Many people feel it is a waste of time to vote. I can't argue with that. There's never a good choice. There should be "none of the above" on the ballot.
gaoxiaen said this in post #61 : Many people feel it is a waste of time to vote. I can't argue with that. There's never a good choice. There should be "none of the above" on the ballot.
I understand what you're saying that there is less incentive if you don't like either candidate. But I still don't see how it could be a waste of time to vote. For example, if I were presented with two choices that I didn't like, such as Jacques Chirac and Kerry, I'd pick the lesser of two evils, and John Kerry would be my man.
I understand what you're saying that there is less incentive if you don't like either candidate. But I still don't see how it could be a waste of time to vote. For example, if I were presented with two choices that I didn't like, such as Jacques Chirac and Kerry, I'd pick the lesser of two evils, and John Kerry would be my man.
Were the differences in policy between the two candidates worth a couple of hours? Definitely not. They were clones.
Simply put...Hillary has as much chance of being Pres. as does someone with a name ending in a vowel. Look at history. Every Pres. has had a completely non-ethnic name. That's why Rudy Giulianni has no chance either (in addition to being a fascist monster). This country is too backward at the moment to elect a woman/black/latino/etc. Only inordinately wealthy and/or influential white men are currently viable candidates. If you don't like it, talk to your neighbors about it.
For Delta:
The above paragraph is in no way meant to suggest that I condone what I've stated. The contrary is true. Just pointing out what I believe to be the facts.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
11-23-2004 12:18 AM
