Don't rule out a third choice

With such controversial candidates for the office of the U.S. president, isn’t it time that we reconsider other options? The theory that voting for a third-party candidate only deflects the outcome is totally false if enough citizens make that choice, and the choice would be far easier if the candidate’s, in this case Robert Kennedy’s, platform is honestly publicized rather than intentionally misrepresented. Kennedy is not being allowed to participate in the debates, but we can still examine his platform: more affordable housing; sensible immigration policies; a balanced budget; ending waste, fraud and corruption; improving education and healthcare; and diplomatic solutions for current wars. His town hall meeting recently concentrated on the deterioration of the health of U.S. citizens, with well documented information on the effects of poor diets due to the marketing of food manufacturers and pharma, more interested in bottom lines than in our health.

Also misrepresented is Kennedy’s being an anti-vaxxer. Instead, he simply objects to a vaccine developed without adequate research, resulting in lawsuits involving the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, most specifically for myocardia, with approximately 11,000 cases already compensated, not to mention current lawsuits against pharma developers for misrepresenting the vaccine.

The two-party system should be a thing of the past. Let’s not rule out the plausibility of a third-party candidate who is offering more hope than the more visible candidates swimming in corruption and controversy to the extent that the only reason to vote for one is being saddled with the lesser of two evils.

– Katherine R. Bitner, Durango