>>>>>I remember you saying you didn't vote for Obama and took it to mean you voted for McCain. Maybe you threw your vote away.
>>>>
>>>>As long as believing that voting for anything but the two parties is "throwing away your vote", voting is pointless.
>>>
>>>It's the realistic choice we have IMO.
>>
>>As long as you believe that, it's also hopeless.
>>
>>Imagine this scenario: a true people's movement (not a manipulated one, or engineered by no such agency or other) emerges, and threatens to outdo what massive amounts of propaganda money (now legally unlimited, courtesy of Supreme Court) pour into reducing your choices to two candidates, cutting everybody else out of the picture as early as first round of primaries. How far would that go? Or, how far would that be allowed to go, before the media would drag it through the mud, a misplaced semicolon in their program would be enlarged into lack of patriotism, softness on terrorism, demagoguery and whatnot, with about zero of airtime given to the new party actually saying what it means to do?
>>
>
>You mean the Tea Party? :o) That's already happened. It's been reduced (by the media and folks like Mike B in a message to me today) to just encompass "angry white folks" or "hostiles." Regardless of what types of folks join it (and in reality it appears to include a variety of all types), I don't see it as the most promising 3rd party, but it is the first one in a long time to actually have a shot at forming a group with real voting power. Now the results of those votes might be scary enough to the rest of the country to make everyone vote in the next election. :o)
>

That's what they are: angry white folks. People who have plenty and want more. If they could turn the clock back to the 1950s they would.

I don't take them that seriously. They will fade from the scene. If somehow they don't and ever get power, I will be gone from this country. That is not a country I would want to be part of.