Baldwin Urges Voters To Re-register To Aid AIP Candidate Nightingale

[Borderwatch]

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.

[Kathy63]

You really think that much? 3%! That kind of showing would be impressive.

On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.

I could see why she might think that, but I think many employers might just view that as eccentric behavior given the circumstances. Plus, why would someone hiring an employee consider their failures as a positive attribute?

[Kathy63]

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. I don't believe the resume is for prospective employers. It's sort of a social experience.

[Rim05]

I prefer to stick with who I will not vote for and I do not do that with everyone I disagree with, only the worst ones.

[Eagle1]

A political run such as Nightingale's could lead to a job working for the Republican party or some other entity.

It will be interesting to see where this leads Nightingale to and where it all ends.

For the time being she has been able to rub elbows with Tancredo, Chuck Devore and who knows whom else.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Rim05

I prefer to stick with who I will not vote for and I do not do that with everyone I disagree with, only the worst ones.

Yes, I agree. And for me, if those who I will not vote for are bad enough, then maybe I will vote for their opposition. But not always. For example on the last presidential race, I did not enter a mark for any of the presidential candidates. Nobody got my vote. I firmly believe in being able to submit a "None of the Above" ballot and be counted for it too.

There are those who view this as a kind of surrender and think you should always vote for the lesser of two evils. But this can be an engineered process in which your political opposition wins by getting your support for somebody you don't really support on the thin chance that it moves you just a little closer to some political goal. This is how the "two party system" works, it poses a fake debate and tricks people into supporting one over the other on such empty promises.

[Kathy63]

Elections to effect a change in government is kind of like a civil war. A bloodless struggle.

If it were a real war, one side would be well organized with one commander and generals who followed orders and inspired loyalty in the troops.

The other side, would have several commanders, giving conflicting orders. They would be disorganized with no loyalty to the goal of victory but following each of the conflicted commanders. Generals are non existent because each commander rules only a very small force.

We all know which side is going to win. That side will use it's overwhelming force to oppress and enslave each of the splintered factions in turn.

[Dawes]

Originally Posted by Borderwatch

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.

The only way she is going to get 3% is if a lot of people go to the polls drunk and mark the wrong circle, thinking they are ordering a "Cheap Night and an Ale