Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:03 AM
Original message |
Poll question: Would you object to "democratic dollars" winding up in the hands of Bob Barr in these states? |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-19-08 07:08 AM by Perky
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia?
It is certainly a page out out of the 2004 GOP playbook in Pennsylvania.
But Barr siphoning off libertatians who hate Obama and McCain does works to our advantage.
|
formercia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:06 AM
Response to Original message |
1. It's a matter of ethical responsibility. |
|
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
We can win this election without becoming those we oppose.
|
abburdlen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. I don't think it's un-ethical |
|
I think it would serve the country well to have more than 2 viable parties. While I don't think money should go directly from DNC coffers to the libertarians or green party or any other third party, I do think it's okay to make sure their message is heard. Philosophically, I think the more voices in the conversation the better. Pragmatically it isn't bad for us because more votes will be siphoned from McCain than Obama.
Maybe Obama could ask that other parties be invited to the debates.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message |
2. "But siphoning off libertatians who hate Obama and McCain. Works to our advantage." ??? |
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I need more coffee... Clarified the OP |
MrMonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. I agree, it needs clarification. |
|
The title asks if we would object, but the choices would be more appropriate to "should we do it?".
|
Ganja Ninja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:41 AM
Response to Original message |
6. No I'd rather people get over their aversion to voting for Democrats. |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-19-08 07:44 AM by Sentinel Chicken
Switching from brand A crazy to brand X crazy isn't healthy in the long run.
|
abburdlen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. sure that'd be great but... |
|
there are people who are just going to vote for crazy. Wouldn't it be better if we kept that crazy vote divided up among a few choices so Crazy didn't get in the White House (again)
|
Chan790
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:45 AM
Response to Original message |
7. good idea, no to New Hampshire. n/m |
Alter Ego
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:48 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Yeah. I don't like Barr's hypocritical ass either. |
formercia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message |
10. A single reason for not supporting Bob Barr. |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-19-08 08:12 AM
Response to Original message |
11. If a 527 wants to do that, fine, but they wouldn't get any help from me--and no way in hell |
|
do I want my donations going there.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:17 AM
Response to Original message |