Both candidates are roundly loathed by their opposition. There are those of us who actually like the candidates and their policy positions. But you do have a media which promote only particular narratives because that’s what’s agreed upon. That’s what gives their stories a narrative context, keeping readers interested.
It’s adorable you expect anyone to be swayed by logical or rationale thinking. Seriously, your “innocence” is so quaint.
Both parties, but more so with recent conservative voter suppression acts, have built a system which serves themselves and not the population. A good first step would be to remove control from the politicians and run it with a non-partisan agency. Only public, no private, funds.
Darsan (as is the case with most other leftists/democrats) prefers empowering bureaucrat-dictators to allowing free people to exercise free choice. Not smart. By a peculiar coincidence, however, both Trump and Hillary agree with him.
Sure wish the Libertarians had nominated Austin Petersen – I could have supported him enthusiastically.
Darsan54There once was. It was an offshoot of the sufferagettes after they got the vote. However, the Republicrats conspired to remove them from the scene by setting up their own, “for us only” debate scheme. The first step would be to return the debate to the League of Women Voters. If you can break up that present monopoly, the rest should be a piece of cake.
I do find it odd that Libertarians tend to be if not always Republicans.I think it’s because the Republicans at least give lip service to the concept of limited government. They may not walk the walk, but they at least talk the talk. The Democrats don’t even bother to do that; they are unabashedly in favor of more government regulation of just about everything.
A good first step would be to remove control from the politicians and run it with a non-partisan agency.Indeed. A non-partisan agency run by non-partisan folks like Ruth Ginsburg and Lois Lerner. Or the folks at the NLRB. Or the FCC. Or the EPA. Or the DOJ.Where would we Commoners fit in? Would we have a say? Would we elect the non-partisan folks? Or would the politicians appoint them?
Darsan54 Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Both candidates are roundly loathed by their opposition. There are those of us who actually like the candidates and their policy positions. But you do have a media which promote only particular narratives because that’s what’s agreed upon. That’s what gives their stories a narrative context, keeping readers interested.
It’s adorable you expect anyone to be swayed by logical or rationale thinking. Seriously, your “innocence” is so quaint.
Darsan54 Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Both parties, but more so with recent conservative voter suppression acts, have built a system which serves themselves and not the population. A good first step would be to remove control from the politicians and run it with a non-partisan agency. Only public, no private, funds.
jbmlaw01 almost 8 years ago
Darsan (as is the case with most other leftists/democrats) prefers empowering bureaucrat-dictators to allowing free people to exercise free choice. Not smart. By a peculiar coincidence, however, both Trump and Hillary agree with him.
Sure wish the Libertarians had nominated Austin Petersen – I could have supported him enthusiastically.
hippogriff almost 8 years ago
Darsan54There once was. It was an offshoot of the sufferagettes after they got the vote. However, the Republicrats conspired to remove them from the scene by setting up their own, “for us only” debate scheme. The first step would be to return the debate to the League of Women Voters. If you can break up that present monopoly, the rest should be a piece of cake.
Geezer almost 8 years ago
I do find it odd that Libertarians tend to be if not always Republicans.I think it’s because the Republicans at least give lip service to the concept of limited government. They may not walk the walk, but they at least talk the talk. The Democrats don’t even bother to do that; they are unabashedly in favor of more government regulation of just about everything.
Thomas Overbeck Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Why? Because the MSM are trying to shove Hillary down our throats. And the conservative media is reluctantly pushing Trump.
Geezer almost 8 years ago
A good first step would be to remove control from the politicians and run it with a non-partisan agency.Indeed. A non-partisan agency run by non-partisan folks like Ruth Ginsburg and Lois Lerner. Or the folks at the NLRB. Or the FCC. Or the EPA. Or the DOJ.Where would we Commoners fit in? Would we have a say? Would we elect the non-partisan folks? Or would the politicians appoint them?