An alternative presidential option?

What do you think of this possibility–not a third party, but a coalition ticket elected by the public via the internet?

The restless political middle — emboldened by the recent inability of a special congressional committee to agree on a debt-reduction deal — is staking out a controversial plan to insert itself into the 2012 election.

A bipartisan group of political strategists and donors known as Americans Elect has raised $22 million and is likely to place a third presidential candidate on the ballot in every state next year. The goal is to provide an alternative to President Obama and the GOP nominee and break the tradition of a Democrat-vs.-Republican lineup.

The effort could represent a promising new chapter for political moderates, who see a wide-open middle in the political landscape as congressional gridlock and bitter partisan fights have driven down favorability ratings for both parties.

“Voters are saddened by the inability of people in Washington to deal with the issues that are important to them,” said the group’s chief executive, Kahlil Byrd, a Republican strategist who once worked for Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D).

Americans Elect has ballot slots in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and five other states, with certification pending in several others.

The group is relying on an ambitious plan to hold a political convention on the Internet that would treat registered voters like fans of “American Idol,” giving everyone a shot at picking a favorite candidate.

“We want to gather millions of people and allow them to run authentically through the process,” Byrd said, calling it a “wide-scale draft movement for presidential candidates.”

Unlike the Green Party, Americans Elect is not creating a separate party, but trying to change the political process in two ways. First, the group seeks to create a mixed-party ticket, requiring its presidential candidate to pick a running mate from a different party.

Second, Americans Elect — which was formed and is backed by Peter Ackerman, a wealthy private investor and philanthropist, along with Byrd — wants to take the nominating process out of the hands of a few primary voters and make it more open through the use of technology. Registered voters who sign up on the group’s Web site would directly nominate and select candidates online in the spring. A final nominee would be selected in June.

via Moderate Americans Elect group hoping to add third candidate to 2012 election ballot – The Washington Post.

Would you participate in an online convention?  Would you vote for its candidate?

With an unpopular incumbent and very likely an unpopular Republican challenger, as well as broad disillusionment with conventional politics, might this actually work?

"The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 became Public Law No. 104-45 after it was passed ..."

Trump Moves U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem ..."
"eisenenkēs in Mt 6:13 is in the aorist subjunctive imperative, which means (according to my ..."

On the Pope’s Desire to Change ..."
"Kathy L. M.: as others have observed, that is a very astute observation. Since I ..."

On the Pope’s Desire to Change ..."
"While the XXXA has been identified as apostate according to Pres. Harrison and the CTCR, ..."

Trump Moves U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • helen

    Second, Americans Elect — which was formed and is backed by Peter Ackerman, a wealthy private investor and philanthropist, along with Byrd — wants to take the nominating process out of the hands of a few primary voters… [and put it in a few different hands, supposedly?]

    We are already likely to have two nominees who are unpopular because of the perception that they will attend first to their own good, and the good of their wealthy (corporate for secrecy) backers. How will it help America to have a third?

    [Maybe I should read you again, later in the morning!?]

  • helen

    Second, Americans Elect — which was formed and is backed by Peter Ackerman, a wealthy private investor and philanthropist, along with Byrd — wants to take the nominating process out of the hands of a few primary voters… [and put it in a few different hands, supposedly?]

    We are already likely to have two nominees who are unpopular because of the perception that they will attend first to their own good, and the good of their wealthy (corporate for secrecy) backers. How will it help America to have a third?

    [Maybe I should read you again, later in the morning!?]

  • larry

    I’m not sure I buy into the Republican field being too weak or folks are so displeased with them. Sure, in primary season people flock to “their team” and staunchly so. But once a candidate crystalizes I think things will change.

    It’s kind of like NCAA basketball is here in Kentucky (almost a religion). UK and UL are normally mortal in-state enemies and the rivalry goes waaay back. So each flock to their team in the tournament and vigorously defend everything their team does and likewise condemns everything the opposition’s team does. But if say one loose and is out of the tournament and the next team the remaing team is facing is Duke or Kansas, the once opposing fans join hands with their former strongly contested rivalry.

  • larry

    I’m not sure I buy into the Republican field being too weak or folks are so displeased with them. Sure, in primary season people flock to “their team” and staunchly so. But once a candidate crystalizes I think things will change.

    It’s kind of like NCAA basketball is here in Kentucky (almost a religion). UK and UL are normally mortal in-state enemies and the rivalry goes waaay back. So each flock to their team in the tournament and vigorously defend everything their team does and likewise condemns everything the opposition’s team does. But if say one loose and is out of the tournament and the next team the remaing team is facing is Duke or Kansas, the once opposing fans join hands with their former strongly contested rivalry.

  • http://LeitersburgLutheran.org Terry Culler

    It reminds me of John Anderson (yes I am that old). People somehow believe that putting two people who do not represent their parties philosophical positions on the same ticket will produce something useful. There is nothing in the history of republican government to my knowledge that would bear this out. These folks are wasting their money.

  • http://LeitersburgLutheran.org Terry Culler

    It reminds me of John Anderson (yes I am that old). People somehow believe that putting two people who do not represent their parties philosophical positions on the same ticket will produce something useful. There is nothing in the history of republican government to my knowledge that would bear this out. These folks are wasting their money.

  • Tom Hering

    “I’m not sure I buy into the Republican field being too weak or folks are so displeased with them.” – @ 2.

    PBS NewsHour, Wednesday, November 30:

    ANDREW KOHUT, Pew Research Center: At the time of the midterms, we had a plurality of Americans saying they agreed with the ideas of the Tea Party.

    Now, keep in mind, most people — only about half of the people have an opinion, but among the people who do have an opinion, a plurality said, we agree with them. At the beginning of the year, when we asked people, what effect do you think the Tea Party is going to have on Congress, most people who had an opinion said it’s going to be a good effect.

    By August, we had 29 percent to 22 percent plurality saying, by the way, they’re having a bad effect. And so we have seen a deterioration of the view that they’re a positive force here in Washington, and we have seen fewer people agreeing with them, both, as you pointed out, in the country nationwide and also in the 60 districts where members of the Republican — of the Tea Party Caucus come from.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Andy Kohut, you look at the polling numbers all the time. Is this a significant drop?

    ANDREW KOHUT: It is pretty significant, given how influential they have been and how intense the views have been about the issues that they take on.

    And what adds the significance to it is we see the same trend with respect to the Republican Party. It’s not just the Tea Party. Throughout much of this year, the early part of the year, even numbers of people had a favorable and unfavorable view of the Republican Party, just as they have of the Democratic Party.

    By October of this year, we have a 36 percent to 55 percent margin saying, I have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.

  • Tom Hering

    “I’m not sure I buy into the Republican field being too weak or folks are so displeased with them.” – @ 2.

    PBS NewsHour, Wednesday, November 30:

    ANDREW KOHUT, Pew Research Center: At the time of the midterms, we had a plurality of Americans saying they agreed with the ideas of the Tea Party.

    Now, keep in mind, most people — only about half of the people have an opinion, but among the people who do have an opinion, a plurality said, we agree with them. At the beginning of the year, when we asked people, what effect do you think the Tea Party is going to have on Congress, most people who had an opinion said it’s going to be a good effect.

    By August, we had 29 percent to 22 percent plurality saying, by the way, they’re having a bad effect. And so we have seen a deterioration of the view that they’re a positive force here in Washington, and we have seen fewer people agreeing with them, both, as you pointed out, in the country nationwide and also in the 60 districts where members of the Republican — of the Tea Party Caucus come from.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Andy Kohut, you look at the polling numbers all the time. Is this a significant drop?

    ANDREW KOHUT: It is pretty significant, given how influential they have been and how intense the views have been about the issues that they take on.

    And what adds the significance to it is we see the same trend with respect to the Republican Party. It’s not just the Tea Party. Throughout much of this year, the early part of the year, even numbers of people had a favorable and unfavorable view of the Republican Party, just as they have of the Democratic Party.

    By October of this year, we have a 36 percent to 55 percent margin saying, I have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.

  • SKPeterson

    “Moderates” in this case meaning “establishment types who don’t want the boat rocked unless it tips in their favor.” Moderates means we continue to spend like drunken sailors even though we’re no longer in the Navy and drawing regular pay. We’ll get someone else to pick up the tab.

  • SKPeterson

    “Moderates” in this case meaning “establishment types who don’t want the boat rocked unless it tips in their favor.” Moderates means we continue to spend like drunken sailors even though we’re no longer in the Navy and drawing regular pay. We’ll get someone else to pick up the tab.

  • DonS

    Yawn.

  • DonS

    Yawn.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    >> Americans Elect is not creating a separate party […]

    Uh, huh. I see.

    They’re not opposed to political parties as such, only their over-emphasis of political differences that have led to the division of the American body politic.

    Yes, this is the non-partisan denomina.. um.. polititcal party, I mean.
    The non-partisan party!
    Got that?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    >> Americans Elect is not creating a separate party […]

    Uh, huh. I see.

    They’re not opposed to political parties as such, only their over-emphasis of political differences that have led to the division of the American body politic.

    Yes, this is the non-partisan denomina.. um.. polititcal party, I mean.
    The non-partisan party!
    Got that?

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, Mike, I got that – when I read they require their ticket be made up of candidates from two different parties. Politicians who can compromise (“what!”) and work together (“yuck!”) and get things done (“oh no!”). And can see others as opponents, not enemies. Like we do here. :-)

    Dr. Veith nailed it: “… an unpopular incumbent and very likely an unpopular Republican challenger, as well as broad disillusionment with conventional politics …” People want real change in DC. Hence Obama. Hence the Tea Party. Hence OWS. Hence Americans Elect. Hence whatever comes next, until there is real change. Possibly for the worse. Hopefully for the better.

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, Mike, I got that – when I read they require their ticket be made up of candidates from two different parties. Politicians who can compromise (“what!”) and work together (“yuck!”) and get things done (“oh no!”). And can see others as opponents, not enemies. Like we do here. :-)

    Dr. Veith nailed it: “… an unpopular incumbent and very likely an unpopular Republican challenger, as well as broad disillusionment with conventional politics …” People want real change in DC. Hence Obama. Hence the Tea Party. Hence OWS. Hence Americans Elect. Hence whatever comes next, until there is real change. Possibly for the worse. Hopefully for the better.

  • mendicus

    Required to have a running mate from the other party? A stroke of genius! First, it’s a foolproof system. No one could ever manipulate it by, say, having a Repub from Maine on a ticket with a Dem, or having a blue-dog Dem on with a Repub. Second, by telling people whom they can and cannot choose as a running mate, it raises moderation to the status it deserves…above such silliness as liberty. What were the country’s founders thinking, letting people choose their own political associations?

    It’s flawless. Why hasn’t anyone thought of it before?

  • mendicus

    Required to have a running mate from the other party? A stroke of genius! First, it’s a foolproof system. No one could ever manipulate it by, say, having a Repub from Maine on a ticket with a Dem, or having a blue-dog Dem on with a Repub. Second, by telling people whom they can and cannot choose as a running mate, it raises moderation to the status it deserves…above such silliness as liberty. What were the country’s founders thinking, letting people choose their own political associations?

    It’s flawless. Why hasn’t anyone thought of it before?

  • Grace

    ____TAKE NOTE: _____ this article is dated July 28,2011

    L.A. TIMES
    Americans Elect seeks to upend primary system
    It hopes to select an alternate presidential ticket through an online
    , open convention. Its status as a social welfare group has enabled it to keep private its financiers even as it tries to qualify as a new party.
    July 28, 2011|By Matea Gold, Washington Bureau

    “Reporting from Washington — County registrar offices across California on Thursday will begin receiving the product of an audacious enterprise — nearly 1.6 million signatures collected by Americans Elect, a group attempting to ride exasperation with the nation’s political leaders into a place on the ballot in all 50 states by 2012.

    Its mission is to upend the traditional party primary process by selecting an alternate presidential ticket through an online, open nominating convention.

    The goal is bold, but the manner in which Americans Elect is pursuing its aims is highly unorthodox. Although it is attempting to qualify as a new party in California and other states, the group’s legal designation is that of a nonpolitical, tax-exempt social welfare organization.”

    ______ another excerpt from article:

    “”The only political philosophy we have is that people should be greater than parties,” said Elliot Ackerman, the group’s chief operating officer.

    Still, many of the group’s experienced political operatives hail from centrist circles: Chief Executive Kahlil Byrd is a GOP strategist who worked for Massachusetts’ Democratic governor, Deval Patrick. Pollster Doug Schoen worked for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, as well as for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/nation/la-na-americans-elect-20110728

    This one hasn’t struck a note in California –

  • Grace

    ____TAKE NOTE: _____ this article is dated July 28,2011

    L.A. TIMES
    Americans Elect seeks to upend primary system
    It hopes to select an alternate presidential ticket through an online
    , open convention. Its status as a social welfare group has enabled it to keep private its financiers even as it tries to qualify as a new party.
    July 28, 2011|By Matea Gold, Washington Bureau

    “Reporting from Washington — County registrar offices across California on Thursday will begin receiving the product of an audacious enterprise — nearly 1.6 million signatures collected by Americans Elect, a group attempting to ride exasperation with the nation’s political leaders into a place on the ballot in all 50 states by 2012.

    Its mission is to upend the traditional party primary process by selecting an alternate presidential ticket through an online, open nominating convention.

    The goal is bold, but the manner in which Americans Elect is pursuing its aims is highly unorthodox. Although it is attempting to qualify as a new party in California and other states, the group’s legal designation is that of a nonpolitical, tax-exempt social welfare organization.”

    ______ another excerpt from article:

    “”The only political philosophy we have is that people should be greater than parties,” said Elliot Ackerman, the group’s chief operating officer.

    Still, many of the group’s experienced political operatives hail from centrist circles: Chief Executive Kahlil Byrd is a GOP strategist who worked for Massachusetts’ Democratic governor, Deval Patrick. Pollster Doug Schoen worked for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, as well as for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/nation/la-na-americans-elect-20110728

    This one hasn’t struck a note in California –

  • Grace

    One can take a quick look at Europe, noteing their 3, 4, or more party system, then check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want? – a SOCIALIST country,.. Countries with multiple parties are SOCIALIST – we can see what Obama has introduced, the mess he’s made. Think about it before you start entertaining the so called “alternative” –

    This one throws a red flag, as it’s shoved in under the doors of our states.

  • Grace

    One can take a quick look at Europe, noteing their 3, 4, or more party system, then check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want? – a SOCIALIST country,.. Countries with multiple parties are SOCIALIST – we can see what Obama has introduced, the mess he’s made. Think about it before you start entertaining the so called “alternative” –

    This one throws a red flag, as it’s shoved in under the doors of our states.

  • Tom Hering

    All grass is green, therefore … sheesh.

  • Tom Hering

    All grass is green, therefore … sheesh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace asked (@11):

    check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want?

    A populace better educated in basic logic, maybe?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace asked (@11):

    check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want?

    A populace better educated in basic logic, maybe?

  • Grace

    Nay tODD, – – you’re grasping for something that isn’t there. “Logic” is not the fruit from a SOCIALIST government, and a ‘health program that is broken –

    You might have used my entire sentence, “One can take a quick look at Europe, noteing their 3, 4, or more party system, then check out Canada” – – it includes Europe etc. So much for “logic” –

  • Grace

    Nay tODD, – – you’re grasping for something that isn’t there. “Logic” is not the fruit from a SOCIALIST government, and a ‘health program that is broken –

    You might have used my entire sentence, “One can take a quick look at Europe, noteing their 3, 4, or more party system, then check out Canada” – – it includes Europe etc. So much for “logic” –

  • Tom Hering

    So much for this thread. :-(

  • Tom Hering

    So much for this thread. :-(

  • Grace

    Tom, how can that be … you’re here? 😆

  • Grace

    Tom, how can that be … you’re here? 😆

  • trotk

    I can’t help myself!

    Grace, your logic is stunning. 3 or 4 party systems produce socialism! Lions and tigers and bears, o my!

    What do one party systems produce? communism, of course! Or perhaps facism! Or perhaps a tyrant or dictator of another stripe!
    What about two parties? Obama, of course! (Oh, wait, the US has more than two parties. That’s why we ended up with Obama. If only we had two, we wouldn’t have Obama.)
    What about Canada, with its 19 parties? Stephen Harper and the conservatives!

    Grace, you have the most lovably nonsensical reasoning skills.

  • trotk

    I can’t help myself!

    Grace, your logic is stunning. 3 or 4 party systems produce socialism! Lions and tigers and bears, o my!

    What do one party systems produce? communism, of course! Or perhaps facism! Or perhaps a tyrant or dictator of another stripe!
    What about two parties? Obama, of course! (Oh, wait, the US has more than two parties. That’s why we ended up with Obama. If only we had two, we wouldn’t have Obama.)
    What about Canada, with its 19 parties? Stephen Harper and the conservatives!

    Grace, you have the most lovably nonsensical reasoning skills.

  • Grace

    One party system? only you could have come up with that one :roll:

    Yes, I believe in a two party system. I certainly find the “alternative” suggested here, to be something to further disrupt our country – Isn’t Obama’s socialism enough, or would you try further to consider more parties, without logically thinking it through?

  • Grace

    One party system? only you could have come up with that one :roll:

    Yes, I believe in a two party system. I certainly find the “alternative” suggested here, to be something to further disrupt our country – Isn’t Obama’s socialism enough, or would you try further to consider more parties, without logically thinking it through?

  • larry

    DonS I agree, “yawn”. That’s about were I’m at on this issue. Whoever will be elected will be elected and it will come to pass. One person proposes candidate X (either party) ten or fifteen others say, “I wouldn’t vote for that so and so because (fill in the blank)”. The next guy/gal’s name is tossed out by another person, the other ten or fifteen say, “I wouldn’t vote for that so and so because (fill in the blank)”. And so on until the list is exhaust…then wash, rinse, repeat again. That’s why I’m not buying into the opinions at this point, they are “feet planted firmly in mid air”.

  • larry

    DonS I agree, “yawn”. That’s about were I’m at on this issue. Whoever will be elected will be elected and it will come to pass. One person proposes candidate X (either party) ten or fifteen others say, “I wouldn’t vote for that so and so because (fill in the blank)”. The next guy/gal’s name is tossed out by another person, the other ten or fifteen say, “I wouldn’t vote for that so and so because (fill in the blank)”. And so on until the list is exhaust…then wash, rinse, repeat again. That’s why I’m not buying into the opinions at this point, they are “feet planted firmly in mid air”.

  • Cincinnatus

    Vote Anti-Mason in 2012!

  • Cincinnatus

    Vote Anti-Mason in 2012!

  • Cincinnatus

    In all seriousness, a third-party challenge is unlikely (though I’ll be voting third-party regardless). Mitt Romney is only unpopular with conservative activists. Outside the echo-chamber created by the partisan primary process, Romney cuts a rather presidential figure and could very well defeat Obama in a general election, perhaps even handily. I don’t like him and would never vote for him. But I think we’re overestimating the general mediocrity of the Republican field–which, at the moment, consists only of Romney and maybe Newt (God help us if Newt wins the nomination).

  • Cincinnatus

    In all seriousness, a third-party challenge is unlikely (though I’ll be voting third-party regardless). Mitt Romney is only unpopular with conservative activists. Outside the echo-chamber created by the partisan primary process, Romney cuts a rather presidential figure and could very well defeat Obama in a general election, perhaps even handily. I don’t like him and would never vote for him. But I think we’re overestimating the general mediocrity of the Republican field–which, at the moment, consists only of Romney and maybe Newt (God help us if Newt wins the nomination).

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 21

    The difference between Newt and Romney is this:

    Newt has asked forgiveness of his sin, Romney belongs to a cult, and stands by their belief system which is about as far from God’s Word as you get.

    A poor sinner who admitts his sin is someone I can trust, those who see nothing wrong with a cult, standing for all they stand for would never be a choice.

    My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.
    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844,

    Take God’s place?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 21

    The difference between Newt and Romney is this:

    Newt has asked forgiveness of his sin, Romney belongs to a cult, and stands by their belief system which is about as far from God’s Word as you get.

    A poor sinner who admitts his sin is someone I can trust, those who see nothing wrong with a cult, standing for all they stand for would never be a choice.

    My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.
    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844,

    Take God’s place?

  • Cincinnatus

    *sigh*

  • Cincinnatus

    *sigh*

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here’s our guy!

    The savior of the United States:

    http://youtu.be/3oiQhhdz8ys

    Pat Paulsen! Is he still alive? I hope not…they buried him (rim shot)

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here’s our guy!

    The savior of the United States:

    http://youtu.be/3oiQhhdz8ys

    Pat Paulsen! Is he still alive? I hope not…they buried him (rim shot)

  • WisdomLover

    On the 2012 Election-

    Either Gingrich or Romney will beat Obama (Carter II) handily.

    The only thing that could possibly derail that is if the press manages to gin up support for some third-party candidate like they did for Perot in 1992.

    On America Elect-

    The non-partisan group mentioned here is headed up by Peter Ackerman the founder of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Sounds like a real centrist.

    Ackerman was also Director of International Capital Markets at the investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert until it went bankrupt in 1990 because of the activities of its employee Michael Milken in the junk bond fiasco. I’m sure Ackerman had nothing to do with that illegality, but it doesn’t exactly sound like he’s the sort of guy who has the bead on how to fix our money-corrupted political institutions.

    The America Elect group is not defining itself as a third-party. This might be because of some cutting-edge internet-age power-to-the-people claptrap.

    Of course, not doing so also allows them to not comply with campaign finance laws.

    I really wouldn’t know which is the real reason for the refusal to call themselves a third-party.

    McCain-Feingold was supposed to give us more honest and transparent political institutions. Unintended consequences. Lovely.

  • WisdomLover

    On the 2012 Election-

    Either Gingrich or Romney will beat Obama (Carter II) handily.

    The only thing that could possibly derail that is if the press manages to gin up support for some third-party candidate like they did for Perot in 1992.

    On America Elect-

    The non-partisan group mentioned here is headed up by Peter Ackerman the founder of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Sounds like a real centrist.

    Ackerman was also Director of International Capital Markets at the investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert until it went bankrupt in 1990 because of the activities of its employee Michael Milken in the junk bond fiasco. I’m sure Ackerman had nothing to do with that illegality, but it doesn’t exactly sound like he’s the sort of guy who has the bead on how to fix our money-corrupted political institutions.

    The America Elect group is not defining itself as a third-party. This might be because of some cutting-edge internet-age power-to-the-people claptrap.

    Of course, not doing so also allows them to not comply with campaign finance laws.

    I really wouldn’t know which is the real reason for the refusal to call themselves a third-party.

    McCain-Feingold was supposed to give us more honest and transparent political institutions. Unintended consequences. Lovely.

  • WisdomLover

    Todd, Grace-

    I’m just curious how you can figure out who has a populace better educated in basic logic. When did they give the tests in basic logic to everyone in or to a representative sample of the populace?

  • WisdomLover

    Todd, Grace-

    I’m just curious how you can figure out who has a populace better educated in basic logic. When did they give the tests in basic logic to everyone in or to a representative sample of the populace?

  • Tom Hering

    How are you a third party if your two candidates are from two different, existing parties, and remain in them?

  • Tom Hering

    How are you a third party if your two candidates are from two different, existing parties, and remain in them?

  • JunkerGeorg

    Cincinnatus @23,

    *sigh*

    ———————————————-

    …lol…

  • JunkerGeorg

    Cincinnatus @23,

    *sigh*

    ———————————————-

    …lol…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WisdomLover (@26), lighten up a bit. My reply (@13) was nothing more than a reaction to Grace’s completely illogical comment (@11). Note the appended “maybe?”, which suggests I’m not being completely rigorous, or serious.

    Grace doesn’t like Canadians because she had a bad experience with a few of them once or twice and, because of that, thinks they’re all rude. No, really, she’s told the story on this blog at least once.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WisdomLover (@26), lighten up a bit. My reply (@13) was nothing more than a reaction to Grace’s completely illogical comment (@11). Note the appended “maybe?”, which suggests I’m not being completely rigorous, or serious.

    Grace doesn’t like Canadians because she had a bad experience with a few of them once or twice and, because of that, thinks they’re all rude. No, really, she’s told the story on this blog at least once.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You know next to nothing about my business, or that of my families businseses with anyone, that includes those around the world, the U.S. and Canada.

    You’re working knowlege of our business is nill. You garner whatever you know from snippets from this blog, which somehow equate you’re trumped up knowelege to believe you have an in-house knowlege on what we do.

    This from post #30 LINK below, which you give as proof of what?

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/17/awkward-commemorating-the-war-of-1812/#comment-130067

    This isn’t proof tODD, …. it’s your silly way of making a point you don’t have.

    Do you do business internationally? or is your main station that of complaining, gripping about those on this blog? HUMMMMMMM :roll:

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You know next to nothing about my business, or that of my families businseses with anyone, that includes those around the world, the U.S. and Canada.

    You’re working knowlege of our business is nill. You garner whatever you know from snippets from this blog, which somehow equate you’re trumped up knowelege to believe you have an in-house knowlege on what we do.

    This from post #30 LINK below, which you give as proof of what?

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/17/awkward-commemorating-the-war-of-1812/#comment-130067

    This isn’t proof tODD, …. it’s your silly way of making a point you don’t have.

    Do you do business internationally? or is your main station that of complaining, gripping about those on this blog? HUMMMMMMM :roll:

  • Grace

    tODD – 29

    YOU WROTE: Grace doesn’t like Canadians because she had a bad experience with a few of them once or twice and, because of that, thinks they’re all rude.

    tODD, you are so off the mark it’s sad, it’s not even worth doing a smiley face. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about, but yet continue to pontificate.

  • Grace

    tODD – 29

    YOU WROTE: Grace doesn’t like Canadians because she had a bad experience with a few of them once or twice and, because of that, thinks they’re all rude.

    tODD, you are so off the mark it’s sad, it’s not even worth doing a smiley face. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about, but yet continue to pontificate.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want?

    Oil.

    Canada provides 40% of our oil imports.

    It is easier to balance your (socialist) budget when you are one of the world’s leading oil exporters and you have a small population.

    Which leads me to a question. Should oil exporting countries be subject to some sort of controls regarding global warming? I mean if burning these products is hazardous then Canada, Norway, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc need to been seen as enablers. It would be interesting to subtract the oil industry dollars from the GDP of those places and recalculate their per capita GDP without it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    check out Canada, .. what have they got that we want?

    Oil.

    Canada provides 40% of our oil imports.

    It is easier to balance your (socialist) budget when you are one of the world’s leading oil exporters and you have a small population.

    Which leads me to a question. Should oil exporting countries be subject to some sort of controls regarding global warming? I mean if burning these products is hazardous then Canada, Norway, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc need to been seen as enablers. It would be interesting to subtract the oil industry dollars from the GDP of those places and recalculate their per capita GDP without it.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – Then why do you hate the Canadians so much? Is it because of illegal immigration? The vast hordes of uneducated Canadians quietly slipping over the border from Windsor to steal factory jobs from hard-working Detroiters? Their continued perfidious attempts to undermine our social and cultural mores (Bryan Adams, Corey Hart, Mike Myers)? Their completely uninspired flag and national mascot choices (a leaf! and a beaver)? Has their continued insistence on spelling words incorrectly coloured your perception of them? What is it?

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – Then why do you hate the Canadians so much? Is it because of illegal immigration? The vast hordes of uneducated Canadians quietly slipping over the border from Windsor to steal factory jobs from hard-working Detroiters? Their continued perfidious attempts to undermine our social and cultural mores (Bryan Adams, Corey Hart, Mike Myers)? Their completely uninspired flag and national mascot choices (a leaf! and a beaver)? Has their continued insistence on spelling words incorrectly coloured your perception of them? What is it?

  • SKPeterson

    sg – An article in the WSJ indicates that the U.S. is close, if not already, to being a net exporter of fossil fuels. If we do what you advocate, we’d probably have negative employment growth and much lower GDP here. Not that GDP translates into much of anything, though it would put a new spin on the discussion regarding military expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

  • SKPeterson

    sg – An article in the WSJ indicates that the U.S. is close, if not already, to being a net exporter of fossil fuels. If we do what you advocate, we’d probably have negative employment growth and much lower GDP here. Not that GDP translates into much of anything, though it would put a new spin on the discussion regarding military expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Their completely uninspired flag and national mascot choices (a leaf! and a beaver)?”

    WHAT?!

    The Beaver is the most awesome Mascot EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I am yelling!

    Also, leaves provide oxygen and help produce carbohydrates for food!!

    Ahem, um, so I would disagree with you on the Canadian symbols, and no, I am not Canadian except for one grandparent.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Their completely uninspired flag and national mascot choices (a leaf! and a beaver)?”

    WHAT?!

    The Beaver is the most awesome Mascot EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I am yelling!

    Also, leaves provide oxygen and help produce carbohydrates for food!!

    Ahem, um, so I would disagree with you on the Canadian symbols, and no, I am not Canadian except for one grandparent.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “An article in the WSJ indicates that the U.S. is close, if not already, to being a net exporter of fossil fuels.”

    Interesting. I did not see that. Got a link?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “An article in the WSJ indicates that the U.S. is close, if not already, to being a net exporter of fossil fuels.”

    Interesting. I did not see that. Got a link?

  • SKPeterson

    sg – In the Wednesday edition. The online edition is locked, but here’s the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html?KEYWORDS=US+Nears+milestone

    And, I see you have no defense you can offer against the Bryan Adams charges.

  • SKPeterson

    sg – In the Wednesday edition. The online edition is locked, but here’s the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html?KEYWORDS=US+Nears+milestone

    And, I see you have no defense you can offer against the Bryan Adams charges.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And, I see you have no defense you can offer against the Bryan Adams charges.”

    So, you concede on the beaver and leaf.

    Thanks for the link. 😀

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And, I see you have no defense you can offer against the Bryan Adams charges.”

    So, you concede on the beaver and leaf.

    Thanks for the link. 😀