| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2004 10:27:34 AM |
| Object: |
Voting for a third candidate (was: Re: Voting Libertarian!!!) |
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point, that should be kept in mind not only by
Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
copying it to a couple of other lists.
Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
..99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
(Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
the vote for President - because it won't.
I would strongly encourage everyone living in a state that is solidly
pro-Kerry to vote for Badnarik, so that we can get a third party to vote
for in future elections.
Agreed. And exactly the same for states that are solidly pro-Bush -
Libertarians would do better voting for Badnarik, Greens for Nader,
etc.
.
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
02 Nov 2004 12:59:44 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point ...
No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact with
reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded
to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes
will not go to Kerry, moron.
The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw the
rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors must
keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
02 Nov 2004 01:45:36 PM |
|
|
In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point ...
No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact with
reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded
to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes
will not go to Kerry, moron.
George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
voters, moron.
The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw the
rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors must
keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
candidate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghod" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
02 Nov 2004 03:05:07 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
: >
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office. X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
03 Nov 2004 11:21:53 AM |
|
|
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
: >
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
04 Nov 2004 09:18:36 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
: >
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
04 Nov 2004 03:10:32 PM |
|
|
Print Version
November 03, 2004, 11:09 a.m.
The Great Relearning
Let it begin.
By Bill Bennett
Well, it wasn't the Clinton economy we longed for; and it wasn't just
the war on terrorism that occupied us. Ethics and moral values were
ascendant last night — on voters minds, in Americans' hearts. To be
sure, every anthropologist loves his own tribe, and I have long
advocated a stronger tie between politics and the virtues. Last night it
was evident that the American people agree.
Ohio, which may very well have lost more jobs than any other state,
delivered President Bush his electoral victory. West Virginia looks much
the same. Alaska, a relatively libertarian state, voted against
decriminalizing marijuana — despite the proposition to do so vastly
out-funding the movement to keep it criminalized. And the eleven state
proposals to ban the redefinition of marriage all succeeded overwhelmingly.
On this last point, one veteran political reporter told me, "I heard
again and again from people connected to, and members of, black churches
who did not look kindly on gay marriage, and were very motivated against
it. They, more than anyone else, did not see it as a civil right — and
were angered by those who claimed it was."
The national exit polling conducted by the Los Angeles Times confirms
all these findings, showing that "[M]ore than half of Bush's voters
cited moral issues as a principal reason for their support — more than
any other issue, including even terrorism." In fact, morals trumped
terrorism by seven percentage points in the Los Angeles Times poll.
Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a
mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society,
through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given
him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is
the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ("The Great
Relearning," as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) — no less in legislation
than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason
George W. Bush was reelected.
— William J. Bennett is the host of the nationally syndicated radio
show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, and the Washington Fellow at
the Claremont Institute.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200411031109.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
04 Nov 2004 04:08:37 PM |
|
|
Even as a GOP voter, I think Bennett is a *****. Hopefully
they'll keep him safely cloistered away writing polemics
and FAR from any position where he can actually affect
government policy. Theocrats and lefty social-engineering
types - they both suck.
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:10:32 GMT, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
Print Version
November 03, 2004, 11:09 a.m.
The Great Relearning
Let it begin.
By Bill Bennett
Well, it wasn't the Clinton economy we longed for; and it wasn't just
the war on terrorism that occupied us. Ethics and moral values were
ascendant last night — on voters minds, in Americans' hearts. To be
sure, every anthropologist loves his own tribe, and I have long
advocated a stronger tie between politics and the virtues. Last night it
was evident that the American people agree.
Ohio, which may very well have lost more jobs than any other state,
delivered President Bush his electoral victory. West Virginia looks much
the same. Alaska, a relatively libertarian state, voted against
decriminalizing marijuana — despite the proposition to do so vastly
out-funding the movement to keep it criminalized. And the eleven state
proposals to ban the redefinition of marriage all succeeded overwhelmingly.
On this last point, one veteran political reporter told me, "I heard
again and again from people connected to, and members of, black churches
who did not look kindly on gay marriage, and were very motivated against
it. They, more than anyone else, did not see it as a civil right — and
were angered by those who claimed it was."
The national exit polling conducted by the Los Angeles Times confirms
all these findings, showing that "[M]ore than half of Bush's voters
cited moral issues as a principal reason for their support — more than
any other issue, including even terrorism." In fact, morals trumped
terrorism by seven percentage points in the Los Angeles Times poll.
Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a
mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society,
through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given
him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is
the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ("The Great
Relearning," as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) — no less in legislation
than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason
George W. Bush was reelected.
— William J. Bennett is the host of the nationally syndicated radio
show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, and the Washington Fellow at
the Claremont Institute.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200411031109.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Norris" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
05 Nov 2004 09:21:24 AM |
|
|
(BlackWater) wrote in message news:<418aa774.12893670@news.east.earthlink.net>...
Even as a GOP voter, I think Bennett is a *****. Hopefully
they'll keep him safely cloistered away writing polemics
and FAR from any position where he can actually affect
government policy. Theocrats and lefty social-engineering
types - they both suck.
To Bill Bennett morality is losing eight million dollars gambling but
not betting the morgage.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
05 Nov 2004 09:02:59 PM |
|
|
(John Norris) wrote:
bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote in message news:<418aa774.12893670@news.east.earthlink.net>...
Even as a GOP voter, I think Bennett is a *****. Hopefully
they'll keep him safely cloistered away writing polemics
and FAR from any position where he can actually affect
government policy. Theocrats and lefty social-engineering
types - they both suck.
To Bill Bennett morality is losing eight million dollars gambling but
not betting the mortgage.
Ooooh ... you found his one little flaw. I guess that means
NOTHING he's ever said is valid ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Norris" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
08 Nov 2004 10:48:52 AM |
|
|
BlackWater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message news:<TT+MQRDD9BqK9dvcEnvmL4xO2q+n@4ax.com>...
jnorris53@hotmail.com (John Norris) wrote:
bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote in message news:<418aa774.12893670@news.east.earthlink.net>...
Even as a GOP voter, I think Bennett is a *****. Hopefully
they'll keep him safely cloistered away writing polemics
and FAR from any position where he can actually affect
government policy. Theocrats and lefty social-engineering
types - they both suck.
To Bill Bennett morality is losing eight million dollars gambling but
not betting the mortgage.
Ooooh ... you found his one little flaw. I guess that means
NOTHING he's ever said is valid ...
A little flaw is playing crazy eights for matches. Gambling eight
million is not little. And yes, when you set yourself up and the all
knowing high overlord of virtue and morals you damn well better have a
very clean closet. So his message maybe valid but who can hear it
over the laughter?
JohnN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Let it begin' [building the theocracy] -- Bennett |
04 Nov 2004 03:22:57 PM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> writes:
The Great Relearning
Let it begin.
By Bill Bennett
Wanna bet?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
06 Nov 2004 06:11:40 PM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
: >
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'? (Did
they have a hand in designing the Michigan ballots which could not be
used to vote for Bush, perhaps?) Whatever evidence you have, let's
see it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
07 Nov 2004 11:29:47 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
: >
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'?
Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty tricks,
moron, I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters, the head
of Diebold, for instance.
The head of Diebold, a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told
Republicans in an Aug. 14, 2003 fund-raising letter that he was
"committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14, 2003 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc.
- who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush -
prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing
O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors
known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas,
ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a
$1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's
federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in
the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken
Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of
three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to
Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
http://tinyurl.com/5zw3g
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ended five months of
speculation and announced Friday, Oct. 1, 2004 that he was decertifying
all electronic
touch-screen voting machines in the state due to security concerns and
lack of voter confidence.
"We will not tolerate deceitful tactics as engaged in by Diebold and we
must send a clear and compelling message to the rest of the industry:
Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California because there
will be consequences if you do," he said.
Shelley said the ban on touch-screen machines would stay in effect unless
and until specific security measures could be put in place to safeguard
the November vote.
"Revelations regarding touch-screen machines have shaken public
confidence in this voting technology," Shelley said, referring to four
computer-science reports released in the last year that showed the
machines to be badly designed and vulnerable to hacking. "It is my
foremost responsibility to take all steps necessary to make sure every
vote cast in California will be accurately counted."
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
08 Nov 2004 06:56:20 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<fYsjd.9311$5K2.3983@attbi_s03>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
[re-unsnip]
: > > that should be kept in mind not only by
: > > Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
: > >minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
: > > copying it to a couple of other lists.
: > > Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
: > > individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
: > > is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
: > > .99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
: > > vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
: > > The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
: > > (Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
: > > the vote for President - because it won't.
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'?
Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty tricks,
moron,
Then you're simply trying to distract attention again with another red herring.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
08 Nov 2004 01:37:08 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<fYsjd.9311$5K2.3983@attbi_s03>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
[re-unsnip]
: > > that should be kept in mind not only by
: > > Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
: > >minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
: > > copying it to a couple of other lists.
: > > Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
: > > individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
: > > is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
: > > .99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
: > > vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
: > > The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
: > > (Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
: > > the vote for President - because it won't.
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'?
Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty tricks,
moron, I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters, the head of Diebold, for instance.
Then you're simply trying to distract attention again with another red herring.
False. Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty
tricks, moron, I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters,
the head of Diebold, for instance.
The head of Diebold, a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told
Republicans in an Aug. 14, 2003 fund-raising letter that he was
"committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14, 2003 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc.
- who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush -
prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing
O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors
known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas,
ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a
$1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's
federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in
the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken
Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of
three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to
Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
http://tinyurl.com/5zw3g
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ended five months of
speculation and announced Friday, Oct. 1, 2004 that he was decertifying
all electronic
touch-screen voting machines in the state due to security concerns and
lack of voter confidence.
"We will not tolerate deceitful tactics as engaged in by Diebold and we
must send a clear and compelling message to the rest of the industry:
Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California because there
will be consequences if you do," he said.
Shelley said the ban on touch-screen machines would stay in effect unless
and until specific security measures could be put in place to safeguard
the November vote.
"Revelations regarding touch-screen machines have shaken public
confidence in this voting technology," Shelley said, referring to four
computer-science reports released in the last year that showed the
machines to be badly designed and vulnerable to hacking. "It is my
foremost responsibility to take all steps necessary to make sure every
vote cast in California will be accurately counted."
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
09 Nov 2004 10:48:11 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<EVPjd.72944$R05.5453@attbi_s53>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<fYsjd.9311$5K2.3983@attbi_s03>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
[re-unsnip]
: > > that should be kept in mind not only by
: > > Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
: > >minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
: > > copying it to a couple of other lists.
: > > Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
: > > individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
: > > is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
: > > .99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
: > > vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
: > > The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
: > > (Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
: > > the vote for President - because it won't.
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'?
Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty tricks,
moron,
Then what do they have to do my 'side' - those who wanted to vote for
for Badnarik or Nader?
I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters,
Unless you're claiming that Badnarik and Nader, and their supporters,
had anything to do with your alleged 'Repugnican dirty trix', then
you're just trying to slip in yet another red herring.
"Red Herring
This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material
to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring
the head of Diebold, for instance.
Then you're simply trying to distract attention again with another red herring.
False. Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty
tricks, moron, I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters,
the head of Diebold, for instance.
The head of Diebold, a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told
Republicans in an Aug. 14, 2003 fund-raising letter that he was
"committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14, 2003 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc.
- who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush -
prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing
O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors
known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas,
ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a
$1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's
federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in
the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken
Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of
three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to
Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
http://tinyurl.com/5zw3g
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ended five months of
speculation and announced Friday, Oct. 1, 2004 that he was decertifying
all electronic
touch-screen voting machines in the state due to security concerns and
lack of voter confidence.
"We will not tolerate deceitful tactics as engaged in by Diebold and we
must send a clear and compelling message to the rest of the industry:
Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California because there
will be consequences if you do," he said.
Shelley said the ban on touch-screen machines would stay in effect unless
and until specific security measures could be put in place to safeguard
the November vote.
"Revelations regarding touch-screen machines have shaken public
confidence in this voting technology," Shelley said, referring to four
computer-science reports released in the last year that showed the
machines to be badly designed and vulnerable to hacking. "It is my
foremost responsibility to take all steps necessary to make sure every
vote cast in California will be accurately counted."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
09 Nov 2004 10:49:21 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<EVPjd.72944$R05.5453@attbi_s53>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<fYsjd.9311$5K2.3983@attbi_s03>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<gLrid.569000$8_6.34900@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
"Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<cm8sq4$c7s$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-8CDBBE.12453602112004@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
: In article <AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>, X <X@nospam.net>
wrote:
: > George Dance wrote:
: >
: > > MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
: > > news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
: > >
: > >>The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in
tomorrow's
: > >>election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote
for the
: > >>Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
: > >>Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake
of ousting
: > >>George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
: > >
: > > That's an excellent point ...
[re-unsnip]
: > > that should be kept in mind not only by
: > > Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
: > >minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
: > > copying it to a couple of other lists.
: > > Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
: > > individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
: > > is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
: > > .99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
: > > vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
: > > The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
: > > (Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
: > > the vote for President - because it won't.
: > No it isn't moron. There you go again with your impaired contact
with
: > reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are
persaded
: > to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral
votes
: > will not go to Kerry, moron.
:
: George's point was about the influence of non-Kerry but anti-Shrub
: voters, moron.
: >
: > The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw
the
: > rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors
must
: > keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
:
: And all the anti-Shrub voters vote for Kerry instead of a minor
: candidate.
Virgil, I can see that you've some problems with parsing english.
George is suggesting that, because his state has a large margin
poll-wise in favor of Kerry, that it would be safe to vote for the
Libertarian candidate that he would really rather have in office.
X
makes the extremely valid point that if sufficient numbers of voters
vote for a third party candidate, just because the polls show Kerry
having a safe margin, then suddenly Kerry's "safe margin" evaporates,
giving Dumbya a backdoor win.
X's argument is 'valid' only in the sense that everything follows
validly from a contradiction. Of course it's true that, if a
sufficient number of voters preferred Badnarik over Kerry, then Kerry
would not win the state; but, in that case, Kerry would not have had a
'safe margin' in the polls to begin with.
Those who feel that it is safe to vote third party in this election
have holes in their heads. It's almost as stupid as voting directly
for Dumbya.
No doubt Kerry supporters will blame their loss on Nader again, if not
Badnarik - the idea that the Kerry campaign lost because it deserved
to lose being one that their 'faith' (as one Kerry supporter in this
discussion described it) will not allow them to consider.
Not all the votes for John Kerry got counted, moron. You heard about all
the dirty tricks your side pulled to suppress the vote for Kerry, didn't
you, or have you been living in a hole?
Just what 'dirty tricks' did either Badnarik or Nader 'pull'?
Straw man; I haven't said Badnarik or Nader did pull any dirty tricks,
moron,
Then what do they have to do my 'side' - those who wanted to vote for
for Badnarik or Nader?
I am finding fault with you Repugnican dirty trixters,
Unless you're claiming that Badnarik and Nader, and their supporters,
had anything to do with your alleged 'Repugnican dirty trix', then
you're just trying to slip in yet another red herring.
the head of Diebold, for instance.
"Red Herring
This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material
to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
03 Nov 2004 11:06:46 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>...
George Dance wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point ...
No it isn't moron.
[unsnip]
That's an excellent point, that should be kept in mind not only by
Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
copying it to a couple of other lists.
Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
..99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
(Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
the vote for President - because it won't.
There you go again with your impaired contact with
reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded
to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes
will not go to Kerry, moron.
Nothing was said about 'Kerry voters,' silly boy; once again you're
either deliberately attacking a straw man, or confusing your
imaginings with reality.
The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw the
rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors must
keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
The 'faith' of Kerry votors [sic] may be a reason for them to want to
take over the country; but it's no reason for anyone else, who doesn't
have that 'faith' and has no reason for having it, to help with the
takeover.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
04 Nov 2004 09:30:42 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>...
George Dance wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point ...
No it isn't moron.
That's an excellent point ...
Except that I just explained why it is not "an excellent point" as you
allege:
There you go again with your impaired contact with reality (delusion).
The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded to vote for someone
other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes will not go to
Kerry, moron.
The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw the
rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors must
keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
Nothing was said about 'Kerry voters' ...
That's precisely what we were discussing, your side's dirty tricks
attempt to suppress the vote for John Kerry, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Voting for a third candidate |
05 Nov 2004 12:11:15 PM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<CWrid.464204$mD.306750@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<AOQhd.288217$wV.31007@attbi_s54>...
George Dance wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.01.12.47.41.290053@stopspam.net>...
The latest polls show my state, NY, to be solidly for Kerry in tomorrow's
election. That means that I can vote my conscience, and vote for the
Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik! I would vote for John
Lesser-of-two-evils Kerry if my state were close, for the sake of ousting
George evilest-of-all-evils Bush.
That's an excellent point ...
No it isn't moron.
[unsnip]
That's an excellent point
[re-unsnip]
that should be kept in mind not only by
Libertarians but also Nader supporters and in fact supporters of any
minor party. (It should reach more people as well, I'd say, so I'm
copying it to a couple of other lists.
Under the U.S. system, votes for president are cast by states, not by
individuals. If either of Bush or Kerry has a lead in your state that
is greater than the margin of error, then the probability is more than
.99 that either Bush or Kerry already has your state's vote; who you
vote for is not going to make a difference to the Presidential vote.
The conclusion being, that you can vote for the candidate you prefer
(Badnarik, Nader, or whomever) without worrying about that affecting
the vote for President - because it won't.
There you go again with your impaired contact with
reality (delusion). The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded
to vote for someone other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes
will not go to Kerry, moron.
....
Except that I just explained why it is not "an excellent point" as you
allege:
There you go again with your impaired contact with reality (delusion).
The fact is that if enough Kerry voters are persaded to vote for someone
other than Kerry, then that state's electoral votes will not go to
Kerry, moron.
[unsnip]
Nothing was said about 'Kerry voters,' silly boy; once again you're
either deliberately attacking a straw man, or confusing your
imaginings with reality.
The fact is that for us to take back our country we have to throw the
rascals who stole it out, and that means that all the Kerry votors must
keep the faith and vote for John Kerry.
Attaboy; just keep going out and voting for Kerry, every day. That
oughta do it.
Nothing was said about 'Kerry voters' ...
That's precisely what we were discussing, your side's dirty tricks
attempt to suppress the vote for John Kerry, moron.
Oh, so the Libertarians and Ralph Nader stole the election, did they?
Yet most people seem to think that George Bush won. I guess that's
more evidence for your alleged epidemic of delusional disorder in
America, that only you know about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: "Diebold committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes toBush" -- Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. |
05 Nov 2004 03:47:53 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... most people seem to think that George Bush won. ...
Argument from popularity is logical fallacy, Georgie.
It appears that the Repugnicans stole it again. Google Diebold.
The head of Diebold, a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told
Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he was "committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc.
- who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush -
prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing
O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors –
known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas,
ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a
$1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's
federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in
the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken
Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of
three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to
Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
http://tinyurl.com/5zw3g
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ended five months of
speculation and announced Friday that he was decertifying all electronic
touch-screen voting machines in the state due to security concerns and
lack of voter confidence.
"We will not tolerate deceitful tactics as engaged in by Diebold and we
must send a clear and compelling message to the rest of the industry:
Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California because there
will be consequences if you do," he said.
Shelley said the ban on touch-screen machines would stay in effect unless
and until specific security measures could be put in place to safeguard
the November vote.
"Revelations regarding touch-screen machines have shaken public
confidence in this voting technology," Shelley said, referring to four
computer-science reports released in the last year that showed the
machines to be badly designed and vulnerable to hacking. "It is my
foremost responsibility to take all steps necessary to make sure every
vote cast in California will be accurately counted."
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: "Diebold committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to Bush" -- Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. |
06 Nov 2004 06:34:17 PM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<dySid.359237$MQ5.219033@attbi_s52>...
George Dance wrote:
... most people seem to think that George Bush won. ...
Argument from popularity is logical fallacy, Georgie.
That's not an argument from popularity, as you should know.
It appears that the Repugnicans stole it again.
Then why have you been blaming Badnarik, Nader, and their supporters?
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: "Diebold committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votesto Bush" -- Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. |
07 Nov 2004 11:21:54 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<dySid.359237$MQ5.219033@attbi_s52>...
George Dance wrote:
... most people seem to think that George Bush won. ...
Argument from popularity is logical fallacy, Georgie.
It appears that the Repugnicans stole it again.
That's not an argument from popularity ...
Yes it is, moron. Study up:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Argumentum Ad Populum
Abstract: The argument based upon what most or all people think or
believe is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but
normally fallacious.
<...>
"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the
grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.
It appears that the Repugnicans stole it again.
Then why have you been blaming Badnarik, Nader, and their supporters?
False. I wasn't finding fault with them, moron, I was finding fault with
you Repubnican dirty trixters for trying to trick some Kerry voters into
voting for somebody other than Kerry, because their state is already
solid Kerry, which it wouldn't be if you convinced enough voters to
switch to somebody else.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
