Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="3inSlugger" data-source="post: 1815975" data-attributes="member: 18508"><p>By voting for the lesser of two evils, you (not literally you RickN) are enforcing the current party lines. When both parties know and can control that you only have two choices, <em>the two choices have no reason to be unique, special, or truly different</em>. All the candidates have to do is be <em>only</em> slightly better in your eyes. This is like how there is often a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. However, small businesses cannot compete with a giants like Walgreen's or CVS and so they beat them out because they have such different standards.</p><p>If you, as a voter, adopt your own strategy that dictates the candidate satisfy set-in-stone standards and do not waiver, you throw this dynamic off. If you don't go to Walgreens or CVS because they are convenient, but instead go to your mom-and-pop grocery store because you support what you believe in.</p><p>You are forced to settle for "the not bad one" because you have no choice. Imagine what a three party system would be like...each candidate would have to be different and principled to distuingish themselves. Either abstain, choose a third party candidate (if possible), or write in...otherwise you are (again not just you Rick) are more of the bleating sheep following the used-car shepherd Obomney.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="3inSlugger, post: 1815975, member: 18508"] By voting for the lesser of two evils, you (not literally you RickN) are enforcing the current party lines. When both parties know and can control that you only have two choices, [I]the two choices have no reason to be unique, special, or truly different[/I]. All the candidates have to do is be [I]only[/I] slightly better in your eyes. This is like how there is often a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. However, small businesses cannot compete with a giants like Walgreen's or CVS and so they beat them out because they have such different standards. If you, as a voter, adopt your own strategy that dictates the candidate satisfy set-in-stone standards and do not waiver, you throw this dynamic off. If you don't go to Walgreens or CVS because they are convenient, but instead go to your mom-and-pop grocery store because you support what you believe in. You are forced to settle for "the not bad one" because you have no choice. Imagine what a three party system would be like...each candidate would have to be different and principled to distuingish themselves. Either abstain, choose a third party candidate (if possible), or write in...otherwise you are (again not just you Rick) are more of the bleating sheep following the used-car shepherd Obomney. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom