Changing fruitless ways

[timothyu]

If Americans are so anxious to get rid of Biden or Trump, perhaps they should choose someone who's platform doesn't depend on the existence of one against the other, but the elimination of both. End the divisiveness and take back the nation rather than pretending to build back better or make it great as a political ploy. People are too easily swayed into thinking life is a team sport rather than one of unity. But of course sheep are more interested in playing their previous game even though both previous leaders were useless and achieved nothing in term but keep the followers loyal and wearing their respective hats rather than thinking for themselves and doing what serves the people best rather than politicians with a monetary agenda. Take back what is yours, not theirs, because one more term either previous way and it may be gone forever. Think independently and pull the rug out from under divisiveness and the politicians and corporations that depend upon it for survival..

scheerpost.com/2023/04/27/why-should-we-pay-attention-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr/

 

[rambot]

My guess is that at LEAST 60% of Americans feel this way.

But fear means that nobody is willing to take the first step. You need a third party Candidate with more charisma than....I don't even know.

 

[timothyu]

My guess is that at LEAST 60% of Americans feel this way.

Every once in a while it becomes necessary to set aside the team jersey and choose according to common sense rather than emotion in order to break and reset the system.

 

[rambot]

Every once in a while it becomes necessary to set aside the team jersey and choose according to common sense rather than emotion in order to break and reset the system.

OOO. I hate to disappoint you but as soon as folks hear "common sense", it's like the Tower of Babel all over again....

 

[timothyu]

OOO. I hate to disappoint you but as soon as folks hear "common sense", it's like the Tower of Babel all over again....

I didn't say sense in common

Man is incapable of loving fellow man simply because they are too busy looking out for self interests

 

[Ana the Ist]

A third party candidate in the presidency doesn't do anything unless he's willing to stage a coup.

Quite simply....those in legislation have the keys to the budget, and as such, some sway over the executive branch. They could for example, stop funding the ATF as was suggested recently when it was learned they had effectively bypassed both the legislative branch and judiciary in their creative attempts to avoid the need for laws that won't get passed or shot down by the SCOTUS. When you understand how it all works...the best you can hope for is a president who gets nothing done before being hounded and ousted as a joke for saying things like "the CIA are spying on me". Outside candidates aren't allowed in the big seat.

What you can do though....is run middle road 3rd party candidates in enough districts and seats to break the stalemate. It has to be a third party though....or else they can't vote as a block and use their leverage.


Imagine a scenario where a 3rd party grabs 20-30 seats in the house and a surprising 5-10 in the Senate. They could, for example, without committing to any platform....make demands of whichever party barely wins a majority that moderate that party's bad policies. They can get extremists and ideologues removed from important committee seats, and they can side with the losing party to keep cushy appointments from going to clearly unqualified or otherwise questionable candidates. By playing the middle without a clearly defined ideological commitment....they could actually succeed in getting a lot done.

The problem of course is the idea of running on a middle road no platform position. How do you convince people to vote for you if you tell them....

1. You won't be getting your own policy passed....instead, you'll leverage your position against the majority party to force concessions in their policies that benefit the public broadly. This is the plan regardless of whether or not Democrats or Republicans win.

2. You can't make any clear policy commitments.

3. This will be successful because both party's have become so partisan that their constituents view them as traitors if they even so much as compromise with the other side. It's precisely the lack of a committed direction (other than broadly improving the quality of life for Americans) that makes this group more attractive to both sides in achieving any policy goals....and in turn, makes them likely more willing to make concessions to achieve them.

That's a complicated sort of thing to run on. It's definitely a stronger position than a presidency though.

 

[timothyu]

What the article suggests is resetting both parties away from the fringe right and left and back to the less divided parties of old, eliminating the blight that came into the picture 60+ years ago when the military-industrial complex and corporatism began to thrive and control the government. These parasites have stolen the identity of nations to become a government unto themselves. Send them packing while for a short time longer the people still have the power. Already laws are being passed in western nations including your own to make opposition unlawful. That leaves us all with governments and as many parties as they are comprised of working under an unelected global government not of our making but to whom we have given global power. See the recent power grab of the WHO as an example.

 

[rambot]

Every once in a while it becomes necessary to set aside the team jersey and choose according to common sense rather than emotion in order to break and reset the system.

OOO. I hate to disappoint you but as soon as folks hear "common sense", it's like the Tower of Babel all over again....

I didn't say sense in common

Sorry, I guess.

 

[Whyayeman]

Every once in a while it becomes necessary to set aside the team jersey and choose according to common sense rather than emotion in order to break and reset the system.

It is a weakness of the two party system.. The UK's first past the post elections suffer the same difficulty,though there have been coalition governments in the past.

There is some, perhaps increasing, interest in proportional representation. It has been argued that allowing multiple voting other parties would gain exactly the kind of influence suggested here:

Imagine a scenario where a 3rd party grabs 20-30 seats in the house and a surprising 5-10 in the Senate.

Many European governments are elected using proportional representation.

Out Anzac correspondents know all about it.

 

[timothyu]

there have been coalition governments in the past.

There is currently a coalition government in Canada which took away dictatorial power from a most hated prime minister who happens to work for the WEF like the US and other British leaders alike are doing. But not only could it end his leadership at the drop of a hat and force an election but the third party calling the shots in a minority government has demanded things such as free dental for children and seniors in exchange for keeping him in power for now. (just as it did in the past for free healthcare and unemployment benefits and a senior pension). It is not perfect but a win for the people rather than the elites. It would serve to break up this almost 50 50 stalemate.

But again the article is not about setting up an independent party even though the idea is sound, but instead taking the left party away from the fringe element (and the WEF) and give it back to the more rational people. It is sad when Democrats and Republicans alike must support the fringe element which has hijacked their parties of old in order to still call themselves one party or the other.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If Americans are so anxious to get rid of Biden or Trump, perhaps they should choose someone who's platform doesn't depend on the existence of one against the other, but the elimination of both. End the divisiveness and take back the nation rather than pretending to build back better or make it great as a political ploy. People are too easily swayed into thinking life is a team sport rather than one of unity. But of course sheep are more interested in playing their previous game even though both previous leaders were useless and achieved nothing in term but keep the followers loyal and wearing their respective hats rather than thinking for themselves and doing what serves the people best rather than politicians with a monetary agenda. Take back what is yours, not theirs, because one more term either previous way and it may be gone forever. Think independently and pull the rug out from under divisiveness and the politicians and corporations that depend upon it for survival..

scheerpost.com/2023/04/27/why-should-we-pay-attention-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr/

I like Gavin. I know. No need to beat me up.
Blessings.

 

[Whyayeman]

But again the article is not about setting up an independent party even though the idea is sound, but instead taking the left party away from the fringe element (and the WEF) and give it back to the more rational people. It is sad when Democrats and Republicans alike must support the fringe element which has hijacked their parties of old in order to still call themselves one party or the other.

The UK has already got parties to the left of the Labour Party and to the right of the Conservative Party, so proportional representation would allow their voices to be heard. The Liberal Democrats are the most likely group to hold the middle ground and barter power for advantage. In the 2010 - 2014 government they did just that.

But all parties have coalitions within themselves. The US Democratic and Republican Parties are good examples. The Conservatives are the Right Wing of the Republicans and currently hold sway. So Republican leaning voters cannot truly express their opinion through the ballot. That is their loss.

The Democratic Party is pretty much in the control of its right wing. More radical opinions are thus unable to find their voice.

I think more parties would emerge if proportional representation was adopted.

 

[timothyu]

Interesting new trend in British and European parliaments where various members are 'cancelled' by the sitting representatives evacuating their seats leaving only a standing speaking member and the speaker of the house (and I presume whomever records the speech to an empty room) . Another tactic stemming from the WEF and WHO to avoid debate as they try to establish dominance over national governments. Effective so far.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is a weakness of the two party system.. The UK's first past the post elections suffer the same difficulty,though there have been coalition governments in the past.

There is some, perhaps increasing, interest in proportional representation. It has been argued that allowing multiple voting other parties would gain exactly the kind of influence suggested here:

Many European governments are elected using proportional representation.

Out Anzac correspondents know all about it.

The average US voter has become so much more politically minded in recent years....and so quickly that it's become obvious just how little they understand about how their own system works.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The UK has already got parties to the left of the Labour Party and to the right of the Conservative Party, so proportional representation would allow their voices to be heard. The Liberal Democrats are the most likely group to hold the middle ground and barter power for advantage. In the 2010 - 2014 government they did just that.

But all parties have coalitions within themselves. The US Democratic and Republican Parties are good examples. The Conservatives are the Right Wing of the Republicans and currently hold sway. So Republican leaning voters cannot truly express their opinion through the ballot. That is their loss.

The Democratic Party is pretty much in the control of its right wing. More radical opinions are thus unable to find their voice.

I think more parties would emerge if proportional representation was adopted.

This is a pretty classic example of the left's inability to spot its own extremists.

 

[Whyayeman]

Interesting new trend in British and European parliaments where various members are 'cancelled' by the sitting representatives evacuating their seats leaving only a standing speaking member and the speaker of the house

It would be interesting if it were true. This does not happen in the UK Parliament. Perhaps a citation for other European parliaments?

 

[Whyayeman]

This is a pretty classic example of the left's inability to spot its own extremists.

That may well be true of the Democratic Party. However, despite various assertions from Conservatives in the Republican Party, the right wing of the Democratic Party is firmly in control. What passes for extremism on the American left has shown itself to be impotent.

Maybe a list of American leftist extremists would be helpful here.

 

[timothyu]

This is a pretty classic example of the left's inability to spot its own extremists.

Party's will sell their souls as long as the votes come in.

 

[timothyu]

This does not happen in the UK Parliament.

It just happened once again with with MP Andrew Bridgenv

 

[Whyayeman]

It just happened once again with with MP Andrew Bridgenv

No. He has been formally and permanently expelled from the conservative Party. It is a case of Conservatives being completely aware of the extreme right.