I participated in the great American Fraud of voting as a "good citizen should" until after Bush 2 was re-elected. I guess today I take some comfort in having voted for George Wallace whenever it was (I'm from Alabama originally, but I actually loathed George Wallace), and for having voted for Perot. I have no idea as to what might have been my actual thinking in those two elections, but it was probably some sense that the system of two parties left too much to be desired as far as a system that was oriented toward consideration of all the people of this country.

Nearing 68 y/o, with no children, my current attitude is I could give a shit about the future of America--it deserves what it has wrought for itself, and nothng I personally think will change anything.

Were I younger, which I think most readers here are, I hope I would be incensed at the current system; however, when I was younger I was too engaged in work to pay other than passing attention to politics and that was probably a mistake.

Poliiticians in the US in the current system are not going to change things to any serious degree such that the focus is for consideration of ALL the citizens vs. 50.0001% during elections, and probably less than 1-2% after elected.

Karl Denninger, possibly a kook, possibly not, recently suggested that people should stop buying anything except necessities: "We go on a consumption strike until and unless our demands are met." http://market-ticker.org/archives/2009/06.html in order to force the "SEC, FBI and Congress" to act with regard to "market manipulation and goverment-sponsored games." Personally, I think it will take armed revolution to change things though I am not advocating that. If you people who vote want change the system is going to have to be changed, and perhaps Denninger's suggestion approaches something that could realistically effect a real change.

Here's Nader's piece on Perot. I thought it interesting.

http://nader.org/index.php?/archives...redictors.html