I personally like the fact that he wanted to tax the people that made more
than 200K a year. Those were the people that got the breaks and didn't
need them. Who needed them were people making a whole lot less. If he gave
the breaks to the middle class, in my opinion, would have helped society.
The people with 200k plus already have money to spend.
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy
yourself"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:56
PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Jim,
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material
and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt
it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that
Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for
anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining
marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who
voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry.
See, I
don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither
should any candidate, campaign, or elected official. I can't tell a
gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just
like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered
during prayer because the Bible says so.
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party
wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on
with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he
could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate. I used to
respect him... support him. But this time, he knew he didn't
count. Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing
against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a
less-than-zero vote percent. Pathetic!
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were
voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton.
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should
either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching)
or included fully in both "Against" counts.
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and
56.7% Against Clinton
(If ALL Perot
voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush)
Clinton being seen as the least
of the evils.
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties
and the rest really liked Perot, then it's
57.8% Against
G.H.W.Bush
42.2% Against Clintion
(Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot having the
support of 9.5% of voters.)
Best regards,
Tod
Jim Lubin wrote:
Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49%
voted against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person
who won, 56.7% voted against.
<snip>
Nader might have had more votes in
2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice by
keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate that
was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear? People
would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they clearly
did for Bush.
