|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2008 18:44:11 GMT -5
four possibilities
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Oct 23, 2008 20:57:13 GMT -5
This is looking more and more, like the electoral crisis we had in Mexico in 2006.
Obrador (extreme left dictator) wasn't supposed to be mayor of Mexico City, because he couldn't prove he has been resident of the city at least 3 years (or was 5?) AND just some months prior to that he run for governor (and lost) for another state. However, his party hard pressed Mexico City's Electoral Office to issue voter's credential, thus proving he was resident.
During his period as mayo of Mexico City, several times was challenged by local courts because he violated some court order. All the way his method was to respond in the media (with the help of leftist intellectuals) but NOT in courts. Because Mexican judges tend to be more political (and corrupted) he was never judged. The only time he couldn't brake the court using this method was when Felipe Calderon (current president) was elected. Obrador lost by 1% and he claimed there was a big fraud. Media (leftist and not so leftist) was filled with opinions for and against, rationalizations on what was "morally" right to do, and several other arguments, like a arguing that a total vote recount,very time consuming, was performed in Costa Rica and it worked (nobody mentioned however our population against that of CR). However in courts, Obrador's case was VERY poorly presented, with no solid arguments at all, with very little proofs of actual fraud. So he defended the case in the streets (he blocked traffic in a extremely big avenue in mexico city during MONTHS, with the help of local government) and in the media.
I see the same pattern here. Obama doesn't present solid arguments in court, and media down plays everything. I have event read that this thing of Obama not being usa born citizen, is a "urban myth", however the legal process is very real, and it's consequences too.
To this date, Obrador still claims he is the "moral" president of Mexico, and still is causing political turmoil using stupids that still listen to him. So beware, you could be reflecting in a mirror.
Abdiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by ophello on Oct 23, 2008 21:15:53 GMT -5
are you referring to the financial crisis? If factcheck.org is to be trusted, the blame cannot be placed squarely on the dems (though clinton helped, apparently).
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 23, 2008 23:16:32 GMT -5
E-male - I'd give your scenario a high degree of probability. However, letting it go to default is injudicious. Yet, if you have a corrupted judge in the bag - who cares how blatant you are.
Op
The dems are dead center in creating legislation forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. The snow ball started there.
|
|
|
|
Post by ophello on Oct 23, 2008 23:36:01 GMT -5
From the site:
So...didnt the "snowball" start earlier than the legislation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Oct 24, 2008 14:31:59 GMT -5
He was dying to be one... besides he acted like a local dictator during his period as mayor.
There's a catch here, the election wasn't illegal, but his candidacy was, and IT WAS challenged, however IEDF (electoral institute of Mexico City) was pressed to issue a legal proof of his residence. And politicians made a deal between them to no prosecute his other legal affairs (violating court orders) that would make him ineligible to be presidential candidate. And by the way PRD pressed other politicians by taking the streets and with newspaper articles of so called intellectuals, not in courts never in courts.
Second catch. ¿What polls? At the begging of the campaign Obrador was winning by other 14% over Calderon. However he lost, all by himself, that wide margin because if his lousy mouth. At the end polls showed a draw between the two. And let's not forget to mention that the poll company he hired all of the sudden stopped issuing updates, at his request (the company latter admited). In those polls he requested not to be shown, he was in a draw too, just like all the other polls. That contradicts what Obrador was saying, that he had a secrete, undisclosed poll where his was winning by 10%.
It was impractical and without legal basis, besides Obrador didn't care about the result of the recount, the only result he was going to accept is that he won. Under Mexican law you have to have a reason to recount a voting booth, if after recount there are signs of mayor irregularities in all those booths the election is deemed invalid. PRD (Obrador's party) challenged just a portion of the booths and even in those they didn't provide enough evidence, however courts accepted even those booths with poorly presented evidence.
What Obrador wanted and stills wants, is to produce a void of power, a weak presidency so he can accumulate power by his own means as to be powerful enough to make a coup.
I didn't get my info from the TV, I read and monitored several newspapers, during that election. AND I was living in Mexico City. At the end the only surviving argument that Obrador won, is because somebody "believes" that, and I can't argue what people believes.
Abdiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 25, 2008 2:31:10 GMT -5
Op
The communist dems REQUIRED that loans be given to people who couldn't afford them AND saw to it the loans were insured by the Federal Government (ie u and me). Thus the bank had nothing vested in the loan and nothing to lose. They made them with a vengence then, those loans were packaged together and sold together to other concerns as an investment vehicle at a discount. Of course, the loans were as good as those paying them so - not very good.
A lot of banks and investment houses bought the loans then the house of cards collapsed.
The government, however, is on the hook. Now you'd say - hey the loans were secured by the real estate and so they were. However, the sharkfest in making the bad loans also drove the prices of the houses up higher. Now that it's collapsed, the values have gone down and no one is going to want to buy a house at more than its worth. Who takes the loss? We the people and the commies keep right on trucking to their next disaster.
I said it months ago on hq. The communists are making their move at the take over of the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Oct 25, 2008 16:01:25 GMT -5
Jeremiah,
¿So... you have been offensive other times?
I don't track all your posts, just those I deem interesting.
Abdiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 25, 2008 19:22:02 GMT -5
OR the could obey the law.
If Obama's presidencey is deemed illegal - the real arguement is should Biden ascend based upon the fraud. Fruit of the poison tree applies here and the arguements would fly.
If it comes out before the election - the voters will tend to it themselves.
Obama clearly is trying to drag things out.
The odd thing here is that no one is reporting this including Fox. Curious
|
|
|
|
Post by Parn on Oct 26, 2008 12:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Oct 26, 2008 16:24:28 GMT -5
Well, it appears that the people of the United States have no standing in a Federal Court but a foreigner does. No one had to wait for an appeals hearing - the fix was in at the lower level.
Berg will very likely hit the appeals court but the amount of time it takes will go past the election. Although there is a process for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parn on Oct 26, 2008 20:25:49 GMT -5
Oddly enough, the judge was a Clinton appointee.
|
|
