For me this is another election in which I would like to see both of the mainstream candidates lose. I would assume that I am not alone with this sentiment. I always felt that a viable third party could be successful if it leaned fiscally conservative, socially liberal but in the middle regarding immigration, healthcare, etc. So who else out there would be motivated to vote 3rd party if they had a very good chance of winning and had enough in their platform that you favored?
If “viable” means they’ve got a chance in hell of being elected…I’m in. The problem is…money talks and this new third party will not have enough money compared to the other two parties. It will require a lot of advertising to bring the message to the people. It’s unfortunate but advertising brings it to the individual, instead of the individual getting off of their ass and investigating the choices. There would have to be some sort of regulation or even remove all contributions and each party has to work from a budget provided for by the people. That would equalize a lot and make for an even three-way field.
I do not like the status quo. What I believe would be a giant step forward and cost the American people…NOTHING…is term limits. Just like the President, there should be a two-term limit for Senators and Congress. IMO…it would be the biggest leap forward in reducing corruption and put the politician in a place, where he/she is more likely to honestly represent the will of his/her constituents.
Very rare situation in which a third party would be electorally viable.
I would certainly not vote for the Libertarian Party, as they have pretty much sold out any real libertarians for quite a few years now. Would not vote for any of the other third parties for various reasons.
That’s not populism. Trying to change the definition so as to obscure the problem with populism lessens the understanding of how damaging populism can be
Oh just so you know Bernie is a populist. And his form of populism is just as horrid as the President’s
Forgotten man garbage is harking back to century old rhetoric. Rhetoric from some scary people
If you have brought up the actual rioting then i would have agreed with you in part that populism is playing a role. The statues are not part of it.
The idealistic belief that the system can be changed for the sake of the oppressed is populism. Again the destruction of statues has little to do with that
They feel they are. Whether they are is subjective.
You think this is because why? They want to destroy? Some sure. The anarchists. The causeheads. But there is a contingent that feels not just slighted but oppressed.
The same whites that think black people don’t know how to get drivers license? Were the voting booths are?
Those white people?
Yes…because certain people want to emulate certain goverment needs anarchist so they can use them to gain power.
Do you really believe they give one ■■■■ about Black Americans? They’re being used as excuse. A tool so to speak. Thus feeds their resentment of being an minority.
You are agreeing with me. Weird. I said from the very start of the discussion that the riots are populism. Though the real reason for them is a good thing. The system is broken. The drive to fix is populism. Ask me how i know? Defund the police is about the dumbest rhetoric you’ll ever hear because they are not actually looking to defund the police. How stupid is that?
