Re. Tony's comment:
> But isn't backing candidates who have no chance of winning and who will take
> votes away from the less objectionable mainstram candidate part of the
> problem as well.
A few quick comments: (a) no, the PROBLEM is the system that forces us into this
position. How do you propose fixing this problem via the lesser-of-two-evils?
Why would the winners ever want to change the system that systematically
advantages them? (b) Who the hell knows for sure re. the future, re. winning,
etc.? (c) what's "less objectionable" about Gore's 100% support for & advocacy
of globalization, de-regulation of the media, commercialization of the internet
(and everything else), funding for Colombia, ... etc. (albeit with some cutesy
Green or 'liberated' rhetoric thrown in). The MAN (since that seems to be the
focus of the 'lesser of two evil' folks) is through & through a corporatist/
market society advocate, etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 23:42:51 CUT