I believe Trump is a chauvinistic piece of shit who is so disconnected from reality that he has no place presiding over the masses. He is playing a character for sure, but the character is steeped in his own rancid pus.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3938
Both political parties aren't the same. It is a stupid meme and someone of your education should know better.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i have voted in every single presidential election, and almost all state elections i've been eligible for. I can count on one hand the number of times I voted for a Repub or Dem. You are an ardent supporter of a de-facto two party system, when it's clearly evident that both Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same dragon. You and people that share your myopic "them or us" attitude are what is wrong with American politics. You fall into the trap of "gotta elect the lesser of two evils" as if there is no other choice. You are the lamb being led to slaughter. I am the shepherd.
This was the election to take a stand against the legacy system. There was a progressive candidate that stood for and with the people and against corporate oligarchies. You shit on him every chance you could because Hillary is better at pandering to voter blocks despite being a polished turd of a human being and the face of corporate interests. You have only yourself to blame. And I blame you too.
Yes, both parties support private ownership and occasionally bombing someone but that is really where it ends. The DNC supports increasing the political and social rights of ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. The GOP supports curtailing them. The DNC wants to increase subsidies and public investment. The RNC wants to decrease them and cut taxes. Both of those affect more Americans than a democrat or republicans willingness to drone strike someone in Yemen. One party is objectively worse than the other.
And spare me this tripe about Bernie being a different sort of candidate progressive whatever. The dude supports private ownership and fighting ISIS. He has never called for nationalizing companies, never called for worker control of corporations, never floated the idea of military pacifism. The guy is a typical American liberal who just wants to tax people a little more than other democrats are comfortable with and hand out more middle class freebies than is reasonable.
Someone with your education should have a very good grasp on reading comprehension. I hope you never teach Civics or English to those young impressionable minds.
My statement: Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same dragon. That means they are two distinct entities that act on behalf of the same body. Meaning that although they nominally represent two polar opposite sides of a linear political spectrum, both support concentrated capital interests (corporatocracy, the American oligarchy, kleptocracy, etc) instead of the people. YOU are the dumbie, not me.
Both parties are focused on consolidating and maintaining power. When you give power to an entity, that power does not get relinquished voluntarily. In the case of American economy and politics, this is verifiably true. Whether it manifests as the two parties locking out any outliers or attempted 3rd party candidates through tinkering with campaign finance laws and the electoral college, Presidents (both Dem and Repub) using historical instances to advocate for consolidated new powers not otherwise enumerated in the constitution to the executive branch, or a massive corporation or industry creating false barriers to entry to maintain an economic hegemony, America is the land of power consolidation virtually unrivaled in the West. The little nuances that the parties seek to promote as an ideological gap between the two are but a splinter, not a wedge. One party's ideology is worse, for sure. However the actions representatives of both parties have taken (most of the time with the backing of their respective parties) indicate that American politicians are a breed altogether unique, not tainted by party platforms or hanging chads, and covered generously with a wax coating that all but assures any altruism wicks right off their slimy corpses within their first term.
Citizens United wasn't implemented by a factional Republican or Democratic rogue group. It is a child of the corrupt system of American politics. It has the genes of both the Democrats and Republicans - it's the flaming pile of turd the last 150 years of disgusting fornication by the political elite has left on the doorstep of the American people. And like good little serfs, we repeatedly stomp on it and curse the pranksters instead of kicking the shit out of them. 150 years of the government working with concentrated capital to remove the power of the people and place it firmly in the hands of those with the most important resource in American politics, the one key indicator of value in America - money. This is the most recent (albeit very very important) instance of the two-party system hijacking the American political process to strip power from the public and insert it like a suppository directly into the anus of concentrated capital.
Are you really conflating progressivism and socialism? Do you understand the difference between Bernie's flavor of Democratic Socialism with the traditional marxist/lenin brand? Bernie has been an outsider in the Democratic Party from the beginning- it's actually not a surprise to me that the DNC took steps to make it harder for Bernie to win the nomination - what would you expect towards a candidate that is a self-described Independent who refuses to march lock-step with the rest of the party?
My statement: Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same dragon. That means they are two distinct entities that act on behalf of the same body. Meaning that although they nominally represent two polar opposite sides of a linear political spectrum, both support concentrated capital interests (corporatocracy, the American oligarchy, kleptocracy, etc) instead of the people. YOU are the dumbie, not me.
Both parties are focused on consolidating and maintaining power. When you give power to an entity, that power does not get relinquished voluntarily. In the case of American economy and politics, this is verifiably true. Whether it manifests as the two parties locking out any outliers or attempted 3rd party candidates through tinkering with campaign finance laws and the electoral college, Presidents (both Dem and Repub) using historical instances to advocate for consolidated new powers not otherwise enumerated in the constitution to the executive branch, or a massive corporation or industry creating false barriers to entry to maintain an economic hegemony, America is the land of power consolidation virtually unrivaled in the West. The little nuances that the parties seek to promote as an ideological gap between the two are but a splinter, not a wedge. One party's ideology is worse, for sure. However the actions representatives of both parties have taken (most of the time with the backing of their respective parties) indicate that American politicians are a breed altogether unique, not tainted by party platforms or hanging chads, and covered generously with a wax coating that all but assures any altruism wicks right off their slimy corpses within their first term.
Citizens United wasn't implemented by a factional Republican or Democratic rogue group. It is a child of the corrupt system of American politics. It has the genes of both the Democrats and Republicans - it's the flaming pile of turd the last 150 years of disgusting fornication by the political elite has left on the doorstep of the American people. And like good little serfs, we repeatedly stomp on it and curse the pranksters instead of kicking the shit out of them. 150 years of the government working with concentrated capital to remove the power of the people and place it firmly in the hands of those with the most important resource in American politics, the one key indicator of value in America - money. This is the most recent (albeit very very important) instance of the two-party system hijacking the American political process to strip power from the public and insert it like a suppository directly into the anus of concentrated capital.
Are you really conflating progressivism and socialism? Do you understand the difference between Bernie's flavor of Democratic Socialism with the traditional marxist/lenin brand? Bernie has been an outsider in the Democratic Party from the beginning- it's actually not a surprise to me that the DNC took steps to make it harder for Bernie to win the nomination - what would you expect towards a candidate that is a self-described Independent who refuses to march lock-step with the rest of the party?
They all go to the same schools and learn from the same people. The differences between the two parties are simply a matter of who they pander towards when seeking election.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Both political parties aren't the same. It is a stupid meme and someone of your education should know better.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i have voted in every single presidential election, and almost all state elections i've been eligible for. I can count on one hand the number of times I voted for a Repub or Dem. You are an ardent supporter of a de-facto two party system, when it's clearly evident that both Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same dragon. You and people that share your myopic "them or us" attitude are what is wrong with American politics. You fall into the trap of "gotta elect the lesser of two evils" as if there is no other choice. You are the lamb being led to slaughter. I am the shepherd.
This was the election to take a stand against the legacy system. There was a progressive candidate that stood for and with the people and against corporate oligarchies. You shit on him every chance you could because Hillary is better at pandering to voter blocks despite being a polished turd of a human being and the face of corporate interests. You have only yourself to blame. And I blame you too.
Yes, both parties support private ownership and occasionally bombing someone but that is really where it ends. The DNC supports increasing the political and social rights of ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. The GOP supports curtailing them. The DNC wants to increase subsidies and public investment. The RNC wants to decrease them and cut taxes. Both of those affect more Americans than a democrat or republicans willingness to drone strike someone in Yemen. One party is objectively worse than the other.
And spare me this tripe about Bernie being a different sort of candidate progressive whatever. The dude supports private ownership and fighting ISIS. He has never called for nationalizing companies, never called for worker control of corporations, never floated the idea of military pacifism. The guy is a typical American liberal who just wants to tax people a little more than other democrats are comfortable with and hand out more middle class freebies than is reasonable.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No, you're the lamb which ran away from the flock and will die in the wilderness.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You are the lamb being led to slaughter. I am the shepherd.
The two party system was thoroughly entrenched in your political process by the people who created it. They weren't interested in creating a democracy, they wanted to maintain the power of the ruling class forever. Britain was more democratic then than America is now - top work.
Fuck Israel
jesus christ dilbert you're painfully stupid.
he's little bo peep in this narrative.
The "free ____" line has been a surprisingly common one this cycle. It's almost as though people forget taxes do more than drop bombs on brown people.
I can't want to see who the GOP roll out next time. I mean they had the Vietnam vet who's main flaw was his mental choice of running mate. Then they had the personification of disconnected rich white privilege. Now they have an orange, sociopathic, four-time corporate bankrupt reality TV star. The fact that they are seemingly so bereft of talent that Donald Trump - who isn't a particularly Republican Republican - gets to cartwheel into their nomination is insane. The fact that a bizarro like Ted Cruz was the one to even slightly run a challenge to him is more insane. They're either scraping the bottom of a very dry barrel or as a party they've ceased to retain relevance and I tend to think it's a bit more of the latter.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
and the democracts can churn out hillary or bernie. not exactly top choices either.
You're painfully blindpirana6 wrote:
jesus christ dilbert you're painfully stupid.
You were the one claiming to be a shepherd.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
he's little bo peep in this narrative.
Fuck Israel
They're not obviously mad though.Cybargs wrote:
and the democracts can churn out hillary or bernie. not exactly top choices either.
Fuck Israel
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're not obviously mad though.Cybargs wrote:
and the democracts can churn out hillary or bernie. not exactly top choices either.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're not obviously mad though.Cybargs wrote:
and the democracts can churn out hillary or bernie. not exactly top choices either.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3938
Small and incremental political changes can have significant tangible effects on people's lives. Refusing to work within the political system because there isn't a major group sufficiently liberal enough for you is immature and childish. Behavior like yours got us Bush in 2000. I am sure Gore would have acted in the same way Bush did.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're not obviously mad though.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
The old white people being the Republican leadership? I ask simply because old white people make up a large portion of his supporters.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're not obviously mad though.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
I completely agree with you that changes must come from within the system unless we reach a point where an actual revolution bubbles over. That's a reason I was championing Bernie - he exists as a foil to the status quo. You are pushing for someone that has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Hillary is not radically different from a cookie-cutter Democratic candidate. She's not even Obama, which is saying a lot.\
The only way we can work within the system while actually working towards meaningful change is to support people that represent something substantially different than the politicians we've had over the last 50 years. We have to show our disgust by rejecting people who represent the status quo. That isn't done by consistently electing the most watered down politicians we can.
But yeah, you're totally right. We should always support the most electable person of the party that says they lean left or right (when in fact the only platform they support is money) to enact meaningful change because not doing so means the other person could get elected. That's such a sad and pathetic view of American government.
The only way we can work within the system while actually working towards meaningful change is to support people that represent something substantially different than the politicians we've had over the last 50 years. We have to show our disgust by rejecting people who represent the status quo. That isn't done by consistently electing the most watered down politicians we can.
But yeah, you're totally right. We should always support the most electable person of the party that says they lean left or right (when in fact the only platform they support is money) to enact meaningful change because not doing so means the other person could get elected. That's such a sad and pathetic view of American government.
If search worked I'd find the post from years ago where he said that he watched both bill o'Reilly and Maddow in order to get both sides. Both sides represent the status quo in Washington so his position isn't crazy, he's just been successfully indoctrinated by the kleptocratic moochers in the beltway.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're not obviously mad though.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, Repub leadership. It's kind of the same with Bernie and the Dems, except the Dem leadership were able to really rally around Hillary and stop any critically important typical Dem groups (like Big Labor) from supporting Bernie. The Repub leadership is either so fractured or so discombobulated that they never were able to do the same against TrumpoDesertFox- wrote:
The old white people being the Republican leadership? I ask simply because old white people make up a large portion of his supporters.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3938
You keep ignoring the fact that elections have meaningful impacts on the lives of innocent people. You may not get "meaningful change" (whatever that is your mind), but it makes a difference what party is in power for a lot of people. Healthcare reform would not have happened under a McCain administration. Iraq would not have happened under Gore. Etc. If elections have bounced differently, there would be many more Americans without healthcare. There would be hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi's alive. And if there is a republican administration and Congress, millions would either lose their coverage or have it tinkered with in a way that will hurt them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I completely agree with you that changes must come from within the system unless we reach a point where an actual revolution bubbles over. That's a reason I was championing Bernie - he exists as a foil to the status quo. You are pushing for someone that has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Hillary is not radically different from a cookie-cutter Democratic candidate. She's not even Obama, which is saying a lot.\
The only way we can work within the system while actually working towards meaningful change is to support people that represent something substantially different than the politicians we've had over the last 50 years. We have to show our disgust by rejecting people who represent the status quo. That isn't done by consistently electing the most watered down politicians we can.
But yeah, you're totally right. We should always support the most electable person of the party that says they lean left or right (when in fact the only platform they support is money) to enact meaningful change because not doing so means the other person could get elected. That's such a sad and pathetic view of American government.
Maybe you don't have to worry about that. Maybe you don't have to worry about very many things at all. But your commitment to fringe candidates and parties isn't helping prevent that for other people. And unless you can give me a good reason why a protest vote is more important than supporting even minor changes that help people, I am just going to file your opinion as hippy bullshit.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3938
You read and post reason.com articles. You might as well read Final Fantasy fan fiction because that shit is probably closer to reality than libertarian ideas regarding how to run a stable society.Jay wrote:
If search worked I'd find the post from years ago where he said that he watched both bill o'Reilly and Maddow in order to get both sides. Both sides represent the status quo in Washington so his position isn't crazy, he's just been successfully indoctrinated by the kleptocratic moochers in the beltway.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
People like macbeth are idiots that fall into the pit created by both parties arguing that the other side is evil as if our political mandate is to exist on a 2d line where it's either democrat or republican. Under this logic, you HAVE to vote for Hillary or Trump because it's "us vs. them" or "the lesser of two evils". It's utterly stupid and makes me want to slap people in the face who have that reasoning but still manage to bitch about both candidates. - That's how we have Donald and Hillary as the two main choices for President. GG America!Ty wrote:
Exactly. I mean there's an apparent determination of people who aspire to be in the middle of politics to dismiss both sides as being rubbish and I'm not saying that isn't the case to some extent but really, Donald Trump is an utter lunatic. He's inconsistent, he's a pathological liar, he's abusive and unempathetic, his policies sound like an eight year old came up with them, and he's a narcissist with an impossibly large but surprisingly fragile ego. He's a person you could call a psychopath without hyperbole. I have a really hard time understanding how people can vote for him, I'd love to be able to understand because Trump and the phenomena around him are fascinating. The only thing I can think of is that people are bored with politics and Trump is an entertaining change from the norm. But you're meant to enjoy those people for their entertainment value, you're not supposed to actually elect them.
Donald Trump was never going to win the Presidency. It's really funny that he is the Republican candidate though. It makes a bunch of old white people very uncomfortable, which I will always be a fan of.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3938
For what it's worth, if Bernie wins or something happens to Hillary, I will still support and donate to his campaign. He is my second mainstream choice and think he would do well.
If he could come out with more pro-bombing people plans, I would totally feel the Bern.
If he could come out with more pro-bombing people plans, I would totally feel the Bern.
What about the many millions more who have had their healthcare costs skyrocket because of Obamacare? Aren't you the one saying that we should invade Syria and Libya and everywhere else? The world isn't any better because Obama became president. We still have wars everywhere and still fighting the war on drugs. He intensified the war on civil liberties and privacy started under Bush. We still have a weak economy. Electing Clinton would be a continuation of all of this. "All of this" is why Trump exists. This country is fucked up.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You keep ignoring the fact that elections have meaningful impacts on the lives of innocent people. You may not get "meaningful change" (whatever that is your mind), but it makes a difference what party is in power for a lot of people. Healthcare reform would not have happened under a McCain administration. Iraq would not have happened under Gore. Etc. If elections have bounced differently, there would be many more Americans without healthcare. There would be hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi's alive. And if there is a republican administration and Congress, millions would either lose their coverage or have it tinkered with in a way that will hurt them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I completely agree with you that changes must come from within the system unless we reach a point where an actual revolution bubbles over. That's a reason I was championing Bernie - he exists as a foil to the status quo. You are pushing for someone that has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Hillary is not radically different from a cookie-cutter Democratic candidate. She's not even Obama, which is saying a lot.\
The only way we can work within the system while actually working towards meaningful change is to support people that represent something substantially different than the politicians we've had over the last 50 years. We have to show our disgust by rejecting people who represent the status quo. That isn't done by consistently electing the most watered down politicians we can.
But yeah, you're totally right. We should always support the most electable person of the party that says they lean left or right (when in fact the only platform they support is money) to enact meaningful change because not doing so means the other person could get elected. That's such a sad and pathetic view of American government.
Maybe you don't have to worry about that. Maybe you don't have to worry about very many things at all. But your commitment to fringe candidates and parties isn't helping prevent that for other people. And unless you can give me a good reason why a protest vote is more important than supporting even minor changes that help people, I am just going to file your opinion as hippy bullshit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
One of my buddies got obamacare. Dat 13k deductible hahahaha. what a fucking joke. just stops you from being super bankrupted.