Comments on: Conservatives Try to Get Nader on Ballot http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservatives_try_to_get_nader_on_ballot/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:15:57 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: DANEgerus http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservatives_try_to_get_nader_on_ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-19327 DANEgerus Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6620#comment-19327 I live in the People's Republic of Oregon. This is NOT an effort by the (R)'s to "influence the primaries of another party" as Nader is trying to get on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate not as a (D). And... Since when is a 'choice' on the ballot "sleazy". This is the AP and you are actually giving them credibility as an 'unbiased' choice? It's bad enough that MadHow showed up Friday to rant about the VRWC on talk radio while spewing (D)-meme's about 'attacks on Social Security' demands for 'Health Care for the Children' and every other uber-Leftwing contrivance unchallenged... nay encouraged... by the fawning local press. Oregon has a mail-in ballot election. In every state in the nation the #1 association to voter fraud is absentee ballots... and Oregon has an absentee election that has resulted in very skewed consequences tilting agressively 'Left' since implemented. I have zero confidence my vote counted... not that it 'counts'... but that it is 'counted'. Why? Scandal associated with a viciously partisan Secretary of State Bradbury here in Oregon about his claims to 'deliver Oregon' was not reported at all... which briefly preceeded the 'upset' results putting Bush ahead of Gore in Oregon by 6000 votes when the state went to bed on election night only to wake up to 'SURPRISE': Gore ahead by 2800 votes. Their excuse? "Late returning ballots from Portland". Not 'Late returning ballots' from BFE, or the Dalles, or Pendleton... "Late returning ballots from" right up the road in a State where ballots travel to the counting sites by mail for weeks prior to 'counting'. A 9000 vote swing is a 'billion-to-one' improbability based on the votes cast... OK... maybe I exaggerate... but not by much. With most of the votes in and counted to get a 9000 vote 'swing' even given a 60/40 split in uncounted ballots would require about 100,000 votes were 'left' from the biggest population center in the state where most likely the very first, not the very last, were counted. That lame-ass excuse, ignored by the NewsMedia of course, only confirmed Bradbury(D) was true to his word as the (D)'s refused to do a 'recount' because 2800 was a couple of hundred votes above the percentage that would have required a recount by law... How convenient. I watched Perot result in Clinton elected with 42% of the vote TWICE. Like the (D)'s didn't help him with the 24x7 media fawning? So now you call this 'sleazy'? But the (D)ummocrit efforts to deny choice... this time... aren't? I live in the People's Republic of Oregon.

This is NOT an effort by the (R)'s to "influence the primaries of another party" as Nader is trying to get on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate not as a (D).

And...

Since when is a 'choice' on the ballot "sleazy". This is the AP and you are actually giving them credibility as an 'unbiased' choice? It's bad enough that MadHow showed up Friday to rant about the VRWC on talk radio while spewing (D)-meme's about 'attacks on Social Security' demands for 'Health Care for the Children' and every other uber-Leftwing contrivance unchallenged... nay encouraged... by the fawning local press.

Oregon has a mail-in ballot election. In every state in the nation the #1 association to voter fraud is absentee ballots... and Oregon has an absentee election that has resulted in very skewed consequences tilting agressively 'Left' since implemented.

I have zero confidence my vote counted... not that it 'counts'... but that it is 'counted'.

Why? Scandal associated with a viciously partisan Secretary of State Bradbury here in Oregon about his claims to 'deliver Oregon' was not reported at all... which briefly preceeded the 'upset' results putting Bush ahead of Gore in Oregon by 6000 votes when the state went to bed on election night only to wake up to 'SURPRISE': Gore ahead by 2800 votes. Their excuse? "Late returning ballots from Portland". Not 'Late returning ballots' from BFE, or the Dalles, or Pendleton...

"Late returning ballots from" right up the road in a State where ballots travel to the counting sites by mail for weeks prior to 'counting'.

A 9000 vote swing is a 'billion-to-one' improbability based on the votes cast... OK... maybe I exaggerate... but not by much. With most of the votes in and counted to get a 9000 vote 'swing' even given a 60/40 split in uncounted ballots would require about 100,000 votes were 'left' from the biggest population center in the state where most likely the very first, not the very last, were counted.

That lame-ass excuse, ignored by the NewsMedia of course, only confirmed Bradbury(D) was true to his word as the (D)'s refused to do a 'recount' because 2800 was a couple of hundred votes above the percentage that would have required a recount by law...

How convenient.

I watched Perot result in Clinton elected with 42% of the vote TWICE. Like the (D)'s didn't help him with the 24x7 media fawning?

So now you call this 'sleazy'?

But the (D)ummocrit efforts to deny choice... this time... aren't?

]]> By: Mark Thompson http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservatives_try_to_get_nader_on_ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-19328 Mark Thompson Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6620#comment-19328 I don't think it's sleazy for conservatives to try to get Nader on the ballot. People foolish enough to vote for him should be siphoned off from the major party closer to their viewpoint. If the Democrats don't like having their potential supporters vote for Nader, they shouldn't be promoting the polarization of the electorate as they have. Having thrown in their lot with the lunatic Left, they deserve to suffer the consequences: the impossibility of keeping their crazy allies and their share of the center in the same tent. I don't think it's sleazy for conservatives to try to get Nader on the ballot. People foolish enough to vote for him should be siphoned off from the major party closer to their viewpoint. If the Democrats don't like having their potential supporters vote for Nader, they shouldn't be promoting the polarization of the electorate as they have. Having thrown in their lot with the lunatic Left, they deserve to suffer the consequences: the impossibility of keeping their crazy allies and their share of the center in the same tent.

]]> By: DANEgerus http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservatives_try_to_get_nader_on_ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-19329 DANEgerus Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6620#comment-19329 Perot = good Nader = bad Through the Leftist prism Perot = good
Nader = bad

Through the Leftist prism

]]> By: The Moderate Voice http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservatives_try_to_get_nader_on_ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-19330 The Moderate Voice Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6620#comment-19330 <strong>Ralph Nader Loses a BIG ONE</strong> The signs don't look good now for Ralph Nader in his drive to get on most state ballots: the Green Party has nixed giving him their endorsement, thus denying him access to 22 state ballots where the party he headed --- Ralph Nader Loses a BIG ONE
The signs don't look good now for Ralph Nader in his drive to get on most state ballots: the Green Party has nixed giving him their endorsement, thus denying him access to 22 state ballots where the party he headed

---

]]>