Election updates...

[Rich Parsons]

It would make me very happy if everyone who did not vote voted for a third party candidate instead of not voting. It would really make some sphincter muscles tighten up!

Even if they voted for all the different parties, and it was spread amongst all the parties to not give anyone a win, but it sure would send a message.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Nope. If someone can not even gain a majority (Clinton) or can barely eck out a victory(Bush) and still claim it as a mandate to execute their own vision, then they won't care how many people vote third party. Some political image consultants may do some slightly different tailoring next time around, but it won't change what happens once the election is over

 

[Cruentus]

I really want to respond to the many points in your entire posts but am just too darn short on pre-holiday time. But I would like to point out that I felt I was voting for the lesser of the two evils before I *ever* heard anyone else use the phrase in regards to the presidential election - or any other election for that matter. So no media talking head, no self-endowed minister of magic, no self-made billionaire nor anyone else for that matter has evoked this "emotion" in me. The records of the people who have run in the elections I've been eligible to vote in during my lifespan speak for themselves.

The most insidious evil is that which works slowly, insipidly and employs opposing forces to unite the vision of ultimate power. It is not seen as evil, but rather protection from evil; not seen as dangerous until it is and even then the danger is seen as 'necessary'.

This is one kid who's eaten too much poisoned split pea soup.

I hear ya; and happy holidays.

I know the notion existed long before 2000, but I just remember Nader making it popular then; and not to date myself but I was a few months two young to vote in 96'!

I hear what you are saying and understand it. I just feel that to sit here and mope about 'lesser of two evils' is a whoa as me, victims mentality. I refuse to take that mentality, and I am hoping and suggesting that ya'll do the same...

 

[Cruentus]

Politically, my beliefs have traditionally fallen in line with what Kucinich stands for. However, I've undergone a sea change in recent months. I feel that our government has been too corrupted by corporate influence and that there have been way too many erosions of our civil liberties to even think about expanding the scope of the government.

I think that a well meaning liberal president would only find his/her policies twisted to fit an elitist agenda and further cast our country down into ruin.

IMHO, this is not the time for social engineering. This is the time to attempt to preserve what is left of our country.

So, with a presidential candidate, I'm looking for the following...

1. Someone who will preserve ALL of our constitutional rights in the spirit in which they were given.

2. Someone who will overhaul the financial system of this country and stop the erosion of our standard of living by inflation, debt, and tax.

3. Someone who will curtail corporate influence in government by preventing it from being controlled by the highest bidder.

The only candidate that I think will do all of this is Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything that he stands for, but at this point I think that something really radical needs to be done or we stand to lose this country as we know it.

This is so weird. I'm a liberal whose supporting a libertarian...but I think its a sign of the times.

upnorthkyosa

btw - I can't support Kucinich. I met him once and he said something that was really really creepy...and this is not superficial.

I totally understand where you are coming from because I went through some of the same changes regarding my thinking over the years. I will say that I agree with you; we HAVE to preserve our freedoms. That is #1 because if we aren't free, then no amount of socialized anything (be it healthcare or education or whatever) will be in the least bit meaningful. I would rather be the mouse out in the wild trying to fend for myself then be the sheltered mouse where everything is provided for me, so long as I live in the cage, give up my freedoms, and do whatever my master says. And I think we all have that time in our lives where we choose whether or not we would rather be free, or if we would rather play it safe and do what we are 'supposed too.'

Ron Paul is a good candidate; the only reason I don't completely support him is just because I think that some of his solutions aren't yet realistic. But, he is right on a number of points that some of the other candidates won't talk about. I don't think that he'll win, but I do think that he'll get a larger % then people think because he is pulling independent and non-voters out of the woodwork, and these are not the people who are polled when they configure the pre-primary numbers. I am still probably voting Huckabee because I would much rather see him then Guilliani get it (and it is too close for me to justify not casting that way), but some Ron Paul votes will send a positive message at least.

C.

PS. Holy crap... Kusinich is such a wierdo.. lol