PK htiw klaw eriF

That has to be the most special snowflake version of the left-right dichotomy I've heard. But if the country was established as a break in tradition(from monarchism to republicanism), wouldn't that mean it was (your conception) of leftist from the beginning? If not, if hypothetically the US fell and was reorganized as a monarchical dictatorship, would a movement to topple that and restart a republic be left-wing?

Interesting, but this line in particular caught my attention. Despite popular belief, America has been pulled to the right for the past 30 years. That has to change. On what planet has America been pulled to the right? Not this one, because America has always been fundamentally on the right in terms of governance and the state since inception. This hasn't changed because the function of the state is still primarily the preservation of property and the dominant ideology is liberalism, albeit conservative and Keynesian strains. If I had to guess the shift of the Democratic Party from New Deal/Keynesian reformists to whatever the Republicans were two decades ago and the Republicans from to Chicago School to Chicago School with more Austrian influences. We haven't had a leftist president at all. The closest we had were the progressives and FDR, and that new deal and square deal stuff was mostly to appease the labor movement who were ready to lynch the owners of capital. The only serous leftist candidate for President we've had was Debs and he's been gone a long time. The interventionist policy has historically been used to prop up anti-socialist governments, the economy is thoroughly capitalist in America, and the right has managed to control the political process completely. If you think the left has gotten anything it wants, let alone has been steering, you probably have confused Keynesian Liberalism for Leftism. The organized Left in the US is dead. The reformists have fallen to complacency and the insurgents have been shattered by Cointelpro. It could very well come back , likely in an anarchist form, with the current economic turbulence and authoritarian measures enacted to protect the interests of the bourgeois, but it isn't alive now.

Here's what some California voters think

Yesterday's hell doesn't make today's any less unpleasant. We lost the draft, now we've got surveillance on a massive scale. I can marry my gf without worrying about going to jail, but there's a far-right on the rise(like the Golden Dawn in Greece) that could really cause some damage. And you're almost 40 if you aren't there already. You've got a steady job and a wife with a steady job that combined pay well enough to take care of two kids and go on RV vacations. You aren't ****ting gold, but from what I gather from your posts on an obscure video game forum you're doing pretty well. Most of my peers are not. People who graduated in the top 5% of my high school and did very well in college can't find jobs that are good enough to rent an apparent. The jobs that they do get rarely give them more than 30 hours a week. The only ones working full-time are the ones who stumbled into a specialized labor job(like myself), and in those cases the pay still isn't enough to do anything long-term. We're one economic crash from another Depression and the things that caused the last one haven't been fixed. The Middle East is a powderkeg waiting to blow and while Best Korea wouldn't start a Nuclear Holocaust they'll be larping like they want to.

Yeah, and you don't have to worry about being drafted, you get to go to college regardless of your parents education, and you get to live tweet the entire thing to the world. Aren't you even in a biracial relationship? How easy do you think that was 50 years ago? And that college is what a high school education was to my parents, except it's so expensive my peers are in crippling debt to get it. And the jobs available when they're done don't pay well enough for then to sustainably pay off the debt. And all this is assuming that the latest trade deal or H-1b visa doesn't allow our mastersglorious job creators to pay some poor fellows from thirdworldistan a starvation wage even less than mine while I get let go. "Muh iPhone" is a hollow concession to this economic reality.

I'm 24, today is my "back in the day". Low wages and fighting 50 other college graduates for a bad job is my reality.

We've had stagnating wages for years, flight of production to third world **** holes, a sham of a republic where a cabal of powerful individuals control politicians and policy rather than voters, and an increasing surveillance state designed to keep the people in check so they don't injure their betters. If you want to pretend we live in a glorious golden age because someone can retweet vapid nonsense from an iPhone after their shift or that a third party is all that's needed to fix the political system then go ahead and fiddle Nero.

What's the flag to the left? I have never seen that one before. YPG.

I got no idea what all the drama in this thread is but all your ideologies are dumb and the likely president is going to be a corporate whore who sells the working class out with trade deals and concessions to the rulers of this world. It ain't gonna get better through an election or petition and we're stuck with it until the crash that destroys everything.

Mate if I wanted to impugn propertarians all I would have to do is link to a /pol/ thread or bring up the "Holohoax" issue of Reason. I posted Gandalf gone wild because that's the foot the Libertarian party put forward in an election where Republicans have their most disliked candidate in quite a long while and would have likely jumped on the LP train. And because it's hilarious. But if you would rather talk about widespread appeal of libertarianism(the US hypercapitalist version at least, not the original anarchists) OK. It ain't gonna happen. You've had Ron Paul run in two presidential races espousing libertarian values on a huge stage and that has come to nothing. You've had the same thing with Rand, and will likely will in 2020 to little success. All Gary Johnson would bring to a debate is "drugs and gay's are cool, **** taxes and rules(except certain ones we like)". In a climate where workers are increasingly opposed to free trade(which last I checked libertarians liked), where an increased wage is being popularized and a certain segment of burgerland is viewed as paying too little taxes by the masses, where mass immigration isn't viewed favorably, and when the guy who would normally be screeching about gays has said he's fine with transbathrooms Gary Johnson ain't gonna bring anything that's going to interest voters.

Always.

Because the two party system is a consequence of our election system. And the two parties are owned by corporate interests looking to further their interests. Social media and meme magic can't match the power and resources that comes with the two party monopoly, at best they can work within it to shift the overton window. Trump and Bernie didn't go independent or some non-Big2 party, they had to go through the Big2 parties to get anywhere. Their relative success reinforces the two party system, not undermines it. And then we get to the fact that as private entities, the Big2 are more than able to change rules to ensue who they prefer wins the primary. Expect superdelegates or minimum year party membership or something else to come about to stop another Sanders or Trump by the next presidential election. The biggest surprise for the general would be record non-participation. There's no white knight riding in to save the election.

Only for the cycle to return the next election. At this point a strong(over 10% of the national vote) showing for a candidate would just lead to blaming said candidate for spoiling it for whichever Big 2 candidate lost. Johnson will be no different, Republicans will blame him for Trump losing and next election the Libertarian candidate won't break single digits in the hypothetical situation where he grabs more than %10 of the vote. It's enough show a pattern. We've had the Big2 parties dominate presidential and congressional politics for over a century. It's not going anywhere and the choice between one Goldman Sachs employee and another isn't much of a choice.

well, better to do something than just moan about it on internetz right? Like sign a petition on the internetz? Or complaining about others complaining?

Do you? Where can I bet on it and what odds will I get? Our voting system is going to tend to a two party monopoly. Flooding the ballot with various other parties isn't going to change that and voting doesn't do **** anyways.

What about SJWNazis?

He's gonna win it.

Bezos fears the Bern. http://archive.is/ZWjEH http://archive.is/v4Ogn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow Full video. Enjoy it. Green Party may become full on anti-capitalist

What are your thoughts on this guy?

The power of what now? The power meaning the appeal of left-wing populism.... You... do realize that most of Sanders' positions wouldn't count as "radical" or "populist" in any way, shape or form here in Europelandia, right? Yes, Sanders is a social democrat, and a mild one at that, but he certainly fits "populist".

I wear a fedora because I'm euphoric.

WHAT THE F*** DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?! He's gonna build a rainstorm and make clouds pay for it.

I don't think you understand how elections work. Gore was not entitled to those 500 votes Nader got, nor the other 3rd party votes, nor the Democrat votes for Bush, nor the potential votes of those that didn't vote. If Gore was unable to convince those 500 people(along with all the others mentioned) that he was a good choice(because as we all know a third party candidate has no chance in the two party monopoly) that is on him, not Nader. The same applies to Perot in 92. He didn't cause Bush Sr to lose, Bush Sr's failures as a candidate did that. The same may apply to Hillary in this election. Sanders supporters largely do not like her. A good portion will not vote for her and may vote Stein or even Trump. This is not Bernie costing her the election, this is her being a candidate that fails to get these people to vote for her.