Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
This country needs serious change.
Change to what though? Just "change"? Generic change? Change for the sake of change?
The changes Kucinich and Paul would bring are utterly different forms of change. To have those two as your top two choices, and to consider the choice between them really close, is an incoherent political position. It's nothing more than a show of frustration.
Do you imagine that there's a unified "them" out there, as in "we're going to show them
that we don't have to take it anymore!"? That, if by some electoral miracle a Kucinich or a Paul (or a Nader, to go back a couple of elections) were elected that "they" would respond to your show of frustration and provide better candidates to choose from the next time? Or even in the case of a loss of your favored candidates, other candidates will look longingly at those few percentage points they missed, and change completely in order to grab those votes the next time?
If you don't have a good answer, and all you can say is "Well, things are so fucked up that we've just gotta change something
!", I fundamentally disagree.
It's not that I don't think there's a lot that should be fixed. There is. But considering how truly fucked up a country can get (think, oh, China's Cultural Revolution, Europe under the Inquisition, the internal decay within the Soviet Union prior to its collapse and the rampant organized crime in the constituent countries after) we're not even close to desperation, to the point where randomly trying "big change" simply for the sake of change itself is a smart move.