3rd party, kinda funny

[Wolfstrike]

back in the day when we were growing upset with the RINO republicans, republicans were telling us their wisdom about how voting 3rd party was "throwing your vote away"

now that we've set the republican party back on track with Trump, forcing the republican party to practice what they preach, it seems the same republicans are telling us how 3rd party votes aren't detrimental , but an expression of freedom.

how would have Ross Perot been as a president? ...well, we don't know , but it seems to me everyone who voted for Clinton and GHW Bush, threw their vote away.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

back in the day when we were growing upset with the RINO republicans, republicans were telling us their wisdom about how voting 3rd party was "throwing your vote away"

now that we've set the republican party back on track with Trump, forcing the republican party to practice what they preach, it seems the same republicans are telling us how 3rd party votes aren't detrimental , but an expression of freedom.

how would have Ross Perot been as a president? ...well, we don't know , but it seems to me everyone who voted for Clinton and GHW Bush, threw their vote away.

If you vote then your vote is not wasted and if anyone believe someone vote is wasted because someone did not vote for the One political party system ( sure you can pretend it is two party even with Trump that is more left than Clinton! ) whore of the month then they're the problem and not the third party voter!

 

[presonorek]

back in the day when we were growing upset with the RINO republicans, republicans were telling us their wisdom about how voting 3rd party was "throwing your vote away"

now that we've set the republican party back on track with Trump, forcing the republican party to practice what they preach, it seems the same republicans are telling us how 3rd party votes aren't detrimental , but an expression of freedom.

how would have Ross Perot been as a president? ...well, we don't know , but it seems to me everyone who voted for Clinton and GHW Bush, threw their vote away.

Do you remember Ross Perot's charts and graphs? The dude bought hour long segments on major networks during prime time. Perot's message was very appealing to conservatives. He had nothing to offer liberals. An extremely large portion of Perot voters would have been Bush voters. Bush would have won without Perot's influence in the election. As a result Clinton ensured that his fiscal policy was in order. Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible president in recent years. That is what third parties are supposed to do. They are supposed to influence policies. Manipulating elections is just collateral damage.

The most successful third party in United States history was the Prohibition Party. Their influence brought about the prohibition of alcohol and women's right to vote. The most successful third party in our time is the Libertarian Party. The legalization of marijuana has already taken root in a few of our states. Hillary could possibly lose this election due to past efforts of the Libertarian Party. People aren't as naive about the minimum wage as they used to be. Hillary could be hanging herself with the silly talk about a $15 an hour minimum wage.

 

[Fenton Lum]

back in the day when we were growing upset with the RINO republicans, republicans were telling us their wisdom about how voting 3rd party was "throwing your vote away"

now that we've set the republican party back on track with Trump, forcing the republican party to practice what they preach, it seems the same republicans are telling us how 3rd party votes aren't detrimental , but an expression of freedom.

how would have Ross Perot been as a president? ...well, we don't know , but it seems to me everyone who voted for Clinton and GHW Bush, threw their vote away.

Do you remember Ross Perot's charts and graphs? The dude bought hour long segments on major networks during prime time. Perot's message was very appealing to conservatives. He had nothing to offer liberals. An extremely large portion of Perot voters would have been Bush voters. Bush would have won without Perot's influence in the election. As a result Clinton ensured that his fiscal policy was in order. Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible president in recent years. That is what third parties are supposed to do. They are supposed to influence policies. Manipulating elections is just collateral damage.

The most successful third party in United States history was the Prohibition Party. Their influence brought about the prohibition of alcohol and women's right to vote. The most successful third party in our time is the Libertarian Party. The legalization of marijuana has already taken root in a few of our states. Hillary could possibly lose this election due to past efforts of the Libertarian Party. People aren't as naive about the minimum wage as they used to be. Hillary could be hanging herself with the silly talk about a $15 an hour minimum wage.

Not sure what the whole answer would/should be, not sure anyone else has it either, although they'll sure as hell tell you they do, but I'll assert this. It's a pretty thin advert in support of american style capitalism, this redistribution of wealth toward the substantial people that occurred in this society over the past half century; and it’s been utterly bipartisan. It's a pretty weak system if swaths of society at large work full time to support a system that rewards them in return with poverty for their wealth generating labor. We’d better come up with something else, something a little flatter, horizontal. Soon. For profit prisons are not the way to deal with segments of society determined to be expendable in a post industrial world, and the american sacrifice zones are expanding. Whatever the answer might be, it will not come from this political system, our system runs on this, no “solution” is coming out of it.

Look across the globe, anywhere you find this level of societal wealth inequality you find social unrest, and a cracking down on the masses by state power. We are far from immune.

 

[MarathonMike]

The American political system was never intended to be an 'us against them' 2 party system. That is what it has devolved into with big money donors backing the candidate they feel will benefit their interests the most. Add to that the absurdly biased Democratic media and you have the joke of an election system we have now.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The American political system was never intended to be an 'us against them' 2 party system. That is what it has devolved into with big money donors backing the candidate they feel will benefit their interests the most. Add to that the absurdly biased Democratic media and you have the joke of an election system we have now.

Your "democratic" media is a result of Clinton's deregulation of the FCC. Back in the 1980s there were 50 some odd companies in the US media game. That is now down to 6 major multinational corporations owning ~90% of what Americans see, hear, and read. It is a direct result of deregulated concentrated corporate wealth and power. Your partisanshit may be showing if you think that’s "democratic" or “republican”. Be that as it may, the system was designed from the very beginning to stifle the masses.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

now that we've set the republican party back on track with Trump

 

[occupied]

The American political system was never intended to be an 'us against them' 2 party system. That is what it has devolved into with big money donors backing the candidate they feel will benefit their interests the most. Add to that the absurdly biased Democratic media and you have the joke of an election system we have now.

Our system that requires the winner to receive over half of electoral votes guarantees a two party system. You can talk about what the founders meant but this is what they gave us by not going with a parliamentary system. There is nothing inherently bad about having only two major parties, what is bad is ideological rigidity that makes cooperation and compromise virtually impossible.

 

[occupied]

The American political system was never intended to be an 'us against them' 2 party system. That is what it has devolved into with big money donors backing the candidate they feel will benefit their interests the most. Add to that the absurdly biased Democratic media and you have the joke of an election system we have now.

Your "democratic" media is a result of Clinton's deregulation of the FCC. Back in the 1980s there were 50 some odd companies in the US media game. That is now down to 6 major multinational corporations owning ~90% of what Americans see, hear, and read. It is a direct result of deregulated concentrated corporate wealth and power. Your partisanshit may be showing if you think that’s "democratic" or “republican”. Be that as it may, the system was designed from the very beginning to stifle the masses.

FCC deregulation came entirely as a result of the desire to kill the fairness doctrine.

 

[Ozone]

i think too many democrats must have been told that all republicans believe it's the 1950's all the time in their heads, or something to that effect. i'm a 21st century computer scientist operating a machine that violates all the known laws of 1950's physics, and i'm doing so from innawoods, and there are hornets and everything, and in my spare time i think up ways of alternative energy by converting forests into power plants, all i need are 11.4 million piezoelectric/kinetic capacitors to charge LED's and fiber cable, wtf is this thread about?