Subject:
|
Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:04:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I think the only really way to waste your vote is to not vote.
Agreed!!! I always vote. Already *have* voted in this election, in fact.
> It is a bit
> of a tangent, but I think we should all be forced to vote - as long as there
> was an option to vote for no candidate.
I'd support that. If in turn (and this is a serious LP proposal by the way,
YCLIU) if No Candidate got a plurality, that the office was unfunded and
unstaffed that term... That would be a good way to tell if the office was
really needed! See if anyone notices that the County Commissioner of Drains
is missing that term.
Heck, I'd go further, if NC won 3 times in a row, I'd permanently abolish
the office as long as it wasn't constitutionally mandated (president, House,
Senate, etc.), and I'd write that into the constitution so it would be
harder to undo.
> Getting back to your election this week. Here, in the UK, Bush is being
> derided more then a little. Most serious commentators, appear to be taking
> the line - "Can a nation really be stupid enough to vote this guy
> president". Some of the facts back this up more than a little (I read at the
> weekend he'd only been outside the USA 3 times), but I can't really comment
> on the fine detail of policies, such that they exist, as I don't live in the
> US. However, I keep thinking - can he really be all that bad? I have more or
> less come to the conclusion that:
>
> a) He is the face of quite a good team - Pretty much as Reagen was I suppose.
> b) Voters will vote against Clinton (via Gore) by voting Bush
Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not as dumb as the out of
context quotes make him seem. Not quite, anyway, although it's a near thing.
However where Reagan was a great president who surrounded himself with good
cabinet and advisors to get his vision done (he wasn't a details sort of
guy), Bush Jr. is a merely adequate governor from a state where things were
going pretty good before he got there. Mostly harmless, but not destined for
greatness if he gets elected.
I predict a Gore victory, actually. It will be narrow, very narrow, and the
results won't be confirmed till almost all states report final results. Gore
may in fact lose the popular but win in the Electoral College, as I think in
the end he is going to carry FL and MI and CA, the big swing states.
No matter who wins, expect more stupidity out of the US government than of
late, both domestically and in silly external adventures.
> And what about Ralph Nader?
Nader will come in third but I don't think he'll get 5%. I predict the
outcome will be ordered like this:
Gore, Bush, Nader, Browne, Buchanan, Hagelin. That's right, I think Browne
will outpoll Buchanan. However, after the election, if the results you see
in the papers don't show that, wait a bit. The real results may be a bit
different than what is initially reported, as I alluded to earlier in this
string.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
| (...) I think the only really way to waste your vote is to not vote. It is a bit of a tangent, but I think we should all be forced to vote - as long as there was an option to vote for no candidate. In some parts of the UK turnout can be below 50%, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
