But anyone not in those 2 parties doesn't really have any chance
10
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
A lot of the ones from the first link were very dated. How do we know he hasn't changed his mind? I liked a lot of what I saw, I'd like to see the media give him some light and see him in debates.
The media never gives 3rd party candidates any spot light. Especially not when they have the political mud wrestling match going on now
7
deleted
· 8 years ago
I've been doing some more research. I think I like this guy. Unfortunately his name is barely mentioned and many voters will still vote Hillary or trump based on not knowing who the other candidates are. I would say it isn't fair, but there's not much point, because hardly anything about the elections are.
When the election finally rolls around and America does its thing I hope that when we get the results back its not Hilary nor Trump
Like surprise its not a boy or a girl its a cupcake and you're okay with that because you can eat a cupcake and not a baby.
I think pretty much everyone can agree Trump and Clinton are wretched choices. No flame war needed.
.
Not sure anyone could have predicted the baby eating thread though. Nice job @violence
He's the sellout I knew he would be. If he was truthful about change he would have endorsed the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein or the Libertarian, Gary Johnson. He shouted for months that the same old same old ruling class bullshit was failing this nation and then he endorsed the embodiment of ruling class bullshit.
I actually agree with @pokethebear, integrity and honesty is what set him apart for me in the first place, and endorsing Hillary after all her email shenanigans kind of feels like a betrayal.
Sure, I understand that. Most politicians wouldn't have a choice if they wanted to stay in the party for another shot, but Bernie's too old to probably get another shot and he's been an Independant all this time so party loyalty shouldn't have been an issue. I didn't think he'd back her.
Maybe he thought he had a shot at Veep?
Yes Gary Johnson is running, but so are about a hundred other loons who have no hope in hell. This is a two party country thanks to an ignorant proletariat.
Johnson and every libertarian before him knows he has no hope, but they keep putting up a show to stroke their own egos (my own opinion). Furthermore, any serious third-party candidate will only siphon votes from the Republicans; the Democrats have their base locked in. Look at what happened with Perot and the '92 election.
If Johnson was serious he would go Republican and try to change the party from the inside. We could have just as easily been looking at Johnson vs Clinton this year instead of Trump.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Our "betters" absolutely know what they do not want us to.
The ignorance of the unwashed masses to which I referred is that they do not know that they can vote for someone other than a "D" or "R", and that they do not spend any amount of time learning anything about those two candidates, save whatever happens to run on their news feeds or what the Twittersphere thinks is cool.
No, the ruling class is definitely not ignorant, but they count on us being so.
I may be a Conservative but I am quite familiar with Marx. I study both politics and sociology.
I wasn't necessarily referring to EVERYONE who isn't the ruling class, only the commoners. However, the bourgeoise in America ARE IN FACT a part of the ruling political class, and the ruling class politicians are also bourgeoise. Just Google the net worth of some of the career politicians that we might call "ruling class".
In Marx's view there are really only two classes in capitalism: the working stiffs, and the rich. The rich rule because of their money, and thus their influence on the corrupt politicians.
So... when I used the term "proletariat" in reference to the common man and woman, I see no cause for your confusion.
*face palm*
I never said the rich are all "in power", but I think we're getting types of power jumbled here. The rich do not have to hold elected offices to wield political power, they just need to "donate" to a few politicians. Their financial power allows them sway over the world's economies as well. Think Bilderberg. (If you have a tinfoil hat, put it on now)
My only point was that the general, ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill, common, man-on-the-street, Joe Six-pack, working-class heroes (another reference by the way) are mostly ignorant of politics, and especially the intricacies of the ballot system.
I know what your point was, my concern is that you seem to think that most rich people are contrastingly educated on politics, which isn't the case. (Though I'm sure the percentage is higher.)
Every "rich" person may not be active in politics exactly, but you can bet they weigh who or what will effect their wealth the least when they vote. The average low-information voter has no clue and doesn't care to. They either vote the way they always have, or vote the way social media tells them.
I don't think the average wealthy person is as savvy as you think they are. Sure the absolute elite tend to have their hands in a few pockets, but others give just as little a shit about whose running as the average poor person. The electorate in general is fairly ignorant, there's no reason to bring Marxist classes into it.
Not the word I'd use but you're right. Sanders definitely had (I'm sure still has) a lot of loyalty and excitement in his camp; Hillary couldn't get people excited in a looney bin after the meds were passed around! I'm still not convinced Bernie's supporters would have made it to the polls but it certainly would have been closer than I think Hillary will be able to get.
Well Hillary isn't an outsider but she's a weirdo!
And I've got a feeling we'll hear lip service to at least some of ol' Bern's pet platitudes. Hell she already said something about free college yesterday or the day before. She's got to try something to win his pissed off supporters.
But you're right; I can visualize a Trump Sanders debate right now and it's amusing!
Honestly, I feel that if porn, and porn stars, are legal professions than I see no reason prostitution shouldn't be legal. They are literally the same thing, except one is done more or less in privacy.
Also HOLY SHIT WE MIGHT NOT BE DOOMED
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Like surprise its not a boy or a girl its a cupcake and you're okay with that because you can eat a cupcake and not a baby.
.
Not sure anyone could have predicted the baby eating thread though. Nice job @violence
Maybe he thought he had a shot at Veep?
Johnson and every libertarian before him knows he has no hope, but they keep putting up a show to stroke their own egos (my own opinion). Furthermore, any serious third-party candidate will only siphon votes from the Republicans; the Democrats have their base locked in. Look at what happened with Perot and the '92 election.
If Johnson was serious he would go Republican and try to change the party from the inside. We could have just as easily been looking at Johnson vs Clinton this year instead of Trump.
The ignorance of the unwashed masses to which I referred is that they do not know that they can vote for someone other than a "D" or "R", and that they do not spend any amount of time learning anything about those two candidates, save whatever happens to run on their news feeds or what the Twittersphere thinks is cool.
No, the ruling class is definitely not ignorant, but they count on us being so.
I wasn't necessarily referring to EVERYONE who isn't the ruling class, only the commoners. However, the bourgeoise in America ARE IN FACT a part of the ruling political class, and the ruling class politicians are also bourgeoise. Just Google the net worth of some of the career politicians that we might call "ruling class".
In Marx's view there are really only two classes in capitalism: the working stiffs, and the rich. The rich rule because of their money, and thus their influence on the corrupt politicians.
So... when I used the term "proletariat" in reference to the common man and woman, I see no cause for your confusion.
I never said the rich are all "in power", but I think we're getting types of power jumbled here. The rich do not have to hold elected offices to wield political power, they just need to "donate" to a few politicians. Their financial power allows them sway over the world's economies as well. Think Bilderberg. (If you have a tinfoil hat, put it on now)
My only point was that the general, ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill, common, man-on-the-street, Joe Six-pack, working-class heroes (another reference by the way) are mostly ignorant of politics, and especially the intricacies of the ballot system.
And I've got a feeling we'll hear lip service to at least some of ol' Bern's pet platitudes. Hell she already said something about free college yesterday or the day before. She's got to try something to win his pissed off supporters.
But you're right; I can visualize a Trump Sanders debate right now and it's amusing!
They're both doing things.
Pay someone for sex, film it, and sell the film, perfectly legal business practice.