Here we go again.
Mind if I borrow this, Spiff? I'll turn it off when I'm finished.
Here we go again.
Mind if I borrow this, Spiff? I'll turn it off when I'm finished.
In the primaries I will vote for another candidate. If for some odd reason (GOP (and other?) money transfused to him, can’t imagine any other reason) he wins the primaries, I’ll be voting third party, thank you.
Some lesser evils are so close to the greater evils that I couldn’t in good conscience vote for them.
I am not exactly sure.
First... If Giuliani actually came out swinging on flat tax, HSA's, partial privatisation of social security, then I would vote for him.
Basically, though, I just don't do that lesser of two evils voting anymore. Having lived most of my life in CT, I did it all the time since the Republicans are all liberals. I also did it somewhat in 2000 (although, I had hopes for W), I deifently did it in '04, as I don't like W, but hated Kerry.
Anyway, it has occurred to me, largely from reading DU and KOS, where they too feel that they vote for the lesser of two evils, that this is a massive con and a suckers game. While one can make the logical case for any one election that one should pick the lesser of two evils, it is very clear over time that it is a suckers game. I simply refuse to play it anymore.
As to the specific question: I may vote for Giuliani (although I doubt it). If there is a good third party candidate, I will vote for him/her. I will not vote Democratic. (Well, if it was Gravel vs. Giuliani I suppose I might vote for Gravel).