Sujet : Re: gulf of america
De : marion (at) *nospam* facts.com (Marion)
Groupes : misc.phone.mobile.iphoneDate : 18. Feb 2025, 06:59:09
Autres entêtes
Organisation : BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID : <vp17jc$2hmj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:13:08 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
That's the way we do it.
It's my understanding that the way we do it is there are fundamentally only
two parties who have any chance of winning, as whenever a third (e.g., Bull
Moose) party tries to run, it only dilutes the winning party (e.g., it's
how Woodrow Wilson was elected even without any majority, as I understand).
Having said that, we are stuck with the "platform" of those two parties.
If I simplify their platforms, it shows they don't make any sense.
One platform wants to kill babies but doesn't want kids to be killed.
The other platform wants to save the babies but not to save the kids.
Where is the common sense in that?
What party does someone vote for who wants babies to be subject to capital
punishment and who wants the 2nd amendment to not be infringed upon?
In other words, more sweetly stated, there's no part for people who believe
in the 2nd amendment and yet who believe in allowing women to abort babies.