Anyone outside the Hillary Clinton - John McCain spectrum of Approved Political Opinion should be trashed. I personally never hope to hold an idea that is not approved by at least one of those two.
Wtf? These third party canidates want to be on the debate stage with Trump and Hillary right? How are they somehow immune to criticism? That's like treating a disabled person like they can't do anything.
No normal person would want to be president. I would love for someone life Buffet or Gates to be president for the reason that they would never want to do it. They obviously wouldn't want to do it for the money since they give more away in a year than everyone on earth makes.
If there was ever a year for a 3rd party candidate to step up, this would be it. Too bad Johnson is too busy getting high to mount a serious challenge.
They aren't immune to criticism, they just aren't as worthy of it relative to others, given their station.
I don't know, I think anyone inserting themselves into the process needs to be vetted for seriousness and crushed if they are just wasting journalist time. A new third party will need the backing of billionaires like the Tease Party has, but not as astroturf. If I had to guess it would start with Bloomberg.
It really wouldn't. To have a third party, you need to have a constituency that isn't represented adequately , he doesn't really have one. His constituency is center-left Democratic party voters. His big issues - gun control, climate change - are pretty adequately represented there, and particularly by a Clinton Administration. Even if there is some sort of Sanders/Warren left wing insurgency that takes over the party ... Bloomberg is going to be close to 80 by the time it happens. If any third party happens it's going to be a splinter between the open racists/trumpers and the more rational Republicans. It will be interesting to see if the more rational ones give up lies, but treasured "mainstream" GOP beliefs, like climate change hoaxism and tax cut erotica.
The populist/nativist know-nothing resurgence is a cyclical tradition in American politics. If it continues to stay alive post-Trump it's not good for the GOP. If they manage to control or stay in coalition under the Republican banner, they will continue to alienate evangelicals, who are already a bit politically homeless. And lose state and national elections when gerrymandered districts in red states can't really help them. I think if the GOP splinters, you really have three competing constituencies, and that's not including the pro-liberty Ron Paul faithful that are both a minority in the party and estranged by the Libertarian Party's bizarro pageantry. I think it's even more grim for the Left. If the post-triangulation Democratic Party is too center-right, too pro-Wall Street, too pro-Exceptionalism, and too pro-Interventionist for the significant number of Sanders supporters (who I believe brought in many who wouldn't otherwise support the Dems) one would hope that an alternative exists to the Greens, which often seems like a caricature of an aging hippie complaining about government conspiracies to prevent people from curing cancer with crystals. America's big tent parties provide a more stable government in general than parliamentary democracies, but I miss the way Israel's fragile democracy works: parties die and splinter and get created to create homes for ideologically homeless voters. Even if it's just a few token seats in the legislature that pass the threshold, nearly everyone has a voice to represent them.
When is there ever a perfect candidate? Are they serious candidates? No, but I'm still voting Gary, despite the fact that I'm convinced he is high every day (despite him saying he quit a long time ago).
I really meant Bloomberg as sugar daddy not candidate. I think the party could be something like the Rational Republicans, traditional Republicans that exclude the radical right and Rovian leadership methods. Their first call to order could be voting in an acceptable Supreme Court Justice, and then maybe working to reform the ACA. I think some of this nonsense we see from the GOP is a response to President Clinton and now Candidate Clinton taking over the centrist talking points for their own and leaving the opposition nothing but radical positions to promote. There was nothing noteworthy for the other GOP nominee candidates to distinguish themselves with so we ended up with this bizzaro anti-candidate. I think he blows it up and sets the stage for a rebuild focusing on integrity. The big money probably hates the embarrassment
Except there really weren't that many of these people and they're made up of small groups that were very vocal, and did well in caucus states, but overall constitute a drop in the bucket not only of party voters (as opposed to primary voters) but of the increasingly nonwhite core democratic voting bloc. Trump voters took over because nobody else is coming into the Republican party. Sanders voters were a influx of young folks and aging boomer-hippies - they're also extremely white relative to a party that is growing nonwhite and not a massive voting bloc in many states. Could the Sanders-type dissatisfaction (as opposed to Sanders himself, who was frankly a terrible candidate) manifest itself in a better candidate in the future? Absolutely - and it probably will. And i encourage it - in the medium term, we need *radical* ideas to deal with worker displacement in an increasingly automated future (UBI or whatever) - but we need them to be fresh and absolutely not drawn from Vermont hippie era tomfoppery or else they will absolutely fail and we will be even worse off. The greens - lol, no. See previous paragraph.
While true, it was one small victory at the tip of the iceberg that played little to no role at rebuilding the lower and middle classes torn up in wake of the Wall Street induced financial crises.
If they didn't do they bailout well the middle and lower class would have suffered even more. The entire system is backed by nothing other than trust and faith in America. If banks fail then who loans people people how does credit work. Everything would just collapse.
Jill Stein might conflate her talking points but what difference in moral hazard is there between bailing out chapter 11 proof debt against a blanket loan guarantee at affordable rates or even a conservatorship?
Well thank you . I was going to go with tom-fkery but it was unnecessarily harsh, and "fop-" is criminally underused.
Trump: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit? Hillary: Well Donald, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote. Trump: Suits me. I'm voting for yours truly. Hillary: Well I'm voting for yours truly too. [Trump and Hillary look at Gary Johnson for the deciding vote] Johnson: Okay... I'm with you fellas.
