Subject:
|
Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:09:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adrian Egli wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, what led you to conclude that Arnold was the best qualified
> > > candidate to head the world's fifth-largest economy?
> >
> > Instinct. It's worked many times for me before.
> >
> > Ok, before you hit me with a "Get real!" remark I was just plain sick of the
> > usual politicians. I just wanted to try someone else.
>
> I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me
> that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy
> actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just wanted
> to try someone else. Does that seem like a sensible course of a
I'll just take that as another sacarasm.
> I don't believe that you "*just* wanted to try someone else," because if that
> were the case then you would have voted yes on the recall and picked Davis'
> successor at random. Why didn't you pick Larry Flynt or Angelyne, for example?
> They certainly qualify as "someone else" relative to the spectrum of "usual
> politicians." Obviously something about Arnold appealed to on a level different
> from what the other candidates had to offer. I'm asking what you think was the
> source of that appeal.
Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one else
up there showed- charasima! If there is one thing I have seen all so often in
this life (I was one of those teens who read his dad's US News & World Report
magazine) and that is if a politician shows the public that he has a very strong
charasima then people are likely to vote for him. Look at Reagan. If he's not
an example of this then you'd better tell us all why.
> Was this a private consultation between you and the ballot-checker? What formal
> documentation do you have that the ballot-checker actually filed your ballot
> correctly for tallying? That is, if you were, say, of some particular race, or
> rich or poor, or gay or straight, or a man or a woman, what formal guarantee do
> you have that the ballot-checker didn't simply throw your ballot in the shredder
> based on some subtle poll screening technique? You probably think I'm being
> facetious, but I'm not. Worse election violations have occurred in the very
> recent past, so the examples I propose are hardly vapid speculation.
>
> For that matter, if you were "shown the blank side," how the heck do you even
> know that it was your ballot?
>
> Dave!
Call it what you like. If you REALLY want to mess with election violations then
become a Mexican citizen and vote in a Mexican election. Don't let my last name
fool you- my mom was one!(She's US now.) But I still have a lot of relatives
down there who have told me many stories of the crap they've seen.
Adr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it: I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another. Would you care to elaborate on your (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just wanted to try (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
