I'm sure I will invite heaps and heaps of scorn for mentioning it, but the serious candidates in the presidential election were all running outside the two party system. Jill Stein, Cornel West, Claudia de la Cruz, Chase Oliver -- all of them were far more authentic and issues-driven than either of the two fake candidates 99% of American…
I'm sure I will invite heaps and heaps of scorn for mentioning it, but the serious candidates in the presidential election were all running outside the two party system. Jill Stein, Cornel West, Claudia de la Cruz, Chase Oliver -- all of them were far more authentic and issues-driven than either of the two fake candidates 99% of Americans apparently believed they had to choose from.
I pray that your vision of a more authentic and serious future is correct, but yesterday was beyond depressing in terms of the inability of virtually all Americans to imagine a world beyond the artificial one smashed into their faces by media (social, news & entertainment). F is for Fake as Orson Welles put it.
If Russian puppet Jill Stein is your idea of real and authentic I'll take a fake Democrat. I wonder how the Arab-Americans in Dearborn who voted for her are going to feel when they see what happens to Gaza under Trump's presidency?
and i will add it is absolutely racist to scold an immigrant population in one city when we all can see the statistics of who is voting for trump across gender lines. kamala is the worst presidential candidate in history and the gaza genocide is her baby just as much as bidens
I’m not scolding Arab Americans in Dearborn. They have as much right to vote for who they want as everyone else. I’m just saying that I think the ones who voted for Trump are likely to be disappointed with the outcome
Note that he wrote "far more authentic and issues-driven," and given that the authenticity of the main candidates measured as a number would be practically zero, that statement can still be true even if you don't think the third party candidates are especially authentic. It would seem that your aversion to Jill Stein is greater than your attraction to authenticity, considering that's only one out of four people listed in the comment you're replying to and your desire to attack her outweighed your regard for the overall point. The two party system is by design limiting and fake, how can you ever hope for something else if you choose to stay inside the box?
As far as I’m concerned Jill Stein is a Russian tool and is the very opposite of authentic.
How is a two-party system “fake” by design? That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard anyone say about politics. It’s imperfect as is every other system. I think we could improve it through things like ranked choice voting, which would allow third parties a little more space to advocate their positions in a formal way. That would be good but you’d still have a two party system?
The fact is we live in a country with lots of people who very different viewpoints, and reconciling that is always going to be tough and messy. There is no way around that.
As imperfect as the US is, we have made progress over the years. Given that we were founded as a fragile coalition between states, some of which thought it was OK to enslave people and some who thought it wasn’t, our system hasn’t done too badly.
You're correct regarding your "silly" statement, but rank choice voting is a miserable failure when one party is dominant. Remember, the Whigs were part of the "two party" system, until they weren't. The only constant is change, but without historical reference, that's a truism that is a moot point. That applies to many of today's issues, including politics and, particularly, "climate change."
Until such time as we amend our constitution and transition to a parliamentary system, we are not going to have a viable 3rd party in the United States. Anybody who thinks they are going to effect change by voting for 3rd parties is deluding themselves.
Do you think we’re better off because Nader helped Gore lose?
OK. That's worked so well for western European countries, right? At lease we still have a chance when our "leaders" actually understand and observe the Constitution. Few do, on either side.
What was their choice? They didn't have anything compared to those who wanted to kill them and their relatives. A drowning man will clutch at a straw. The fact that they, and all who want to see something different, won't get it is a well-known, and, among their rulers, well-celebrated fact. You may be enjoying it yourself.
They had an imperfect choice between a party that while they will continue to support Israel will at least attempt to influence them to moderate their conduct, and one that will likely tell Netanyahu to do whatever the hell he wants.
I won’t take any pleasure in seeing what will happen in Gaza, although as I am pro-Israel I would remind everyone that none of this would be happening if Hamas hadn’t attacked Israel. The Palestinians have rejected every opportunity to find a peaceful solution to the situation and as a result, Israel has become more radicalized. But being surrounded by hostile nations that want to destroy you has a way of doing that.
Americans are having a hysterical freak out because Mexicans are crossing the border illegally so they can contribute to our economy and create a better life for themselves. What would our reaction be if Canada and Mexico regularly launched rockets at us and openly stated that their eternal mission was to wipe us off the face of the earth? I can guarantee you it would be less restrained than Israel has been over the years.
No one should tell Netanyahu what to do but his citizens by dint of those who were elected to serve. If he asks for assistance we should give it if we are actually Israel's allies.
I guess it depends on what media one looks at or to. The 1960s were vacuous, per media - just in a different way. Like Jerry Van Dyke's show "My Mother the Car." Or "The Beverly Hillbillies," "Petticoat Junction," et. al. OTOH, The Dick Van Dyke show really *was* good, and not vacuous at all.
They might have been issue driven but they represent extreme views. For the first time in history, a republican has now sought advice and council from our modern day founder, Ron Paul, who has out authenticated almost every politician in the last 100 years. We're good.
I think Trump will do what he's said and find a way to end the proxy war against Russia. He's not going to pull a Bush because he understands we can't afford it, and Ukraine can't either.
You’d have to include the two-party system (regardless of media influence) as the main driver of choice because of “electability” - most people don’t want to throw away a vote on an unelectable candidate even if they prefer the candidate.
The presidency became a media personality job with FDR on the radio with his Fireside Chats. Then it became a television job. Now it’s a 24/7 multimedia/social media job.
My point being that our current political climate was maybe 80-90 years in the making, following the rise and evolution of electronic media.
I'm sure I will invite heaps and heaps of scorn for mentioning it, but the serious candidates in the presidential election were all running outside the two party system. Jill Stein, Cornel West, Claudia de la Cruz, Chase Oliver -- all of them were far more authentic and issues-driven than either of the two fake candidates 99% of Americans apparently believed they had to choose from.
I pray that your vision of a more authentic and serious future is correct, but yesterday was beyond depressing in terms of the inability of virtually all Americans to imagine a world beyond the artificial one smashed into their faces by media (social, news & entertainment). F is for Fake as Orson Welles put it.
If Russian puppet Jill Stein is your idea of real and authentic I'll take a fake Democrat. I wonder how the Arab-Americans in Dearborn who voted for her are going to feel when they see what happens to Gaza under Trump's presidency?
and i will add it is absolutely racist to scold an immigrant population in one city when we all can see the statistics of who is voting for trump across gender lines. kamala is the worst presidential candidate in history and the gaza genocide is her baby just as much as bidens
I’m not scolding Arab Americans in Dearborn. They have as much right to vote for who they want as everyone else. I’m just saying that I think the ones who voted for Trump are likely to be disappointed with the outcome
Whoops....
Note that he wrote "far more authentic and issues-driven," and given that the authenticity of the main candidates measured as a number would be practically zero, that statement can still be true even if you don't think the third party candidates are especially authentic. It would seem that your aversion to Jill Stein is greater than your attraction to authenticity, considering that's only one out of four people listed in the comment you're replying to and your desire to attack her outweighed your regard for the overall point. The two party system is by design limiting and fake, how can you ever hope for something else if you choose to stay inside the box?
As far as I’m concerned Jill Stein is a Russian tool and is the very opposite of authentic.
How is a two-party system “fake” by design? That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard anyone say about politics. It’s imperfect as is every other system. I think we could improve it through things like ranked choice voting, which would allow third parties a little more space to advocate their positions in a formal way. That would be good but you’d still have a two party system?
The fact is we live in a country with lots of people who very different viewpoints, and reconciling that is always going to be tough and messy. There is no way around that.
As imperfect as the US is, we have made progress over the years. Given that we were founded as a fragile coalition between states, some of which thought it was OK to enslave people and some who thought it wasn’t, our system hasn’t done too badly.
You're correct regarding your "silly" statement, but rank choice voting is a miserable failure when one party is dominant. Remember, the Whigs were part of the "two party" system, until they weren't. The only constant is change, but without historical reference, that's a truism that is a moot point. That applies to many of today's issues, including politics and, particularly, "climate change."
Until such time as we amend our constitution and transition to a parliamentary system, we are not going to have a viable 3rd party in the United States. Anybody who thinks they are going to effect change by voting for 3rd parties is deluding themselves.
Do you think we’re better off because Nader helped Gore lose?
OK. That's worked so well for western European countries, right? At lease we still have a chance when our "leaders" actually understand and observe the Constitution. Few do, on either side.
What was their choice? They didn't have anything compared to those who wanted to kill them and their relatives. A drowning man will clutch at a straw. The fact that they, and all who want to see something different, won't get it is a well-known, and, among their rulers, well-celebrated fact. You may be enjoying it yourself.
They had an imperfect choice between a party that while they will continue to support Israel will at least attempt to influence them to moderate their conduct, and one that will likely tell Netanyahu to do whatever the hell he wants.
I won’t take any pleasure in seeing what will happen in Gaza, although as I am pro-Israel I would remind everyone that none of this would be happening if Hamas hadn’t attacked Israel. The Palestinians have rejected every opportunity to find a peaceful solution to the situation and as a result, Israel has become more radicalized. But being surrounded by hostile nations that want to destroy you has a way of doing that.
Americans are having a hysterical freak out because Mexicans are crossing the border illegally so they can contribute to our economy and create a better life for themselves. What would our reaction be if Canada and Mexico regularly launched rockets at us and openly stated that their eternal mission was to wipe us off the face of the earth? I can guarantee you it would be less restrained than Israel has been over the years.
No one should tell Netanyahu what to do but his citizens by dint of those who were elected to serve. If he asks for assistance we should give it if we are actually Israel's allies.
Please explain your comment to the Arab Muslim community in Hamtramck, MI. who supported Trump.
Good luck with that.
the 7 million arab americans in dearborn whose vote would have made the difference in the election. lol
Did I say that I thought their votes would have made a difference in the outcome?
Yeah... no.
I guess it depends on what media one looks at or to. The 1960s were vacuous, per media - just in a different way. Like Jerry Van Dyke's show "My Mother the Car." Or "The Beverly Hillbillies," "Petticoat Junction," et. al. OTOH, The Dick Van Dyke show really *was* good, and not vacuous at all.
They might have been issue driven but they represent extreme views. For the first time in history, a republican has now sought advice and council from our modern day founder, Ron Paul, who has out authenticated almost every politician in the last 100 years. We're good.
The same Ron Paul who has called the invasion of Ukraine by Russia the result of a proxy war between the US and Russia, or a different Ron Paul?
I think Trump will do what he's said and find a way to end the proxy war against Russia. He's not going to pull a Bush because he understands we can't afford it, and Ukraine can't either.
You’d have to include the two-party system (regardless of media influence) as the main driver of choice because of “electability” - most people don’t want to throw away a vote on an unelectable candidate even if they prefer the candidate.
The presidency became a media personality job with FDR on the radio with his Fireside Chats. Then it became a television job. Now it’s a 24/7 multimedia/social media job.
My point being that our current political climate was maybe 80-90 years in the making, following the rise and evolution of electronic media.
Not from me. Lol. I couldn't agree more.
No, not heaps of scorn, at least so far. Some profound disagreement,though...