An Honest Protest
Father Luke
05:27:27 GMT, slon...@my-deja.com managed:
< stuff tooken out >
So what do you do? If you live in a state where the race is close,
you vote for Gore. If you live in a state that is already wrapped up
for one candidate, vote for Nader. (If you are conservative, come on,
you can't be passionate about Bush. How about voting for the
Libertarian candidate or Buchanan, if you are a racist, isolationist.)
Scott Long
=====\\=====
The Libertarian candidate is Harry Brown if memory serves me.
Although, I would prefer if you Voted for Pat Paulsen.
--==Pat Paulsen for President==--
go on ....admit it
He's good
for
'00'
http://www.paulsen.com/
Father Luke
slon...@my-deja.com
their favorite lobbyist. Well, you have an option. (Let me say I read
about this idea from columnist Molly Ivins. The following below is the
way I break it down)
Let's say you prefer an honest, sincere candidate like Ralph Nader, but
realize that they have no chance of winning. Knowing this, you worry
that even though Gore is a liar and creates no inspiration, his
policies are better than Bush's (Choosing Supreme Court Judges, Better
Enviromental stances, Not using trickle down economics which create
budget deficits)
So what do you do? If you live in a state where the race is close, you
vote for Gore. If you live in a state that is already wrapped up for
one candidate, vote for Nader. (If you are conservative, come on, you
can't be passionate about Bush. How about voting for the Libertarian
candidate or Buchanan, if you are a racist, isolationist.)
How you win a presidential election is through the electoral college.
The only way you can make a statement to the two-party system which is
beholden to special interest groups is this way of voting. You will
probably feel refreshed instead of frustrated or dirty walking out of
the voting booth.
Scott Long
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JSlotek
The Libertarian candidate is Harry Brown if memory serves me.
Although, I would prefer if you Voted for Pat Paulsen.
--==Pat Paulsen for President==--
go on ....admit it
He's good
for
<<< '00'
If dead people like Pat are on the ballot, why not Adlai Stevenson - the man
who answered a woman who called him "the choice of all thinking Americans," by
saying "that's not good enough Madam. We need a majority."
Even dead, he's smarter than what you've got now.
KlownHuntr
to. If I do, Kommie may come into it and accuse me of shooting his great-great
grandfather's best friend's cousin during that poker game back in aught-6.
~KB
Hey, he never should have sat with his back to the door.
Father Luke
Yea. Adlai Stevenson was kewl.
You didn't post the link in your reply, so
here it is:
The "Even dead, he's smarter than what you've got now." was the point.
I'll remain anon.
============\\===============
After wandering in the wilderness for 151 years 25 Oct 2000 13:24:57
GMT, jsl...@aol.com (JSlotek) managed:
SUZY SORO
realize that they have no chance of winning.<
Nader's people have pulled him back from California and the Pacific Northwest
because he is threatening Gore in those areas and the election could go to that
redneck Bush. (Perot gave Clinton the election over Bush, a calculated move on
his behalf, since he was afraid Bush would get reelected)
>Gore's policies are better than Bush's (Choosing Supreme Court Judges, Better
Enviromental stances, Not using trickle down economics which create budget
deficits)<
And the most important one of all, pro-choice.
Suzy Soro
To my knowledge, great advice, Scott
Mark A. Labozzetta
>because he is threatening Gore in those areas and the election could go to
>that
>redneck Bush.
Am I mistaken? Wasn't it simply a Nader supporter that pulled the ads and not
so much the Nader campaign. I must admit it is rather ironic that they pulled
ads saying that a Nader vote isn't a vote for Bush, because they were afraid
of screwing Gore out of votes.
Mark Labozzetta-They didn't pull all the ads though, just the ones in the daily
papers, plus Macarthur(think that's the guy's name) is also using the money
lost in putting up ads in New York and possibly Houston.
P.S. this proves to all you non-believers, I can read
SUZY SORO
Nader campaign<
I heard it on Good Day LA this morning and they said "Nader's people." They did
not pull the campaign back in states they knew Gore would carry. It's close in
California and the Pacific Northwest so that's why they toned it down there.
If Nader gets 5% of the vote, he qualifies for funding for the next
presidential election. And he, more than the democratic or republican
candidates, needs the money. Not exactly the best reason to stay in a race you
can't win.
But he also does not want Bush to be elected.
Suzy Soro
To my knowledge, I like Nader but it's like rooting for the Cubs
exlaw...@my-deja.com
and matching funds. I knew he couldn't win, but I liked his honest talk
and thought it should be rewarded.
I like Nader's frankness. I got on his mailing list and checked out his
platform at his website. I can't agree with his taxation policy of
increasing the progressive nature of the income tax. I'm a flat tax
supporter. Plus he seems very anitcapitalist, and I think he would tank
the economy. So I can't vote for him.
I think Gore has more experience than Bush. But in the last few weeks,
I have come to believe he will say anything to get elected. He seems to
make up stories to fit whatever group he is addressing.
His performance in the debates appalled me. He seemed like a snobby
elitist. Bush seemed to be speaking more frankly. Since their policies
don't seem all that different I vote Bush.
And I'll bet anyone a hundred bucks that even if you get eight years of
Bush, abortion will still be legal in America when he leaves office.
Jack
Laphboy
>[Gore's] performance in the debates appalled me. He seemed like a snobby
>elitist. Bush seemed to be speaking more frankly. Since their policies
>don't seem all that different I vote Bush.
See, to me, Gore looked like the smart guy, so I voted for him...Bush seemed
to be speaking, but I wasn't hearing anything substantive.
If McCain had run against Gore, I think I would've been pulling the
Republican lever for the first time ever.
steve gelder
http://www.stevegelder.com
Questions about comedy? Check the FAQ first!
http://members.aol.com/comedyfaq/faq.html
Stuart O. Bronstein
>
> I voted for John Anderson back in 1980 so he could get his 5 percent
> and matching funds. I knew he couldn't win, but I liked his honest talk
> and thought it should be rewarded.
So did I. I even voted for him in the primary, and never got around
to
changing my registration back from Republican. Still, I don't
remember
finding a republican that I could vote for other than McCain.
> I like Nader's frankness. I got on his mailing list and checked out his
> platform at his website. I can't agree with his taxation policy of
> increasing the progressive nature of the income tax. I'm a flat tax
> supporter. Plus he seems very anitcapitalist, and I think he would tank
> the economy. So I can't vote for him.
He's too idealistic and therefore unrealistic. Certainly, we need
idealists to keep us on our toes. But if they get too much power,
things can go very wrong for all the best reasons.
> I think Gore has more experience than Bush. But in the last few weeks,
> I have come to believe he will say anything to get elected. He seems to
> make up stories to fit whatever group he is addressing.
He's a politician. But a lot of what he says is being taken out of
context.
> His performance in the debates appalled me. He seemed like a snobby
> elitist. Bush seemed to be speaking more frankly. Since their policies
> don't seem all that different I vote Bush.
One analysis, as I recall, said that Bush was using a vocabulary and
style that would be understandable to people with a 7th grade
education.
Gore was talking at about a 10th grade level. It makes a big
difference.
> And I'll bet anyone a hundred bucks that even if you get eight years of
> Bush, abortion will still be legal in America when he leaves office.
Excuse me if I'd rather not have to find out.
Stu
Glad my mother didn't have that abortion
Dianebean
Suzy Soro
To my knowledge, I like Nader but it's like rooting for the Cubs
Now now young lady!
Leave the Cubs out of this debacle!
rooting for NAder costs $$$$$$$ and what do you get?
rooting for the Cubs at Wrigley, well you get great fun, a great view, and the
hot dogs!!!!
not to mention, if you sit behind home plate, the guy who sells the beer has
got muscles for days!!!!!
the bean
drank lots of beer just to see the arms!!!!!
slon...@my-deja.com
On the issues, I agree more completely with Gore than Nader or Bush,
but until a third party has more power, the 2 major parties will
continue to be lapdogs to the special interest groups. That is why I
am going to vote for Nader, who at least has taken on these groups time
after time.
I would have voted for McCain, if he had been the nominee. I have
rethought my positions somewhat on him, though, as he has been on the
stump for the Shrub.
If Bush is elected, our true president will be Cheney. The Shrub just
wants to get the job to show his family that he was not the partyboy
they always conceived him as. I would agree that abortion rights will
not change, but a lot of rights of privacy will be affected by more
conservative judges. Also, no 2 politicians are more tied into the oil
companies than Cheney/Bush. Enviromentally, these two are as green
friendly as the CEO of Exxon.
Living in Indiana (a presidential automatic for the elephants) my vote
means nothing, so I will vote for Nader, just as an honest protest vote
and hopefully to get Nader over 5%. (I doubt he will get there, but it
is worth trying.)
Scott
Heatplate
"JSlotek" <jsl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> If dead people like Pat are on the ballot, why not Adlai Stevenson - the
man
> who answered a woman who called him "the choice of all thinking
Americans," by
> saying "that's not good enough Madam. We need a majority."
>
> Even dead, he's smarter than what you've got now.
Wonderful quote!
L.
"I vote dead people."
D. Stalker
continue to be lapdogs to the special interest groups. >>
Could somebody explain the electoral collage votes? I was watching the Network
news and they ran a short story that in some states actual Joe / Jane Doe's are
picked to vote sometime in Dec. The part that hurt the most was when they
explained why the electoral system was implemented, to keep third and forth
parties out of power, and since it would take an act of congress to get rid of
it, guaranteeing that there will always be a two party system. Scary.
Stalker
KOMTURN
electoral system was implemented, to keep third and forth parties out of power,
and since it would take an act of congress to get rid of it, guaranteeing that
there will always be a two party system. Scary.
Stalker<
As I understand it [please note that I am but a Canadian] the electoral collage
was created to keep power away from the populated/big city areas so as to
evenly distribute it/power/to give a national balance. No?
How does it keep it a two party system?
JBT
i go now
Stuart O. Bronstein
>
> Could somebody explain the electoral collage votes? I was watching the Network
> news and they ran a short story that in some states actual Joe / Jane Doe's are
> picked to vote sometime in Dec. The part that hurt the most was when they
> explained why the electoral system was implemented, to keep third and forth
> parties out of power, and since it would take an act of congress to get rid of
> it, guaranteeing that there will always be a two party system. Scary.
Originally, I think the President was elected by Congress. For some
reason (around 1820, I think) they decided that wasn't the best idea,
so they came up with the electoral collage system.
Based on population, each state gets a certain number of electors.
(It may be the same number of congress members, but I'm not sure about
that.)
When we vote, it's not really for the President. It's for a slate of
electors who are supposed to vote for our candidate. They're not
legally obligated to do that, but they are certainly supposed to.
The electors are not voted on by district, but by state. So that a
whole slate is elected, otherwise known as winner-take-all.
There may be more, but that's all I can think of at this point.
Stu
Elector on the Suzy Soro for President slate
Myach
>(It may be the same number of congress members, but I'm not sure about
>that.)
>
>When we vote, it's not really for the President. It's for a slate of
>electors who are supposed to vote for our candidate. They're not
>legally obligated to do that, but they are certainly supposed to.
>
>The electors are not voted on by district, but by state. So that a
>whole slate is elected, otherwise known as winner-take-all.
The number of electors is equal to the number of congressmen plus 2 to
represent the 2 senators. 535 total.
I'm not sure but I think there are 1 or 2 states that are not winner-take-all
The whole system seems archaic and unfair to me. It essentially says that if
you live in CA or NY, your vote is worth more than someone's vote in Alaska or
South Dakota.
We need a grass roots movement to do away with it.
- Matusof
Cos McCowboy
<20001027111814...@ng-fk1.aol.com>:
>Could somebody explain the electoral collage votes?
I believe it was Mark Russell who suggested that it was the result of the
founding fathers getting really drunk one night and then returning to work on
the Constitution...
Sounds plausible to me. Either that, or they wanted an extra layer between
the unwashed masses and supreme executive power, just in case The People
screwed up? Not that such a thing would ever happen, of course.
--
Perfectly Normal Industries: serving Fortune 500's comedy needs since 1998!
- Are YOU paying too much for your comedy?
"Children are just larval-stage marketing execs - treat them accordingly."