by what new legislation he can get through Congress. Nevermind that existing laws could have been used to:
Halt DADT via stop loss order. Break up and prosecute the banks. Order complete withdrawals from all our semi-declared and undeclared wars. Prosecute Bushco for war crimes including torture. Use the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and reign in the DEA.
And that's just off the top of my head. Finally, there's the small, almost inconsequential matter that what is or is not considered a state secret is controlled by the Executive. So, President Stein would come into office and promptly declassify Obama's drone war program, and Bush's incompetence before and criminality after 911. Israel starts whining about Iran again? President Stein declassifies Israel's nuclear program and uses existing laws to halt all funding to the rogue state.
Europe is SO far to the left that to them an international socialist (the soviets) is extreme LEFT, and a national socialist (the NAZIs) is extreme right with most of Europe straddling a narrow strip of vague socialism between the two; in other words, their "spectrum" is a small slice of the political spectrum that is located way over on the left.
What are you babbling on about. A fascist government (Germany and Italy in the 30's and 40's) is by definition a far right-wing government.
In a first-past the post election, there cannot physically be more than two viable candidates. She wasn't one of them.
Perot was perfectly viable, before he started to crack under the pressure of a presidential campaign. 2012 was an even greater opportunity for a rich 3rd party candidate to sweep in, as he could have run against both Obama's and Bush's failures - something Obama can't do after being in power for four years and pissing away his congressional supermajroity. I'm still surprised that someone like a less-dead Steve Jobs didn't do just that.
The Democratic Party is about where Republicans were in the Reagan days. Remember, Reagan was a "kinder gentler" Republican than Nixon.
Reagan could have switched back to the Democratic Party and challenged Obama from the left this year. If he were still alive, not term limited, or made an empty shell from alzheimers, of course.
Because Reagan: supported a treaty requiring the prosecution of those who commit torture, raised taxes multiple times to lower the deficit, granted amnesty to millions of immigrants, withdrew from Lebanon, wound up the cold war but then wound it back down with arms reduction treaties, declared that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, and started prosecutions for the S&L scandal that eventually put ~800 bankers in jail.
All in noted contrast to Obama, who has continued warrantless wiretapping, wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, and assassinated American citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
And 1964 was a blowout loss for the Republicans, and after the 1936 elections, Republicans only held 17 Senate seats.
WYFP
Far more Democrats voted for Bush than there were Nader voters in total. Then there's the almost inconsequential matter that Gore would have won with a statewide recount under any scenario, but the election was stolen by corrupt Republicans at the state and national level.
An urban legend, as Clinton had pulled head of Bush before Perot got back into the race.
Or maybe he does, as the only thing you could point to would be grain and sugar beets in the midwest. Which California can easily trade for with all their fresh produce...
The only red state to pay more out is Texas, and there it's just breaking even.
In that case, how many trillions will the South be paying out as reparations for slavery?
FTFY. Israel was founded by a bunch of immigrants on other peoples land. Israel expanded that land grab with another following the the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt. Israel has pursued policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid for decades. Israel bombs who it wants, when it wants, with the protection of the American Security Council veto pen.
But yeah, its all Hamas's fault. Because they shot a rocket back.
I can't believe you just typed all that bullshit with a straight face. Why is it the responsibility of other Arab nations to make up for the land that Israel has stolen? Would you vomit out the same nonsense but in reverse - that Jews living in the U.S. or Europe should open their homes to Israelis to solve the conflict?
Of course it's about land. The land that was stolen by a bunch of Zionist immigrants from the people that actually lived there. Which is why you're so eager to make it about everything but land....
As if your response would be any different if it was your family ethnically cleansed from your ancestral homeland by a bunch of immigrants. A bunch of immigrants who shot you whenever they felt like it, bombed you whenever you felt like it, kept what was left of your family under the thumb of apartheid, going so far as to publicly admit to starving you into submission, I'm sorry, "on a diet".
Pull your head out of your ass and stop pretending that Palestinians are bunch of raving anti-Semites without real and longstanding grievances.
You realize that's a farce, right? That the current round of hostilities did not start with rocket attacks, but with Israelis shooting a kid playing soccer and firing a tank shell into a tent of mourners, right? That if it was your family being shot and bombed and humiliated and having it's land stolen and olive trees burned to make room for immigrants that you'd be out there saying "lets shoot off every rocket we have", right?
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land. Which is why they've yanked away the peace football time after time, even when Palestinians are willing to make massive concessions on the West Bank or Jerusalem. Which the Israelis have no claim to under international law, since it's territory they conquered in a war of choice they started in 1967, with a sneak attack on Egypt.
Dude, you're projecting. The Palestinians were willing to make massive concessions on territory, when by right they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. But Israel always finds some excuse to yank the peace football away at the last second.
The Clinton who, like most American politicians, gave billions to Israel while covering their asses with the Security Council veto pen? Not the most unbiased source there....
Looks like you made one...to ignore Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian lands, the frequent bombings/shootings of Palestinians that has killed a couple people a week over the last couple years, or the fact that Israel has zero claim to the West Bank, to the Gaza strip, or Jerusalem. Because you cannot claim territory via conquest, and Israel started the 1967 war (where they grabbed all that territory) with a sneak attack on Egypt.
Ah, that old slight-of-hand. No one is claiming that humans are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions.
It's that the level of human emissions are more than the biosphere is equipped to deal with without consequences.
In what mirror universe is that? In this one, the U.S. periodically gets together with other G7 nations to kick the Kyoto can (itself a half-measure) down the road so it's always 10 years off.
The time to prevent serious climate change came and went 20 years ago. Now the hope is to keep the temperature increase from being catastrophic.
Ah, the old "climate change has happened before" canard. Nevermind that it's not usually this fast, or that rapid climate change has coincided with mass extinctions.
Riiiight. How much money will be spent on Hurricane Sandy? How much money was spent on tornadoes and wildfires this year? Warmer weather + humidity = more powerful storms. How about your air conditioning bill? Enjoyed paying higher prices for pork, chicken and beef due to the drought-induced shortage of corn?
The costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
Absurd islamophobic bullshit. No, they're pissed because their land has been stolen, their people have been bombed, and they have been humiliated and starved.
You'd be just as pissed if it was you in their place.
You mean your highly selective history? How about when Jews were treated vastly better by said Arabs as opposed to Europeans?
Regardless, how does the fact that Jews have been screwed over many many many times in the past justify the last 64 years of them screwing over the Palestinians. How does that work, exactly. Which Arab nations are busy ethnically cleansing Jewish people from land they've lived on for centuries, keeping them under the thumb of apartheid, or kill a couple Jews a week until the population gets pissed off and strikes back, at which point the government bombs the ever loving shit out of them while claiming "self-defense"?
Israel attacked the Palestinians first. They're very quick to tell what's been fired out of Gaza, not so quick to tell you what they've been firing into Gaza on a regular basis, killing nearly 200 people in the last couple of years. Before the current outbreak of mass hostility, a kid was shot in the head while playing soccer, and a tank shell was fired into a tent with mourners.
From 2000 years go, meaning their claims were based on nothing more than a romantic idea - kind of like Manifest Destiny. Whereas there are still some Palestinians who still own keys to the houses they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948, much less 1967.
Other than Israel's policy of subsidizing Jewish immigrants, of course. A Russian Jew can immigrate and enjoy more rights, money, and land than a Palestinian who's family had been living on the land for a dozen generations.
Which gives them the right to screw over another group of people?
What would your response be if a bunch of immigrants ethnicially cleansed your family's asses off their ancestral homeland - and then periodically shot or bombed what was left of your family while keeping you in an open-air concentration camp?
Anyone who ignores the history of the Palestinian people or pretends there aren't encyclopedias filled with extreme quotes from Zionists is a sophist.
He's started several new ones, and the Iraq "withdrawal" his fans give him credit for was negotiated by Bush. Obama wanted to extend the occupation, but the Iraqis refused Obama's demand of American immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
Extended the Bush Tax Cuts and used the resulting deficit hysteria to push his Catfood Commission's recommendations to slash social spending, particularly on earned benefits. Which in the case of Social Security, has never contributed one cent towards the national debt. As opposed to corporate tax cuts, which he wants more of.
It has nothing to do with responsibility, and everything to do with killing the possibility of getting single payer while rescuing the dying insurance industry with millions of new customers.
The guy who overthrew Gaddafi because he was "killing his own people", but continued selling arms to the Yemeni and Bahrain governments as they led brutal crackdowns on their own protestors.
After kicking a thousand gays out of the military when he could have halted DADT with the stroke of a pen, either using a stop loss order or under DADT itself, which allows the SecDef to declare discharges would 'not be in the best interest' of the military.
And he spent years saying he had to defend DOMA in court, only to turn around and say he would no longer do so. Still enforcing it, though, until it is eventually struck down or upheld.
And, if that weren't enough, his equivocation on favoring gay marriage have also come with statements supporting the rights of states to ban it. Yes, the first black president has taken a full "state's rights" position on another minority.
Overruled the FDA on Plan B, exactly the sort of political decision he campaigned against. And there was all that contractor rape from Iraq that he swept under the rug, or the billions he continued giving to Mubarak before he was forced from power, when Mubarak was known for using rape as a torture device.
Deported them at a much higher rate than his Republican predecessor, until the election started to heat up and he needed latino support to get re-elected.
Like being worse than "sharia law" countries on the most central of civil rights: the right to a fair trial?
Because "conservative voters" tend to be political hacks, just like Obamabots. What you raised holy hell about when it was their guy doing it ("perjury", draft dodging, deficits, warrantless wiretapping, war without authorization, Unitary Executive) doesn't even get you to roll out of bed in the morning when it's your guy doing it.
What a pantload of winger revisionist history.
Right, because the power of the president is totally totally TOTALLY constrained by what new legislation he can get through Congress. Nevermind that existing laws could have been used to:
Halt DADT via stop loss order.
Break up and prosecute the banks.
Order complete withdrawals from all our semi-declared and undeclared wars.
Prosecute Bushco for war crimes including torture.
Use the EPA to regulate carbon emissions.
Move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and reign in the DEA.
And that's just off the top of my head. Finally, there's the small, almost inconsequential matter that what is or is not considered a state secret is controlled by the Executive. So, President Stein would come into office and promptly declassify Obama's drone war program, and Bush's incompetence before and criminality after 911. Israel starts whining about Iran again? President Stein declassifies Israel's nuclear program and uses existing laws to halt all funding to the rogue state.
As opposed to your ignorance....
What are you babbling on about. A fascist government (Germany and Italy in the 30's and 40's) is by definition a far right-wing government.
Perot was perfectly viable, before he started to crack under the pressure of a presidential campaign. 2012 was an even greater opportunity for a rich 3rd party candidate to sweep in, as he could have run against both Obama's and Bush's failures - something Obama can't do after being in power for four years and pissing away his congressional supermajroity. I'm still surprised that someone like a less-dead Steve Jobs didn't do just that.
Reagan could have switched back to the Democratic Party and challenged Obama from the left this year. If he were still alive, not term limited, or made an empty shell from alzheimers, of course.
Because Reagan: supported a treaty requiring the prosecution of those who commit torture, raised taxes multiple times to lower the deficit, granted amnesty to millions of immigrants, withdrew from Lebanon, wound up the cold war but then wound it back down with arms reduction treaties, declared that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, and started prosecutions for the S&L scandal that eventually put ~800 bankers in jail.
All in noted contrast to Obama, who has continued warrantless wiretapping, wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, and assassinated American citizens.