Wasted Votes?

B_enzia35

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
863
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
53
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ha! You learned that lesson quick, much quicker than people I know. Why vote for someone you know won't win?
Oh, and the term you're looking for to describe Ron Paul is libertarian. With a little "l". Even though he's a RINO and brings home more pork than a lot of other politicians.
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Ha! You learned that lesson quick, much quicker than people I know. Why vote for someone you know won't win?
Oh, and the term you're looking for to describe Ron Paul is libertarian. With a little "l". Even though he's a RINO and brings home more pork than a lot of other politicians.

He explained this in 2008. Why should he deprive his constituents of the pork barrell buffett when that is the way things are done? He never votes for the bills as is. If the money is going to be spent anyways, he might as well get some of it for his constituents.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Ha! You learned that lesson quick, much quicker than people I know. Why vote for someone you know won't win?
Oh, and the term you're looking for to describe Ron Paul is libertarian. With a little "l". Even though he's a RINO and brings home more pork than a lot of other politicians.

Yeah, we know he's technically a Libertarian. But Ron Paul runs under the (R). Therefore, the ideological representation of him doesn't add up to the visual he is presenting.
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah, we know he's technically a Libertarian. But Ron Paul runs under the (R). Therefore, the ideological representation of him doesn't add up to the visual he is presenting.

Because the original repub party took a strange ideological turn in the late 60s. Remember it was Goldwater, a champion of the conservative movement, who said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Because the original repub party took a strange ideological turn in the late 60s. Remember it was Goldwater, a champion of the conservative movement, who said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

That strange, ideological shift in the Republican party began with the man you claim to be the "champion of the Conservative movement". According to most Conservatives, it was they who were the champion of civil rights issues while Democrats were the socially backward. Why the sudden change in 1964 when certain "Conservatives" (like Goldwater) thought a Civil Rights bill that received major support from most people was bad for business? Care to elaborate, or is the obvious answer of financial greed over the ethical treatment of all human beings an understood point by now?
 
Last edited:

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
hypoc8 - You're being a bit disingenuous. Nobody here is being "forced" to vote for anyone. What's happening is that some people realize that the most ideal candidate they see lingering on a third party ticket isn't going to win in the current broken electoral system we now have. Because of that, they are willing to settle for someone else between the two in the best position to win, who may not be 100% exactly what they wish for but is close enough to what their ideal candidate stands for.

True but when one "settles" they are "forced" to choose between one of the two major parties.

Most people realize that they can't always get everything they want, and in desperate times it's wise to take something instead of placing their hopes in someone who promises everything and has no chance of making any of that materialize. Many people, including myself, who initially voted for Hillary Clinton went to Obama because we all knew McCain/Palin wasn't going to adhere to our ideals and wishes. Beyond trying to feel morally superior to those who bite the bullet and choose between the (D) and the (R), anyone who voted for the Green party, Libertarian party, Prohibition party, Socialist party, or Independent party spun the political roulette wheel, bet it all on black and came up with double zeroes.

Trust me I don't believe half of what any politician says, you and I both know they are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. I've only voted third party once so as far as feeling "morally superior" to those that always vote D or R I don't. All I'm trying to say is I think it is wrong to tell someone that they wasted their vote when they voted third party. If you want to vote for Charles Manson for President more power to you that's your right.

But alas, somehow this is supposed to be the fault of those who voted (D) or (R)? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Sounds to me as if those who backed the obvious long shots didn't come to the ballot box with a backup plan. They came to the dinner table wanting steak and wasn't willing to settle for chicken or pork instead, when ultimately all they want is to be fed.

I'm not blaming anybody if the person I voted for doesn't win. Like I've said I vote for the person, not the party or because they have a better chance of winning.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
hypoc8 - You're using the word "forced" like someone is dragging them to the polls and beating them over the head if they don't vote (D) or (R). Again, nobody is being forced here to do anything. They still have the same choices you have, but use a different set of reasons for doing what they do.

Trust me I don't believe half of what any politician says, you and I both know they are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Hey! I like turkey!!! :biggrin:

I've only voted third party once so as far as feeling "morally superior" to those that always vote D or R I don't. All I'm trying to say is I think it is wrong to tell someone that they wasted their vote when they voted third party. If you want to vote for Charles Manson for President more power to you that's your right.

Perhaps "wasted" is the wrong choice of words, similar to how "forced" is not the best choice of words to expressed your sentiments earlier? As I explained before, some people visualize political matters with a plan that involves more than one candidate and ranks them in a specific order as to how they will vote for them depending on how they conduct themselves during campaign season and the primary. For instance, my partner and I (when we lived in NYC) liked Kristin M. Davis, the Anti-Prohibition Party candidate for Governor in 2010. But we knew that the real contest was between Cuomo and Paladino, so we decided to not bother voting for someone who eventually never got enough votes to even qualify as a political party for the final ballot. Writing her name in was not an option either, because we could see that Cuomo wasn't a bad choice compared to who we initially liked as well as Paladino who was an absolute mental case, and Cuomo had the better chance of winning out of the two we favored the most.

I'm not blaming anybody if the person I voted for doesn't win. Like I've said I vote for the person, not the party or because they have a better chance of winning.

So does the person who votes for the Democrat or Republican in many cases. But let's not over think this. Until the electoral process is reformed (such as getting all money out of Federal elections or limiting the amount of campaign funds per candidate), everyone knows it's either going to be one or the other. Sure, every candidate technically has a chance but there has yet to be a third party candidate willing to put in the effort necessary to really compete in a field that is so thoroughly controlled by a two-party system. Any third party in this country is already operating at a HUGE disadvantage. Their campaigns have to be longer, more aggressive, and more unique as to how they get their message across utilizing different sources of media and information services. They can't wait for the Democrats & Republicans to start doing their thing before they start doing theirs. Who knows... it may happen in our lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath nor am I missing out on an opportunity for someone to help us move forward even if it's through baby steps and not big strides in the process.
 
Last edited:

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
I still want some poll, some proof Paul is not electable.

I'll do you two better; he's run for President twice and lost. And he didn't just lose... he was summarily dismissed as a non-starter. In 1988 he had more of a legitimate chance than he does now (thanks to the advent of the internet) since there wasn't this cloud of crazy surrounding him. You place entirely too much stock in polls if you think they tell you anything. I don't need a poll to tell me who is electable and who isn't. At the end of the day he had (has I guess if we really must speak about this like it's still relevant) as much of a chance as Donald Trump... maybe even less. If two failed bids for the Presidency aren't enough to convince you that he can't be elected I don't know what will. Third times a charm? Is that the thinking here?


Hey --- Zombie! ... et all

Thanks... I took Lib and Law in high school too. Also, I've seen at least one half of one episode of The West Wing so... you know, I'm familiar with the three branches of government, checks and balances, and the shifting of party platforms over the years. Also that there are 50 states (not 52), that the Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 Amendments to the constitution and that George Washington was our first President. Any other pearls of wisdom my first post somehow made it seem like I didn't know? I hate to be snarky about it I just don't gather the correlation between what you posted and what I posted.

An overestimation of executive authority in so far as the Presidency is concerned? In truth, and in spite of the Judicial and Legislative branches in a lot of cases, the President wields a tremendous amount of power. That power has only increased over the last twenty years or so, so no, I don't think in regard to this subject, I'm over stating the importance of who is elected President. Be involved in local government? Absolutely you should. That doesn't diminish the importance of a national election for Commander in Chief.


Why should he deprive his constituents of the pork barrell buffett when that is the way things are done? He never votes for the bills as is. If the money is going to be spent anyways, he might as well get some of it for his constituents.


So until things change he's willing and able to operate within the bounds of the status quo. He's said (you said he said) he'd be very limited insofar as his ability to do much as President in this regard so what is it that make a vote for Ron Paul so superior to any other Republican? Isn't this more than less saying "I'm going to get to the White House, do exactly what has been done before and what is being suggested as necessary by the party who got me elected, and justify it as business as usual?"

That doesn't strike me as all that revolutionary. It strikes me as "to be expected" and if that's the case why not vote for someone who is going to end up doing the same thing but actually has some chance of winning?


I think, after having read some of the other threads, something should be clarified;

I don't necessarily think a vote for Third Party in general is a wasted vote. If a candidate with enough moxie and charisma, with a legislative record that couldn't easily be rail roaded by the media, that had enough gravitas to stand his or her own against the two giants they'd be up against ever showed up on the national stage? That might be a candidate worth voting for. As is, however, and as it has been the last several election cycles, there has been no such person. Was there any third party candidate, anywhere, that had any real chance of beating McCain or Obama in 2008? In a head-to-head, there was not.

So, a third option (which would really only be a start... otherwise we'll be in the same boat 20 years from now, only there'll be center right, right, and crazy as our options) is a good idea. We just need a candidate to fill that slot who isn't already a national joke.




JSZ
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'll do you two better; he's run for President twice and lost. And he didn't just lose... he was summarily dismissed as a non-starter. In 1988 he had more of a legitimate chance than he does now (thanks to the advent of the internet) since there wasn't this cloud of crazy surrounding him. You place entirely too much stock in polls if you think they tell you anything. I don't need a poll to tell me who is electable and who isn't. At the end of the day he had (has I guess if we really must speak about this like it's still relevant) as much of a chance as Donald Trump... maybe even less. If two failed bids for the Presidency aren't enough to convince you that he can't be elected I don't know what will. Third times a charm? Is that the thinking here?

In 2008, the economy was not that bad (at least we did not really known yet how bad it was) so what he was saying really did not take. With the economy in the toilet like it is, the economy is going to be even more important than other issues. Some people have issues with his stances on a variety of issues, but a lot of people (whether they believe it or not) are in line with his economic views and certainly bring the troopa home. There is a lot of wildcards.

I understand polls are not end all, be all, but there is a lot of wild cards. Perry is crazy and his poll numbers could very be at the peak when people learn more about him. Romney, I do not personally see a lot of excitement surrounding him. Who is third? I think Paul is solidly showing he is. Plus, it seems like a lot of people could switch from democrat to republican to vote for Paul. Will it happen? Time will tell.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
it seems like a lot of people could switch from democrat to republican to vote for Paul. Will it happen? Time will tell.


I'm sorry... there isn't an emoticon with its mouth open wide enough in gut busting laughter to effectively express my reaction to this. Ron Paul's hopes and dreams for 1600 rest on people a.) suddenly becoming aware they're in line with his economic views in spite of all the other areas in which they disagree with him and democrats switching parties to vote Republican because of him?

This is seriously like something divined from a Magic 8 Ball. I don't need time to tell me neither of those things are ever going to happen any more than I need time to tell me Nirvana and Sublime aren't ever gettin' back together for a reunion tour.




JSZ
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm sorry... there isn't an emoticon with its mouth open wide enough in gut busting laughter to effectively express my reaction to this. Ron Paul's hopes and dreams for 1600 rest on people a.) suddenly becoming aware they're in line with his economic views in spite of all the other areas in which they disagree with him and democrats switching parties to vote Republican because of him?

This is seriously like something divined from a Magic 8 Ball. I don't need time to tell me neither of those things are ever going to happen any more than I need time to tell me Nirvana and Sublime aren't ever gettin' back together for a reunion tour.




JSZ

We do not know if it will happen, but Paul has already made his mark as more and more candidates are sounding a bit more in line with Paul's views (allbeit small and distorted). Again, time will tell, but there are democrats who are in line with Paul's bring the troops home and with his economic views. And there is an ever-growing group upset at Obama.

Most people on this board take multiple views into account to choose a candidate, but much of the American public choose a candidate on one or two issues. With the economy (and as related, cost of war) being the biggest issue this time around, Paul's views resonate. It tends not to happen that people will change and or declare a different party for primarys, but Paul has a large independent base and is getting a small vocal democratic base.

I really think Paul can beat Obama head to head. Getting the nomination is another story. In a poll done in Texas in late May early June, Paul beat Perry and every other candidate. Having a friend in Texas, there is way more support for Perry outside of Texas than in the state.

Again, I reiterate, I do not think he has a great chance, but I think he has more of a chance than you think. Unless you believe even if he received great support and the nomination, he will be taken out ala Kennedy (which I believe is a legit concern), I think there is a chance.
 
Last edited:

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
We do not know if it will happen,

I suppose if you're a resident of Narnia or Fantasia or Vulcan or the Forest Moon of Endor you might not know that it isn't going to happen. If you live on the planet Earth, in the United States, you can at the very least rest assured. It's like the Secretary of Agriculture saying "In the event the 16 people who come before die I'm ready to assume the Presidency." No, you're right, I don't know but I can say with comfortable assuredness- how's that?

Paul has already made his mark as more and more candidates are sounding a bit more in line with Paul's views (allbeit small and distorted).

The Daily Show did an excellent job of showcasing how the Republicans (how everyone really) has marginalized Ron Paul by essentially pretending he doesn't exist. If he's "made his mark" and they're "sounding a bit more in line" with his views it means they've taken what he's said that resonates and modified into something they can use to win with. In 2007 the Boston Globe touted him as the "intellectual godfather" of the tea party philosophy. Today, they aren't even paying attention to him (and that is likely to his benefit.) If the republicans and "independents" won't give him the time of day, what is it that makes you think, suddenly at some point in the future, anyone else will?

Again, time will tell, but there are democrats who are in line with Paul's bring the troops

That isn't Ron Paul's idea. I think everyone is in line with bringing the troops home. The Wars weren't declared but there are consequences to just up and leaving the Middle East- direct consequences in turns of regional stability and our need for what they've got- resources, namely oil. President Obama figured that out pretty quickly I guess and I'm assuming once President Paul was sworn he'd figure out that the ramifications of being President extend further than being President of, say, a yacht club and would encounter the same stalling factors.

home and with his economic views.

That's a pretty nebulous topics. So far as the economy goes, I don't think returning the dollar to the gold standard is a good idea any more than I think eliminating cabinet positions that regular part of that complex piece of the puzzle is a good idea. For every sentence I might agree with Ron Paul over, there's a sentence I'd disagree with and another sentence said by someone else with a real shot at the White House I'd likely be equally if not more so in tune with (i.e. the sitting President who is a democrat... not a republican.) So, again, the lol factor is pretty high if this is where his hardline supporters are drawing their hopes from. That well? Pretty dry on even a cursory inspection.

And there is an ever-growing group upset at Obama.

"I'm fed up with Obama. Let's vote for Ron Paul?" Yes, a handful of "democrats" showed up in the thread (convenient timing for someone who has posted exactly 4 times to show up and start a thread about that eh?) expressing that was their intention. And, I'm sure nationally, there are probably 500 of them. Maybe even 1000. But be realistic- you really think we're so fed up with Barack Obama we'll vote for a republican who wants to dismantle the Federal Government? It's like the girl waiting by the phone on day three... "Maybe his phone died... maybe he's been really busy at work... maybe he got hit by a taxi cab, was rescued by that Asian shop keep on 4th street, is in the Hospital and all he can think about is getting back to his house so he can call my number off the scribbled piece of paper on his refrigerator just as soon as he can! That must be it."

Nation to Ron Paul: We're just not that into you.

Most people on this board take multiple views into account to choose a candidate, but much of the American public choose a candidate on one or two issues. With the economy (and as related, cost of war) being the biggest issue this time around, Paul's views resonate. It tends not to happen that people will change and or declare a different party for primarys, but Paul has a large independent base and is getting a small vocal democratic base.

They resonate so well the people he's running against are going to take what works away from him, ignore him, and force him to run third party. At which point his "large independent base" will evaporate and his "small vocal democratic base" will vote for a democrat.




JSZ
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
I want to add a personal, off topic note; DazedandConfused has given me a lot to think about in regard to what is going through the minds of the people I've debated with in person more times than I care to remember on this topic. None of what he has said offended me nor has any of it been over the line or more than I can handle.


He's a well spoken, avid debater, and that's why I post here. For anyone bitching or complaining about that later, I just want it said for the public record, that I appreciate his efforts even while I whole heartedly disagree with what he says.

In return, I would hope that any personal problem, anywhere my sometimes snarky remarks offended him or anyone else, they'd take it to me rather than going off to find a moderator to do something about it.


For the most part the people in these threads are adults who can police themselves and handle their own. I'd hate to think that we'll lose people because of soft skins that wandered into the Political Forum straight of the set of Full House.



JSZ
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Zombie - Thanks for the compliment. We can get heated but you do not know how much that means to me. You have been fine and I never even entertained the thought you crossed the line. Our views differ for a multitude of reasons as everyone's views do.

On the west wing (sorry, love that show. What I would not give for a President Bartlett), it is said that when things change, it will not be the likely voters, but the unlikely voters. You are right to be pessimistic on a non-mainstream candidate because it has been status quo for so long (yet, Obama was elected for the most part because of the young vote. All other things pretty much equal between 2004 and 2008). In this case, I happen to be a bit more optimistic (which is unusual for me. I am not a pessimist but definetly lean more "glass is half empty" than "half full") and think this election is different. I see people being energized who usually do not care much for ploitics. There is evidence you may be right (status quo rarely, if ever, breached) and there is evidence I may be right (polls, reaction at debates, military gave more money to Ron Paul than all other republican candidates). We shall see.

As this following clip shows, after the rant, we are both right. We are both wrong. And if Obama had a little more guts like Bruno shows admonishing the democratic party, I might support Obama.

Good political advice - YouTube

And finally, whether you agree directly with Ron Paul, the idea of a candidate in a mainstream party doing well who is not mainstream has to be appealling to whomever you support. Because Paul is showing hope that not being a corporate backed and PC candidate might have a chance. A candidate who comes out and loudly proclaims "ALL men are created equal" and his/her agenda for equal rights for all may have a chance instead of being immediately discredited for standing up for abortion rights, gay rights, equal pay, etc...

I do not care if you or anyone else does not support Paul or believe he has no shot in Hades. I disagree, but that is not the point. My hope is you (and others), no matter how much you disagree with him, respect him because he is not saying things just to get elected and is standing on his principle and has the most consistent record in Congress to back it up.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
Ross Perot was a crack pot. Just because a bunch of people decided they liked his crack pot ideas and he qualified for federal funding means nothing, except he could have gotten free money from us taxpayers if he had jumped on the bandwagon again.

As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was a member of the Progressive party AFTER he had already been President, as a Republican.
YOUR oppinion is that he was a crackpot. My oppinion is that though I didn't like his ideas enough to have voted for him instead of Clinton had I been old enough, all of his ideas had a basis in reality. Your crackpot is another man's radical. America was built by radicals; there should always be room for them here. Ross Perot, like him or not, and Ron Paul (who is even more insane) predicted something like our current economic predicaments years ago, and proposed plans to prevent a crisis. I'm with you, they are crazy, but presidents cannot get things done by themselves. They are not islands. And if you can just dismiss Ross Perot's success with the idea that he was "a crack pot" you clearly don't know much about him, or understand my point.

My point was not about Ross Perot. My point was about you, and what you wrote. You think voting for independents is purely for protest. That is ignorant. Voting for independents is a part of why the Boston Tea Party has so many of its members in Congress, why Roosevelt got into the White House a third time in the first place, and the only way to help a candidate you support get enough votes to launch a better-funded campaign in the future. It is, in more cases than you would probably care to acknowledge, NOT a tantrum-inspired protest. It IS (as you insist it is not) an act of faith. A vote for the lesser of two evils, with zero consideration for unpopular alternatives) is possibly more of a waste than a true vote of confidence in "a crack pot" who isn't likely to win.

Ross Perot did make another bid.

Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and won. It doesn't matter that he was once on the Republican ticket. He wasn't the incumbent, and though he was popular with the public, he had no republican support (other than what he got from those who just didn't like Taft). He started a party, went to primaries and caucuses, campaigned hard, said (and did) a lot of radical, crackpot shit, and won. I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.
 
Last edited:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
After reading all the posts in this thread, I have come to the decisive conclusion that . . .

I'm really OK with everybody voting however they want, while calling other people's votes a "waste" or whatever else they want.

It is (more or less) a free country. :smile:
 

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
YOUR oppinion is that he was a crackpot. My oppinion is that though I didn't like his ideas enough to have voted for him instead of Clinton had I been old enough, all of his ideas had a basis in reality. Your crackpot is another man's radical. America was built by radicals; there should always be room for them here. Ross Perot, like him or not, and Ron Paul (who is even more insane) predicted something like our current economic predicaments years ago, and proposed plans to prevent a crisis. I'm with you, they are crazy, but presidents cannot get things done by themselves. They are not islands. And if you can just dismiss Ross Perot's success with the idea that he was "a crack pot" you clearly don't know much about him, or understand my point.

My point was not about Ross Perot. My point was about you, and what you wrote. You think voting for independents is purely for protest. That is ignorant. Voting for independents is a part of why the Boston Tea Party has so many of its members in Congress, why Roosevelt got into the White House a third time in the first place, and the only way to help a candidate you support get enough votes to launch a better-funded campaign in the future. It is, in more cases than you would probably care to acknowledge, NOT a tantrum-inspired protest. It IS (as you insist it is not) an act of faith. A vote for the lesser of two evils, with zero consideration for unpopular alternatives) is possibly more of a waste than a true vote of confidence in "a crack pot" who isn't likely to win.

Ross Perot did make another bid.

Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and won. It doesn't matter that he was once on the Republican ticket. He wasn't the incumbent, and though he was popular with the public, he had no republican support (other than what he got from those who just didn't like Taft). He started a party, went to primaries and caucuses, campaigned hard, said (and did) a lot of radical, crackpot shit, and won. I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.

Thank You!