> I agree. However, it's also interesting to note that the majority of
voters
> are baby boomers or older. A lot of older people seem to vote for a
party
> rather than a candidate, so there's no way in hell they'll vote for
someone
> like Nader.
politics has a lot to do with health lately. now that we have these fine
medicines and technological advances, we have old people living with the
ability to vote. excuse me for sounding callous, but it's true. old
people have the opportunity to vote now more than ever, and you're
completely on the ball when you say that a lot of people vote for the party
rather than the candidate. most importantly, the only thing old people (in
my experience - which trust me i do have, i grew up surrounded by old
people) care about is medicare. it's true. they sit around voting for
medicare. i'm not saying they ALL do this or that the majority of them do
this, but in my experience, THEY ALL SIT AROUND VOTING FOR MEDICARE.
there's so many of them living nowadays too, and when they hear that nader
is on the green party ballot, as if they're gonna vote for him. i wouldn't
either if i was voting for a party. the green party sucks by itself. i
mean yeah it's big on the environment and stuff but it's into all that
'self-healing' new age bullshit i can't stand and old people can't either.
i don't know where i'm going with this...basically i just support what that
jason guy says.
and as for you, chris, you say that you envision nader on the highway with
a big green thumb :P uhm..ever heard of consumer reports? find it useful?
read about it...maybe you'll start to envision nader on the highway with a
big consumer reports magazine ;)
- amy
