Reply #128: When the intent of the sole contributors is to use said candidate

[LynneSin]

to help their prefer candidate to win.

Too many articles have been written that Carl Romanelli did not have any money coming in from the Green party to help get the signature outside $30 he donated. So when the sole source of money to gather the signatures come from anti-choice, anti-gay, oil execs who helped no other 3rd party candidate except the one party that could pull votes away from their main contributor then yes - a vote for Carl would be a vote for not just anti-choice, but also everything else corrupt the republican party stands for.

Because if Carl was a true green whose intents were to push the Green platform he would have refused those contributions on principle. And even Carl admits he got the money.

And sweetie, it has NEVER EVER EVER been about this candidate and how he will affect the race (which is highly unlikely). Obviously you're just like every other Green sympathizer out there with your head up your ass refusing to see the big picture - THE GREEN PARTY IS FULL OF CORRUPT CANDIDATES JUST LIKE MINE. So as far as I'm concern, I refuse to put up with any Green bullshit about this party purity of the GReen refusing corrupt campaign money. They did it and still they whine, complain and deny.

Carl help Santorum in Pennsylvania - highly doubtful. Geez, clearly you have no clue about me and my knowledge of Pennsylvania politics. Spent 30 years in that state.

Perhaps you need a new hobby - liking being able to see the big picture. Clearly you have no concept in that.