Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070135 > unrolled thread

Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:10 -0500
    Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-04 20:38 -0600
      Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery kookoo@maricaibo.com - 2016-03-04 22:44 -0700
        Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 00:28 -0800
          Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-05 04:42 -0600
            Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 03:25 -0800
              Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-05 20:07 -0600
                Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 03:55 -0800
                Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 10:26 -0500
                  Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 16:26 +0000
                Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0500
            Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:39 -0500
              Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 09:51 +0000
                Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 18:51 -0500
              Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-06 07:22 -0600
        Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-05 04:37 -0600
          Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 04:10 -0800
            Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-05 20:10 -0600
            Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:49 -0500
          Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:47 -0500
            Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 03:51 -0800
              Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 18:54 -0500
      Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:33 -0500
        Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery American Fast-Food <¡Jones@fubahor.com> - 2016-03-05 20:15 -0600
          Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:38 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2070135 — Re: Democrats Gave America Slavery

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 04:49:08 -0800, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>Alex W wrote:
>> Admittedly, I have a Eurocentric perspective, but I do believe that a 
>> third party could be of great benefit to the US.
>> 
>> The problem is, and this is my Eurocentric experience, is that many 
>> attempts to establish third parties are doomed to failure because they 
>> start out as vehicles for the political ambitions of single individuals 
>> and fail to evolve beyond that.  De Wilder in the Netherlands and 
>> Berlusconi in Italy are good examples of this.
>
>
>It also seems that it's much easier to have a 3rd party in a country 
>with a Parliamentary system.

When three parties core on right, left and center, the center usually
wins most of the time.  It has the most in common with either side and
the two ends rarely have anything in common with each other.  This
would seem to be a good thing unless one side or the other becomes
unpopular enough to force it's opposition into a clear, majority role
without having to coalition with anybody else.

Swill
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070142

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:10:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Governor
Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>When three parties core on right, left and center, the center usually
>wins most of the time.  It has the most in common with either side and
>the two ends rarely have anything in common with each other.  This
>would seem to be a good thing unless one side or the other becomes
>unpopular enough to force it's opposition into a clear, majority role
>without having to coalition with anybody else.

I think that we will soon have a third party.  If I were guessing, it
could be that the Republican party splits off the 'baggers and moves
to the center.

My guess is as good as the next guy's... I guess.

Jones

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070205

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:38:30 -0600, American Fast-Food
<¡Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:

>X-NO-IDIOTS
>
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:10:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Governor
>Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>When three parties core on right, left and center, the center usually
>>wins most of the time.  It has the most in common with either side and
>>the two ends rarely have anything in common with each other.  This
>>would seem to be a good thing unless one side or the other becomes
>>unpopular enough to force it's opposition into a clear, majority role
>>without having to coalition with anybody else.
>
>I think that we will soon have a third party.  If I were guessing, it
>could be that the Republican party splits off the 'baggers and moves
>to the center.
>
>My guess is as good as the next guy's... I guess.

Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070238

In article <6hskdb9aoiq8l2mn26tjeg0rc76qi5ff9p@4ax.com>,
 kookoo@maricaibo.com wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:38:30 -0600, American Fast-Food
> <ĄJones@fubahor.com> wrote:
> 
> >X-NO-IDIOTS
> >
> >On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:10:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Governor
> >Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>When three parties core on right, left and center, the center usually
> >>wins most of the time.  It has the most in common with either side and
> >>the two ends rarely have anything in common with each other.  This
> >>would seem to be a good thing unless one side or the other becomes
> >>unpopular enough to force it's opposition into a clear, majority role
> >>without having to coalition with anybody else.
> >
> >I think that we will soon have a third party.  If I were guessing, it
> >could be that the Republican party splits off the 'baggers and moves
> >to the center.
> >
> >My guess is as good as the next guy's... I guess.
> 
> Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's


It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have 
had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.

-- 

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to 
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake 
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070276

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 00:28:37 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have 
>had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.

I agree that we have traditionally had two dominent parties; however,
there is no reason it *must* be thus.  Many systems have more than two
and there is no rule that we can't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070286

In article <9tdldblr8lhj7r3633pf82qbqffhd7js5o@4ax.com>,
 American Fast-Food <?Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:

> X-NO-IDIOTS
> 
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 00:28:37 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
> Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have 
> >had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.
> 
> I agree that we have traditionally had two dominent parties; however,
> there is no reason it *must* be thus.  Many systems have more than two
> and there is no rule that we can't.

But most of those systems are Parliamentary.

-- 

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to 
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake 
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070635

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:25:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>But most of those systems are Parliamentary.

So...?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070766

In article <d64ndbtmkpi3fsas0ni28fvhak1sob69l1@4ax.com>,
 American Fast-Food <?Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:

> X-NO-IDIOTS
> 
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:25:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
> Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >But most of those systems are Parliamentary.
> 
> So...?


I'll let the folks who live in parliamentary governments field that. 
They understand it better than I do.

-- 

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to 
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake 
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070801

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:07:20 -0600, American Fast-Food
<¡Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:

>X-NO-IDIOTS
>
>On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:25:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
>Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But most of those systems are Parliamentary.
>
>So...?

In Parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister/President/whatever is
chosen by the dominant party in Parliament, dominant either by simple
majority or by coalitions.  This system make minor parties possible in
a way ours does not:  the minor party continues to have a significant
voice in affairs even with few seats.

-- 
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
         Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean) 
          Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070819

On 06/03/2016 15:26, Don Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:07:20 -0600, American Fast-Food
> <¡Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>> X-NO-IDIOTS
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:25:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
>> Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But most of those systems are Parliamentary.
>>
>> So...?
>
> In Parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister/President/whatever is
> chosen by the dominant party in Parliament, dominant either by simple
> majority or by coalitions.  This system make minor parties possible in
> a way ours does not:  the minor party continues to have a significant
> voice in affairs even with few seats.
>

Plus, if a hurdle is added to prevent the smallest of parties entering a 
parliament, it prevents balkanisation of the political process.  This is 
what happened to the Weimar Republic and a material contributory factor 
to Hitler's ascent to power: their setup had no bottom limit, so any 
tiny party with strictly local support or a single charismatic 
politician was able to enter the national parliament and collectively 
they paralysed the entire system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070922

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:07:20 -0600, American Fast-Food wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>But most of those systems are Parliamentary.
>
>So...?

Parliamentary systems tend to be more friendly to multi party systems.
That's why so many countries have multiple parties - they use the
parliamentary system.  Systems like the US - the Presidential system -
tend to polarize around very few or just two major parties.

Swill
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070663

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 04:42:18 -0600, American Fast-Food wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have 
>>had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.
>
>I agree that we have traditionally had two dominent parties; however,
>there is no reason it *must* be thus.  Many systems have more than two
>and there is no rule that we can't.

Radicals hate to lose.  They'd rather win with candidates they hate
from a party they don't trust, than stick to their principles and grow
a presence in the Congress.

Consider the Tea Party.  Had they actually incorporated as a party and
run their own candidates, they'd have lost all those elections and the
GOP moderates would have been unopposed in the House.

No party can survive without money so parties that really do represent
ordinary working Joes never survive because they don't have any money.

Swill
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070740

On 06/03/2016 03:39, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 04:42:18 -0600, American Fast-Food wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have
>>> had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.
>>
>> I agree that we have traditionally had two dominent parties; however,
>> there is no reason it *must* be thus.  Many systems have more than two
>> and there is no rule that we can't.
>
> Radicals hate to lose.  They'd rather win with candidates they hate
> from a party they don't trust, than stick to their principles and grow
> a presence in the Congress.

To an extent, that is common to all parties.  The horizon is narrow, and 
success is demanded in the short term.  Spending a decade or two 
building up a party is too long-term, requires too much discipline.


>
> Consider the Tea Party.  Had they actually incorporated as a party and
> run their own candidates, they'd have lost all those elections and the
> GOP moderates would have been unopposed in the House.
>
> No party can survive without money so parties that really do represent
> ordinary working Joes never survive because they don't have any money.
>

The problem isn't so much money as organisation.

Once you have a national organisation representing and supporting the 
party with nationwide coverage, money and support will follow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070995

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 09:51:08 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 06/03/2016 03:39, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 04:42:18 -0600, American Fast-Food wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> It didn't even work out well for the one person who might actually have
>>>> had a chance--Teddy Roosevelt.
>>>
>>> I agree that we have traditionally had two dominent parties; however,
>>> there is no reason it *must* be thus.  Many systems have more than two
>>> and there is no rule that we can't.
>>
>> Radicals hate to lose.  They'd rather win with candidates they hate
>> from a party they don't trust, than stick to their principles and grow
>> a presence in the Congress.
>
>To an extent, that is common to all parties.  The horizon is narrow, and 
>success is demanded in the short term.  Spending a decade or two 
>building up a party is too long-term, requires too much discipline.

It also requires sacrifice and compromise.  Joe thinks prostitution is
a victimless crime and so should be removed from the statute books.
John thinks selling sex is evil but people should be able to use
recreational drugs if they like.  Can these two guys both be
libertarians?  Can they both co-exist within the same party?

>> Consider the Tea Party.  Had they actually incorporated as a party and
>> run their own candidates, they'd have lost all those elections and the
>> GOP moderates would have been unopposed in the House.
>>
>> No party can survive without money so parties that really do represent
>> ordinary working Joes never survive because they don't have any money.

>The problem isn't so much money as organisation.

True, which is why libertarians fail.  Any party built around
individualists who distrust and disrespect Authority on principle,
simply cannot organize, let alone give up their hard earned cash for
such an intangible result.

>Once you have a national organisation representing and supporting the 
>party with nationwide coverage, money and support will follow.

Swill
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070787

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:39:44 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Governor
Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>Radicals hate to lose.  They'd rather win with candidates they hate
>from a party they don't trust, than stick to their principles and grow
>a presence in the Congress.
>
>Consider the Tea Party.  Had they actually incorporated as a party and
>run their own candidates, they'd have lost all those elections and the
>GOP moderates would have been unopposed in the House.
>
>No party can survive without money so parties that really do represent
>ordinary working Joes never survive because they don't have any money.
>
>Swill

Oh, those are certainly points to be considered; however, even though
they are valid concerns, they wouldn't cause me to believe that we
could not have more than two political parties.  The idea won't solve
all of our national issues; however, it's worth contemplating.

Jones

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070273

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:44:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
kookoo@maricaibo.com wrote:

>Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's

Do you mean George Wallace?  That was 1968 and he didn't do badly, as
I recall.  I mean, he wasn't elected; however, he made a pretty decent
run... for a third party.  Didn't he actually carry several states?

When you say "The '90s...", you might be talking about Ralph Nader?
He didn't ever get any electoral votes, yet he very likely handed the
presidency to GWB in 2000 by pulling almost 3% of the vote... a very
critical 3%, I might add, because they all came from the Democrats'
ranks and it was enough to have swung the election.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070294

In article <g1dldb18e5skkf1bs85ev8p89dsi6k5nkq@4ax.com>,
 American Fast-Food <?Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:

> X-NO-IDIOTS
> 
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:44:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
> kookoo@maricaibo.com wrote:
> 
> >Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's
> 
> Do you mean George Wallace?  That was 1968 and he didn't do badly, as
> I recall.  I mean, he wasn't elected; however, he made a pretty decent
> run... for a third party.  Didn't he actually carry several states?
> 
> When you say "The '90s...", you might be talking about Ralph Nader?
> He didn't ever get any electoral votes, yet he very likely handed the
> presidency to GWB in 2000 by pulling almost 3% of the vote... a very
> critical 3%, I might add, because they all came from the Democrats'
> ranks and it was enough to have swung the election.


Yep. Nader's been fighting the stigma for 16 years now.

No, the '90s case was Ross Perot. Despite Republican claims that he cost 
Papa Bush the election, the actual data shows that he drew support 
almost equally from Democrats and Republicans; from his wikipedia page:

"Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, 
and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would 
have stayed home had he not been on the ballot."

Also from the wiki:

"... 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from 
self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described 
moderates."


Funny how he was thought to be crazy at the time. But look at some of 
things he said:


"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our 
founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, 
television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, 
satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. 
It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. 
Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."

and (speaking of Congress):

"This city has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, 
handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off 
Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not 
words, in this city."


Funny how quiet he's been since the last time he ran. He's still one of 
the richest people in the world, he'll be celebrating his 60th 
anniversary this year. And he does some cool stuff:

"In 1984 Perot bought a very early copy of the Magna Carta, one of only 
a few to leave the United Kingdom. It was lent to the National Archives 
in Washington, D.C., where it was displayed alongside the Declaration of 
Independence and the United States Constitution. In 2007, it was sold by 
the Perot Foundation, in order to provide "for medical research, for 
improving public education and for assisting wounded soldiers and their 
families."[16] The document sold for US$21.3 million on December 18, 
2007, to David Rubenstein, managing director of the Carlyle Group and 
kept on display at the National Archives."


The policies he ran on were "balancing the federal budget, opposition to 
gun control, ending the outsourcing of jobs and enacting electronic 
direct democracy via "electronic town halls"".


Ahhh, good times.

-- 

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to 
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake 
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070636

X-NO-IDIOTS

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 04:10:44 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Jeanne
Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>No, the '90s case was Ross Perot.

Oh, very well, then.  Obviously a third party isn't a panacea... case
in point; point taken.  The OP should write in complete sentences, I
suggest.

Jones

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070668

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 04:10:44 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <g1dldb18e5skkf1bs85ev8p89dsi6k5nkq@4ax.com>,
> American Fast-Food <?Jones@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>> X-NO-IDIOTS
>> 
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:44:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>> kookoo@maricaibo.com wrote:
>> 
>> >Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's
>> 
>> Do you mean George Wallace?  That was 1968 and he didn't do badly, as
>> I recall.  I mean, he wasn't elected; however, he made a pretty decent
>> run... for a third party.  Didn't he actually carry several states?
>> 
>> When you say "The '90s...", you might be talking about Ralph Nader?
>> He didn't ever get any electoral votes, yet he very likely handed the
>> presidency to GWB in 2000 by pulling almost 3% of the vote... a very
>> critical 3%, I might add, because they all came from the Democrats'
>> ranks and it was enough to have swung the election.
>
>
>Yep. Nader's been fighting the stigma for 16 years now.
>
>No, the '90s case was Ross Perot. Despite Republican claims that he cost 
>Papa Bush the election, the actual data shows that he drew support 
>almost equally from Democrats and Republicans; from his wikipedia page:
>
>"Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, 
>and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would 
>have stayed home had he not been on the ballot."

I almost voted for him but a) knew he wouldn't win and as an out of
party President would be ineffective and b) was afraid it would split
the vote in such a way that Bush would go back in.

Swill

>
>Also from the wiki:
>
>"... 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from 
>self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described 
>moderates."
>
>
>Funny how he was thought to be crazy at the time. But look at some of 
>things he said:
>
>
>"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our 
>founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, 
>television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, 
>satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. 
>It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. 
>Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."
>
>and (speaking of Congress):
>
>"This city has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, 
>handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off 
>Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not 
>words, in this city."
>
>
>Funny how quiet he's been since the last time he ran. He's still one of 
>the richest people in the world, he'll be celebrating his 60th 
>anniversary this year. And he does some cool stuff:
>
>"In 1984 Perot bought a very early copy of the Magna Carta, one of only 
>a few to leave the United Kingdom. It was lent to the National Archives 
>in Washington, D.C., where it was displayed alongside the Declaration of 
>Independence and the United States Constitution. In 2007, it was sold by 
>the Perot Foundation, in order to provide "for medical research, for 
>improving public education and for assisting wounded soldiers and their 
>families."[16] The document sold for US$21.3 million on December 18, 
>2007, to David Rubenstein, managing director of the Carlyle Group and 
>kept on display at the National Archives."
>
>
>The policies he ran on were "balancing the federal budget, opposition to 
>gun control, ending the outsourcing of jobs and enacting electronic 
>direct democracy via "electronic town halls"".
>
>
>Ahhh, good times.
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070667

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 American Fast-Food wrote:
>>Didn't work out well for Wallace or in the 90's
>
>Do you mean George Wallace?  That was 1968 and he didn't do badly, as
>I recall.  I mean, he wasn't elected; however, he made a pretty decent
>run... for a third party.  Didn't he actually carry several states?

Carried five in the deep south on a segregationist ticket but it
didn't affect the outcome.  Nixon won decisively.  The deep south was
carried by segregationist tickets in 1948 and 1960 also.
Interestingly, in 1964, Barry Goldwater carried only his home state
and four of the five southern states Wallace would get in 1968.

>When you say "The '90s...", you might be talking about Ralph Nader?

Ross Perot.  Didn't carry any states but he split the Republican vote
nationwide and gave two elections to Clinton.

>He didn't ever get any electoral votes, yet he very likely handed the
>presidency to GWB in 2000 by pulling almost 3% of the vote... a very
>critical 3%, I might add, because they all came from the Democrats'
>ranks and it was enough to have swung the election.

Nader's voters in Florida may have been enough to change the outcome.
For that reason, you'll notice no extra party candidates have run for
liberal votes since. :)

Swill
-- 
So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, 
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great 
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you 
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf: 
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business 
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who 
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president, 
or is the spell now somewhat broken? -  John Oliver

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web