?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

*sigh*

I read an article today about the election, and the statistical odds of bush winning the actual count without fraud given the exit polls. You have a better chance of winning the fucking lottery. The mainstream press is ignoring it, the rethuglicans are saying it's just 'sour grapes'. Fuck.

We have now had three elections (200, 2002, 2004) with mounting evidence of major fraud and/or malfeasance by election officials and election equipment vendors, and only the "conspiracy theorists" and "sore loser liberals" give a damn?? What the fuck is happening in my country? Why can't any of us say or do anything to fix this shit? Why are they getting away with it? Why can't I do anything to stop it?

This shit is seriously scaring the crap out of me. I can't ignore it, or crawl into some nice safe little consumer fantasy like so many others. It really bothers me, because I care, about real freedom, the constitution, and the future.

At least Bin Laden and his band of thugs are blatant, and do shit that we can recognize as an attack and deal with the damage. But the erosion of the basic principals of our nation from within, without any meaningful protest, makes your garden variety terrorist acts seem almost benign.

I am beginning to believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen (maybe even encouraged) by the rethuglicans, for political gain. I guess I've joined the tinfoil hat brigade. Or at least the tinfoil lined passport case brigade...

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
redsonja
Feb. 17th, 2005 10:57 am (UTC)
The problem is that these people are also fear-mongers. They are holding the United States hostage. They are not going to let go of the power they've stolen through peaceful means. It's gone too far for that.

And nobody wants to be the first one to fire the first shots of revolt. Part of the people who would object to this don't dare take the risk of being labelled terrorists, the ignorant and clueless just don't care and are kept opiated by their chosen media, and the third group are the ones benefiting from these atrocities so they don't care either.

Brave individuals are standing up and trying to combat the situation in legal and peaceful ways, but this often comes at the sacrifice of a career or (perhaps in more lawless and remote places such as a combat theater where it can be gotten away with) a life.

The situation WILL get worse if it is not addressed because we are not dealing with sane people here and their insatiable greed and lack of compassion has already been proven to know no bounds. Where are our heroes? Where are our true patriots? Where are our educated voices of reason?
raindrops
Feb. 17th, 2005 12:37 pm (UTC)
I am beginning to believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen (maybe even encouraged) by the rethuglicans, for political gain.

Allowed or encouraged? That's a stretch. Capitalized upon to the very last heartstring that could be tightened and public pursestring that could be loosened? Absolutely.

The state must needs turn upon its own population in tandem with its lashing out against the world, to keep them all in line. Fear is worth more than gold.

[I prefer silver, meself]
jemyl
Feb. 17th, 2005 03:38 pm (UTC)
First of all exit polls are notorious for being wrong throughout history. That being said, I think it is also prudent to look at a few other skews that could affect your thinking.

You are highly intelligent. The intelligensia have always probed all of the possibilities for good and evil in their leaders. It is easy for them to find things wrong and focus on them. Most of the populace, however, does not have that intelligence so do not see the wrongs.

You live in California. Believe it or not, California and New York are not like the rest of the country. Those two states tend to be light years ahead of the rest of the country in thought processes. Believe it or not, the rest of the country actually voted for Bush.

The main media are not pro-Bush. All of the reporting you see and hear on radio and TV is biased and most of the bias is against President Bush and his policies.

The net is faster to spread whatever is said or found than is any other form of communication. There is also much that is spread as fact which is, in actuality either not factual or is factual and woefully incomplete. You were taught from a young age not to believe everything your read or hear. Not everyone does this and things get spread which have not been checked out. People believe them because that is what they want to believe.

Our election process has always had some flaws and some fraud. It likely always will. What is, however, is that it is still the best in the world and over time does balance out.

That balancing out is also true of Presidencies and policies. Over time, things do balance out and good stuff does get done.

Bush is going to try to do the things he thinks need to be done both domestically and internationally. That is why we have a Congress. The system of checks and balances does work.

What I also see happening is that your generation has not had to deal with how this country is when we are at war for a long period of time. The gulf war was so short and far away, as have been all of our other policing actions, that no changes occured here at home. With Iraq and post 9-11 our nation has become one at war with all of the limitations on our freedoms that such has always meant. Like it? Hell no! Yet I know that most of it is necessary for a while. I also have to be watchful that I work to elect people who will make sure that those limitaions are there for as short a time as possible.

That, I truly believe, is your answer too. Work to get and keep people elected who believe as you do. When they get elected, continue to support them and keep the dialog channels open. When they lose, inflict your views and concerns on those who did get elected. That is what you can and must do. Believe it or not, that is how changes get made, even in elections.

OH, BTW, I was just watching Bush on TV. He is going to Europe. Isn't that dangerous to his health, considering how much Europeans are said to hate him?

spaghettisquash
Feb. 17th, 2005 05:20 pm (UTC)
Since Bush "won" by a very slim margin, and his cronies were managing the election, I think it's fair to say that most Americans did not vote for him.

Fuck, yeah, bring on the tin foil! A Republican (a smart one, who I used to respoect) told me that only a conspiracy theorist would want all of the votes counted. Oddly, he also wants everyone to vote. I don't see why that would matter.
ravan
Feb. 17th, 2005 05:34 pm (UTC)
First of all exit polls are notorious for being wrong throughout history.

Horse shit. Statistically valid exit polls are used to validate and verify elections all over the world. Our own government used them to challenge the election in the Ukraine!

The intelligensia have always probed all of the possibilities for good and evil in their leaders. It is easy for them to find things wrong and focus on them.

Translation: you're in the minority of smart people. Shut up for your own good. Since most people don't see the wrong, it's not really there.

Someone is this country has to rake the muck, and find the dirty deeds. The press isn't - they're owned, in multiple ways, by the rethuglican corporate donors.

Believe it or not, the rest of the country actually voted for Bush.

No, they didn't. The count was fixed.

The main media are not pro-Bush. All of the reporting you see and hear on radio and TV is biased and most of the bias is against President Bush and his policies.

Horse shit, again. Most radio is right wing yammerheads. Fox News is pro-bush. Most reporters for all the newspapers (mostly owned by a few right wing companies) won't/can't ask the hard questions. Most radio stations are owned by Clearchannel, and all of their programming is pro-bush, including cutting anti-bush artists out of their playlists, and firing "liberal" DJs. I haven't seen any solid anti-bush in the mainstream media for over two years. All I've seen is them bringing up nebulous soft "allegations", and then telling people why they aren't real, aren't serious, or aren't being thoroughly investigated.

You were taught from a young age not to believe everything your read or hear.

I don't. That's why I don't watch Fox News. I look for mathematically valid sources, and people of a credible background. What they have to say, from looking at the real numbers and facts, scares me. The news ignores it.

The press is not being dilligent as the fourth estate. They'd rather focus on Michael Jackson, and before that, Scott Peterson. Both non-political. If you're lucky, they mention the Ebbers trial.

People believe them because that is what they want to believe.

Yes, you do, don't you.

That is why we have a Congress. The system of checks and balances does work.

Comngress? Owned by the Rethuglicans? Who are trying to saborage the filibuster and judicial review? Do you even read some of the crap that they've been proposing and passing? The are government web sites that have the text of all laws proposed and passed. That's where I read it. Primary source, you know.

With Iraq and post 9-11 our nation has become one at war with all of the limitations on our freedoms that such has always meant. Like it? Hell no! Yet I know that most of it is necessary for a while.

Iraq is an unneccessary war, done for political gain. The excuse was WMDs. They knew they weren't there. Bush lied, thousands have died. More than in 9/11.

The war on terror is another stupid perpetual war. With it as an excuse, there is no "for a while". It's forever, because the "war" never ends.

Work to get and keep people elected who believe as you do.

How do you work to get elected people you want when the party in power fucks with the balloting?? That's naive, and sheepishly stupid.

Besides, look what happened to Paul Wellstone... an accident, I'm sure. They've gotten better at coverups since Nixon, IMO. Gods, I miss tricky Dick!

Believe it or not, that is how changes get made, even in elections.

Our founding fathers would agree, I'm sure...

OH, BTW, I was just watching Bush on TV. He is going to Europe. Isn't that dangerous to his health, considering how much Europeans are said to hate him?


If they shoot at him it will be an excuse for another "bush war"... or another pretext for a civil liberties crackdown.

I don't want him attacked, personally. If bush gets shot, he'll be a martyr, and then his assinine policies will be cast in concrete. Rove and Cheney could stand to have heart attacks, though.
jemyl
Feb. 17th, 2005 10:10 pm (UTC)
"Translation: you're in the minority of smart people. Shut up for your own good. Since most people don't see the wrong, it's not really there."

Bullshit! That is a wrong translation. You ARE in the minority of smart people. You do see the wrongs. There is no thought on my part that they are all not really there. I just think it is necessary to document them very thoroughly. I also see you as closing your mind completely and taking an extremist position when an open mind and a somewhat, but definitely not totally, less extreme position would get you closer to the truth. There have always been fixed elections. I just don't think that this one was as fixed as you would like it to have been. In your own family at least four previous liberals were so turned off by John Kerry that they voted for Bush. The problem this time was that the choice was to find the lesser of two evils and many people, myself included, decided that four years of Bush while the Democrats got their act together and found someone we COULD vote for was better than a possible eight years of Kerry. Social programs were going to be cut regardless. Troops were going to be in Iraq, regardless too. Sorry, but I saw John Kerry as an oportunistic lying jerk who would do just as he pleased, and his record was not very good, once he got the job.

As for the accuracy of exit polls, I need only point to the election of Harry Truman. As for Fox News, I don't listen to them either and I always figure the press to be biased. The thing to do is to find biases both ways and interpolate.

I have never been a sheep and you know it. I question EVERYTHING and don't trust ANY positician completely. I do, however, trust the system as it has shown itself, time and again, to work. At the same time, I am a realist and get that this country, for good or bad, does run on electricity and oil products. WMD's? Shit! While our leaders postured and threatened Sadam had time to get rid of three countries worth of WMD's. I still like and believe one of my very smart friends who quipped; "The reason Bush believed there were WMD's is because he knows we sold them the damned things!"

I hate war, all war. I still am glad that we are fighting in Iraq instead of in New York and I do believe that is the choice with these clowns. I agree about Bush beoming a martyr and about Cheney. I do not like or trust Cheney.

I admire your conviction, though I am not sure it is well placed just yet. This country will always need dissidents. That is not the tin foil fringe. That is just good government and good citizenship. Just keep a somewhat open mind, check your sources carefully and, whatever you do, don't just walk away in disgust. Bush and company know that they didn't carry the intellectuals except for Kerry's stupidity in trying to please everyone. That probably means that they will not have a Republican congress after the 2006 elections unless they walk a fine line. Keep the line very fine. Work to get the elections IN OUR COUNTRY to be flawless, if that is possible.

We can agree to disagree. I do, however, enjoy that you always make me think. So does Stan, by the way, and with the almost exact opposite view. I am somewhere in between and open to both viewpoints as possilby valid, depending on the situation. Just be careful, as I also must do, that you do not throw that baby out with the name catagorization bathwater. There are both Republicans and Democrats who do not fit your stereotypes, just as all Christians are not Fundies and all Wiccans are not Devil worshipping black witches out to rule the world by casting evil spells on everyone. (Yes, I had someone describe Wiccan that way. What utter tripe!)

Hmmmm, I still think we should all just step off of the world and find a cave where we can all just eat chocolate for the next four or so years. LOL NOT serious on that one.

ravan
Feb. 18th, 2005 02:34 am (UTC)
The problem this time was that the choice was to find the lesser of two evils and many people, myself included, decided that four years of Bush while the Democrats got their act together and found someone we COULD vote for was better than a possible eight years of Kerry.

The problem with 4 more years of Bush is what he is doing to the judiciary, and the budget, with a lapdog congress to assist him. Yes, Kerry was the lesser of two evils in many ways. I wanted Dean, personally. But Kerry doesn't lie any more than Bush, and he flip-flops less, when you actually look at the records.

John Kerry wouldn't appoint so-called "strict constructionists" to the federal bench, including the supreme court. Kerry wouldn't appoint anti-gay, anti-civil-rights, anti-choice activist judges to the federal bench.

Nobody likes abortion, but that right to chose what to do with your own life and body is too precious to turn over to some bible thumping liars who wears their religion on their sleeves when it suits them, and who would make their supposed savior furious, IMO. Kerry wouldn't have pandered to people who value fetus's so much that they would trample on doctor patient priviledge, curtail a womans right to chose the use to which her body is put, and even support giving "religious" pharmacists the right to make medical decisions for women by refusing to fill their prescriptions for birth control, regardless of why they need it, yet have no regard for the living children. The "no child left behind" thing is really "no child really educated".

Kerry wouldn't be talking about an "ownership society" where the only owners happen to be big corporations. Kerry doesn't call clearcutting "conservation". Kerry wouldn't demand that government science actually toe an ideological line.

Dean even had good marks from the NRA.
weofodthignen
Feb. 18th, 2005 03:03 am (UTC)
On the exit polls--there was even an AP story not long ago about how woefully inaccurate the exit polls have been in the last 3 elections. The story emphasized Republicans refusing to answer the pollsters, which is a new one on me. But apparently the networks had to withdraw judgments about who had won in all 3 elections, and there is apparently general consternation there that the exit poll system has broken down.

I will not comment on the argument that 4 more years of Bush could in any way, shape or form be seen as the lesser of two evils.

I will, however, comment on the notion that New York and California are somehow "out there." Not only did California recently elect a Republican governor after firing a Democratic one--and California has always had a large number of solidly Republican voters, Berkeley does not define the whole state any more than Greenwich Village defines New York State--but I refer you to all the cute "red and blue" maps. Have a look at Minnesota and Wisconsin, for a start. The states that voted for Kerry are not just on the "fringes" on the two coasts--even if it were advisable to marginalize huge states like California and New York in the first place.

That's the propaganda of an anti-democratic leadership.

Better yet, look at one of the many maps that broke it down by county. The country is divided right down to that level--below it in some places. My own county went 66% for Kerry. Some other urban counties in this state went 70% for Bush. The "other side" is your neighbors. Everywhere except possibly Utah. Couldn't you tell that from the yard-sign battle? That was what the pre-election statistical dead heat in the polls was all about. America is deepky and fundamentally divided and it is not a geographical division, or even a Xian/immoralist division as the Republican propaganda machine would like to depict it.

Nor is it an intellectual/non-intellectual division. Intellectuals voted both ways. There are right-wing intellectuals, too, you know . . . and people who made the same decision about "security" that you evidently did . . . and all those union members who voted for Kerry out of party loyalty, are you going to argue they are of higher average intellect than the workers who went for Bush?

M
weofodthignen
Feb. 18th, 2005 03:12 am (UTC)
Oh by the way, I forgot to add--how Republican was Roosevelt? The US has not had a large amount of experience being at war. Even WW2 was a short experience for Americans, with only brief rationing and only one or 2 attacks on American soil after the initial experience of Pearl Harbor. And the response to Pearl Harbor and the way WW2 was conducted were so different--sorry, I just cannot buy the argument that this administration's response to 9-11 is "just the way things are in wartime" or even that it is an effective response. Just as I am not impressed with the general public's difference in attitude toward authority this time around after the much better showing as an informed citizenry that they made during the Vietnam conflict. If we are to learn lessons from history--which by the way I think is a simplistic way of looking at history--then by both those examples, the current experiment in fascism is a new way of doing things.

M
weofodthignen
Feb. 18th, 2005 03:05 am (UTC)
Well, talk to Noil some time and curl your hair. Myself, I am just trying not to cry.

M
gentlemanj
Feb. 24th, 2005 05:10 am (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree...
First, the terrorists are not benign by comparison with anybody, which may become obvious the first time a nuke-laden tugboat goes off next to a major port city--this is my worst nightmare scenario--and while I certainly did not vote for Bush, I think the Democrats are rapidly becoming completely irrelevant.

If Kerry is the best they could come up with, they are doomed. You won't need election fraud. The Democrats are utterly incapable of winning the White House, and have lost control of Congress and the Supreme Court. In 2008, I expect Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic challenger. According to my crystal ball, Condi Rice will win easily.

The Democrats are not in any way, shape or form what the American people who don't live in New York or California want to see leading them. Wonder why? Here's a quick list:
1)The Democrats are for the War, so anyone looking to oppose the War have to vote elsewhere--preferably Libertarian. Kerry wanted to add 40,000 troops to Iraq...um, where is he going to get them? I assume a draft. Yeah, that should be popular...
2)The D.'s are incapable of keeping a straight face when talking about people who are religious(this usually means Christian). I think their labelling 85% of Americans Neanderthals and Yahoos will not win them the Oval Office for a long, long time.
3)They are always for more taxes, bigger government, more regulations, and less freedom. They just lost me there...

The list could go on, but you get the idea. Until they stop playing up to internationalist celebrity elites, they will continue to sink like a stone. C'est la guerre!
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2017
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner