On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:06:09 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Wed, 02 Jan 2013
21:18:38 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:52:49 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" on Tue, 01 Jan 2013
19:36:10 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" on Tue, 01 Jan 2013
16:44:39 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
[snip]
I've moved on to wanting "You've got to be kidding!" and "No way in
hell will I vote for any of these fools!!!" choices on ballots.

Vote "Present".

They are rarely present.

That is my opinion of all those who make a Principled Vote for a
third party - they are just voting "Present" indicating that they're
good with whatever the majority decides. Left, Right - matters not.
They "voted". Usually not to keep the politician who is "wrong" out,
but keep the candidate who is not "pure enough" from getting in.

Pete, how would you suggest that we vote for a candidate not of the
Rep or Dem party? I found myself disgusted with both major
candidates, so how do you suggest doing this? How do we break the
hold the two totally corrupt parties have on the nation by voting in
someone else? We got close with Perot.

Perot was a nut case, and while close is good, Bill Clinton won
the part which mattered. Bill Clinton was also the Democrat candidate
because other possible candidates decided not to run in the Primaries,
because who could defeat President H. W. Bush? {Bill Clinton, it
seems}. Abe Lincoln was elected because the Democrats had two
candidates, and Woodrow Wilson won election because The Bull Moose
Party split the conservative vote.
Note well, Ron Paul got elected and reelected as a Republican. And
his most note worthy quote was to propose "compromise" of cutting the
DoD by 50%, while only allowing half the tax increase the Democrats
wanted. How is he different than Nancy Pelosi?

Do you believe the Wars on Drugs, Poverty, Terrorism, (OK, not DOD
funded) Iraq, or Afghanistan are working, even as much as 10%? Me,
neither. DOD could lose some ducats and still be effective. Bring our
boys home from Afghanistan. Imperial hubris (aka Building Democracy
or Winning Hearts and Minds) isn't effective.

In other words, the system is rigged in favor of the two major
parties. As Canada Bill replied after being told the Faro game he'd
was in was rigged: "Of course, I know the game is rigged. But it's the
only game in town."
Which means, you are going to have to take over a party. The
Progressives/Leftists did that to the Democrats, starting in 1968, the
Conservatives have started doing that to the GOP, starting in 2010. As
Senator LB Johnson said "You have to go to the meetings."

I'm not happy with the Rilidjus Wrong, either. And the folks who are
purporting to be 'Tea Party' in D.C. ain't even _close_, on any level,
to what we Tea Partiers out here are thinking/wanting/striving for.
You're right. We need to work to get those assholes thrown out of our
group and stop saying they represent us.


Specifically, if you want a better Republican candidate, you are
going to have to work for it. [in the interest of full disclosure, I'm
a long time Conservative who leans Republican.] Go to the meetings.
Precinct, County, caucus, and the primaries. That also means that
after the primaries, you stay involved. Because I'm sure a lot of the
Democrats would feel very proud of you, were you to stay true to your
principles, and not work/vote against their candidate.
That includes down ticket as well. Romney not conservative
enough? Send him a conservative Congress to deal with. Work/Vote
against the progressive candidate for Governor, state legislature, and
county board.

What we need are saner libertarians. Like I said, I'm a liberally
moderate conservative. We have too much gov't by half, at the
minimum. How do we get them to prune that damned overgrown tree?


But realize this: in round numbers 1/3 of the populace will vote
for Frank N. Furter if he was the GOP candidate, another third would
vote for Brad Majors if he was the Democrat candidate. Of the
remaining third, one third leans Dem, one third Rep, and one third
"undecided" - they're not going to say until the exit poll.

It's not that we're undecided. It's that we've definitely decided
that neither of their puppets are worth a ****, even with Dem or Rep
Shinola smeared all over 'em.


The problem isn't just Governmental or the Legislature. It is
cultural, and political. How many American feel that there is a need
to have a government agency making sure people are not defrauded? Air
and water is not polluted? Cars are made safer, more fuel efficient?
etc, etc, etc. How any people, left and right, are convinced that
there must be a public school system? (Public education is enshrined
in Washington States Constitution). That there must be a Department
of Transportation at even the county level?
Remember also, that the progressive take over of the culture was
not an overnight thing. It truly was the "long march through the
academy" and other institutions, starting in the gay nineties (1890s).
"Just one drop.." and no one individual did any more than add "just
one drop".

It is not a new problem. I think it was Plato who said that those
who feel themselves to smart to be involved in politics, were of
necessity ruled by those who were not as smart as they. Sorry I
cannot give you a simple "take this majic pill and all will be clear
to you." answer.

Damn, and I wanted that yesterday, too...
Well, as the saying goes, "Instant gratification takes too long."

Thanks for a well-stated answer. ('cept for the "Perot is a nutcase"
part. He wasn't and isn't, IMHO. Can't you hear that "giant sucking
sound" as we speak, for one instance?)

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann