/ourguy/

You shouldn't be busting trusts, you should be nationalizing them. Let Amazon stay in charge of everything it does so when it is nationalized, the process will be easier

Why? Yeah it's dumb, but in what world is her belief or disbelief in it a serious issue?

but that's what an antimonopolistic democracy does

Is that what Jill Stein actually wants to do?

i doubt that is something she'd consider currently but people of her kind in general could be persuaded over time, but of course that needs a popular front and a communist current actively pushing them

I think there's a reason why Bernie's very similar campaign took off but hers never did and I think public opinion of her played a big role.

Plus, I don't an older party could be the one to swoop in. I think it has to be a new one.

> > LOL <

Attached: 1c9f88e6c749076aa9e68a94d15dbd8e7ce914316361fa6820d87bba42e3517b.png (187x255, 9.52K)

Unless a third party can attain a highly visible and overwhelming majority of popular support, they'll just alter the vote so that the third party gets 5% or whatever sufficiently small number is appropriate. What, you thought they were actually going to let the people decide who rules? You either play ball with the regime or you get nowhere.

Besides, when it comes down to it, enough of the population is fine with the ruling party (America is functionally a one-party state.) The people who would be most likely to organize politically have a stake in keeping the power structure stable and keeping the game going, while most of the people who don't vote have accepted that we don't actually live in a democracy, and they're aware of that on some level.

Was planned well in advance, with a few escape hatches if the original plan was wildly unpopular. Trump is a part of the system, who has been playing the nativist for years and setting up for a run such as his. There was nothing revolutionary about him - Trump was just a rerun of Reaganism right down to the slogan. Once it was clear that the Republican base still hated the Bush family (and I mean HATED), they switched to Trump and, knowing what their base likes, but on the circus you saw with the Republican primary, with feigned "opposition" so the dumbshits think they're going to win this time. There was no way Clinton would not be pushed on Democrats, so for all intents and purposes the election was over before January 2016. The ruling class didn't really want Hillary or like Hillary, and no one in the country really wanted Hillary, so the outcome of the election should have been obvious and it would be trivial to rig around the edges to produce the desired outcome (not that it would have mattered, because Trump and Clinton would have pursued similar policies right down to Trump's signature issue, immigration).

Bernie was a nonfactor and doesn't even have the kind of base he would need to really pull off a third party run. Bernie had an actual base (even if it was chaotic and he had to cobble together a coalition of "progressives" with contradictory aims), but I don't think in an honest election where people voted for what they genuinely want, that Bernie could gather much more than 20% of the vote; and if Bernie ever became a serious candidate, the contradictory aims of his supporters would be exposed and the coalition would fracture almost immediately given the right push by a competent political operator. I mean, the so-called "progressives" are already failing miserably compared to the limited gains they could make if someone in that group was politically competent, because the movement gets derailed by virtue signaling, idpol, and stealth-fashy infiltration. Of course, none of this really matters because the rulers won't allow that degree of democracy, and will just tamper with the vote result or, if they really have to, nullify the election.

Bernie shouldn't run third party, I think he's done as a movement leader and really was just a warm-up to get people interested in socialism (even if he was a social democrat.) The whole point of the state legislative movement is to drum up popular support,

States pass social democratic reforms and tell people that they are only doing damage control on an impossibly fucked up system until they want to replace it.

Like I said, though, it's rigged. Without overwhelming public support, any insurgent candidates are just quietly snuffed out if they present too much of a threat. Usually this is accomplished by party primaries where there is no accountability for rigging and the Democrats or Republicans can do whatever they want, but if it needs to happen in an open election they'll make sure it happens.

That said, there just isn't the appetite to make radical changes to the system, when it really comes down to it. They may say they're sick of the ruling party, but they value stability too much and they don't like taxes. That's why the Bernie/socdem movement is faltering - they can't put together a coherent program while staying in the framework of familiar capitalism, and the contradictory aims of that great mass of angry people don't allow them to form a coherent program even if they were capable. Maybe if the dispossession of the poor were to accelerate considerably further, the popular support could come, but by then it will be too late and Porky will be making it illegal for poor people to vote at all. As the saying goes, if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Attached: false_dichotomy.png (720x668, 28.17K)

...

You've dishonored your family

Because that's just how people are. They think crystals and pagans and Mormons sound crazy, but basic bitch Christianity has just as much insanity….The bible stories get to feel comfy and normal over time.

If a Mormon ever won, I would piss my pants; I'm convinced the Republican party wanted Obama to win when they put him against a Mormon .

Don't support the two-party myth. It's one party with two wings performatively competing.