Jump to content

The one thing missing in the debate...


fishhead
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ignorant asshole!! Reap what you sow cowgirl!

I'm afraid that in this case, you are the bamboozled "ignorant asshole", fishy.

 

Gary Johnson is a radical rightwing nutjob and crackpot. He is a corporate stooge....just like all of the bamboozled Libertarians.....only he knows it and is quite happy being one.

 

Gary Johnson Is a Hardcore Right-Wing Radical

His rhetoric on marijuana and against war serve as a shield for a litany of radical-right positions.

 

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda

Before Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that in this case, you are the bamboozled "ignorant asshole", fishy.

 

Gary Johnson is a radical rightwing nutjob and crackpot. He is a corporate stooge....just like all of the bamboozled Libertarians.....only he knows it and is quite happy being one.

 

Gary Johnson Is a Hardcore Right-Wing Radical

His rhetoric on marijuana and against war serve as a shield for a litany of radical-right positions.

 

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda

Before Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.

'swig, swig'.

I'm afraid that in this case, you are the bamboozled "ignorant asshole", fishy.

 

Gary Johnson is a radical rightwing nutjob and crackpot. He is a corporate stooge....just like all of the bamboozled Libertarians.....only he knows it and is quite happy being one.

 

Gary Johnson Is a Hardcore Right-Wing Radical

His rhetoric on marijuana and against war serve as a shield for a litany of radical-right positions.

 

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda

Before Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.

California queer, jizz up the ass malarkey..Hannity jack-off queen...Laughable!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that in this case, you are the bamboozled "ignorant asshole", fishy.

 

Gary Johnson is a radical rightwing nutjob and crackpot. He is a corporate stooge....just like all of the bamboozled Libertarians.....only he knows it and is quite happy being one.

 

Gary Johnson Is a Hardcore Right-Wing RadicalHis rhetoric on marijuana and against war serve as a shield for a litany of radical-right positions.

 

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate AgendaBefore Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.

'swig, swig'.

California queer, jizz up the ass malarkey..Hannity jack-off queen...Laughable!!!

Too bad you can't handle the truth about the crackpot, astroturfed, corporate-stooge Libertarians (your personal cult perhaps?), and their far-rightwing stealth candidate for President.

 

Your response is indeed "laughable!!!". It seems I touched a nerve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was ever an election where a third party might do well.. this is it.

And there's that old delusional thinking again.

 

The Green Party is polling in the low single digits and is on the ballot in only half the states. Their candidate is an unknown to most people.

 

The stealth far-rightwing 'Libertarian' Johnson is polling at only about 10%....so he wasn't in the debates, few people know him or his positions (which is probably a good thing for him, given how vile his far-right positions are) and can only act as a 'spoiler' for the actual candidates.

 

Neither one has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's that old delusional thinking again.

 

The Green Party is polling in the low single digits and is on the ballot in only half the states. Their candidate is an unknown to most people.

 

The stealth far-rightwing 'Libertarian' Johnson is polling at only about 10%....so he wasn't in the debates, few people know him or his positions (which is probably a good thing for him, given how vile his far-right positions are) and can only act as a 'spoiler' for the actual candidates.

 

Neither one has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election in November.

HE MOST RESEMBLES DEMONCRATS AND THEIR IGNORANCE..LIBERALS HATE CREATING JOBS....HENCE THEY LOVE HUSSEIN AND KILLARY........BUT DONALD ISNT EVEN PRESIDENT YET AND HE IS CREATING MORE JOBS THAN KILLARY AND HUSSEIN COMBINED...

 

 

LIBERALS....JUST PLAIN DUMB!

 

 

trumpmeme.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the Constitution favor two parties? I think it is just public sentiment.

 

The US Constitution was patterned after the British government of the 1770's, in which there were two parties, the Tories (supporters of the Crown. largely nobility) and the Whigs (in simplified terms, business interests who only favored colonial ventures when it could turn them a profit).

 

We have had only three elections in which there were more than two viable contenders:

1824 (John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay & William Crawford)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

and 1860 (Abraham Lincoln. Stephen Douglas, John Breckenridge and John Bell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

and 1912 (Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson and Eugene V Debs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

 

I agree, it is all about public sentiment: the public sentiment is that only two parties count and one of the two will always win. The public sentiment has always been, "vote third party and you are throwing your vote away." It has been a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it is all about public sentiment: the public sentiment is that only two parties count and one of the two will always win. The public sentiment has always been, "vote third party and you are throwing your vote away." It has been a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

And again, in this election cycle, the same bromide is being shouted from the rooftops. And again, it happens to be the truth. Can a third party candidate ever emerge who is destined to win? It hasn't happened yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...