Trump is my last pick, but if it’s between him, racist Elizabeth warren, and overpriced coffee guy...I’ll just vote independent to throw a wrench in the system.

Unplug from the cnn matrix dude. How the liberal media roasted little girls for wearing Moana costumes because it’s cultural appropriation...but gives Warren a pass for literally pretending to be a minority to get special benefits of being a minority just shows the integrity and bias of the media.

Actually not true...I would rather not vote at all if it’s warren vs trump. Warren and trump are equally last place.

wait, starbucks is an option?

Yeah non, you get a free frapachino when you vote.

In which one sticks it to the man by re-electing the man.

I don’t either lol. But look at the choices.

The "greatest democracy on the planet" and that's what you can bring to the plate? Hahaha hahaha.

In the other thread I addressed the problem with the worst of the worst getting to the top and how that needs to get fixed before we allow the state any more power. You are trying to pigeon hole me into an “America can do no wrong” trope. We have the best creed and the best constitution. We are the best in theory, not in practice.

The president - every president - is a puppet. The last one who wasn't? JFK

^wow, I agree with Miles.

Just the fact you need to mention you're "the best in theory", pffft...not even true, you think you're the best, might even believe you're the best but that is just your amerinationalism talking. The fact you feel the urge to measure yourself as the best...You're simply stuck in step 1: denial. Stop measuring, start improving. USA! USA! Did you even travel, ever?

My opinion dude. The is constitution limits govt and allows for maximum liberty and equality of opportunity. Yes, we have not lived up to it, but we have been moving in the right direction pretty consistently. Good system.

Where are you from?

Equality of opportunity so the people that are not up for seizing that opportunity, are simply unable to, had some bad luck in their lives are simply screwed and are even blamed and punished for it, "should've seized that opportunity you loser, now get out of my way!". Your system is even worse than Nazism, because with them if you were not among the chosen ones it was at least clear and you could take measures, this false hope or "Dream" as you call it is a nightmare for most Mericans and the rest of the planet too. Even the people in Libya under Khadafy had it better (better healthcare, better literacy, etc.) than lots and lots of Americans.

WOW. THATS JUST DUMB.

Some assistance in the rotisserie department please.

This cat needs some roasting for that idiotic comment...I’m too busy at the moment eating chocolate pretzels and CADing...

Life expectancy in Khadafy's Libya rose from 61 to 74, the life expectancy of black men in the USA's just 72.2...and the illiteracy rate in the USA is almost double that of Libya, a whopping 14%, no wonder people don't know who to vote for, they can't read the bloody ballots! Also, USA killed more than 20 million people since WWII, the Nazi's haven't killed anyone since WWII(!) They did however kill 6 million Jews and a couple of million others during WWII. But USA has killed more and crushed more dreams. So, yes I think you need some assistance.

Godwin's law?

Apparently, sooner or later any discussion about Nazism turns into a discussion about American politics.

^How many people agree with this nut bag?

What do you mean nut bag, the numbers speak for themselves, if you kill more you're more evil. Wasn't that your argument in favour of the death penalty?

Libya? Where slavery is still happening? Wtf are you talking about. The fact that no one is calling this out is proof that the left is deranged and ideologically possessed. I hope you are trolling. If so, well done sir.

I'm simply talking facts, that's why no one is coming to your rescue, clearly can't handle it yourself ;-)

 All those illegal immigrants in the US, with nowhere to go, no rights, no papers, working for next to nothing, who can't even go to the authorities when being exploited for fear of being deported, they are not slaves? You're being such a hypocrite. 

Slavery in Libya popped up after America "liberated" Libya from Khadafy, without American warmongering there would be no slavery today in Libya, no Al-Qaida or ISIS, etc. either. The people of Libya must be so grateful for your "liberation". Khadafy didn't want to jump through your American hoops so had to be killed, we all know what happened next. 

Get your bloody facts straight! The only troll here is you.

The US did make it worse. We turned an authoritarian police state into an unstable war zone.

All those illegal immigrants in the US, with nowhere to go, no rights, no papers, working for next to nothing, who can't even go to the authorities when being exploited for fear of being deported, they are not slaves? You're being such a hypocrite.” No, it’s unfortunate, but they are not the same as slaves, and they DO have rights. They also probably have a higher quality of life than the average Libyan pre US coup.

Our replies crossed, so this one was for the one before

Much worse, it led to the killing of between 150.000 and 360.000 Libyans, I think they preferred to live in an authoritarian state with plenty of food, a good education system and excellent healthcare than "political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Isil [Islamic State] in north Africa." Their GDP per capita was at times even higher than the US and EU, well not any more thank you very much.

You can clearly see the effect of American led sanctions on their economy since the 80s. Here the Human Development Index pre American warmongering:

Also, Khadafy's approval ratings were way above any American president since the end of WWII (found data since Truman), the world should probably "liberate" your country ;-)

I hear Kim Jung un has 100% approval ratings.

Great comeback! (And Hitler was democratically elected...!)

I still have no clue about that Howard Schultz, lol.

Brad Pitt?

If I could vote, I'd vote for Balkins.

"Team player" pretty much defines everything that is wrong. They all play for the same team, and it's not ours.

* teamplayer that can mobilise a nation with their vision

Kanye West 2020

Ye(s) 2020!

jla-x, look at the choices? how can you seriously propose that trump is a better choice than anybody else at this point? Have you heard steve bannon lately? he's hooked on manufacturing crises for as long as he can, so the evangelicals and the gullible can believe in a stupid rapture that would save "them" and not "us" from the imminent collapse of society. all the while little donny gets his russian kicks. I have a way out if this madness gets beyond 2020, I hope you do too.

Did I say that?

I was very clear that shit vs vomit= 2 bad choices. Shultz is a moderate and best choice if he runs as independent.

You seem to be unable to see Beyond the false dichotomy you’ve been sold.

I'm with you, especially if this "forum" is open to everybody from anywhere, shouldn't torture foreigners with american shit-show politics.

I didn't follow my own advice. I'm so sorry.

The two party system is us vs. them.

Deciding if you'd rather get shot or stabbed.

Stabbed. definitely.

I like Ron Paul.

Pay up!

nice bikini!

I voted for Ron Paul also...

Anti-lgbt, anti-Roe v. Wade, anti-tax, anti-welfare, anti-food assistance, anti-Medicare / Medicaid, anti-college aid, anti-EPA, anti-gun control, anti-immigration (build the wall!), anti-unemployment benefits, anti-minimum wage, anti-social security, etc. You voted FOR this?!

I prefer Gary Johnson

Yes voted for him twice in the ger
neral election

Your screen name is a perfect fit.

What's that, among Faux News viewers?

Gallup has him at 37%. Still scary, and still almost double Congress (20%).

Rasmussen Poll is 52%

Any one poll taken in isolation is likely to be incorrect.

Rasmussen. Say no more.

Rasmussen was the only poll that got it right on election night 2016.

As any competent pollster would tell you, one data point does not reflect a trend. Not saying they're wrong, or even biased. I am saying that the fact that they were more correct once doesn't affect whether or not they're more correct generally.

This explains it nicely https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/

I got one answer right on the ARE. Now all of my colleagues ask me to help them study for their exams.

Yuck VOX.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Sorry, but vox is really ridiculous. The left is just mad that not everyone wants to get on the Marxist bandwagon. They see 2020 a an easy powergrab, but greatly underestimate the fact that most Americans are only slightly over the center line left or right. If Shultz gets there, I will bet you that he receives the highest vote of a 3rd party ever. I don’t even know his politics very well, but all he has to do is not get caught in some scandal and he will certainly draw a large portion of the vote from both sides. The dems have more invested in this, because it will confirm that the far-left is turning people off.

Ezra Klein + Matt Yglesias are two of the most prominent Neoliberal / Establishment Democrat voices on the internet. To even pretend in bad faith that they're "left" or "Marxist" is to unmask your complete lack of informed understanding. Also it's still an ad hominem.

You've yet to provide a single shred of argument outside of your own head and appeals to "common sense." There's nothing to convince anyone that you have any clue what you're spouting off about. It's not even whether I think you're right or wrong, I just think you don't know or comprehend enough to have a convincing opinion. Maybe stick to architecture + parenting. You seem to be good at those.

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/can-the-regressive-left-a_b_14857046.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43149/just-how-worried-are-democrats-about-howard-ashe-schow

Right after Schultz announced that he was “seriously considering” a run for president as an Independent, Twitter Leftists began calling for a boycott of Starbucks, even though Schultz is no longer the CEO. Then, former Obama officials started hyperventilating, saying Schultz’s run would “ruin the world.” Finally, polls were released shortly after that found Schultz polled at a whopping 17% in a three-way race against President Donald Trump and either Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). Trump and one of those Democrats polled at 33% and 31% respectively, making Schultz’s 17% a huge upset.“

^from article

When people are scared of a centrist politician...we are in trouble.

Schultz is not a centrist or a politician.

What those polls show is that a third party protest candidate will take ~17% of votes away from the major party candidate, thereby not winning and likely splitting the vote of the side he most closely aligns with. Happened with Perot. Happened with Nader. Happened (to a lesser extent) with Stein.

More centrist than the other 2. He’s not my favorite, but I think we need him in there so that voters can send the 2 main parties a message.

What other 2? There's like 50 friggin' people running for president - who range from solidly left to center-right - and we're still a year out from a primary.

A third party candidate will most likely do nothing but secure an easier victory for the major party candidate with whom they least align. This has *never* not happened. You think we're the first damn generation to get sick of the 2 party system? I got some Nader 2000 stickers to sell ya.

The average alignment of the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton's first term has been right about even with Eisenhower. Meanwhile the GOP has tacked hard right, to the point where they're getting into trouble because outspoken white nationalists are actually winning elections. If a "Centrist" to you is the median point between these two alignments, well then I'm sorry but the Right Wing has duped you. You're voting for Reagan and you've convinced yourself its a protest.

Read more history.

Pay more attention to current trends. The dem party has become the party of the regressive left. I agree with your assessment of the right mostly. All I’m saying is, if it’s down to trump vs warren or Harris people should be able to cast a vote that reflects discontent with both.

If only you lived in an actual democracy and not some bipartisan dictatorship :(

Regressive Left is not a thing.

jla-x, I would also have to disagree on your assessment of the Democratic party. While there are the Warrens and the Sanders out there, there are also the Biden's, Klobuchar's, etc. If you were to look historically as tduds suggested you would see that the party has moved to the right over the past decades. Those candidates attempting to pull the party to the left are getting the most attention but the party itself is much larger than a few candidates. You're making a lot of generalizations that really don't hold any water.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 platform was largely indistinguishable from that of your average 1950's Republican senator. The only difference is the privileges afforded are no longer exclusive to one race.

Regressive left... get real.

tduds, yes the leftist culture has become regressive. The politics are starting to catch up. Many dem front runners are adopting the far-lefts rhetoric.

I cannot wait for Trump to get re-elected!

You have just earned a place on my ignore list. Don’t fret, you’re in good company there.

Funny how I am attacked and name called just due to I how voted in the past. Are you this tolerant in real life? Didn’t say anything to provoke you.

You're the one trolling with non-sequiturs. I'm sure you'll be along presently to whine about how you did no such thing and how you're the real victim here. Your username is apt.

Trolling? How so? Because there is an interesting third party candidate emerging? Enlighten me.

And what non sequiturs? Don’t know what posts you are reading of mine.

If anyone is trolling it’s Miles. You really going to come on here and post a trash article from GQ magazine? Is that what people are calling credible sources today? GQ? Really?!?!

Attack the information, not the source. Really tired of saying this.

GQ has some fantastic opinion writers. Drew Magary, for example, is unimpeachable. You might disagree, but you can't act like it's not serious intellect. A HuffPo blog, on the other hand...

Did you read the article? Do you really believe he is running to throw the Democratic Party?! Total conspiracy! Might as well start posting articles fron Infowars.com

Did *you*? Nowhere in the article is that suggestion floated.

"He has every incentive to be a spoiler for Trump, keeping a progressive Democratic candidate out of the White House in exchange for keeping his low taxes basically where they are." 

This is not saying he's doing this intentionally, but that he will benefit from the effect.

As I wrote earlier in this thread - and which no one has even attempted to address - Schultz is an arrogant pot stirrer with few substantial policy ideas. His main motivation seems to be lowering his personal tax burden. 

I'll add: his supporters' main motivation seems to be a misguided attempt to overthrow the two-party system. This is not a serious platform - from candidate or campaigner - and I see no need to pretend to take it seriously.

I did:
“He has every incentive to be a spoiler for Trump, keeping a progressive Democratic candidate out of the White House in exchange for keeping his low taxes basically where they are.”

Incentive and intention are different words.

It’s how it’s implied throughout the article... it’s ‘painfully obvious’ in title. Like I said might as well start posting Infowars.com articles if we want to share conspiracy theories on archinect.

A non-sequitur is exemplified by posting the comment "I cannot wait for Trump to get re-elected!" as the only text in response to an article that is not about Donald Trump. You're a lousy troll.

As stated in another thread: Libertarians are immune to reason and logic, as well as the fundamental contradictions inherent in their beliefs.

It is blatantly obvious that OneLostArchitect is jla-x. No problem, both are blocked.

Sorry Miles, we are not the same person. There are more than one person that rejects the leftist platform. You’ll find that out in 2020.

And no, I don’t want Trump to win. If you think Trunp is a libertarian you have zero understanding of the philosophy. I’ve made this very clear, but rather than arguing the points, it’s easier to paint people into a dismissible trope I guess.

This is not to defend Miles but jla-x, do you not realize that is exactly what you've been doing by characterizing the entire Democratic party as the far left?

Pete I know what a N-S is. That article was all about Trump. This flew way over your head.

Pete I know what a N-S is. That article was all about Trump. This flew way over your head.

Sure must have.

Trump is about as libertarian as Howard Schultz.

Witty Banter, if that’s what I’ve done, then you are correct. I’ll try to be more specific. A faction of the party is far left. They are overshadowing the voices of the older more moderate dems, and the overall party is starting to pander to them. Why is everyone acting like this is “my” assessment? It’s being talked about across the media spectrum.

The mainstream media (not a term I like but I can't think of a better one right now) frequently plays into a right wing depiction of reality & overstates the left-ness of Democratic policies. I don't know if they do it wittingly, but they do.

Answering for myself, I'm acting like it's "your" assessment because you're the one saying it. If you don't believe it yourself then there's no reason for you to inject it into this conversation. As was previously stated by another poster the entire party has actually been moving right (toward the center) for decades. The vocal minority that are pushing left (Warren, Sanders, etc.) are more of a long overdue correction than some radical insurgence. It doesn't mean the mainstream party is going to accept those ideas, that's what the primaries are for. FWIW Biden being the front runner of the current candidate pool, or at least among the most likely candidates to receive the nomination, has also widely been talked about across the media spectrum and he has a solid moderate record.

Ugh, Biden. Just retire already.

I'm done voting for anyone born before 1960. They had a good shot, time to pass the torch.

Wait, did you just use the media's focus to defend the validity of your opinion? The same media you excoriate daily? But you love 'em when they support your opinions?

“The mainstream media (not a term I like but I can't think of a better one right now) frequently plays into a right wing depiction of reality & overstates the left-ness of Democratic policies. I don't know if they do it wittingly, but they do.” What plant are you living on?

That statement is either because you are to the left of Pol Pot or living on Uranus.

Sneakypete, this is common knowledge. The mainstream media has only recently jumped on the trend, but it’s been happening in the culture for at least a decade. In academia even longer, but certainly has accelerated in the last decade . You are pretending something doesn’t exist that many have been noticing for a while. Maybe you just aren’t paying close enough attention? The culture is overwhelmingly shifting to the left. The politics are starting to pander to that. “Politics are downstream of culture”

*gasp* Democratically elected politicians adopting the agenda that a majority of people support!?! You don't say?

If the culture overwhelmingly shifts to the left, it changes the position of The Center. What is "Centrist" now is not what was "Centrist" 75 years ago.

@tduds the term you’re looking for is corporate media. And the spin is deliberate. Be aware of your own cognitive bias.

“Trump is about as libertarian as Howard Schultz” neither are libertarian. Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. There is a libertarian right and libertarian left. There is even libertarian socialism (Noam Chomsky.) All American mainstream politicians besides maybe Jill Stein (left libertarianish) and Ron Paul (right libertarian), etc... have been north of the line. Yes, until recently most have been to the north right of center, even the dems. Lately, we are seeing a rise in left of center authoritarians that want to expand govt, erode liberty, and impose their secular religion of equity (of outcome), intersectionality, identity politics, socialism, etc. The mainstream dems are starting to take notice of the attention they are getting from the younger generation and pandering to them.

https://archinect.com/forum/thread/150055375/libertarianism

“Trump is about as libertarian as Howard Schultz” neither are libertarian.

Thank you for saying out loud what I implied. You're at odds with your own arguments, a few times over.

^already covered this stuff there...

“gasp* Democratically elected politicians adopting the agenda that a majority of people support!?! You don't say?“. So what. At some point the majority supported Jim Crow. That didn’t make it right. Populism is dumb. The states job is to protect individual liberty and ensure equality under the law not to pander to the majority! That’s actually in direct opposition to liberalism and the things that have progressed western democracies.

“If the culture overwhelmingly shifts to the left, it changes the position of The Center. What is "Centrist" now is not what was "Centrist" 75 years ago.” Yes, that I agree with. It’s still closer to THE center with regards to a political matrix.

Populism is a really bad idea for minorities too. This is obvious.

It's difficult to debate because your positions are rhetorically all over the map. I've honestly stopped caring. You occupy the same space in my brain for politics that Rick does for architecture.

You can't debate someone who is unable to recognize the fundamental contradictions inherent in their beliefs.

Sneaky Pete, What is all over the map? Miles, what contradictions?

Yeah this is exhausting. I took the bait & the topic is getting dragged into new arenas faster than anyone can respond to the previous charge. That's my bad. Sorry, readers.

Going forward I'm not acknowledging anything that doesn't directly address the claim that Howard Schultz is blatantly, comically unqualified to be president.

H

*Hes not qualified. Who is?

Qualified = Career politician?

That's not the question. The thread is "Let's Talk Howard Schultz!" ...he's not qualified. Guess that's the end of the thread.

jla-x, did you take the test? https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/nov/21/how-populist-are-you-quiz

History shows that ^ doesn't play well.

How far we've come.