Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (7362)	9/29/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Perot, Anderson, Wallace. 3rd parties seem to offer distinctions on some issues, and mealy-mouth their way through the others. For example, I'm a hard core libertarian (is that a non sequitur?), but there has never been a Libertarian candidate I could support. Multiple parties are great for single issue voters, but hopefully most of us don't vote for a candidate based on a single issue. jim

To: jbe who wrote (7362)	9/29/1998 6:31:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< But it seems to me that the distinctions between political positions are already "so blurred as to seem meaningless." And I should have thought that new parties (or at least one new party) might offer voters some REAL and CLEAR policy alternatives>> The good thing about numerous parties, is that no one group can force their agenda down the throats of the rest of the country, simply because they are a majority in Congress (they may not be a majority of the general public). Only those ideas that could garner enough support among enough groups would be passed. Extreme positions on emotionally charged issues would be left undone and could be resolved at a local level, where they belong. It would be nice to be able to vote for a person that represents a philosophy instead of a set of positions on a variety of issues.