We have nothing to choose from in voting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Sounds like a lot of us don't like ANYONE we have to choose from - I don't want any of them, republican or democrat and know that no one else could win because the media doesn't give them a chance to speak. Who else feels this way (not looking for people to sway me to vote their guy - just wondering who is as immobilized by this as I). Are we representative of the people or our usual non-sheeple like in Y2K?

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), February 25, 2000


Politicians are never going to change. I'm just waiting for the revolution.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 25, 2000.

i agree that our choice is limited. the media truly seems to be controlling this election. my feeling is they are trying to defeat bush and then if we get mccain (which i don't think will really happen)--the media will let loose on HIS REAL BACKGROUND AND PULVERIZE HIM AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

i also once heard that for any candidate to be viable for presidency, they must first be members of the NWO organizations (which really means we are going to get the same paper doll cutouts) with the same rotten policies toward America that will one day gut her. however, out of sheer principle i refuse to vote for a democrat (and i used to be a democrat until clinton was elected and then i discovered the democratic party's socialist leanings).

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

It might be a lot simpler than that. If you notice, the one with the most free media coverage in the guise of news is the one who has the most to spend on paid advertisements. They are just courting the money. Now that McCain is catching up to G.W. in terms of contributions he is being mentioned a lot more in headlines. Its all about money people. (I didn't say the money wasn't from NWO types though)

-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), February 25, 2000.

Well, if there's a revolution we gotta have something to replace what we've revolted against and we aren't even close. How many of you even knew that Ralph Nader was running for president. I heard several of his speeches during the WTO conference and a debate and he was incredible. Sounds a lot like all of us. But, NOOOOOOOOO, the media won't cover him, or the independents.

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), February 25, 2000.

Sheri, our choices this year are McCain, Bush, Gore. That's the facts. Now be a good citizen and vote for who you feel is the best choice of these three. Ranting and complaining about "others" not getting any media coverage will not help their candidacies. Maybe McCain's campaign reform policies would allow "others" to have a more realistic chance in future elections. Sometimes you need to accomplish larger goals one little goal at a time. McCain 2000!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 25, 2000.

Yes, I too am concerned that the electable options do not offer what we need in leadership. I also believe that this discussion is akin to the original y2k topic in that the primary issue is about recognizing imminent societal danger and seeking to understand how to survive and perhaps change the circumstances. We take time to gain and share information so that we, as a community, may be better equipped. And, as we proceed on this journey, let's remember that we are affecting the world for our children.

The hand-writing is indeed on the wall, and.....Perhaps the outcome can be rewritten. Maybe that's why we are here.

-- I.M. Benedict (prayingdown@theriver.com), February 25, 2000.


Folks, as I see it, the only way we can make the changes we need to make to right 100+ years of wrongs is to do it ourselves. Forget about the national candidates/presidential campaigns and the Senate, for now. Concentrate first on local races, build grass-roots organizations and support local people and then on the best candidates for the House of Representatives. If there is going to be a 'revolution' in this country, it can only be built from the ground up. You already *know* that TPTB are satisfied with the way things are going, so there will be *no* revolution from the top down.

Otherwise, listen to Vern and his ilk and continue on your current path. Thanks.

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 25, 2000.

Grass roots organizations taking on the lawn-mower industry and grazing sheeple, eh? Invest in high quality pitchforks and shovels...and then learn how to use them.


-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 25, 2000.

Third parties are where its at. Every election people complain that we don't have choices, so they go with either the Publicans or the Dems which just reinforces both of them. If more people were to vote for the smaller parties it would cause the big two to listen.

-- ,-, (comma@dash.comma), February 25, 2000.

Agreed comma@dash

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), February 25, 2000.

I voted third party in the last election, and my local rag didn't even bother giving those results. I agree, Sheri, there are no choices. There would have been more if all the primaries were held the same day.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

BZ, in theroy I agree that influencing things at the local level is a good idea, but I'm skeptical as to what it will accomplish, because: no matter what you change at the local or even at the state level, the Supreme Court can shoot it down, and does so all the time.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

If god wanted people to vote he would have provided candidates to vote for.

-- no vote (creecher12@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

"If voting would change anything, it would be illegal." Clair Wolfe Read her- 101 Things To Do Before The Revolution. Very humorus - VERY true. Also Unintended Consequences by John Ross is a must read.

-- goldenokie (garland@clnk.com), February 25, 2000.

Very bad choices, but people get the government that they deserve. This is all big-money stuff, nothing about democracy here.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

Vern...Were you a Torie in a former life?

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

For years, I've felt that there should be one more box on the ballot, one for "None of the above". That would give the disaffected among us a chance to use the vote to express our opinion, and would prevent the "winner" of the election from claiming a "mandate" or a "landslide".

Having said that, I must say that Vern sounds a lot like my wife...shit for brains, at least on this issue. She keeps trying to tell me that if I don't vote for one of the rascally democratic or republican candidates, I've "wasted" my vote. That's bullshit. If everyone acted on that premise, we'd never see any improvement.

As far as I'm concerned, none of the Reps or Dems is worth the powder to blow them to hell; they're all just venal politicians. And I suspect we'll never see any better, because the type of person attracted to politics is highly suspect.

However, I usually end up voting Libertarian, since the ballot still lacks that little box I mentioned above, and the alternatives are unacceptable.

We're in big trouble, folks.

-- Norm Harrold (nharrold@terragon.com), February 25, 2000.

"That ... would prevent the "winner" of the election from claiming a "mandate" or a "landslide". "

In theory, maybe. But it didn't stop the Democrats for claiming a landslide in 1996 with less than half of the popular vote, or a "mandate" in 1998 when a majority of congressional districts elected Republicans to represent them.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

Yes, McCain, Bush, Bradley, Gore are all stamped with the CFR seal of approval. But the New World Order is afraid of Buchanan, because they don't control him (yet). So third party is the way to go. Throw all the corrupt bumbs out. And yes, vote on the local races - keep good people in control in your city, county and state.

-- Y2kObserver (Y2kObserver@nowhere.com), February 25, 2000.

Alan Keyes is running in the Republican primary. The media and the party are trying to ignore him, so you won't hear much about him.

Alan Keyes is an American, not a one-worlder. He understands the legacy of America perhaps better than any of the others. And he is a man of integrity and honesty.

Can he win? We don't know. People who have never heard of him are unlikely to vote for him. But he is one candidate who is worth the effort it takes to examine.



-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), February 25, 2000.

Excuse me, but until they stay out of MY body, MY spirituality, and MY house - they won't get my vote.

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), February 25, 2000.

By all means, participate in your local elections -- even run for city council, mayor, etc. Vote for independents wherever and whenever they truly reflect your views, whatever they are, whether or not they can "win".

As for the upper state and Congressional and Presidential contests, I wouldn't vote for anyone who didn't at least approximate my beliefs. You are voting for representation when you vote. If there are no candidates that represent your views, not just your body, then you have no one to vote for, period. Picking the lesser of two or three evils does far more harm than good, for it legitimizes the lesser evil, which is evil nonetheless, and legitimizes it for perhaps a considerable period of time.

If 20 millions people knowingly select an amoral, traitorous, corrupt, globalist toadie and the rest of the voters abstain, then we know 20 million people more or less actively support amoral, traitorous, corrupt, globalist toadies and the other 130+ million voters likely don't. If people continue to "elect" these types of candidates as a form of non-representative compromise, we'll never know, as a nation, where we stand. And not knowing where we stand can only sustain our perpetual confusion, disgust, and growing impotence.

Surely, not voting due to laziness is reprehensible, though not voting on principle is not only a legitimate vote, it's the right thing to do.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 26, 2000.

Simply mindless whining. Personally you could vote against the corruption of the Clinton/Gore administration. If you really don't like the candidates then get off your butt and run for something. Truly lazy to moan and complain against the system while sitting on the sidelines. This also prevents one from making compromises and deciding which issues you value more than others. Sure if we lived under communism we could certainly all agree on one candidate or issue, but get this clue, we don't...

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), February 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ