[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry about being possessed by the Left Wing Demon back there - maybe it
WAS a troll? (blush) or I have multiple personalities? I knew better than
to actually vote for Nader. Still, the injustices in the world really
bother me and a lot of hardline libertarians ARE damn selfish.
You knew better than to actually vote for Nader? Why do you say that?
Before the election, Clinton had only done small/token things to benefit the
environment, while passing lots of legislation that was detremental to the
environment. After Al Gore lost the election because of the presence of the
green party in the election, demcrats went on damage control, and Clinton did
more in his "Lame duck" period for the environment than he had done in his 8
years in office. I call that a vote well spent, especially because those
things might not have happened if Al Gore were elected. In four years, the
democrats will more than likely have the presidency again (no president who
won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote has ever won in the
reelection campaign), democrats will stop taking the environmental vote for
granted, and, the green party will likely fade away until the environment is
neglected again. Short-term effects: Bush wins, but has a split senate, so
no radical legislation will get through. Long term effects: Democrats
increase their attention on the environment (just as I predicted they would).
I say my vote for Nader was very well spent.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
