🚀 go-pugleaf

smr  <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/21/2011 12:39 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
>> On 2011-09-21, Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>  wrote:
>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2011 5:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/20/2011 12:21 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So you claim those times existed, without having known them, or knowing
>>>>>>> anybody who knew them.
>>>
>>>>>> There's this thing called "history", which allows people to learn about
>>>>>> the details and processes that existed in times other than their own.
>>>
>>>>> So you think history means misrepresentation and fiction.
>>>
>>>> So you're denying that incumbent presidents used to not campaign on
>>>> principle?
>>>
>>>> Okay. Enjoy living with some past that never happened.
>>>
>>> Shithead, here's that quote of yours you keep denying:
>>>
>>>          We should go back to the old days where the incumbent didn't even
>>>          campaign because it was considered beneath the office. You just
>>>          voted on his record.
>>>
>>> You claimed campaigning was beneath the dignity of an incumbent. If the
>>> incumbent was popular and had a good record, that's what he ran on.
>>>
>>> Is there a way for you to be any more stupid?
>>
>> It is well documented that before 1824, the incumbent president did not
>> campaign, period. The lack of true popular vote was contributing factor, to
>> be sure, but it was just not done. Heck, even the opposing candidate tended
>> to avoid campaigning, letting the public come to them. Again, this was to
>> avoid sullying the grand office.
>>
>> I caught a fascinating exhibit on presedential campaigns at the Lincoln
>> Museum in Springfield a few years back. This might have been the part that
>> stuck with me the most.
>
>Sorry, Kristian, Adam says it never happened so... (note: later 
>incumbents also refused to campaign, but after 1824 it did become possible).

Oh, you're so full of shit that that's what you were thinking of, given
that I mentioned early presidents and you didn't even offer a hint that
this was what you were thinking of.

You still sticking with dignity as the reason, shit for brains, and not
extremely difficult transportation and communication? Are you going to
deny that the Electoral College never worked the way the Founding Fathers
expected it to work and that every decision they made post-Washington
was based on what party they were a member of?

Please, please keep up your humorous take on American political history.
I just cannot get enough.