Quote:
|
The reason that you can't see any difference is because of your blind partisanship. While I'll agree that I don't think that it's the right nor ethical think for the RNC to get involved with helping the Nader get the signatures to get on the ballot, it is hardly taking away choices from the voters. If the DNC wants to help say Pat Robertson to get on the ballot to take away from Bush's base then that would be equivalent. However when talking about ethical violations, I don't see how any reasonable person could put working to limit the choice of voters in the same category as helping someone get on the ballot who you don't plan on voting for.
|
That's very amusing, I "can't see any difference...because of [my] blind partisanship" while you see a great deal of difference because of your "blind partisanship"! that's funny...
There is nothing unethical in the DNC seeking the enforcement of the law on candidate's being placed on a ballot. The law was in place prior to this election cycle so there was no changing of the rules focused on Nader. The other candidates followed the law to be placed on the ballot, Nader should follow the same rules.
How can efforts towards enforcing the law on ballot access be seen as unethical?
Quote:
|
BTW last time I checked Kerry was the democrats candidate for President.
|
uh, yeah, did you not understand "BTW Nader called the Democrats, <u>not just Kerry</u>, "gutless..." etc."?