Posts by Alastair Thompson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ken Blackwell has lost Ohio..
So thats some good news for starters...
DCCC HOR election watch page here
http://www.dccc.org/results/index.html
Is a goodie
-
Russ,
New thread... yea or nay...
The discussion with NO (Jesse) James could stay here perhaps...
-
Can I suggest we start a new thread....
Its started...
-
Huffington post leaked exit poll numbers
SENATE EXIT POLLS AS OF 5:30 EST: Democrats Leading: Virginia (52-47), Rhode Island (53-46), Pennsylvania (57-42), Ohio (57-43), New Jersey (52-45), Montana (53-46), Missouri (50-48), Maryland (53-46)…GOP Leading: Tennessee (51-48), Arizona (50-46)…
Show 51-49 democrat senate...
We will see..........
-
ABC on exit polls
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2006/story?id=2635898Nov. 7, 2006 — Preliminary exit poll results indicate that nearly six in 10 voters today disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job.
About four in 10 approve. That's down from 53 percent approval in 2004, and 67 percent just before the 2002 midterm elections.
About four in 10 "strongly" disapprove of the president's work, more than double the number of strong approvers.
Intensity of sentiment for and against, by contrast, was about equal in 2004: Thirty-three percent strongly approved of the president's performance, and 35 percent strongly disapproved. And in 2002, strong approvers dominated, quite a contrast from today.
-
James might find the discourse a bit more to his liking over at your blog Craig.
Your question about protectionism is a red herring as well as being a load of bollocks.
The US did not agree to a free trade deal with Australia on agriculture. And neither Dems nor Repubs will do so with NZ. And we do not want to grant US pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to rip us off on drugs. There will not be a deal either way notwithstanding the words of our great leaders.
Meanwhile whether the republicans or Dems are more protectionist is in huge part a tossup.
And that is assuming that protectionism is bad anyway.
My beef with protectionism in the US has never been that it is perse a bad thing but rather that they are outright hypocrits. Using the IMF and world bank to force unregulated financial markets and free trade on the third world and simultaneously running keynsian protectionist monetary policy backed up by militarily conducted protection of their oil currency position and a hugely protectionist domestic market.
Finally who raised trade policy? Isn't this election about the rule of law and war crimes?
-
Ben,
Excellent insights into the state of US democracy.... many US seats look like the long intestine of a cow.... they have taken gerrymandering to a new level.
Somewhat novelly for the US - normally for everyone else - the DNC decided in its "50 State Policy" - to actually stand in all races this year (they didn't quite make it but they tried.) From an NZ perspective this is bizarre... does the National Party consider for a moment not standing in Mangere?
And then there is the $$$. I read somewhere a while ago that the most correlative function in any analysis of US elections is that between the candidate that spends the most $$$ and the candidate that wins.
Consequently you end up with a senate and house full of millionaires.
-
I didn't say anything about 9/11 but now you mention it I have a ton of questions about all that that would be nice to have answered.
Dick Cheney has repeatedly told the media that he agonised over the shoot down decision in relation to flight 93.
As the NORAD tapes show NORAD and he did not even know that flight 93 had been hijacked at the time it fell out of the sky.
So on the face of it the Vice President decided to lie to use 911 as an opportunity to make himself look like a big man who had his finger on the pulse in the WH bunker when in fact he was as blind as everybody else on the day.
Perhaps that was silly of Dick.
Meanwhile...
Dick Cheney and the Dim Son refused to testify for to the 911 commission for months. What is that about?When they finally did so they did so, together, unsworn and in secrecy. What is that about?
We don't know for a fact that Cheney told the commission a bunch of lies about 911. But it seems highly likely since we do know that NORAD told a bunch of lies on numerous occasions and that the 911 commission asked the FAA and DOD to conduct investigations into why they were lied to.
So who exactly is silly again?
Perhaps since you are in New Orleans you should explain how Bush came to publicly state that nobody could have expected the levees to break? (When video of a conference with FEMA shows him being informed of the possibility.)
Probably just like how nobody could have expected planes to be used as weapons when in fact the Pentagon had run an exercise involving the crashing of an airliner into their building?
........ since you asked....
-
FWIW... come 1pm I think you should start another thread Russell... this one is gonna be unmanageable well before then....
Go PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM....!!!!
:)
-
Yeah.. you must have beat me by a few seconds only....