> > Florida. Texas. California. The Reps have
> > shown that they have less interest
> > in the Democratic process than in winning.
> They are no longer a democratic political
> party, that's obvious, and if you're
> a Republican This Means You <snip>
> I think it's clear that the 2000 election was
> basically a coup d'état. *
Oh, please. First off, the Democrats started it, back with Bork; if you think there's no connection, ask any Republican activist why they are willing to play dirty. Second, nothing illegal has happened. What we're talking about here is the perverse adaptation of legitimate constitutional mechanisms to deal with matters not intended by the mechanism.
Finally, Bush won Florida, which meant he won the electoral college. Yeah, it was close, and yes, he did not win the popular vote, but neither fact is novel to Bush.
> It's sickening. Well, to look on the bright
> side** at least we Old Europeans can
> now simply laugh at US presidents using
> the D-word.
And that would be because your governments have been so enthusiastic about putting the new EU constitution to popular referenda? Exactly how democratic is it to fundamentally reform such an institution without wider buy in, against what the polls say are a sizable majority opinion against the new constitution? Glass houses.
This seems to me like another case of the loser of an election not being satisfied with the results. In this case, you're just trying to re-write history.
> The crazy thing is that these people are too
> stupid to realise what the long-term
> consequences of this _will_ be.
Not stupid. Just inexperienced. This kind of problem seems to come along less than once per generation. The last time resulted in FDR suborning the judicial independence of the Supreme Court. Before that, ominously, it was the Civil War.
I agree that the consequences will be bad. I think the parallel to draw is what has happened to the judicial nomination process since the Democrats Borked Bork.
> Unless they're planning cool new pro-neo-con
> anti-choice election laws,
> enforced by heavily-armed police, I guess
The real risk in election laws is the idea of making voting "electronic". It opens it up to immense fraud by the three companies in the US that make election equipment. I believe it has happened in the recent past, at least here in Dallas. There was a certain district in Dallas in the 1984 election that voted exactly 60-40; interestingly, that district was a river bottom with no residents and no voting booths. Nonetheless, the computer-tabulated vote showed the ballots. Hmmm.
> Heck, I say call in the UN and demand that
> the US destroy its huge stockpile of totally
> illegal WMDs and dismantle all of its WMD
> research programmes. (beautiful dreamer)
The US is in compliance with all relevant international treaties, so how, exactly, are our weapons illegal?
And if you hadn't noticed, Bush has unilaterally destroyed more US nukes in the last two years than Clinton did in eight.
Julian, seriously, be more balanced in your criticism. You are too easy a target.
> ** No more Arnold Scharzenegger movies : hurrah !!!
Oy. Total Recall was good, despite its now punny name.
Powered by hypermail