But you see my reason for making the point? Someone started another thread premised on a fawning 'respect' for a 'favourite' historical Empire. I merely wish to restore the Age of Enlightenment's gift to humanity - an aversion to Empire. We seem, of late, to be cozily slipping into language which is much too tolerant of the excesses of power to be healthy. Thats all.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

You must have missed this part. No need to thank me.

Emphasis mine.

All the article said was that he would not be appearing on the actual BALLOT. But you can write-in anyone you want, even if they are not on the ballot.

Even assuming you have you have to be on the ballot, the article clearly states no signatures are required...so anyone could run.

Yes, you can write in anyone you want, and yes, the votes will count. Some states may not accept the votes without a runoff election, but they ARE counted. Nothing in your link even implies that write in votes dont count. Try again.

All you know for sure is that all the previous governments have failed...

You are making assumptions about the outcome when a lot of the variables are different. We have a lot of advantages they did not have...not the least of which is knowledge of all the mistakes they made.

Define "continuous" in this context. The US is certainly not the same nation it was 200 years ago...

NADER HAD TO QUALIFY AS WRITE-IN! Jeez. How can miss things in plain English so easily? It boggles the mind. As clearly stated HAD HE FAILED TO QUALIFY VOTES FOR HIM WOULD NOT COUNT. You cannot be that dense. You have to be playing stupid.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

From link:

A write-in candidate in Utah who actually won a majority of the vote was denied office by a law similar to California’s. (The case is that of Don E. Torgerson v. Bart Albrecht, Sandra Rees, and Wayne County Commission, heard in The Sixth Judicial District Court, Wayne County Utah, case # 020600034, hearing date January 17th, 2003. Finding that election officials had been wrong to count Mr. Albrecht’s votes.

http://www.rawls.org/US_Supreme_petition.htm

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

As usual you insert your own opinion as fact:

It doesnt say anywhere in that article that write-ins dont count. What does it take for him to qualify? It says right there that no signatures are required...so "qualifying" could simply mean he is an American citizen, meets a minimum age, and isnt a felon.

Nothing in your article said that.

Do you see now why I have to question everything you say? I cant tell which parts of your posts are actual facts and which parts are facts you made up. You are making assumptions, and expecting me to share your assumptions. I dont. If you are making the claim, it is not unreasonable to expect you to prove it.

Just an FYI though, I did do you the favor of searching google to find proof of your own claim. I couldnt find any.

Emphasis mine. *Sigh*...as I said before:

It said the Utah case was similar to the California case...and teh California case was based on a police background check.

So "qualifying" would be a mere formality (for all you know) for the vast majority of citizens. So anyone could run.

Write-in candidates were denied in your examples because they did not meet these basic requirements, NOT because they were write-ins. So your claim that write in votes dont count is false; they DO count. If you qualify as a write-in, the votes are counted even if you dont appear on the ballot.

You have to qualify. Took you a while, but you got there. See? You cannot vote for whoever you want. They have to qualify first. If they don't the votes don't count. Even if they win. Which, of course, is exactly what I said in the first place! Some states may make it hard. Some may make it easy (Georgia is reasonably easy), but either way they have to qualify, so are not at free to vote "for whoever you like" as you stated (if you want the vote counted anyway). Then, of course, there's the small issue of actually getting on the ballot, which is a much larger issue. It ain't easy in most places. And it ain't easy on purpose. I wonder why............

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

True - I am making assumptions based on the entire historic record of a single, specific species - humans. In terms of the self-governance of other species maybe you can guide me as I am a bit shaky on that ground. [/quote]

'Continuous' - in the sense which I suggested within the very body of the text of the post which you just quoted from - do you read only 'first lines' and 'last pages' of novels too?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

You will find reading comprehension to be a large issue with SS. Before you can even get to debating any particular topic you need to spend a good deal of time explaining what you said in the last passage as SS somehow rarely understands it. Even if it's not complicated and written in near perfect English. Your question was simple and easy to understand. But as usual SS has to figure it out and/or debate what the meaning of "is" is.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.