Howard Schultz thinks politics are broken, and may run for president as an independent

by what you described in first paragraph, you're actually doing what your highlighted(bold) sentence states...

one way or the other, you're still voting for the 'best of the worst'...

 

He lacks support from the majority of Americans, the majority of his own party and all of the other party.

 

The very definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result.
1. Shultz is another experiment of a business owner thinking he can run the country better than politicians.
2. We know that a third party candidate only interferes with the election by splitting voters
3. Running on a 'unite the country' platform is not a policy platform and shouldn't fool anyone.

 

Trump won the election and is the president

Thats all the support he needs

 

Third parties are fine, and good luck to him.

 

Easy to do with Neo Cons/Neo Libs and what they call Liberal Republicans. McCain showed his true nature at his end. Hence why the Country is still stuck with BO care.

Graham still even says publicly his friends across the aisle. Boy do they really have him fooled.

 

Yep, 40 sell outs of the GOP and their Constituients. Word is the Neo Cons want to run Larry Hogan against Trump.

 

Well, at least for the next few days politicians will actually have their hands in their own pockets with as cold as it is.

 

Every time a high profile third party presidential candidate comes along, it casts a bright light on how broken our present system is, because we really should have more than just two choices for president every four years. There is nothing in the constitution that establishes two ruling parties, forces two candidates or establishes the debate commission and its artificial restrictions on who is allowed into the debates. I feel that all of this is therefore disenfranchising the American voter, and so is rather unconstitutional, albeit not explicitly (hence it can't be challenged legally).

I voted Nader when he seemed to have a decent chance. He was getting some media attention and was included in the televised polling that year. I hated the two parties and wanted us to have an alternative, so my vote was mostly a protest vote, although I was young and naive enough to hope that Nader might actually have a shot.

I would like to see us have more than two choices, bottom line. If that means keeping the number even, so that liberals and conservatives all have an even number, so that neither Democrats nor Republicans enjoy a significant advantage (which is whence the spoiler mentality and the resulting "two-party system" derives in the first place), then so be it. I imagine this could be taken up in the debate commission with a change of their rules to allow for additional candidates. It would also be nice to see new political parties formed to put up strong, relatively popular candidates to enter those debates. This would be revolutionary for our politics and a real breath of fresh air.

That's what I say.

 

Neither side of the bird is about equal opportunity and less Gov't - that is the problem.

Both Red and Blue establishment hate fair and free markets. Both love regulation and tax law which keeps the little guy from competing and bastardize fair and free markets. Both love the Oligopolies, price fixing and anti competitive practices.

"Less Gov't" ? What USA have you been living in. Both Red and Blue love Big Govt, Big Gov't spending, Big debt and deficits and increasing Gov't power at the expense of essential liberty. Blue does not apologize for its actions but Red - who claims to be the party of small Gov't - are slightly worse than Blue (a high bar to achieve) with respect to Big Gov't spending and trampling essential liberty.

 

The one that has States that are about Less government.

Want Less Government in Your Life? Meet America’s 10 ‘Freest’ States.....

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/...our-life-meet-americas-10-freest-states.html/

Yes the Repubs/Conservatives are about all having the equal opportunity of availability to chase their dream. Man, woman, black, white, brown, yellow. Doesn't matter. If one wants to sit on their ass and do nothing. That is their Right. They want to break the law. They have that Right. They want to open a business. They have that Right. Want to be Rich. That is their Right. Want to be poor and have nothing. That is their Right.

 

Some one is crazy. All 50 states, including the ten included, are big government progressive states.

 

Federal is different than State. Since I was speaking on the basis of Federal Politics - your argument is a false dichotomy.

 

Politics starts at the Local and State level. That is reality. So no its not a false dichotomy. Like the link shows those are the states with less government. Following the true Republican/Conservative Ideology.

I know I know.....its just blows up your whole issue that Repubs and Demos are the same.

 

You don't get it. MMC, those states are big government progressive states. They have been for a long, long time.

 

Power corrupts.

 

Hogan might have a chance if AOC agreed to be his running mate.

 

Good time for another Puerto Rico beach junket.

 

It does not blow up the whole issue. Local politics are different than at the Federal Level. I was referring to "Federal" politics.

I agree that things are different on a state by state basis. States however do not dictate Federal Gov't spending. The idea that it does is simply not true .. it is a falsehood. States do not dictate Federal Law - however a State must respect Federal law or face consequences.

That claim that one is the same as the other is false.

 

What are the approval numbers for his DP opposition leaders, Pelosi and Schumer?

 

Yes you tried to equate all Republicans to Federal Politics. But such is hardly reality when it comes to the party.

 

It isn't, or there'd be a wall along the southern border.

 

I did not equate all republicans to Federal Politics. I was talking about Federal Politics. Perhaps I did not make that as clear as I should have initially but, I have now.

I did not refer to "all Republicans" said "Red and Blue Establishment". If you do not know what was meant by "Establishment" I can define it for you but, it certainly does not refer to all Republicans .. and I do not think you think this either which makes your "Equating all Republicans" comment either disingenuous or .. you were just not thinking.

 

MMC personally attacks me instead of dealing with the OP, in violation of the rules. The states are progressive, not "small government" oriented. They use the power of state government to enact changes for ALL OF THE PEOPLE. For instance, NY passed a very liberal pro-choice bill this month. Who wants to bet that Texas (#2 on MMC's list of "small government" states) is going to pass another law trying to restrict a woman's choice or to suppress the electoral rights of minorities this term?

 

Much higher than Trump's, and Nancy's approval ratings are skyrocketing.