Ventura is a paleolibertarian who takes all sort of conspiracy theories seriously and Howard Stern is a shock jock/radio show host/comedian whose politics are not well known. His Presidential web page is here.
One of Ventura's platform planks is scrapping the political party system by outlawing political parties.
Would you vote for them if only to keep a major party candidate out of the White House?
I've long felt that there's a fallacy behind trying to operate even a representative democracy (a republic as opposed to a true democracy) in that it can never really be satisfactory.
Let's take an overly-simplified example (by which I mean real world examples can be far more complicated, difficult, and irresolvable).
Let's imagine an election with three main issues: A, B, and C.
Candidate 1 is for A and B but not S.
Candidate 2 is for B and S but not A.
You are pro all three. What satisfactory vote do you have?
And welcome to my life.
I think I read that George Washington cautioned us against political parties. As it is now, there is little real choice.
We live in an Empire, all Empires fail, the American Empire is in decline, history is replete with failed Empires, our Empire will fail as well.
The American system of government is controlled by a small percentage of individuals who benefit greatly from the current system, they will not change such a system.
They grasp the neck of the Golden Goose and squeeze in the desperate hope for more golden eggs...the goose died some time ago.
The collapse is inevitable. :(
Agreed, Gregg. Even though the 1% has mostly gone multi-natoinal, there is no sound alternative for their riches when the US currency is finally recognized as worthless. Gold won't be worth anything without a production market whence goods may be purchased and there won't be any production market like we currently have once Americans are unable to pay for their consumption.
If things were to get really, really, really bad, things like food, clean water, and fire wood would be worth far more than gold. We might end up on a wood standard. (I'm only half joking.)
A toaster would be far more valuable than hyperinflated fiat money in any case, perhaps barter would again be in vogue.
You're imagining a world where there was electrical power cheap enough to waste on browning bread.
Hence the wood standard rather than the gold standard. "I'll trade three cords of wood for your draft horse."
Unseen, it will be the rarity of an available item that will lead to a standard of trade. It could end up being wood, gold, or something else.
Until an economy reaches a certain level, shiny metal won't have much appeal.
Hmm, I seem to remember something about not taking any wooden nickels.