[GPSCC-chat] lesser evilism

[Spencer Graves]

I agree with Jim:  A vote for any candidate who can afford massive 
advertising on television is a vote for bribery.  That's because the 
huge campaign budgets pay first for focus groups and surveys to 
determine what will most likely sell.  Then when in office, those 
politicians must deliver a return to the campaign contributors, 
averaging roughly $10 for each $1 -- but often more like $1,000 for each 
$1.  For example, Solyndra got half a billion dollars in load guarantees 
in return for half a million in campaign contributions to Obama for 
President in 2008.  Spencer


On 7/20/2012 5:10 PM, Jim Doyle wrote:
> To the question, who will he vote for
>
> Here, then, is what I’m going to do and what I would urge others to do 
> as well:
> instead of voting for the least bad feasible alternative, whoever that 
> is,
> I’m voting Green.
>
> To the question, who will he vote for
> his reasoning seems to be in the paragraph
>
> These considerations suggest that, to avoid the snare of lesser evilism,
> a better way than non-participation may be to vote, when possible,
> for a non-feasible alternative. I would suggest that, come November 6,
> the best way to do that will be to vote, if one can, for a “third party”
> candidate who is not a lesser evil.
>
>
> Thus, a slogan for us could be
> NOT VOTING? VOTE GREEN -
> IT DOESN"T CHANGE THE OUTCOME.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
>


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com