Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Stop being hurtful
OK if you agree to an extent, where do we draw the line? Anytime someone becomes powerful they’re not trust worthy because power corrupts humans.
I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism
- Thread starter rickyb
- Start date
OK if you agree to an extent, where do we draw the line? Anytime someone becomes powerful they’re not trust worthy because power corrupts humans.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Really how was RFK more corrupt?
What makes his corruption worse than actually being a hypocrite about Taxes?
Were you aware of West not paying his taxes? Doesn't that make him a lot more corrupt? How can you have utopia without collecting taxes? If you don't kick your feet, how can you have any pudding?
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
I was, unaware @rickyb was in charge of assigning levels of corruption.
no im saying maybe you can find bad stuff on anyone. theres probably something on ralph nader but im not sure what it is. every election theres usually someone overwhelmingly good, be it jill stein, or dennis kucinich, or mike gravel, so you really dont have to compromise.Stop being hurtful
OK if you agree to an extent, where do we draw the line? Anytime someone becomes powerful they’re not trust worthy because power corrupts humans.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
But actually, you do have to compromise because they’re human beings and will eventually bow to corruption. Or at least that’s your opinion of every single leader so far.
chris hedges and glenn greenwald have reviewed RFK. one thing was israel. another thing was his mythical narrative about america. another thing was about RFK's history whether he can be trusted or not. i forget.
yea i think holding onto the ring of power corrupts over time. but at least they are minimally corrupt to begin with unlike the guys who are president who are clearly corrupt for decades.
And him splitting the Democratic the vote has nothing to do with their criticism. Uh-huh. Could they be....wait for it....corrupt?
everyone is corrupt but not equally
no they are not criticizing rfk for taking votes because being a spoiler is a corrupt matrix argument - by that logic bush was a spoiler because he took votes from gore lol.
Bush and Gore weren't in the same party numbskull.
ahhh jesus is monitoring your language
was ralph nader in the same party? was ross perot in the same party? daouuuuuuuu hahaha
Ross Perot took very little from Clinton. Most of his vote would've gone to Bush Sr. And yes he was a Republican but couldn't win the nomination so he ran as an independent.
it doesnt matter, getting votes does not make anyone a spoiler
According to you. You don't understand the issue. Of course Perot, Nader, West, et al have a right to run for president. But the bulk of the votes will go to the two major party nominees. If it's close then a third party, or independent, candidate who gets enough votes may cause the nominee of the major party he's most in line with ideologically to lose. Bush and Gore were so close that if the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead then Gore would've won. If Perot hadn't run then Bush Sr. would've gotten most of Perot's 19% and easily beaten Clinton. That's why they're called spoilers. They have no chance of winning but by running they affected the outcome.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
As long as @rickyb says so.I did not see it. Sorry, @rickyb hopefully I can still go to heaven.
love
no theyre called spoilers because corrupt democrat and republicans dont want more choices and voices and in addition want to deflect from their own complete corruption
in addition, anyone who runs is a spoiler. if you dont want spoilers, then just have 1 person run and they will get 100% of the vote therefore making them not a spoiler
you believe in spoilers because you are in the matrix
newolddude
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
