[poet]

'Conceding your point that both parties are moving toward socialism, albeit the GOP is moving more slowly, aren't we better off at least going with the party that won't do it as quickly, rather than voting third party and thereby (inadvertently perhaps) aiding and abetting the faster move to socialism?"

Are you serious? Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it?

To answer your question Hell no!

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, I understood Amelia to be suggesting that the rate of change is a factor to be considered, particularly if we're interested in altering the course of that change?

Do you really disagree with her about that?

[Amelia]

Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it?

Scenic is correct, that's not what I said at all.

I'm saying that if both cars are headed down the slippery slope, I'd prefer to be in the one traveling at the slower speed, in hopes of retaining and/or regaining some control.

An alternative would be great, if there were one. Perot might have had a chance in 1992, had he not begun all the wacky conspiracy stuff.

My question is, do you have in mind someone who could run as a true conservative, and have a chance of winning?