Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TraderGreg who wrote (4336)	12/2/2000 9:42:51 PM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) of 6710

Greg, you have to develop some judicial temperment. You have to see things as they actually are. Read things as they are actually written. Remember, words have exact meanings. I never said that any particular american president was better or worse depending on the % of the vote he got. I said Clinton (and Hitler) would not have been elected if the election process required 50% in order to win. And I said the more you fragment the electorate and lower the % needed to win, the greater the chance of a "disaster" being elected. Both of these ideas are irrefutable facts. If you disagree, then lets hear you argue that Clinton would have won anyway if Perot had not been there to get 19% of the vote. Or Hitler. Or, if we had 12 parties splitting up the vote, everything from Christian Democrats to Dykes on Bikes, and someone won with 16% of the vote, how we would be just as likely to get a Lincoln. Then, at least, you would be arguing against what I actually said, rather than what you made up I said. But you would be just as wrong. If you want a laugh on this subject, read the book "The Short Reign of Pepin the Fourth" by John Steinbeck. Very funny. Regards, Moose

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next