Terrapin_Station

The only candidates who ever really seem to focus on issues, to focus on what their policies would be, etc., especially in any detailed, non-vague way, are candidates from parties other than Republican and Democrat.

And that's probably only because they're basically forced to focus on issues in order to try to gain any publicity whatsoever.

Unfortunately, that could very well change if any of those other parties ever had a viable chance at being elected, so that they'd be included in the presidential debates just as well.

djchameleon

Aka they need more money thrown at them or get better at fund raising.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Frownland

It'd be nice if they removed the obstacles that favoured the two party system as well.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Terrapin_Station

It's not just that. There are actually a bunch of legal and social barriers set up to make it difficult for parties other than Republicans and Democrats to run viable campaigns for major offices.

Back in the late 80s and through part of the 90s, I was actively involved with the Libertarian party, including involvement with both gubernatorial and a couple presidential campaigns, and the legal folks were constantly railing about all of the obstacles set up (unfortunately I can't recall the legal details very well; that's not my field) to make it difficult to even get ballot access for example. Maybe things have changed a bit since then--I haven't been actively involved politically for over 15 years now, but when they explained it to me at the time, it seemed ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats had basically stacked the deck to make it very difficult for anyone outside of those parties to have a chance. It wasn't just a matter of money.

I no longer consider myself "just a libertarian" any longer, by the way. I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now, but my views are very idiosyncratic.

The Batlord

Our mods don't give a ****, I love it.

__________________

Key

Well then I think you're defending the wrong person. Here's who you should be supporting.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/

The Batlord

I'm more of a Zionist National Socialist myself.

__________________

Terrapin_Station

The only reason I'm defending Trump is that people are attacking him with stupid $h|t. I would and have done the same for anyone, including Hillary.

I'm not voting in this election, by the way. I probably would vote for Trump this time around, partially for the comedy/entertainment value--there would likely be something entertaining (almost) every day he's in office. I'm not actually of the opinion that it makes one bit of practical difference whether the current Republican or Democrat is in office. It's the same old $h|t with both of them.

If I were voting for who I liked the most out of current candidates, I'd vote for Jill Stein again. I voted for her last time.

Key

To be fair, he's brought it on himself. He doesn't need you defending him.

The second bolded part we actually agree on, hence why I'm pushing more toward Gary Johnson. Which my link was meant more as a joke.

Though, in my opinion, defending a candidate seems pointless when you're not voting.

Frownland

May rationality persevere in the face of those like Ki.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.