Bernie supporters, who are you voting for if he doesn't get the nomination?

[apepi]

It's why you vote third. As I keep saying, the origin of the word idiot, comes from Athenian democracy. Where not participating in social undertakings, like voting, made you an idiot. Don't be an idiot... Vote...

Oh quoting now are we? Give me a good choice and I will vote for them. But so far, all the candidates are horrible.

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Lenonis]

to make sure we get a true progressive president in 2020. shit will get really bad under trump and that level of bad will very likely mean we stand a good chance to get a great progressive in 2020-2028.

Great idea until you look at the SCOTUS, which will have a 20-40 year impact in those 4 years rather than just looking for a window of 8.

[I Push Buttons]

It's why you vote third. As I keep saying, the origin of the word idiot, comes from Athenian democracy. Where not participating in social undertakings, like voting, made you an idiot. Don't be an idiot... Vote...

Please answer my previous questions.

[bergmann620]

Since both parties will utterly ignore any and all legislation such a candidate will puts forward...

This is an assertion without evidence.

I'm also not sure how 8 of the last 10 years worth of government makes you think that Democrats and Republicans won't do that to each other anyways?

Or do you think one party controlling Congress while the other party tries to ram home executive orders like a goddamn king is somehow a better look for our country?

[araine]

I'm not sure I'm sold on term limits -- you get rid of the good as well as the bad. There are arguments both ways. There rest should be common sense, but isn't alas.

All term limits does is making sure those that cant be bought by Wall street will be gone quickly while wall street just can keep on trucking with the new paid drones in Washington. Wall street dont give a shit if it is Mr A or Mr B that does the bidding for them which will be the result if we put in term limits while the champion of the people that cant be bought will be gone quickly.

Term limits will be the best ever for wall street drones and corporate wh0res in washington as for the rest of the people in the country well they can expect to get screwed the good old fashion style over and over with corporate laws being passed on a daily basis to screw the little guy as fast and often as possible. so term limits does NOT get the bribery and rich people buying laws in Washington out of washington. making donations from corporations etc that goes above like 100 dollar from each person is whats corrupts washington it is what have made it into a pay to play place where the average joe have no fking input since he doesnt have the billions to buy laws that benefit him.

[bergmann620]

Just because the "us vs them" mentality gets cut away doesn't magically make the parties all moderate and willing to vote against the party platform.

Civil liberties isn't against the Democratic platform. Tax cuts aren't against the Republican platform.

[araine]

Great idea until you look at the SCOTUS, which will have a 20-40 year impact in those 4 years rather than just looking for a window of 8.

You block all nominations in good old fashion GOP style problem solved

We survived 8 years of Bush but it wasnt pretty we can survive 4 years of trump as well if it means we can get true progessive values pasted down the road. sometimes you just have to really fuck up things before they can get better.

[Lenonis]

This is an assertion without evidence.

Wait...didn't you just say that a third party president will get more cooperation from Congress? Isn't that ALSO an assertion without evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

Civil liberties isn't against the Democratic platform. Tax cuts aren't against the Republican platform.

Uh....right. And neither party can pass these unopposed so....what is your point?

- - - Updated - - -

You block all nominations in good old fashion GOP style problem solved

We survived 8 years of Bush but it wasnt pretty we can survive 4 years of trump as well if it means we can get true progessive values pasted down the road. sometimes you just have to really fuck up things before they can get better.

Not sure 4 years of Trump will get you what you want. Easy to think so, but very little to prove that it will actually play out that way.

[Daerio]

I think the only real solution to corruption of the level we have today is the understanding that politicians who fail to uphold their oath of office will be killed by the people they failed to represent.

It's the only thing that has ever really been effective in politics. We need to bring it back.

[bergmann620]

No what you need is to get the fucking money out of politics make donating from a company a criminal offense. and a lot of the problems we have will go away

No, they'll just change. There is no way to get money out of politics that isn't also exceptionally corrosive to Free Speech.

If money was the biggest factor, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee.

[Pterodactylus]

"More" doesn't help. We need more people to be generally engaged and educated- just showing up to vote is by no means a guaranteed fix.

Sure, but I'd like the general apathy towards politics - especially at the local level - to vanish, and that was what my comment was mostly related to.

It's really not. The LP has ballot access in all 50 states. It takes money and time.

No, it is difficult. If it were easy, we'd have lots of parties listed on lots of states ballots. It's more than just time and money and a fuck ton of effort.

[araine]

No, they'll just change. There is no way to get money out of politics that isn't also exceptionally corrosive to Free Speech.

If money was the biggest factor, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee.

That has nothing to do with how washington works money in primaries ahve zero relevance on the outcome. But you cant deny the fact that we have laws being passed on a daily basis that are paid and bought for by Wall Street. Jeb have never been sitting as a senator or a congressman in Washington which is where the money needs to be taken out of ASAP. it needs to be illegal for corporations to donate money period anything else is just legalized BRIBERY

[bergmann620]

Wait...didn't you just say that a third party president will get more cooperation from Congress? Isn't that ALSO an assertion without evidence?

It's the other side of the hypothetical. I'm not claiming it's a fact.

Uh....right. And neither party can pass these unopposed so....what is your point?

More than likely, we're going to have a split government. One party will have the White House, and the other party will have one or both chambers of Congress.

With what we've seen from the last 6 years, there is almost certainty that the two major parties will do anything possible to cock-block each other.

If Republicans control Congress, there are areas of agreement in which they could work with Gary Johnson.

If Democrats control Congress, there are areas of agreement in which they could work with Gary Johnson.

If Congress is split, it's likely no one gets anything done.

[I Push Buttons]

It's the other side of the hypothetical. I'm not claiming it's a fact.

What would Republicans and Democrats get out of helping a third party president pass legislation?

It would do nothing other than undermine their own establishments...

Your hypothetical is based on nothing at all... My hypothetical is based on the very simple and straightforward concept of Republicans and Democrats wanting to stay in power...

What do you think is more plausible, Republicans and Democrats rising above their establishments to do something good? Or Republicans and Democrats doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo which has them as the only two parties of relevance...

Its not rocket science, buddy.

[bergmann620]

But you cant deny the fact that we have laws being passed on a daily basis that are paid and bought for by Wall Street.

I absolutely can deny that fact. We're barely passing any laws at all.

Jeb have never been sitting as a senator or a congressman in Washington which is where the money needs to be taken out of ASAP. it needs to be illegal for corporations to donate money period anything else is just legalized BRIBERY

It looks like you're gonna need to pass a constitutional amendment to make that happen. Except, guess who can spend money to lobby against that amendment?

We need more people to be engaged and educated and to hold their representatives accountable. If we put the same attention and pressure on our Senators that we put on pro sports coaches, we'd have results by now.

(Also, and I can't believe I need to point this out to people on MMO-Champ, but... 'Special Interests' essentially means 'any interest that is not mine'. I get that you don't like that people and groups you're opposed to are allowed to support people, but... Where do you draw the line? Who gets free speech and who doesn't?)

[Daerio]

(Also, and I can't believe I need to point this out to people on MMO-Champ, but... 'Special Interests' essentially means 'any interest that is not mine'. I get that you don't like that people and groups you're opposed to are allowed to support people, but... Where do you draw the line? Who gets free speech and who doesn't?)

Paying money to get economic legislation passed which personally benefits you isn't free speech, it's bribery.

Said guy isn't just publicly stating his opinion that he thinks he deserves X monopoly and more government regulation targeting his competition, he's handing money to politicians in exchange for making it happen. I'm not sure how that even relates to free speech, other than some nonsense that the king's court jesters put out.

[bergmann620]

What would Republicans and Democrats get out of helping a third party president pass legislation?

What does any party get out of helping the other party? Have you been absent the last 6 years? Why haven't we confirmed a Supreme Court Justice

It would do nothing other than undermine their own establishments...

In the hypothetical world in which Gary or Jill have won the Presidency, they're already undermined. It's a brand new set of rules at that point.

Your hypothetical is based on nothing at all...

Only when you ignore the reasoning.

My hypothetical is based on the very simple and straightforward concept of Republicans and Democrats wanting to stay in power...

In th hypothetical (which you put forward, by the way), they've already lost the Presidency. They've already lost the ballot-access fight. They've already lost the debates fight. There is no longer any reason for them to cooperate to keep a third-party out. Democrats would be far better served to try and marginalize the Republicans, and vice-versa.

What do you think is more plausible, Republicans and Democrats rising above their establishments to do something good? Or Republicans and Democrats doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo which has them as the only two parties of relevance...

Its not rocket science, buddy.

You're the one that put forth the hypothetical. For it to be possible, the status would have to not be quo. The game would already be changed. They would no longer have any reason to team up.

[Felya]

Oh quoting now are we? Give me a good choice and I will vote for them. But so far, all the candidates are horrible.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Write in 42...

- - - Updated - - -

Please answer my previous questions.

Which? Sorry, must have missed the,.

[bergmann620]

Said guy isn't just publicly stating his opinion that he thinks he deserves X monopoly and more government regulation targeting his competition, he's handing money to politicians in exchange for making it happen. I'm not sure how that even relates to free speech, other than some nonsense that the king's court jesters put out.

I'm sure you have examples and evidence of your assertions, correct?

Because I'm sure that that sort of evidence, were it commonly available, wouldn't be used by peoples' political opponents... They'd never stoop that low!

And if you can't prove it, how would making things you already can't prove illegal help the situation?

[Paranoid Android]

This is from Full Frontal with Samantha Bee about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson. Its funny as hell. I sort of like this guy.



Best is the end where he says there are "You find wonderful, well spoken people at the convention. You will then find some that are just bat shit crazy."