It is an option. The only option.

@DenoPenno I personally wouldn't vote for a libertarian. Just another tea party under a different name that serves rhetoric lips service on a few issues they know will draw in certain types of voters. My response was geared more towards 3rd parties in general. I look towards the green and socialist equality parties when I vote.

Democrats talk of LGBTQ are geared towards understanding that American's have changed towards being more acceptable to their rights to have the same rights within a more diverse society. But it's a facade just as with their talk towards the African American community. If you watched the 2nd video you would find that the Bill Clinton era was nothing of the sort in diversity, but attack. Let's not forget as I have pointed out in the past, the Clinton's not only by legislature brought a great deal of question to their African American relations in the 90's, but also played a role in the crack epidemic of the 80's. As a large amount of cocaine Oliver North was transporting to the US at one time came to Arkansas when he was governor. And as the beginning of this present primary was unfolding, Biden is the old dog of that era and was called out. Just as Hillary was in 2016, and on minimum wage. Who was against $15 an hour before she was for it. You might recall her sudden change of heart in a debate where she let that cat out of the hat from nowhere. Can I get a "lip service".

As far as guns, until recently the most call from Americans has been for better background checks. I'm one of them. I own guns and have a CCW for within my state. But there are far way to many people out there with guns who should not be around them. The gun issue in government is being used to divide us though. Not for a means of common sense. And as it's used a amount of false narratives are used over common sense to prevent addressing the issue properly. And those most likely to commit a crime with a gun are those using the false narratives to keep representatives from being able to legislate properly. Falsely using the 2nd amendment, distorting it, for one, falsely claiming left leaning people have committed more mass shootings than their own right leaning supporters. Which is drastically disproved by statistics. Which is why Mary and I went and got our CCWs. I didn't get mine for another false narrative (terrorist) but because of them and the mentally challenged that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, of any type. Then there's the entire NRA narrative which has changed from their original established founding decades ago. The other war on our representatives that only benefits the gun manufacturers. I say that loosely being I'm certain our representatives probably don't give a rats ass if we kill each other off. It actually benefits them and continues to provide the tribal politics they use against us serving the ruling class.

My proof? Go on social media and make a post about taking a politician out. Talk about it for a day or two. Any politician or local law enforcement attack. See how far you get into your agenda. Now consider how many mass shooters gave fair warning to their attacks and made it to their targets. The only time you see law enforcement prevent an attack is when it involves VIPs.

@William_Mary I see lots of dog whistles and other things that prevent me from discussing past politics to explain current and present politics. Giving a history of Obama, the Clintons, AIG, or any other distraction does little in getting rid of Trump. You lose the talking point and Trump supporters want you to do that. As for Libertarians, the Koch brothers were big Libertarians. They bought into the GOP and that's where these party issues are today. Libertarians were once known as "radical Republicans" because of a desire to dismantle any rule of law. I read books on this stuff that were written long before Trump ever got into politics. Dark Money is one such book. There are others.

@DenoPenno that's where you lose in my opinion. It's the past politics that lead to today's policies. You're unable to recognize the relevance of both parties policies that lead to Trump. That's exactly why you're trapped in the rhetoric of getting rid of Trump rather than getting rid of the policies that created him. While you accuse me of me of losing talking points, you seem to be trapped in the same rhetoric of talking points provided by the other side of the media and establishment. While I instead recognize both sides and view the entire spectrum as a facade. Getting rid of Trump helps to do nothing to change policies that have been working to the benefit of the ruling class moving the country to the right since the Reagan era. If you can't recognize the relevance you're in the rabbit hole.

Book are written by people who also have the same agenda as the main stream media. To manage perceptions, control narrative, condition the population. As with news it depends who's books you're reading. Although Jane Mayer may be a good resource, if you refuse to use her knowledge to connect the republican party to the Koch bothers, their past actions, what good does reading her book do for you. So which are you doing?

@William_Mary You are correct and I recognize the relevance. The problem is that talking the past is not helping us with solutions for right now. It only appears as a diversion and Trump supporters use it most often. People that write books are not supporting the mainstream media. They just might be opposing it. I have never read Jane Mayer. I study political science and try to learn why it becomes a slogan if you hear it 3 times. Yes, there are books on this. What I read never mentions the name of Donald Trump. It does not stop him from eliminating as much as he can about anything involving global warming and the EPA. Russia is doing the same and this falls in line with Koch Industries. What is going on today is about mineral wealth and it puts the interests of the individual aside. You cannot fight this by changing talking points to things about Obama, Hillary, and Bill Clinton.