Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

Let’s not muddle this with nuance.

Once more, folks:

—Filed 1996 days ago to ; .

  1. wait, which party was it that tried not to count absentee ballots in 2000?
    — elaine    Sep 26, 02:04 PM    #
  2. Ten points from Slytherin, elaine, for flagrantly ignoring the instructions clearly posted in this item's title.

    (But hey: I'll stack a half-assed attempt to block a few dozen suspect absentee ballots against a decades-long history of deliberate disenfranchisement of millions any day. Thanks. —Wait, what's that? The Pentagon is restricting international access to the official Web site intended to help overseas absentee voters cast ballots? Gosh. Irony's a funny ol' thing, ennit?)
    — --k.    Sep 26, 02:52 PM    #
  3. They don't use nuance, we don't need nuance
    I think we all need to echo this sentiment from Kip Manley: Let’s not muddle this with nuance. Democrats depend on registering as many people to vote as possible. Republicans depend on preventing as many people from voting as possible. What brings th...

    — Pharyngula    Sep 26, 03:23 PM    #
  4. And Greens depend on getting excluded from as many ballots as possible.
    — Kevin Moore    Sep 27, 06:53 AM    #
  5. one slight nuance that might be worth mentioning:

    Democrats depend on getting as many people to vote as possible, which requires registration.

    Republicans depend on preventing as many people from voting as possible.

    The recognition of the detail serves no purpose but to leave us more dismally distressed than before.
    — bethanne    Sep 27, 08:46 AM    #
  6. Oh! Hey! Again! Republicans depend on preventing as many people from voting as possible!
    — --k.    Sep 27, 09:23 AM    #
  7. Bill Bradbury is very nuanced. :p That's why I think I'll be writing in Lloyd Marbet for Secretary of State.
    — sacchi del ami    Sep 27, 10:04 AM    #
  8. I would think writing in Nader for Secretary of State would be a much clearer signal. I'm thinking I may join you in doing that. (I guess the argument against doing that would be that Bradbury will merely think we were too stupid to write in Nader for president).
    — Charles    Sep 27, 03:06 PM    #
  9. Bradbury should have his house T.P-ed and Silly-Stringed (Strung ?) on Mischief Night by angry duopoly-hating ankle-biters (if there are any of those left besides me). Also, I gave that ungrateful shithead $50 for his sorry-ass suicide run against Senator Helmet-Hair-Francophobic-Pea-Packer in 2002. I want it back.
    — sacchi del ami    Sep 27, 03:41 PM    #
  10. Then there's the dark side of the equation:

    Democrats depend on keeping as many candidates off the ballot as possible.

    Republicans depend on getting as many candidates on the ballot as possible.

    Mind you, I've put in hours volunteering for the Dems this year. But sad facts are sad facts, and I wish Dems would stick to two simple truths: Bush's record is abysmal, and if you want to beat him, you've got to vote for Kerry.

    And don't despair! Volunteer!
    — Will Shetterly    Sep 27, 06:06 PM    #
  11. Even if Kerry wins, I'll despair, thanks much.
    — Kevin Moore    Sep 27, 07:49 PM    #
  12. Do I have to start taking points from Hufflepuff, too? Y'all, I say, y'all are messin' up my nice neat Manichean split with messy tangled nuance!

    One more time, and yet another link: Republicans depend on preventing as many people from voting as possible. That's incontrovertible, that's it, that's all you need to know about what's left of the Grand Old Party: if we the people get to vote, they lose. Period. The Elder Grown-Up Republican Gods are nothing but a myth—it's gibbering, power-mad Azathoth all the way down, and the mad tootling of spinning pipes. (Sorry. Conceit leakage.) —Whether gridlocking their lust for power with a centrist Democratic president for the next four years is an absolute necessity for the commonweal, or a distracting bloody shirt waved by a two-headed puppet to lure us from the real prize, is a fight for another thread, and just because I think I know where I stand for this election doesn't mean I'm condoning actions taken or opinions expressed by all or even most of the folks who are standing here, too. Or even happy about where my feet have found themselves. And yet.

    But oh, hell, there I go with the nuance. Ten points from me, then, and I'll go sulk in the corner. But for God's sake, don't forget it: Republicans depend on preventing as many people from voting as possible.
    — --k.    Sep 27, 08:18 PM    #
  13. " Volunteer!"

    For what ? The forthcoming "'bipartisan'-no-matter-who-wins" draft ? Not with THESE feet, thankyouverymuch. I can't crochet socks or roll bandages worth a damn, either. If you want burreaucratic paper-flinging, however, I'm your woman. Also, I look forward to those "meatless Mondays," since they'll allow me to rope my partner into eating tempeh.
    — sacchi del ami    Sep 28, 07:13 AM    #

Commenting is closed for this article.