Time: Mon Oct 28 16:21:46 1996 To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: refused for cause Cc: Bcc: At 01:02 PM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote: > >Subject: Re: It's Dole by a Whisker >Date: Monday, October 28, 1996 1:15PM > >On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Douglas Friedman wrote: > >> >We also forecast the outbreak of a "mini-war" just prior to the >> election. With the exception of Andrew Jackson, the first >> Democratic president, no president of that party has ever been >> reelected except when acting as commander-in-chief during time of >> war (WWI and WWII). >> .... >> What about FDR in 1936? And remember that Wilson was re-elected before the > >> U.S. got into WWI. His slogan, after all, was "He kept us out of war." >> Sloppy factual reporting discredits analysis. > > > Hrm...true...while they were both warmongers who lied and got the >US into wars its populace opposed, both entered the wars /after/ >re-election. Well, except that the Great Depression was a war on the US >people by its government. > > It's interesting to note that, indeed, Democrats almost never get >re-elected. But when you think about it, that's not very surprising...the >establishment can lie to the people for a while, but once they've fallen >for it and are subjected to the Democrat as president, it's hard to keep >fooling them. > > In this case there's a difference, though; the Republican running >is as Liberal and untrustworthy as the Democrat. That slants the issue, as >well as the lack of run-off elections if the winner doesn't get a >majority, as he didn't get one last time. > > If we're still grasping at straws, even the pathetic and Liberal >Dole being marginally preferable over Clinton, we can console ourselves in >the fact that EVERY time the Yankees have ever won the world series in a >presidental election year, the Republican candidate has one, and EVERY >time they lost the world series, a Democrat has won...and the Yankees just >won the world series. > > It should also be noted, and I don't understand why we don't talk >about this more often, that the media's polls ALWAYS...and I mean >pretty much ALWAYS...turn out to be "wrong" in the direction of the >Liberal/Democrat/socialist, by as much or more than the margin of error. >This is probably a combination of carefully selecting the polling areas (a >"nationwide" poll that happens to mainly hit Boston, Baltimore, LA, >Seattle, and DC, for example, all rabidly Democratic), biased questions, >and downright lying on the part of the media/pollers. > > Remember that it was "neck and neck" for Reagan versus Carter, for >example...and yet Reagan actually had a lead bigger than Clinton's. Which >means that it's actually possible that Clinton isn't really ahead in the >polls...though I'm afraid it may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. > >Remember, too, that the media claimed the Republicans had lost their >advantage before the '94 elections, and probably wouldn't gain enough >seats to control either house...I believe the popular claim was only like >18 seats, and they gained over double that. > > Personally, though, I think the Republicans will lose, because >their elite ruling members were too corrupt, and let an insider force his >way into the nomination who was the opposite of EVERYTHING the electorate, >even in the Republican party, wanted. > > I mean, when the Democrat can say "You've voted for more tax >increases than anyone in Congress today" to the Republican, you know >something's wrong. > > When the Republican's recent retirement speech focused on his >being proud of the very Federal socialist programs that even the Democrat >claims to be trying to fix or shut down, you know something's wrong. > > I think the strangest part is that EVERYONE, including Dole and >the Republicans, seem to be working to force Clinton on the people. >Perot's always been a stealth Democrat, he endorses Democrats in any >important Senate/House/Governor race, both in 94 and this year, and he >KNOWS that he was and may again be the reason Clinton, who happens to be >from the same Arkansas/Texas Power Elite clique, gets elected. Hell, when >there was a danger of him actually WINNING, he voluntarily withdrew until >he had lowered support enough to safely allow Clinton 43%. > >So Clinton's working for his re-election. > >Perot's working for Clinton's re-election. > >And one must admit that the Republicans picked the one kind of guy who >couldn't beat Clinton, and that said candidate is running a campaign that >breaks Bush's world record for "designed to lose" presidential campaigns. > > > As if the bi-partisan system weren't anti-choice enough, it's as >if it's become the one-party system for real now. > >Oh, HEY! > >Has anyone seen this: > > Dole Doesn't Have Enough Royal Blood To Win > >(as if the previous stuff weren't enough for the LaRouche/Birch types) > > According to a leading geneologist in Britain, working for an >organization who has checked every US president/race since Washington, >Dole CANNOT win, because Clinton has more royal blood and... > >Get This: > >The candidate with the most royal blood has won EVERY presidential >election, EVER. No exceptions. >(look at http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=392243-c97 for a >more authoritarive article) > > Geez...that's a better argument for the Illuminati/Ruling Class >Secretly Runs the World conspiracy theories than anything else I've heard, >because that's one HELL of a coincidence, especially considering that, >thanks to inbreeding and other similar factors, I consider "royal blood" >to be a likely sign of genetic weakness, not strength, so I doubt it would >actually be an advantage in a truely free election. > > But I suppose it means I might have a chance, if my opponant were >of weak lineage...I'm descended from Charlemagne, through some other king, >I forget who...but it wasn't recent, unfortunately. > > Seriously, though, I'll bet this works itself into the "they pick >our leadership for us" argument...and this is the scariest one I've heard. >There have been forty-something elections. So, if lineage were only a >random factor and a 50/50 chance of the winner being more "royal", then >there'd be a a one in four chance in two elections, a one in eight chance >in three, a one in sixteen in four... > >And in 55 elections? The odds are 1:36,000,000,000,000,000! (You >multiply the number times two, fifty five times, like you do with color >depth on a computer...) > > Something has happened, either in a one in thirty six quadrillion >coincidence, or that was some kind of factor...as if someone were picking >the HEIR by lineage, and the voters had nothing to do with it. > >To be honest, I suspect it's a coincidence, but this is damned weird. > > >Words of the Socialists: > >For a pure Marxist society to long endure, voluntary exchange between >individuals must be abolished. --Friedrich Engels > > mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22 > > http://www.upx.net/ http://www.heinlein.org/ http://www.polyamory.com/ > > See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet... > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail