American Politics during the Bush Presidency

In Senator Craig, we have one of the clearist examples of the people who are victimizing themselves to support an ideology that does not serve them well. I am referring to the evil coalition that exists between the corporate imperialists, the religious extremists, and the other people with fascist leanings. I only comment here because this involves issues dear to the hearts of hobbiests and supporters of this forum.

Craig is clearly a victim of entrapment. Whatever actually happened, the cop was behaving as a consenting adult in a series of actions deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive. He was deliberately misrepresenting himself. His behavior was more flagrant than that of woman seated on a park bench who simply smiles and waves as one passes by, in an attempt to attract a customer.

It terrifies me that I might walk into such a situation. And, knowing nothing of the behaviors that can trigger an arrest, inadvertently do something that might trigger this whole series. It also terrifies me that we have so many situations in the US where the unsupported word of a cop trying to look good can be so destructive. I might get out of a false arrest, but at what cost? $50,000, $100,000++ for the defense? Like the accusation of sexual harrassment, the defense alone can destroy your life.

We are all familiar with the issues of entrapment. And, if we are honest, hate it when these types of entrapment tactics are used against us when looking for working women. We lost these entrapment cases eventually, with the long rise in power of the extremists. Now we suffer the consequences. And as hobbiests, we are constantly fighting the use of entrapment now.

The paradox is: I am sure that Craig supported the judges, policies, and laws that make entrapment an everday event in the US, that gets ever more invasive. Like Rush Limbaugh, he continually supported policies and ideas that were against his own interests, and that were trying to destroy him. And, in Craig's case, it did. In a presumed attempt to further his interests in one area of his life, he helped create a monster that destroyed him. It is another glaring example of the breathtaking hypocrisy and dogmatism of the people in this coalition.

My message for this forum is this: Your participation in this forum identifies you as a person who has significant life interests that are being relentlessly attacked by the this extremist coalition. If you are a supporter of this coalition, how can you justify to yourself your position, which is essentially the same as that of Craig? How can you not be terrified that you are destroying yourself?

If you are here, you need to be trying to promote a balanced and reasoned view in government. We have enough enemies to fight, because behind this fight we have the larger issues of protecting men's rights from feminist extremism.

Lex: good points in your post, but here is a pretty simple explanation of entrapment:

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

I followed the case and listened to the taped interview. Pretty clear that this sanctomonious Senator took all the steps without pressure or inducement. As wel I don't believe the officer did any talking before or duing the incident. It was a good arrest. When was the last time anyone here tapped feet with the person in the next stall? Or reached down and ran your hand along the bottom of the partition?

Remember these operations occur where there are lot of complaints for ongoing criminal activity. You don't see drug stings being conducted in WalMart parking lots because people don't go there for drugs. Stings for these gay bathroom escapades are conducted in locations where there are complaints and obvious activity. Again, the average law abiding citizen would not participate or intiate or continue in these acts and has little to fear. No matter the defense (entrapment, self-defense, etc. It is the totality of probable cause that makes a case.

Couldn't this Senator have waited a couple of hours until his arrival in Washington and gotten with one of his pages for relief?

Thanks for the update on the current definition of entrapment, Thomaso. I don't actually know what it is. I primarily remember that initially, when these entrapment techniques started in the 70's, the government lost some cases. But gradually, the practice has grown in scope over the years, especially in the late 80's and early nineties, I guess. I mostly was interested in the prostitution cases, and sort of followed that action.

Looking at your definition, it is actually scarier than I thought, and well explains the expansion of it's use.

"- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime."

This is a mess. In this case it seems only a little more clear. The most flagrant act would have to be looking through the crack in the stall door. The assumption could be that this was an invasion of the privacy of the person in the stall. But if the agent hadn't been there alone, was Craig there deliberately to make contact with someone? Who knows? Possibly not even Craig knows for sure. If a woman is sitting on a park bench as you walk by, did you have the first thought of soliciting her before or after you saw her? I think the assumption would be that if it was a known area for prostitutes, then you were thinking of soliciting by your presence, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A PICKUP AREA. In this light, it should be practically impossible to prove the idea did NOT originate with the entraping agent.

"- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime."

Again this is a mess that can give the government almost total leeway. If the opportunity is attractive enough, and the crime minor enough, there are no honest people. Diogenes is still looking. If that is a really attractive looking woman sitting on the bench, and she is convincing, you will fall. There is a huge amount of room for providing opportunity if one must prove they were persuaded (to the point of force? Simply greed? Psycological pressure? Intimidation by authority?

The cop certainly persuaded Craig to proceed with his positive response at each step of the proceedings. A communication, I would reiterate, that was deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive, SO AS NOT TO INVOVLVE AN UNINTERESTED PARTY. An uninterested party would never get to step 2 of the communication. We have evolved some of the same techniques with women, trying to avoid the issue of soliciting as long as possible, as much as possible. That woman has to be persuasive in her role to get you to pop the question.

"- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him."

This provides very little protection. Possibly it prevents an agent from seeking you out in your house to make an offer. Maybe it prevents the police from putting a prostitute decoy at a church picnic. But about anything else is fair game. It is practically impossible to prove you were unwilling to commit a crime without an attractive offer.

But on the other hand, since all of this involves risk / reward, one could argue that the person is NEVER willing to commit the crime without a sufficient reward from entrapping agents, that is UNTIL AFTER THE AGENTS CONTACTED THEM.

So looking at the above, one can see that there is an awful lot of room for any case to be interpreted either way. Years ago, the bias was against the police. This was during the famous "anti-police brutality" era of the late 60's and 70's, after the disasters of Chicago, Kent State, and many others. After Reagan came to power, the bias gradually shifted to favor the police against the individual. That shift is continuing still, with ever stronger bias toward the police.

The predominance of this entrapping activity occurs in areas of law that a large number of people do not support. Offenses of gambling, soliciting, alcohol, soft drug usage. Most of these issues are areas where the law is in a state of flux, and deservedly so. When a large number of people do not agree, there is a problem with the law of some kind. The laws tend to follow the behavior of the people, not lead. Laws are passed to stop objectionable behavior, and made more lenient usually in response to widespread civil disobedience, if it is done reasonably. THE LAWS THAT CAUSE THE MOST TROUBLE ARE DOGMATIC IN NATURE, PUSHED BY EXTREMISTS OF SOME KIND. Entrapment is designed to be as invasive as possible to prevent disobediance THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THE LAW:.

Regarding changes in thinking on law, consider this. Back in the 50's or so, there were laws against usury. Police were arresting people for doing what the credit card companies now do by economic force nationally, but that activity is cheered by the corporate imperialists today. Running numbers was (and still usually is) illegal unless the government does it. And I remember that at least in Baltimore in 65, the bookies paid 700-1 on the 3 digit number. The government lotteries I've seen were 500-1 or worse. We got a better deal from the bookies.

Lastly, let's not forget that it is hard to define the crime in that bathroom. When did it become a crime? If the behavior sought between consenting adults is not a crime, then some amount of interaction to meet another consenting adult is necessary. When does that interaction become a crime? I again point out that here they described a complicated interchange unknown to most people and designed to prevent the involvement of uninterested people. This was a complicated flirting sequence.

This is key. The people being entrapped keep working harder and harder to prevent entrapment or breaking the law. What is the essential difference between offering $500 directly or the chance to attend a sold out rock concert? Only the manner of the offer, and time and complexity of making it. You are going to try to offer those concert tickets to the woman most likely to respond with positive favors. How do you determine that? In the current environment, the police become ever more invasive to follow and effectively create a crime.

Here, I would point out that the extremists take the most rigid view that the state should enforce draconian interpretations of the law, unlimited police power, and even the creation of law by the police as the situation offers itself.

I prefer that there remain a more balanced view, and the law should be interpreted by the courts to provide the least damage to all parties, including the perpetrator. By this I mean that going to such great lengths to destroy the life of someone for a crime that is hard to define is a lot of excessive damage to the perpetrator. That more or less defines "Draconian".

From the NYTimes online edition today-police are targeting prostitution advertising on Craigslist by using sting operations. If EVER there was a waste of money, there it be.

As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list. Somebody remind me, how much longer is it now that we have to tolerate this fucking imbecile? Of course, we are not going to invade Cuba, and this is Bush (and the republicans) engaging in more of their transparent pandering to the Florida cuban expat community, but ENOUGH! Though the ball-less Democrats won't make much of this, because they bend over backwards not to offend the cuban expat community as well. It's nauseating how a relatively small percentage of expats, most of them living in one state, have dictated USA foreign policy in the Caribbean for over 40 fucking years. Just as disgusting is how the politicians of both parties have fed into their delusion that they are someday going to return to Cuba, reclaim their property, and live happily ever after. As if the politicos really give a shit about the reclamation of their property anyway. It's just a potential mega money making Caribbean outpost for the corporate muckety mucks.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Fund the Iraq and AF wars![/QUOTE]Assuming $p100 a pop, that's enough to keep a thousand mongers fucking a different chica every day for over 1600 years.

Wish I could live that long.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list.[/QUOTE]If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.

Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.

So far they honored this agreement.

El Greco

[QUOTE=El Greco]If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.

Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.

So far they honored this agreement.

El Greco[/QUOTE]The Bush administration has shown time and again that it is willing to ignore the terms of previous treaties that it deems "irrelevant." Both countries signed a treaty on missile defense and Bush said early in his term that he was going to ignore its provisions.

At the expense of offending some of my buddies who lean a bit (or alot) to the right, here is the link to the searing anti Bush administration funnies entitled "Get Your War On". Not for those who prefer their political debate to be conducted over crumpets and tea. The link takes you to the first page which was published on 10/9/01. There are many pages following that, leading up to the present. Some are not funny and some not as incisive in their commentary as others. Others are dead on with a huge dose of black humor. I am inspired to provide the link today as it becomes increasingly clear that in addition to everything else the Bushies have brought us, we are not far from an economic malaise, if not a near total fucking meltdown.

[url]http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html[/url]

A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.

It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.

It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.[/QUOTE]Hunt, there is alot more to the strip than Afghanistan. And, I don't disagree with you about that aspect.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.

It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.[/QUOTE]I am not very much into American politics but as far as I remember that was a plan described some 30 years ago by Zbiknew Brezinshky (I hope I wrote it correctly) when he was the security advisor to the watergate president of the USA.

Before that he was the secretary of "The Trilateral Comission" formed by Nelson Rockefeller. Something like "Bidelberg" club of nowdays. Very clever guy. He predicted the fall of the USSR many years before it happened.

I had the chance to read the minutes of the first Bidelberg meeting. They were talking of finding ways to eventually form a world government. That was in the seventies.

So don't be suprised. They are following the plan. They had to bring USSR to a fall first and now are taking the soil beneath Russia in order to control the world wealth there. The oil.

You maybe find all the above naive but there is an old book of Brezinsky out there. I beleve it will be easy for you to find.

Thanks,

El Greco

[QUOTE=Sidney]Attempting to democratize, Chistianize, and cleanse the world! This idea started in the early 1800's and is used as an excuse for all our foreign escapades. Currently Iraq, AF, quite possibly Iran, Mideast, many more. The cost in many ways, to America, is astronomical ($189 billion requested funding for 1 year in Iraq+AF) Our failures continue. The dollar has collapsed, oil is sky high, the military industrial complex grows in size and influence, deficit spending, etc. As I has mentioned many times in the past, INHO, a conspiracy to enrich the oil compex and military industrial complex, and to satisfy the religious right. The Bush / Chaney constituencies benefit.[/QUOTE]I will finally and totally agree with you Sidney. But as I wrote below they are following the plan.

Thanks.

El Greco

Just as a sort of side-note to the oil and war crap - the US government, who funds things such as the Iraq War at the price of gazzillions of dollars a year, and billions of dollars a year on idiotic things like continuing to pour money down the drain on Tokamak fusion reactors as a viable source of power, has a hard time with a few hundred million on things that have been proven can work (related to fusion) and can really change the world as far as the balance of power based on oil.

Some physicists on a shoe-string budget have managed to build a working model of an engine that produces electricity using fusion, at room temperature (NOT cold fusion, but something that has been understood since the 1920's, but engineering-wise were never able to overcome)

[url]http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf[/url]

That is a paper given to Google tech employees recently and has some really interesting science in it about how the thing works and the history of fusion. But an interesting part of this is about halfway through the paper where the speaker talks about the funding issues to be overcome and the idiocies of the government in protecting turf and coninuing to spend money on things that many people know can't ever work.

Whether or not you agree the government should be funding research or leaving it up to private corporations, I think most of us could agree that it would be better to fund a $250 million project that could release us from oil dependency in a large part and make the US a leader in power generation technology, rather than spending it on "Attempting to democratize, Chistianize, and cleanse the world"!

But what do we know - we're just a bunch of guys who enjoy pussy in a foreign land and dream of a stong dollar.

Worthy of your time to read.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

[quote]A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage[/quote]Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election.

Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million.

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 1

Professor Olson adds

[quote]In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.[/quote]Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than twenty years.

If you are in favor of this happening, then delete this message. If you are not then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Exon123,

Some interesting figures. I think you missed out an important one. How many actual votes did each candidate get?

I voted for Gore, and would do it again.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]I voted for Gore, and would do it again.

Exon[/QUOTE]Natch, I voted for him twice.:)

[QUOTE=SteveC]Exon123,

Some interesting figures. I think you missed out an important one. How many actual votes did each candidate get?[/QUOTE]Of the votes that count, according to the Constitution, Gore got 266 and Bush got 271. :p

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Of the votes that count, according to the Constitution, Gore got 266 and Bush got 271.[/QUOTE]That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.

The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.

[url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/[/url]

It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.

This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.

The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.

[url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/[/url]

It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.

This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.[/QUOTE]More's the pity, but this will likely get derailed down the line. Should it show signs of actually having a chance, the old boy network (many on both sides of the partisan line) will work like hell to scuttle it.

Article from The Guardian yesterday.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2183837,00.html[/url]

A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election. Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.

The change, if it went through, would effectively hand the next election to the Republicans.

California has gone Democratic in every election since 1992, providing a bloc of 55 electoral votes, about one fifth of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.

The electoral college system, in use for more than 200 years, has become increasingly contentious, particularly since 2000, when George Bush won the presidency in spite of Al Gore securing a majority of the popular vote.

Political scientists and historians are divided over the pros and cons of the system. Sympathisers argue that it provides a degree of stability while opponents claim it can run counter to the wishes of the electorate.

The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. But first they have to collect 434,000 signatures by November 29 this year. If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.

The Republican campaign to force a change appeared to hit the buffers last week when the leading figures behind it unexpectedly resigned.

One of them said that initial canvassing for signatures showed the necessary signatures are not there. But Democrats are cautious, not persuaded that the Republicans have really given up.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, are monitoring the situation, aware that such a change could scupper her chances of reaching the White House.

Supporters of the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, have provided almost all the finance for the campaign.

Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund executive, one of Mr Giuliani's fundraisers, provided almost all the money for the Californian ballot campaign, $170,000 (£85,000)

Professor Robert Bennett, of the Illinois-based Northwestern University School of Law and author of Taming the Electoral College, said today he did not think the Republican push was yet over.

"I would not count it out at the present time. It seems to have suffered a setback but they are still trying to collect signatures," he said. He added that he believed if it went to ballot, it would pass.

"It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.

Two Democratic senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, in a joint statement, said: "This power grab orchestrated by the Republicans is another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."

The man behind the Republican drive was Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento election lawyer who also works for the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor has distanced himself from the plan, saying: "In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

The Democrats attempted to introduce a similar reform in North Carolina earlier this year in the hope of picking up seven electoral college votes. But they quickly abandoned this when they realised they would be establishing a precedent.

They did the arithmetic and realised the gain in North Carolina would be swamped by the losses in California.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Natch, I voted for him twice.:)[/QUOTE]Dogg,

I love you buddy, but Gore only ran once for President, unless your counting his two sucessful bid's for Vice President. But You might have voted for him in your dreams after you figured out what George W. Bush did to our country.

What we've got to worry about here in this election is those Republican Fasist MotherFucker's. People like Jackson who would rather have a dictator than a democracy.

How's Mexico City by the way?

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]Dogg,

I love you buddy, but Gore only ran once for President, unless your counting his two sucessful bid's for Vice President. But You might have voted for him in your dreams after you figured out what George W. Bush did to our country.

What we've got to worry about here in this election is those Republican Fasist MotherFucker's. People like Jackson who would rather have a dictator than a democracy.

How's Mexico City by the way?

Exon[/QUOTE]Exon-I voted for Gore on an absentee ballot out of Florida AND at a polling station on Wisconsin Ave. In Washington D. C. I didn't sit down and plan that out, but I was not unhappy that it happened.:)

As for our esteemed leader Jackson, despite his allegiance to the forces of darkness, given my Confederate, redneck background I have a soft spot in my heart for him.

Mexico City sucks after you've done the museums, some other culture and sampled a number of good restaurants. The working girl situation is relatively expensive unless you're into uglier than hell streetwalkers, the traffic is horrendous and the cabbies are a bunch of sociopathic thieves (and worse) Figures have it that 30% of all crime committed in Mexico City are committed in cabs. I would recommend this place for a long weekend of art and food, with a hired driver-then get the fuck out and never come back. I am currently planning my escape to occur within two weeks.

Cheers-Dogg

[QUOTE=SteveC]A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election. Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.[/QUOTE]This should not be confused with the National Popular Vote initiative.

What the California Republican Party wants to do is split the California electoral appointments based on how that state votes.

What the National Popular Vote initiative will do is assign all electors from the states that have ratified it to the winner of the national popular vote.

[QUOTE=SteveC]The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.[/QUOTE]Not necessarily. Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution says, [I]"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."[/i]

If California tries to apportion its electors based on a ballot initiative instead of a legislative initiative, you can bet it will get challenged.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]More's the pity, but this will likely get derailed down the line. Should it show signs of actually having a chance, the old boy network (many on both sides of the partisan line) will work like hell to scuttle it.[/QUOTE]Don't count on it getting scuttled. The Democratic Party wants this in the worst way, and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]

Don't count on it getting scuttled. The Democratic Party wants this in the worst way, and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.[/QUOTE]Well again, I am certainly not opposed to the idea personally, but the power of inertia and the "flexibility" of politicians to favor for one moment, and then disfavor, the same proposal, cannot be underestimated. In addition, Hillary and even Obama are mainstream candidates for president despite the efforts of some to portray them as dangerous, ultra liberal menaces. Can you say "status quo"?;)

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.

The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.

[url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/[/url]

It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.

This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.[/QUOTE]Never going to happen. Small states like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. have no interest in it; moreover, it makes the attraction of voter fraud going national, as opposed to just state-wide.

In 2000, would you have liked to have seen 50 different state Supreme Courts arguing about voter counts and hanging chads? I didn't think so.

The Electoral College is a wise idea which has stood the test of 200 years of time. In this age of computerized voting and no voter-ID-style vote fraud, there's no good reason to abandon it.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]....and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.[/QUOTE][blue]Yes, of course, because as we all know, as the baby boomers get older they will convert to liberalism.

ROTFLMAO.

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Never going to happen. Small states like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Have no interest in it.[/QUOTE]And yet, the first two states that have passed it are so-called "small" states: Maryland and New Jersey. In Hawaii (another small state), the Senate and the House passed it by veto-proof majorities. And it's passed in at least one chamber of several other "small" states.

And if you were to read the history, you would see that the initiative grew out of a law suit brought be Delaware (a very small state) against New York in 1966.

The small states have every interest in making this happen. They have next to no voice in the current system.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]In 2000, would you have liked to have seen 50 different state Supreme Courts arguing about voter counts and hanging chads? I didn't think so.[/QUOTE]What I would have liked is irrelevant. The question is, would an otherwise ignored state (Maryland, for instance) rather be ignored, or rather have its ballots actually matter?

It's a question for the individual states to decide.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]The Electoral College is a wise idea which has stood the test of 200 years of time. In this age of computerized voting and no voter-ID-style vote fraud, there's no good reason to abandon it.[/QUOTE]You obviously didn't read the web site or didn't understand it.

The electoral college isn't going away. Not at all. Simply the way that states apportion their electoral votes is going to change. Instead of winner-take-all, the states that pass the National Popular Vote initiative will apportion their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote at the national level.

That's all.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Yes, of course, because as we all know, as the baby boomers get older they will convert to liberalism.[/QUOTE]Dude...just read a little history and pay attention to the polls. The Republican Party arc is at exactly the same place the Democratic Party arc was in 1968. They have shot their load, and are currently firing blanks. The best thing the current crop of candidates can do is cite their fealty to Ronald Reagan...a twenty-year old plus icon who left the Oval Office before today's college kids were even born. (Except, of course, Rudi Guiliani...who, as Joe Biden noted, constructs every sentence with a noun, a verb, and "911").

The Democratic Party has yet to find a real leader; that'll probably take another four to six years. But the tide has clearly turned against the Republicans. They had their day in the sun, as they should have (after all, the pendulum must swing). But their sun is setting.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]Maryland and New Jersey. In Hawaii [/QUOTE]Let me clue people in to the snake oil you're peddling. The only reason those three states (two of which are medium-sized) did anything along these lines is because their legislatures are heavily Democratic. Because the Democrats were on the short end of the electoral college stick in 2000, some of their less-enlightened leaders think they should go with a "popular vote" system to ensure they win next time. The trouble with this is that there is no guarantee that the next time there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college, the Democrats will be disappointed. (And it will happen again, it has happened three times in 200 years.)

This is exactly the kind of short-sighted politicking with the Constitution that happened with the 22d Amendment, which Republicans pushed through in the late 1940s to limit presidents to two terms. Fresh from their memory of FDR, their amendment had the result of keeping Ike from being re-elected in 1960. "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

Most everybody who thinks deeply about these kinds of things knows that messing with the Constitution is something done only reluctantly, and without the kind of partisan motivations that are unsuccessfully pushing this gutting of the delicate balance struck in Philadelphia 200 years ago. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Let me clue people in ... Most everybody who thinks deeply about these kinds of things knows that messing with the Constitution is something done only reluctantly[/QUOTE]And let me clue [u]you[/u] in...no one is messing with the Constitution.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about how electors get appointed. Nothing. It gives that power to the state legislatures (Article II, Section 1).

Up until now, 48 of the 50 state legislatures have followed the winner-take-all method (Maine and Nebraska are the two that don't). But the Constitution says nothing about that. Nothing for...nothing against...nothing period.

What's happening with the National Popular Vote initiative is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution. It is being passed state by state, in the respective legislatures, just as the Constitution envisioned.

[QUOTE="Hunt99]The only reason those three states...did anything along these lines is because their legislatures are heavily Democratic.[/QUOTE]Well, if your position is that this is a partisan thing, then you're in trouble. If you do that math you will see that enough states have both Democratic Governors and Democratic legislatures (both houses) to provide 155 electoral votes.

Furthermore, enough additional states have solidly blue bi-cameral legislatures (i.e., veto proof) to provide 85 more electoral votes.

So 240 out of 270 required votes would appear to be in the bag if this is partisan. And that's just for now. If 2008 trends follow 2006 trends, the state houses will be even bluer (not to mention perhaps another Democratic governor or three).

So to me this looks pretty, you know, solid.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]Well, if your position is that this is a partisan thing, then you're in trouble. If you do that math you will see that enough states have both Democratic Governors and Democratic legislatures (both houses) to provide 155 electoral votes.[/QUOTE]This is going nowhere, because most Democrats are not so stupid as to mess with the Constitution as those in the legislature in Maryland, with some of whom I have had personal dealings. Rocket scientists they ain't.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]This is going nowhere, because most Democrats are not so stupid as to mess with the Constitution as those in the legislature in Maryland, with some of whom I have had personal dealings. Rocket scientists they ain't.[/QUOTE]Let's see...you can't seem to comprehend the difference between "messing with the Constitution" and following the guidelines of Article II, Section 1 regarding electoral appointments...but it's [u]other[/u] people who ain't rocket scientists? LOL! OK, dude...enjoy your life.

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley]Let's see. You can't seem to comprehend the difference between "messing with the Constitution" and following the guidelines of Article II, Section 1 regarding electoral appointments. But it's [u]other[/u] people who ain't rocket scientists? LOL! OK, dude. Enjoy your life.[/QUOTE]Great post. Reality and truth; not opinions by people who are a fraction out of their depth.

Argento