[clue-talk] McCain suggests raiding Colorado's water

[David L. Willson]

I refuse to answer a top-post that follows a bottom-post, or vice-versa, but if I didn't
refuse, I'd agree with Angelo and Richard.  A third candidate is a third candidate. 
Saying that a third candidate is a spoiler... Well, isn't that a little like saying that
Linux is a spoiler?  If the spoiler happens to be the best choice, then maybe spoilage
is the best thing that can happen.  On the other hand, if the spoiler garners attention
because of major defects in the top two choices, then it is certainly necessary to show
support for the spoiler in order to protest those defects.  And last, MY vote is MY
vote, and only one man can win that.  I won't give MY vote to an unworthy candidate. 
Which is all to put new words on already expressed ideas, and to show the similarity to
Linux, and to say, in short: Aye!  Aye-mf'ing-AYE!  Go Ron Paul!  :-)

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:27:22 -0500, Richard Knechtel wrote
> Well Put!
> 
> Personally I think everyone should vote for Third parties (your choice) this
> year as a "were tired of the same old BS in washington" vote.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org>wrote:
> 
> > Collins Richey wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Richard Knechtel
> >> <richard.knechtel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Well, Ross Perot is good at Pie and Bar graph charts that's all I had
> >>> seen
> >>> he was good with. I remember back when a third party candidate actually
> >>> got
> >>> to be in the debates. All Perot did was flash charts and graphs, he
> >>> wasn't
> >>> saying anything we didn't already know - just like all the other
> >>> candidates.
> >>> None of them offered solutions...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Certainly, but his graphs and pie charts drew enough votes to elect
> >> Clinton. My point is that any 3rd party candidate can only skew the
> >> election results in favor of one of the major candidates. You could
> >> say that Ralph Nader elected George Bush.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have to speak out against this philosophy.
> >
> > It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  People should be taught to vote for who
> > they want instead of told that "a vote for X is a vote for Y."  Sorry, but
> > that's only true because the two parties have convinced everyone of that.  A
> > vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul, period.  So if you like Ron Paul
> > and think he would be the best president, you should vote for him.  Same
> > goes for Nader.
> >
> > But everyone is so afraid of "throwing away" their votes that of course
> > those of us who actually have the courage to do something different never
> > get a chance.  Just vote for who you want, ok?  At least if your "second
> > best" party loses, it'll make them take your issues more seriously next
> > time.
> >
> > Angelo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > clue-talk mailing list
> > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >


-- David