{"article":{"id":4320,"heading":"Voting doesnt create social change: but if it did, vote for bush","author":"PUTOK","created":"2000-11-02 08:15:03","modified":"2000-11-02 09:00:01","last_modified":"Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:00:01","article":"

I agree with chuck (in the previous posting).

I am not voting either, however if i were to vote i may vote for bush. BUSH? WTF? yes bush. in the sense of furthering the movement bush is the best candidate (2nd to buchanan).

Maybe Nader is better than both but he will lose anyway, and like you said even if he got his 5% it will take at least several decades. Gore is the lesser evil but if gore wins people will feel they are \"safe\" and will slack off politically.

However, bush is \"evil one.\" Since he is the worse of the three, a vote for him would create reationary politics which in turn may force the political pendulum too far to the right that it will swing people faster to the left.



Buchanan may be even ther better choice of all since he is outright racist and a xenophobe but a vote for him is wasted cause like nader he cant win.

The only problem with this is that the workers, non-whites, and the immigrants will be ther first ones to suffer from the reactionary right politics that right wing politicians would push forward.

But because of this people will be pissed! And we may have a new momentum.

Now this is all theoretical, but who gives a shit voting does not create social change. And whoever wins we will still keep pushing.<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"I am not voting either, however if i were to vote i may vote for bush. BUSH? WTF? yes bush. in the sense of furthering the movement bush is the best candidate (2nd to buchanan).","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2000\/11\/4320.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}