Samantha Atkins wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Its a matter of what is the greater threat versus lesser evil. Gore has a far
> > better chance of being elected than Browne, and the more that vote for Browne
> > instead of Bush increases Gore's chances. Gore is the one we definitely don't
> > want in office for any reason. To maximize the odds of Gore losing, I am
> > campaigning for Nader, and voting for Bush.
> But don't you see that many of us want neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee
> and are tired of these lesser-of-two-evils games as both evils are
> utterly intolerable? I would rather see millions make their fed-upness
> known by voting for Browne than see them driven into further apathy.
I would rather that Browne and the LP get some major backing from some of these
alleged silicon valley libertarians, before I invest my vote in a candidate that
is too high a risk for me. If the LP got $40 million tomorrow to spend on the
campaign, then I'd be all for it, because they could finally start to compete in
the media. Asking me to vote LP is like asking street people to invest in Rotary
Rocket. Elections are won by money, face the facts. Until the LP gets some
significant backing it is a non-starter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT