But if he helps with regime change he will get screwed by the new boss.

I guess it's all in how you look at it...

I've been fortunate enough to be able to vote my conscience...to vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job. Third-party and independent candidates have yet to really sway me, so I can generally go with a Dem or Rep with ease.

But I do think situations arise where you have to go with the most "realistic" choice. I think 2000 was one of those years (though Bush won in the end), and 2004 is looking moreso. Basically in the end, which do you dislike more: the two-party system or the prospect of Dubya in office for 4 more years?

It's your vote, you have to decide how to use it...

A vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for larger, more expensive, and more intrusive government that attacks more of our rights and makes the world a more dangerous place.

I will never be able to vote for a Democrat or a Republican because I know it makes no sense and I'd be screwing other Americans.

That being said, if I were to vote for the lesser of two evils, I'd be forced to vote for a Democrat. The Democrats are clear in their intentions and do what they say, but Republicans lie to their own supporters and make government larger every chance they get. They outspend Democrats, start unprovoked wars, and attack our civil rights even more all while claiming they want to reduce the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government.

I find it ironic that so many people say they would vote for a Libertarian if they thought a libertarian had a chance at winning. This isn't a horse race where you bet your vote on a winner. Saying you won't vote for someone unless they have a shot at winning is like saying you won't vote for them unless they don't need your vote.

Every vote for a Republican or Democrat (as if they two were really different parties) sends a message. It says you're happy with the way things are going in government and you want more of your hard-earned income to be taken from you at the point of a gun. It says you think you're far too free and should have your freedoms stripped from you. It means you think the government has more of a claim on you and the fruits of your labor than you do. It means you want more of the same and that's how they will take it. If you want something different, you must do something different and the message will be clear, even to Republicans and Democrats. Even they will start cleaning up their act if they see votes going the other way.

In recent years, the number of votes for third parties has been steadily increasing. More than 5% of voting Americans voted for third parties in the last presidental election, and I would be willing to bet it rises next year.

As I said, I will not compromise my principles even though I know GWB is more dangerous to America than Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.

Here's a nice picture of the two party system for you...


http://www.liberty-news.com/cartoons...YourChoice.gif

That was as pretty good one, Radar.

Lemme make a suggestion though when you present it to the mass audience: leave out the bit about GWB being more dangerous. You'll convince a lot more people to vote third party if you sound collected, cool and convincing. And you about had it nailed until that part, which will seem like an attack to normal people.

But otherwise, I essentially agree with you (except the part about Democrats doing what they say - ha! hahaha! Where do Democrats do that? Where do any politicians do that?).

Is it helpful to note that the Libertarian Party massively mismanaged and politicized its own financial and internal affairs and thus can't be trusted to be the judge of competence?

You should have seen some of the outrageous claims made in some of their fundraising letters. Holy crap. Talk about lying to your own supporters. They make the major parties look like amateurs at it.

Well, GWB has orders of magnitude more influence on the US than OBL and SH combined, so his danger is given that multiplier.

Also, if the issue is spending (and it was) then Democrats are much more up front about their willingness to spend what it takes. Of course, almost all politicians are liars, but recently the Republican party has been vastly more deceitful han the Democrats.

I voted Libertarian last election, but I'm afraid I absolutely must vote against Bush this time.

I only mean Democrats are very clear about thier intentions to tax and spend more money and make government larger and they follow through, they just don't spend quite as much as Republicans.

Bullshit. There were no mismanaged financial or internal affairs. Just a few ignorant people making false claims kind of like what you're doing now.

And the distress in the fund raising letters wasn't false. The LP has removed all but a couple of its paid staff members. So once again, you're talking out of your ass which must not be too hard for you since your head is up there.

I knew it wouldn't last...

:D :D :D :D :D

I'm talking about the fund-raising letters that preceded the batch you're talking about, in which the LP was a step away from breaking into the mainstream and membership was absolutely guaranteed to rise and etc.

What did the letters say?