This story is unavailable.

With one candidate that blurts out his every thought over a loudspeaker and another that is so elusive and secretive as to be an unknown quantity, how do we determine the lesser evil, even if we chose to vote for it? The previous assumed “liberal” choice we made broke all prior records of disconnect from the common welfare set by his ultra conservative predecessor, so is just the declaration of being liberal enough now? Can we afford to choose what’s behind door number two, knowing only that it will check off another “first” milestone in political history and that we should add a wing onto the White House just for baggage?

With the Venn diagram of our political parties merging insidiously over the decades since the last Clinton Presidency, leaving only a few social issues outside of the overlap to fuel our corporate faux journalism, isn’t any real choice between the two somewhat superficial in the context of what future we might wish for the world? It is my opinion that the only empowering “choice” available is neither of the above, and that the necessity to expand our political influence in our own country has never been greater. The more than obvious manipulation of our government by the sources of massive funding of campaigns can only be countered with the interjection of ideas into the dialogue, and that requires a viable third, and maybe fourth, party. Perhaps the best choice to represent our collective best interest can’t win this election, but it can influence public awareness and policy if given exposure. When the dominant choices are not really choices at all, do we have that much to lose?

Like what you read? Give Keith Evans a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.