Show of HandsShow of Hands

buster1922 November 6th, 2019 7:10am

Libertarians always run for office but yet they never actually fucking win. All they do is give someone else the advantage. The majority agreed value third-party is just a waste. Shouldn’t there be so just two compete?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Whatsamattaferu 11726
11/06/19 8:54 am

It’s time for a viable party to run against these two corrupt parties

Reply
Diogenes IgnoranceNoBlissEs
11/06/19 1:29 pm

Long past time.

omniku dot com
11/06/19 5:31 am

Absolutely not! The political duopoly is tearing this country apart. We either need more parties or zero parties. I would prefer zero parties, but that seems impossible.

Companies love being in a duopoly because they split the entire market. Coke and Pepsi love the fact they have almost no competition. Same rules apply here.

Everyone should listen to this podcast...

Freakonomics “America’s Hidden Duopoly”

“We all know our political system is “broken” — but what if that’s not true? Some say the Republicans and Democrats constitute a wildly successful industry that has colluded to kill off competition, stifle reform, and drive the country apart. So what are you going to do about it?”

freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

.

Reply
thelowend imitation is flattery
11/06/19 6:30 am

THIS. right here.

it’s your type of mentality, buster, that continues making us pick between awful and “less-awful”.

i can never understand how people can be so simple.

thelowend imitation is flattery
11/06/19 6:30 am

read ralph nader’s “crashing the party” book. GREAT insight into how deep the duopoly goes

buster1922 Florida
11/06/19 2:22 pm

This user is currently being ignored

thelowend imitation is flattery
11/06/19 5:07 pm

keep playing into what they’ve sold ya, buster. that’s a line right out of the DNC’s playbook in 2016. and any party desperately trying to cling to power.

the “FEAR” that the OTHER GUY MIGHT WIN!

because THIS YEAR it really matters...

read nader’s book. i was on his campaign in vermont when he ran that year. can verify two stories in there personally that happened in burlington, by and lebanon, NH

.

buster1922 Florida
11/06/19 8:25 pm

This user is currently being ignored

omniku dot com
11/07/19 5:20 am

Clinton got the edge from Perot who was an independent, not a Libertarian. GWB got the edge from Nader and the Greens, not the Libertarians.

It seems like you’re opposed to third parties, but I would argue most Americans are moderates or don’t fit the two party mold. I’m a left-libertarian (small government progressive). There’s no where for me to go! I think this is true for a lot of Americans so they just drop out of the process entirely.

.

buster1922 Florida
11/07/19 6:12 am

This user is currently being ignored

omniku dot com
11/07/19 10:38 am

By definition, one of them would have to win. Personally I would like to have NO parties, as it was when this country was founded. Parties first started to appear during Washington’s presidency. In his farewell address our very first president warned us against political parties; he called them “dangerous factions” and warned that they would tear this country apart. I worry that his prediction is coming true.

.

fuckyouasshole
11/08/19 10:19 pm

This user is currently being ignored

thelowend imitation is flattery
11/08/19 10:29 pm

oooh wow someone created an alt to make a snarky comment! wow...what a hero!

fuckyouasshole
11/09/19 1:14 am

This user is currently being ignored

omniku dot com
11/09/19 9:20 am

I do know what I’m talking about because I’m just relaying history. Are you denying the content of Washington’s farewell address?

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

.