Gulper Eel: Not when the choice is between "worse than the status quo" and "much worse than the status quo" - in a case like that, the much-worse side is useful if only to bring both breeds of foolishness to a halt. Yay for checks and balances. It's not putting the worse group in power, it's a first-do-no-harm principle.
Jon Snow: Unless there are threads from 2004-2006 in which you were strongly supporting the Democrats in order to achieve gridlock that you want to link to?
Gulper Eel: I didn't go left, but I did move strongly libertarian on national politics.
Jon Snow: So what does that mean? You voted for Badnarik, Barr, and Johnson? That you wrote in a name? Or did you vote for Bush (or Kerry)? McCain (or Obama)? Or Romney (or Obama)?
Gulper Eel: Jon Snow: So what does that mean? You voted for Badnarik, Barr, and Johnson? That you wrote in a name? Or did you vote for Bush (or Kerry)? McCain (or Obama)? Or Romney (or Obama)?I voted for Johnson in '12, left '08 blank. Wrote in McCain in '00 and '04. I've been pretty well disgusted with every major party presidential candidate since Clinton, and the last time I enthusiastically voted for anybody was Perot in '92 but that's because I had seen an address by his running mate Adm. Stockdale many years earlier and was tremendously impressed - even without having to compare him to those two insufferable silver-spoon asshats Gore and Quayle.
Gulper Eel: Both sides ARE bad, so vote for whatever outcome is most likely to see them chained to each other and drowning.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 29 2017 19:05:34
Runtime: 0.177 sec (177 ms)