[Long Cut]

Do you really believe that candidates for office who deliberately turn themselves BLUE present a "real" option? Can a candidate who cannot even name his OPPONENT "articulate the reasons for it" clearly?

Is the situation "frustrating" enough, what with only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious, that spitting on an interviewer is justified?

I have no doubt of your frustration and sincerity, but are you SURE that this is the horse to attach your wagon to?

There is a VERY good reason that the Libertarians are a minor, fringe party.

[inquest]

Do you really believe that candidates for office who deliberately turn themselves BLUE present a "real" option? Can a candidate who cannot even name his OPPONENT "articulate the reasons for it" clearly?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Is the situation "frustrating" enough, what with only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious, that spitting on an interviewer is justified?

Again, I have no clue what you're referring to with the interviewer-spitting comment, but as for "only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious," you know that's not true. If a third party only gets 2% of the vote, it does not mean that only 2% of the electorate agrees with their platform. You yourself stated that you've tended to agree with the platforms of these parties, but restrained yourself from voting for them for strategic reasons. Do you really imagine yourself unique in that regard?

Now earlier in the thread you admonished me to stick to "logical" arguments, but now I see you engaging in what appears to be a volley of sarcastic cheap shots. Surely you can do better than that.