Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not resigned to mediocrity. The lesser of two evils means I am still voting for evil. No thanks.
To me the two parties are not any option at all. If you look at life since about the time we got involved in the Korean War. We get into one war after another that we never win. Now we are engaged in two conflicts in the middle east that have been going on for almost 20 years, and if anything things are much worse than when we got there. We have overspent our way into eventual austerity. Which I think most people don't even grasp what that will mean. If interest rates rise a few more points everyone will know what that means.
We have created a virtual police state with aggressive cops, overreaching eavesdropping on our citizens and all the post 9/11 homeland security measures that took away countless civil liberties.
And both parties are complicit in the above and a zillion other bad things. There is no way I can vote for more of the same. I don't care if its the Libertarians or Greens or any number of future parties that rise up. Just something has to change.
Simple question then...
Who is now POTUS? One of the two candidates presented by the Democrat and Republican parties, or someone else? I rest my case...
No matter how you describe the choice, "lesser of two evils," "better over worse," "left v right," you either make a choice of consequence or you sideline yourself and let others choose the next POTUS for you. You are not preventing the "evil" you choose not to vote for. You are simply abdicating your choice to those who take responsibility to choose regardless how much we like or don't like the choices that ultimately emerge. In fact, unwittingly, people who cast votes of no consequence can often allow the candidate they least prefer, the most "evil" of the two to win!
What you may wish or feel to the contrary is your prerogative of course, as many people have chosen, to stick head in sand far as I'm concerned, but either way, my point was mostly to demonstrate those of us who look at this from a practical -- realistic - standpoint are not as you previously described.
Well several of the items that you consider progress I consider the opposite. I really think that entitlements hurt the people long term that they are trying to help. And I do care about people in need I just think the democrats are going about it all wrong. The goal should be independence not dependence.
I am fine with several things on that list. I am looking long term. That is why the debt concerns me as well as the growing police state as well as growing entitlements.
Democrats have done a few things right and many things wrong. Same with the GOP. I guess that is why I am a libertarian. To me its the best blend of both worlds.
Another question for you...
How much have you looked into what you "really believe?"
For starters, for example, what percent of money going toward entitlements ends up feeding kids? Any idea? You think letting kids go hungry is hurting rather than helping them?
Okay, that's two questions actually. Three if you want to get technical...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
