View Single Post
  #4  
Old October 17th, 2008, 04:05 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,901
Default OT The right man for a perilous moment

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:52:30 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.


So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?


I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate. Not
only did I not expect Nader to win, I would have been appalled
had he done so. So yeah, I voted for his party but I didn't
support him.


Oh, now, go easy on him...I mean, Krugman wasn't far off...he's not only
like Nixon, he's like Rush Limpdick, too...he should be pitied, not
scorned...

This is all about ballot access and electoral math, feel free
to use a calculator if you're having trouble understanding the
concept.


Hmmm...I see what you're saying - it's about a fair system with free but
honest access, free of corruption and other things that would not only
cause objective damage but cause participants to lose faith in it...?

Glad I could help,
R