Re:Why a more transparent NSA would be good for Barack Obama
by kimlelly on Friday July 05, 2013 @12:40PM
(#5995626)
Be careful here: viability is _perceived_.
And the mainstream media does _all_ it can to present the competition as "not viable".
Why? Because the media is not free, it's owned by a few rich people who don't want that competition, because that competition would obviously protect their wealth much less than the 2 parties in place (which are for a good part bought via "lobbyism", which is the "nice" word for "official corruption").
Thought experiment: If you knew for sure that a majority would vote for a third party, would you do it? Yes, because you'd know that it'll work.
The problem is: Enough people see that we can't continue like that. It's just this transparency that's currently not there.
And the mainstream media does _all_ it can to present the competition as "not viable".
Why? Because the media is not free, it's owned by a few rich people who don't want that competition, because that competition would obviously protect their wealth much less than the 2 parties in place (which are for a good part bought via "lobbyism", which is the "nice" word for "official corruption").
Thought experiment: If you knew for sure that a majority would vote for a third party, would you do it? Yes, because you'd know that it'll work.
The problem is: Enough people see that we can't continue like that. It's just this transparency that's currently not there.