Subject:
|
Re: It's All Over...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:43:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1060 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Jeremiah VanderMark <doggybot_37@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> > > everything. Who'd have thought that a vote for Nader really *was* a vote for
> > > Bush...
> >
> > No it's not. Although there is some difference between Gore and Bush,
> > they're both corporatists, they both want to increase military spending,
> > they both support the death penalty, etc., etc., etc.
> >
> > A vote for Nader is *not* chosing the lesser of two evils.
>
> Well, it's choosing a totally different sort of evil, one could say. :-)
>
> But the basic point that a vote for a third party candidate is a thrown away
> vote is VERY entrenched in certain circles, and it's wrong. It's extremely
> unfortunate that it's such a widespread viewpoint, because it keeps us stuck
> in a duopoly. And not just any duopoly, but an amazingly broken one, which
> gives us candidates of the stunningly low quality of Bush and Gore (or was
> it Gush and Bore, I forget)...
Or to put it another way the election was not about choosing the lesser of
2 evils but the evil of 2 lessers :)
Having voted straight libertarian I am today watching the outcome of the
presidential race with sheer joy!
--Jim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) Well, it's choosing a totally different sort of evil, one could say. :-) But the basic point that a vote for a third party candidate is a thrown away vote is VERY entrenched in certain circles, and it's wrong. It's extremely unfortunate that (...) (26 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
