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