Remember back in the primaries for the 2008 election, when someone supporting Hillary sent emails playing up photographs of Obama wearing conspicuously "foreign" clothes and starting the whole birther stuff?

Of course you don't. That shit was over a decade ago. It's not like being enslaved during the war between the states, which you remember personally happening to you as though it were yesterday.

>>430
I remember Senator Clinton suggesting that parents might just happen to use subsidized private education vouchers to enroll their children in "the school of the church of the white supremacist", etc. What stands out to me isn't her point, although I get it--if there were no preventing the establishment of institutions of education based on racist theology, the vouchers undermine the very purpose of the constitutional separation of church and state and contribute to a more divided and unstable society, because that's the way people are. What strikes me is how readily she elaborates on Christian Identity indoctrination infrastructure. She knows those places, she's familiar with their theology on a didn't-have-to-look-it-up-on-wikipedia level. Maybe they helped her pass that second bar exam; Arkansas is a cesspit of inbred Klansmen.

Notice the complete lack of detail when she repeats the exercise with "the school of the jihad". She knows nothing about Islam; look at all her failures in the Middle East as Secretary of State. Speaking of which, not to change the topic, but where is this bitch's shame?

File 150657600336.jpg - (222.61KB , 1080x1080 , Please Dont Wake My Baby.jpg )

I remember a time when the hard right wasn't spewing garbage about (insert name here) Clinton every fucking day.

It wasn't all that long ago. The garbage only started being spewed in 1991. Surely some people on the internet had a functioning non-infant brain before 1991.

You'd think the entire family not running for office would be enough to stop the garbage.

Find a new chewtoy. No. Not Obama. You chewed on him for 8 years already, remember?

>>433
Believe it or not, there was also a time when it was possible to dislike a politician without other people assuming they know your every political inclination.

>Surely some people on the internet had a functioning non-infant brain before 1991.
In a way you are right, because the only people on the internet before 1991 were researchers developing it. Things went sharply down hill from there.

>>434
It once was possible, but right now we're ruled by a god-king who can't be disliked by any tiny small part without being part of the liberal conspiracy.

I've hated Trump for decades and now my consistent anti-Trump stance has caused people to assume all kinds of stupid shit. I hated him in the 80s when he first became a candidate, I've hated him in the 90s and 00s when he flirted with becoming a candidate, and I hate him now. If you don't know why I hate him then you haven't been paying attention.

>the only people on the internet before 1991 were researchers developing it
Okay. But if you were alive in 1991 with a functioning non-infant brain and are on the internet now... what I said would be worded the same way.

>>436
>But if you were alive in 1991 with a functioning non-infant brain and are on the internet now.
It's ok that you don't remember a time before the internet; no one else does either. The internet came to my rural hometown a few years late. We didn't have internet at home until I got a Sega Netlink, but I did have a functional non-infant brain in the early nineties.

>It once was possible
I told people to vote third-party. I told them they had a moral obligation to do so. People said they didn't want to throw away their votes on "protest" votes; they don't realise how heavily they are steeped in pro-bipartisan propaganda. Sure, Gary Johnson's a little high, he might be late to a UN security council meeting, but I'm sure he wouldn't be starting any war with North Korea.

>>437
It's not enough to just vote third party. You need a candidate people can believe in. Just voting someone just because you don't like the other guys isn't going to inspire people to actually vote, it'll just make them stay home.

If you want a third party to win, they need to be popular and not a zealot. Johnson is a zealot and not a particularly smart one, which doesn't inspire anyone but other zealots to vote for him.

>>438
>If you want a third party to win, they need to be popular and not a zealot

I agree, and I know Gary wasn't an ideal choice, but I think it's going to be more difficult than finding the right candidate. Trump would not have won on a third party ticket and that's 50% of why he's pretending to be a Republican (the other 50% being that everyone should have known the pendulum was swinging back to nationalistic conservatism and that it was almost assured the GOP candidate would replace Obama months before the campaign season began). Most US voters do not realize how deeply they are embedded in the two-party machine, or that the two parties are conspiring to keep each other in power. No one seems to notice that describing the election with terms like "binary choice" is a sinister tactic that prevents them from considering that third parties are participating at all. The electoral system itself has been under the control of the two major parties for so long I have serious doubts that a third party candidate could ever break through enough red tape to find equal footing with the major party candidates.

>>439
I agree that getting a candidate that is popular and espouses popular opinions and viewpoints is only part of the battle.

Rather than red tape I'm pretty sure the biggest impediment to a third party is money. With proper organization and reasonable financial backing you can overcome red tape (if you can't, then it's normally due to criminal behavior, and you have to use the courts to break their backs, requires some reasonable financial backing).

But with Citizens United stating that money is speech the chance of a third party being swift boated to death is virtually guaranteed. A party who was a threat to one group would be attacked by groups loyal to its candidate(s). A party that's a threat to both would get both barrels. Of course because groups are routinely created for out of whole cloth by particularly wealthy individuals and have zero accountability (oh won't someone think of the billionaires), you don't entirely know who's fighting you nor is there accountability when they make baldfaced lies.

I think another problem with third parties is they always try for the big win. The Libertarian Party, for instance, always runs for president. It should, instead, try to win local seats. Then when it gets a critical mass of local seats run for state seats. When it gets enough state seats run for local seats in other states. And so on. Only after you have a broad base of politicians elected across all states and across a wide swathe of localities do you stand a chance of having a presidential candidate capable of catching a reasonable amount of votes.

Now, that being said, I very much doubt that TLP is going to be able to do this. They're a party of extremists, and much like the Communist Party isn't going to win adequate support outside their committed base.

Disposing of extremity for popularity is needed. Only then can a third party start winning - but it has to start small.

>>441
>Disposing of extremity for popularity is needed.
Easier said than done. If your major, vote-winning parties are as buffoonish as you make them out to be, then any third party daring to act sensible will necessarily support an extreme position outside the mainstream. To compromise that would mean degrading to the same level of supposed stupidity that makes the other parties what they are.

You won't find any easy answers to the question of how firmly you have to believe your ideals to be convincing, or how willing to compromise you should be to achieve anything. It's a sliding scale from uncompromising ideologue to opportunistic nihilist, and everyone has different preferences along that scale, up to and including the extremes.

I still find "I don't vote for third parties because no one votes for third parties" to be painfully circular.

>>443
>I still find "I don't vote for third parties because no one votes for third parties" to be painfully circular.
Similarly I find the "vote for a third party whose goals I wholly don't believe in because some part of one of the major parties has a goal I don't believe in" to be hopelessly ridiculous. You're not going to win by holding positions that only a minority of voters believe in it. It doesn't work that way. You need to be popular.

However, here's the thing. Right now the two major parties are very unpopular. Just look at congressional approval ratings. Then look at presidential approval ratings.

Then imagine what it would take to knock that softball from its tee, sitting right in front of you.

>>444
>Right now the two major parties are very unpopular. Just look at congressional approval ratings. Then look at presidential approval ratings.

>Then imagine what it would take to knock that softball from its tee, sitting right in front of you.

See, this is what I thought during the election. It turns out, no matter how unpopular both major parties are, the vast majority of voters will still vote for them. Some people won't vote for third parties because they believe no third party can get enough votes to win--even if they sympathize with the third party's policies (these are the people who think third parties and their voters should pick a major party to ally and eventually merge with). Others won't vote for a party they've only just heard of when they see the ballot (if third parties are lucky enough to appear on their particular state's ballot) because they don't read obscure news and no third party candidates were allowed to debate the major candidates on TV because the bipartisan committee in charge has a minimum standard for popularity which they judge for themselves with no oversight, or the only time they ever have heard of a third party was some candidate freaking out at a small-time rally or not knowing the name of a city no one knew the name of a year ago and no one will remember a year from now, etc. People voted for Clinton even though they wanted Sanders, even though they knew the Democratic party was guilty of manipulating their own primary election to ensure that Hillary would be their candidate. People voted for Trump thinking the rest of the Republican party would keep him in check, some even thought they'd move against him for the sake of their party at some point, or that he's half-likely to keel over before the end of his term.

You really don't meet many people who can tell you about a third party and why they disagree with it's position, politically, however likely it is that they might. Ad hominem pretty much defined the last election, debate as a form of social discourse was all but eradicated, people cared more about Ken Bone than what was as stake, etc. Third parties cannot do well in such a market. Reactionary politics is, again, part of the problem--we need a third party alliance or a new party with broader appeal--but no matter how they present themselves there's a huge social hurdle to overcome as well. People won't vote for them unless they feel like they understand their policies and feel like they (mostly) agree with them.

I don't mean they actually need to understand them or agree with them. I don't think many Republican or Democratic voters honestly understand or fully agree with their party's policies--that's not the kind of world we live in. People vote on their feelings, only take in summaries and highlights produced by commercial news outlets, and wilfully resist becoming overly informed when confronted with policies they are not comfortable with.

Nonetheless, if third parties want to be considered, they still have to overcome the major-party intelligentsia before they can redirect their sheep. They have to disseminate the impression that their policies can be quickly and easily understood by the common man without much direct informing. That's a major propaganda hurdle to overcome considering the political manoeuvring, red tape, and budget limitations in the way.

>some part of one of the major parties
For my part, I voted third party because I don't believe either major party still has any goal other than staying on top. Look at how little they get done. Look at how little they get done well. Incompetence, arrogance, and pettiness are not traits unique to the 2017 presidential candidates; they are the cancer killing both major parties.

>>445
>It turns out, no matter how unpopular both major parties are, the vast majority of voters will still vote for them.
Actually, the majority of voting age public stayed at home.

>>446
You have a point, I should have quantified that:

No matter how unpopular both major parties are, the vast majority of people who still give a shit enough to leave the house on election day will still vote for them.

>>447
But the people stayed at home because they didn't have a candidate they believed in. Just putting any jackass on the ticket isn't going to work.

I know to you espousing popular opinions is a betrayal, but you have to understand - the opinions you so fervently believe in are deeply unpopular. That's why even in an election year with two candidates who are so deeply unpopular most voters stayed home rather than voted for the LP candidate. That's how unpopular the LP is. The stayed home because they didn't believe in the LP or either party. They had nobody on the ticket to vote for who they believed in.

A third party candidate who actually held popular positions that the majority of voters believed in, they would have a chance. But even then their party really needs to be well known to voters by winning local and state offices, so their party and what it believes is a known quantity.

LP is a lost cause man, they're a known quantity, nobody wants what they're selling except for zealots. A new party though, one which starts small, follows through, gets larger, practices what it preaches... that could have a chance.

>>448
>opinions you so fervently believe in
There's that presuming you know what I believe in again.

>They had nobody on the ticket to vote for who they believed in.
This is correct. What I had hoped to accomplish during the election was to convince such people that it was in their interest to vote for any third party, even at random, in such a situation. Leaving the problem in the hands of pro-active voters and the two major parties has not served their interest; they should do something to upset the status quo. Only by demonstrating that the two major parties do not have absolute control over the American people can we force them to take an interest in serving the people's interest.

I don't expect a third party to win the presidency more than once in a century, if it ever happens, but for the sake of democracy this statistic needs to be higher than zero. Otherwise the two major parties will only become more corrupt and complacent, obstructionism and partisan bickering will only further divide the American people, and the United States will implode into a black hole of incompetence.

>>449
>There's that presuming you know what I believe in again.
True, but I'm assumed you were the guy who would have voted for the Libertarian Party even if the most popular best fit candidate in the world was on either the DNC or GOP ticket because, well, you're a Libertarian and they check all the boxes that matter for you. If you're not that guy then so be it, sorry, but he made pretty much the exact same argument as you are now.

>What I had hoped to accomplish during the election was to convince such people that it was in their interest to vote for any third party, even at random, in such a situation.
Which is a ridiculous thought, people will only vote for candidates they believe in. You are not deciding on steak vs. eggs for dinner, you're casting a vote for who will lead the US for 4 years. You need to take this seriously.

>they should do something to upset the status quo
That assumes that the third party would not, in fact, be worse than the status quo. In the case of Gary Johnson, it would be. Just because you want to smoke a joint with the guy doesn't mean he'd actually make a good POTUS.

>Otherwise the two major parties will only become more corrupt and complacent
Or we could have another major conflict that unites us against a common enemy, ala WW2, at which point all the pointless bickering and stupidity comes to an end as we realize, collectively, that stupidity for stupidity's sake is ultimately stupid.

It doesn't help that the DNC has, since Clinton, adopted a large number of previously held GOP goalposts, which caused the GOP to go from a moderate party capable of getting work done to a party of extremists who think obstructionism and temper tantrums count as responsible governance. Say what you will about Tax & Spend, but it sure as hell beats Cut Taxes & Spend, which was the GOP mantra from 2000-2008.

>>450
I don't think that guy ever existed. I think you just presumed I was a Libertarian because I voted for Gary Johnson. I've never told you exactly what my political leaning is. To be honest, I don't sincerely believe in anyone or anything. I vote for neither the candidate I most identify with (because they are all fake) nor the candidate whose promises sound the most likely to serve my interests (because they are all lies).

I vote to create a scenario in which the government is coerced into serving my interests, because I do not believe it will otherwise.

>You need to take this seriously.
I take it very seriously. You need to look at the bigger picture.

We're not just deciding who will lead the country for the next four years. We're setting precedent for what candidates in the next election will say and do in order to get elected; we're demonstrating what our standards are and what qualities and faults we are willing to accept in our leaders. We're making both minor and major adjustments to the course the country is taking over the decades.

We're at a place in our democracy now where the requirements to become the president are as follows: you must be filthy rich; you must be a dynamic and well-known character in some field, preferably other than politics; you must have a nasty rivalry with another candidate in your own party; you must make policy statements that commit to nothing but appear to address the most recent, short-term issues facing the country; you must use big data and think tanks to take advantage of the mind of the common man; you must pretend to be a common man; you must have a trait (genetic, personality, behavioural, or otherwise) that enables you to stand out as a 'first'; and above all you must be a member of either the Republican or Democratic party.

>That assumes that the third party would not, in fact, be worse than the status quo.
A valid point. Still, I think it's important to demonstrate that we can elect a candidate from a third party and I see very little for us to lose by doing so as shit only seems to get worse with the major party presidents anyway.

>stupidity for stupidity's sake is ultimately stupid
The danger here is that it might not unite us. Look at how the American people reacted to the Second Gulf War and the War on Terror. All the while Bush and Obama were warmongering in the Middle East, the United States was sliding back into a state of division and violence not seen since the Jim Crow era. The stupidity multiplied, exponentiated, and erupted all over us.

>It doesn't help
This was a calculated move. The two parties have been gradually reducing the differences in their core policies for so long no one really knows what they are now. Most hard-line supporters seem to believe their party serves their interests simply because they have interests and are a supporter of the party--wilfully ignoring any case that appears otherwise--or they still hold that the two parties have maintained the same philosophical differences they had a century ago. There was a time when the two parties were actually in philosophical opposition, but now they only oppose each other the way two bratty siblings do: squabbling over anything just to see who can get the most of their parent's attention.

At a time when our government needs a spanking more than ever, the American people have forgotten that we are the parents.

>>451
Have you ever met our current president?

I mean it's easier then ever.

Really he's a nice guy. Don't grab Melania's ass because SS now has orders to shoot people who do it, sorry about that.

It's a really nice ass so it's hard. Like for the final boss of Milf Yoga Booty right when you kill the devil and then the Metatron opens the heavens for the god of all ass to descend into your hand.

File 150885339886.jpg - (133.30KB , 1200x630 , his preference is obvious.jpg )

>>454
You must be talking about Ivanka's ass.

File 151035470149.jpg - (66.42KB , 434x361 , Fake Secretary Fake Letter.jpg )

>>454
First realize you're having a conversation with an emo teenager who thinks contrarianism is a workable philosophy.

>nice guy
Nice guys don't spend decades stiffing people who work for them. Nice guys don't call into radio shows claiming to be press agents with grandiose tales of how attractive he is. Nice guys don't spend hours ghost writing letters claiming to be a wonderful guy.

Do you know why? Because nice guys would pay their bills. Nice guys wouldn't need to call/write in, they would be a man, accept their failings, and learn from their mistakes.

>>464
>contrarianism
We need contrarianism now; not for the rest of all time. You don't like the existing third parties, fine; you don't like their candidates, fine. The two major parties are still indisputably the cancer that is killing the United States. The office of the President has been in the control of just two parties since 1869; and what do you propose, keep being a dupe who keeps these sycophants in power forever because you have no better ideas?

>>465
The better idea is apparently finding a candidate that'll appeal to everyone. Yeah, good luck with that when it seems that politics obeys a version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: either you can precisely know a politician's positions or you can have a politician with a lot of momentum, but you can't really have both.

>>466
Hear me out, this sounds like a symptom of our decrepit democracy's decay into a two-party dichotomy. Everything is split two ways: the issues, the politicians, the "sides", the electorate. The middle ground is full of landmines left over from old wars, and I blame the two parties. They like it this way, they want us to have to make these kinds of choices.

>>466
>everyone
You don't have to appeal to everyone. You just have to appeal to 51% of the people. Or less than 51%, as in the case of Trump and Dubya.

The problem with current politics is if you encounter a problem with even just 1% then suddenly the process is completely unworkable and impossible to implement.

This isn't true. This is just what very stupid people say. They latch onto the outlier and then insist that outlier applies to the remainder. It doesn't. It just applies to the outlier.

>>451
>I don't think that guy ever existed. I think you just presumed I was a Libertarian because I voted for Gary Johnson.
No, he existed. I don't think you remember that these conversations existed before /civ/, when there was a shitstorm of activity in /b/. There were a metric shitton of Libertarians in /b/ back then.

There was one guy who claimed he's running his own extremely profitable multimillion dollar company that somehow can't move out of the insanely corrupt state he claims to be living in, leading him to pontificate at length about how Russia and the US were exactly the same. Yeah. And some people wonder why I think the internet research agency (or organizations like it) posts to 7chan.

I'm sorry if you've stumbled into /civ/ since then and I got you and the other guy(s) confused, but when two (or more) anons are preaching the same basic narrative its easy to think you're talking to the same person.

>>469
Did we talk politics that much on /b/?

I used to post the news (I always misspell the names of my sources; HufflePoast, etc.), but /b/ always felt a little out of touch on current issues to me. During the campaign and election season, of course, what you say happened. Which is why /777/ rolled /trump/ and eventually /civ/ was created to contain the shitposting.

>>470
/b/ was little more than turd sandwich and giant douche in the months leading up to the us elections.

you had to go back 2 pages to find even a single post unrelated to those fuckwits.

>>471
Perhaps it was a bit worse than the usual summerfaggotry.

>>472
Perhaps you weren't around 7chan then.

>>469
>but when two (or more) anons are preaching the same basic narrative its easy to think you're talking to the same person
See, it's not that I don't know what you mean, but that I'm trying to tell you it applies both ways. That "other" guy, I'm reasonably sure that was me. You thought you were talking to two people, but they are both me, cast in different projections of your insecurities--I have made no attempt to appear as two people.

File 151192015655.jpg - (39.56KB , 450x450 , Utopia.jpg )

>>475
>That "other" guy, I'm reasonably sure that was me
When the "other" guy I was talking to stated unequivocally that he was a Libertarian, I don't see how that could be true. What I think is that the "other" guy disappeared and you wandered in some time later. Since you were preaching the same basic narrative I assumed the "other" guy had come back.

I very much doubt that you were trying to appear as two people, I just believe you're preaching the same basic narrative but for very different reasons.

The other guy believed in Libertarianism the way Libertarians believe in bitcoin. Poking fun at modern Libertarianism was met by walls of pencil-scribbled pseudo-religious diatribe aimed at nonbelievers.

You seem to believe a momentary change will affect the political system long term. It overlooks all the times the existing political system went from two to three or more parties, only to end up back at two parties.

Remember the Civil War? It started because the Whigs imploded leaving abolitionists (Republicans) with enough votes to win, while slavers (Democrats) refused to admit that an abolitionist won to the point that they began a course of action that destroyed their way of life and way too many fucking lives on their citizens on an ultimately fruitless, not to mention inherently treasonous, endeavor.

Is Trumpism or Science enough reason to break the country in two after a pot-smoking jock got elected? Because Democrats or Republicans would have to start a new civil war for there to be any real change after jocko mcdunderhead was elected. Otherwise he'd just be another caretaker president, out in 4 after getting nothing done.

If Trump keeps up another 3 years of this he'll be another caretaker president, albeit one that shows why you should never should elect people in orange face.

>>480
>stated unequivocally that he was a Libertarian
Oh, well then, that was not me. I would not say that. Sorry to doubt you, and sorry to be rude. I can't account for what you find similar between my proposal and his; I'm not recommending any particular party nor do I personally support any particular party over another. I simply want to check the health of our democracy, because it looks really sick right now. We've had two presidents in the last thirteen years elected against the popular vote, voter turnout has been dismal throughout my lifetime, and voters consciously elect politicians to manage their country that they wouldn't trust to watch their children.

>a momentary change will affect the political system long term
It will. I don't expect it to fundamentally alter the way US politics work, but it will set a precedent that needs to be set in the 21st century: that the people--not the parties--are in control.

>all the times the existing political system went from two to three or more parties, only to end up back at two parties
Yes, that is likely to happen again. It is likely this cycle will never be broken so long as partisan democracies exist to perpetuate it. Much the same way people grow old and sick, democracies grow complacent and corrupt. Unlike people however, democracies can be rejuvenated at any time--provided the right people and the right circumstances come together.

The times you are talking about were almost one hundred and fifty years ago. Every corrupt or scandalous political thing that has happened to you, your parents, your grand parents and your great grand parents happened under the purview of either a Republican or Democratic president. Isn't time to try something else, if for no other reason than to try something else?

File 151271357914.jpg - (115.33KB , 882x891 , Towels.jpg )

>>481
>The times you are talking about were almost one hundred and fifty years ago.
Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

History is cyclical. The sooner you learn this the sooner you can use history to better understand the present. The humans who were alive 150 years ago are virtually identical to the humans who are here today.

Their reasons for acting the way they acted are the same reasons people act the way they act today.

Don't get lost in the superficial differences.

>>492
>Don't get lost in the superficial differences.
I'm going to have to ask you to translate all this edginess into an actual statement.

File 151342685254.jpg - (37.45KB , 540x540 , Morally Treasonable.jpg )

>>495
Yeah, I figured that would fly right over your head.

How about this: Change for the sake of change is never worthwhile.

>>502
Shit doesn't have wings.

I have not proposed change for the sake of change; I propose change for the health of democracy.

>>506
>I propose change for the health of democracy.
For that to be true you would have to explain why it would be healthy. All you've explained is change for the sake of change. When a previous instance where the change your propose was fundamentally unhealthy for democracy you ignored it.

I assume this is because you haven't actually thought this shit through, and are discarding any historical examples because you're a special and unique snowflake that has never existed in the history of the world, AKA people today are fundamentally different from people in the past.

Put down your smartphone and open a history book.

>>512
I see your point, and raise you that you must still defend the status quo as healthy to counter my argument. If you cannot, then my proposal still stands because we don't have another reasonable option. The only thing we can do about it is change who we vote for, so I propose that we change who we vote for.

There's not going to be another Civil War, no one cares enough. There's not going to be an American Revolution, our military can and will dispose of any "home-grown terrorists" the moment they raise arms against the government. There's not going to be a new Constitutional Convention, no one will ever get enough of the American people on one side of any issue long enough to petition for an amendment let alone rewriting the foundation of our government.

If you really think keeping the two-party system in power is good for us, tell me why. Alternatively, you could start voting third-party.

File 151504088659.jpg - (136.32KB , 500x1310 , Knives.jpg )

>>524
I'm not going to defend the status quo until you come up with a rational reason why people should cast votes for candidates they don't support or believe in. Being a contrarian is not rational.

Listen, I get it, you're an irrational emotional teenager, but sooner or later you're going to outgrow that phase and turn into an adult. Start down that path now, staying a manchild forever won't do you any good.

>>527
>candidates they don't support or believe in
Can you not read or are you just trolling? This is not what I have proposed anyone should do. I have proposed they find a third party candidate they can support. There are a lot of choices, and if there's nothing they like they can run for themselves. If you'll forgive me for not stating the explicit name of the fallacy you are making, it's that you assume what does not exist now never will: you cannot know that; and we both know the reason why is because not enough people take third parties seriously enough for them to shape up.

I know, it takes a ridiculous amount of money and pre-existing popularity to win the presidency--both conditions the two-party system reinforces--so it doesn't sound like there's much chance either way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, on the contrary it very much means that they should. We all should be voting for minority candidates; we have to diversify our political arena.

>>528
Forgive me if I'm yet again attributing the actions of others upon you, but didn't you lambaste others for not casting a vote for Johnson?

Casting a vote for a candidate you don't believe in is not going to get you anything you want, even if it's in pursuit of some nebulous not clearly defined goal. Supporting a third party candidate only works when you can't grow up, grow a pair, and find a first party candidate that you can support.

Listen, I get it. You bought into the decades of right wing hogwash about Clinton. You're a child. You simply don't know any better. So rather than looking at the sources of all that shit and noticing that absolutely none of it ever led to anything more serious than a blowjob (even the very act of declaring that the blowjob was not sex in court when asked a very pointed question under oath that explicitly did not define oral sex as sex, even after asking for clarification on the question before answering it, meaning the entire impeachment was based on the lie that he perjured himself), you decide that someone who throws shit at a wall long enough must mean the wall was dirty before they started throwing shit at it, no matter how many times it gets washed away and disinfected, it's still going to be dirty because you're a germophobe.

In short, you really need to stop and examine what your motivation is for being a contrarian. None of the shit you've brought up so far is logical, just emotional. There must be someone else because you're a special unique snowflake and you can't ever possibly find a shade of grey you can believe in. Big deal. Become an adult and start investing time into things instead of taking the pablum you're being fed.

Johnson is an idiot. He was an idiot. He is still an idiot. He will never stop being an idiot. You need look no further than his time as governor to find numerous examples of him being an idiot time and time and time again. Wanting to smoke weed with a politician is not reason enough to vote for them. They have to actually stand for things you believe in. And believing in smoking weed isn't enough, no matter how much that may pain you.

>>559
>lambaste others for not casting a vote for Johnson
No, I never did that. I never told anyone to vote for Johnson, I may have lambasted them for not voting third party.

You realize in the 2016 campaign both major parties candidates were under federal investigation?

I'm not a contrarian;I'm not suggesting that you should grow up, grow a pair, and take your mouth off the cock of bipartisanism merely to enjoy contradicting the majority. The two party system is bad, an you should feel bad for supporting it. It only ever gets more corrupt and complacent because they expect to stay on top forever. Show them you have the power to knock them down just once and they might learn to respect their voters a little.

>>587
>I'm not a contrarian
lol, just realized how paradoxical that sounds.

>muh white race
Only mutts cling to racial pride. Monoethnic people celebrate their ethnic group. Norwegians don't have "white pride." They have NORWEGIAN pride.
Fucking retard.

>>807
To whom are you replying?

>>817
to everyone, real or strawman, who has expressed the idea "muh white race," presumably.

>>807
Despite not being a member of the EU, I doubt that Norwegians would be immune from feeling a pan-European identity that overlaps with their identity as Norwegian or more specifically as an Oslofag, Trondheimfag, or wherever else have you.

On the other hand, you have families in the States which are proudly of Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. heritage, even despite the inevitable mixture that comes from the limited choices before your family would start to get inbred.

>>842
>to everyone, real or strawman, who has expressed the idea "muh white race," presumably.
Curious, since that hasn't happened anywhere in this thread...

>>843
OP did.

But then again he also has an irrational hatred of women so I guess it's par for the course.

>>847
>OP did.
No, I didn't.

>>849
Oh, I see. You were born without the ability to understand humor.

How tragic for you.

>>872
>humor
Being wrong is not making a joke.

File 153195292192.jpg - (43.80KB , 576x1024 , 1A.jpg )

>>873
>Being wrong is not making a joke.
But it is the basis of an American political party.

>>875
Can't argue with that.

Interesting to see an attempted joke from an obvious 9 year old.

>>1235
You're going to have to be a little more specific, unless you mean Shillary is a nine year old, or that her joke was written by one. It might have been written by one, it was a shitty joke; but Hill-dawg is geriatric, yo.

File 154907588534.jpg - (94.75KB , 750x602 , Ask Not.jpg )

>>1236