I don't disagree with those comments about Trump. And you point out very well the war/corporate aspects of both, hence really a uniparty thst gives solely an illusion of choice. And yes, many citizens do not vote. Why is that? Are they too lazy or too busy watching reality TV? Or perhaps they don't vote because with the uniparty they get the same shit sandwich no matter how they vote. Punish them because they refuse to be conned yet again? Hardly just, I think. Perhaps if the voted in a "fuck all of them" category and was actually tabulated you could make a case, albeit a weak one. Perhaps getting away from a "first past the post" system would be an answer with independent candidates, such as RFK. But you don't like him either. Fair enough but what about a lot of independent candidates?
Thanks for another interesting reply, Chris. I think that people fail to vote for any number of reasons. The " perhaps they don't vote because with the uniparty they get the same shit sandwich no matter how they vote" is definitely in play. But I also believe we have to avoid idealizing or memorializing what may be, in quite a few cases, considerably less thoughtful motivations. For SURE it's not the only motivation. Some are just "checked out" in general. Some are averse to politics by disposition. Some are mentally and emotionally disabled, not least by drug addictions the worst of which is alcohol. I have a nearby neighbor who I've only seen out of his house ONCE in the last several years; his vehicles sit in his front yard with the grass growing around them. I don't know him well, but I know him enough to know he's an alcoholic. And conversely, let's not forget that many of the "shit sandwich" citizens are ACTUALLY lining up to vote for Trump, Kennedy, and even Stein. This is the "grievance vote" or what I like to call the "grenade vote." I'm not sure what you mean by "punish them," unless it's a reference to mandatory voting with a concommitant penalty. All I've indicated -- I think -- is that the idea appeals to me. The punishment wouldn't have to be draconian -- $10 to a public elections fund or something. Then perhaps we could afford to have publicly funded elections while we spend billions to blow the legs off of children hither and yon. In any case, you and I both know that a democratic republic can't function without citizen engagement ... and really not just engagment; commitment. If people don't BELIEVE in a democratic republic, it can surely be argued that they don't deserve one and they certainly can't sustain one.. So longer story shortened, I don't really buy into what I would call a remaniticizing of the disengaged citizen. I think rather that Trumpism -- populist authoritarianism -- is, along with a lot of other things like resentment, grievances politics, and appeals to authoritarianism, a manifestation of citizen disengagement.
I don't think that I understand your "first past the post"reference. Could you flesh that out a bit for me? I'd be happy to try to cook up a coherent response.
First past the post refers to the way a winner is determined. That is if candidate A gets 1001 votes and B gets 1000, A is the winner. Americans and Canadians use this method for most elections. In terms of presudential votes, it is the Electoral College that actually choses the president state by state. So, for example, if in Pennsylvania Harris gets 10 million and 1 vote and Trump 10 million, then Harris gets all of the EC votes for that state, etc. It's an intrinsically unfair system that leaves a lot of the population feeling disenfranchised.
Next, I think your characterization of those who don't vote or vote for "fringe" candiates is overly simplistic. Perhaps you are correct, but your arguments would be bolstered by references rather than just your opinion.
I get that you think Trump is vulgar, a narcissist, a threat to democracy, etc. etc. Likely all true. But we've arrived at a stage of the American republic when we have Trump vs his competitors, the latter being the Democrats with Harris and Walz with their endless warmongering and efforts to exert even more control over the freedoms that we used to take for granted. I think we are all missing a crucial observation. Namely, that roughly half the voters in the country are going to vote for Trump. Why? Are they all neo Nazis or white supremacists? Not likely. Have you considered why Trump appeals to so many? What's missing here? At the same time you denigrate Kennedy and consider him a kook. So, Ken, what's your solution to this dystopian mess? Is there one?
Thanks for your comment, Chris. It's great to have an honest question I've written at length and at various times with respect to my take on the comparative flaws of the two parties. Notice that I left out virtues? I find that both parties are shockingly lacking in virtue of any sort.
And speaking of lack of viftue, you are 100% correct that I believe Trump is "vulgar, a narcissist, a threat to democracy, etc." Don't you?
But to reply more directly to your first point, the inference that the Democons, or Harris and Walz, are the "party of war" is, I believe, factually inaccurate ... or perhaps artificially selective. BOTH parties are the party of war. Both parties support the Ukraine proxy war; both parties are fully on board with Zionist slaughter and expansionism. The latter is virtually unanimous in both House and Senate; they gave Netanyahu the greatest number os standing ovations in US history ! The Dems are more united on Ukraine, no doubt, and only a whacko frienge of the Republicons oppose it and I give them credit for it; the great majority of Repubs are solidly on board. The Republicons are more united on the Zionist scurge; heck, the leader of Cult 45 even ordered the recognition of Jersalem as the "eternal capital" of the Hebrews and moved our embassy from Tel Aviv -- the only internationally recognized capital of Israel -- to the so-called Holy City. Pardon my exclamation ... "Jesus Christ !!"
Anyway, it's a wash on war as far as I'm concerned. Bottom line: NO PERSON CAN BE ELECTED TO HIGH OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO OPPOSES THE ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE. (caps for emphasis, not for yelling ... chuckle)
One more small quibble dependent on definitions ... as always. It's not half of the electorate but half of voting electorate. That 1/2 is not even 1/3 or the electorate (those registered to vote), much less of those qualified to vote who aren't even registered to vote. The net effect is that America's highest offices are elected by a fairly small fraction of its citizens and that fraction looks WAY bigger than it actually is. Perhaps things would be better if citizens were required to vote. I would personally favor such a statute including a criminal penalty. Would it fix things? I'm less sure of that.
As for my overall solution, I have some and I believe they would work. I don't, however expect to see it happen. My first "solution to this dystopian mess" is free, universal, compulsory, and secular public education from kindergarten to 12th grade and free higher education for those who qualify. It's my firm belief that the nation as a whole has a critical interest to mainstain an educated citizenry; and specifically a citizenry educated to the rights and DUTIES of citizens ... because as Thomas Paine wrote,
"When we speak of right we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties; rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right."
Thomas Paine
DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
My other solution to the present disaster is to overturn the SCOTUS "Citizens United" decision, remove corporate "personhood" from the judicial system, and strongly regulate if not wholly eliminate all corporate lobbying. The Sherman Antitrust Act should be restored and strengthened; the largest corporattions broken up.
There's a starting program. I'm sure there are other things that could be fine-tuned (issues around AI, social media, internet "ownership," to name a few), but the previous would be a start. As I said, I don't expect the USA to do this. I believe we are on a hell-bound train. But I am still committed to work for the best while preparing for the worst.
Well the MAGA asshats can't even untangle themselves, but the real question -- or so I think -- is whether the Republican Party and the rest of the country can get them off us.
"Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don’t tu’n ’im loose he butt ’er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck."
And likewise Democrats invited Hamas and Hezbollah, Jew hating left wing cowards on campus, as long as it got them votes. Now Kamala is trying desperately to distance her campaign from the same people she embraced 6 months ago.
This is a reckoning for all Americans, and it's a mistake to believe only one side is guilty, or only one side needs to see the light. We all do. We all must be called to our better angels.
Thanks for your comment, Russ. Appreciated. You seem to agree on my basic claim. OTOH, your comment seems kinda defensive ... like "YEAH, but WHAT ABOUT ______ !!! (fill in the blank)." aka Whataboutism. If you'll take the time to check my previous posts, you'll find plenty of criticism for the Dems; HARSH criticism, I think. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I have nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party. So nobody here is thinking "only one side is guilty." That strikes me as a straw man.
No idea why you're so triggered on this "Jew hating left wing cowards" thing. You certainly miss no opportunity to raise this shout. Would it be fair to assume you're a Zionist of some sort? I THINK I've commented on the problems I see in Zionism and Israel's conduct elsewhere. That would, it seems to me, be the right place to share your criticisms or grievances on that particular topic. I TRY to stay topical by post as much as possible.
I don't disagree with those comments about Trump. And you point out very well the war/corporate aspects of both, hence really a uniparty thst gives solely an illusion of choice. And yes, many citizens do not vote. Why is that? Are they too lazy or too busy watching reality TV? Or perhaps they don't vote because with the uniparty they get the same shit sandwich no matter how they vote. Punish them because they refuse to be conned yet again? Hardly just, I think. Perhaps if the voted in a "fuck all of them" category and was actually tabulated you could make a case, albeit a weak one. Perhaps getting away from a "first past the post" system would be an answer with independent candidates, such as RFK. But you don't like him either. Fair enough but what about a lot of independent candidates?
Thanks for another interesting reply, Chris. I think that people fail to vote for any number of reasons. The " perhaps they don't vote because with the uniparty they get the same shit sandwich no matter how they vote" is definitely in play. But I also believe we have to avoid idealizing or memorializing what may be, in quite a few cases, considerably less thoughtful motivations. For SURE it's not the only motivation. Some are just "checked out" in general. Some are averse to politics by disposition. Some are mentally and emotionally disabled, not least by drug addictions the worst of which is alcohol. I have a nearby neighbor who I've only seen out of his house ONCE in the last several years; his vehicles sit in his front yard with the grass growing around them. I don't know him well, but I know him enough to know he's an alcoholic. And conversely, let's not forget that many of the "shit sandwich" citizens are ACTUALLY lining up to vote for Trump, Kennedy, and even Stein. This is the "grievance vote" or what I like to call the "grenade vote." I'm not sure what you mean by "punish them," unless it's a reference to mandatory voting with a concommitant penalty. All I've indicated -- I think -- is that the idea appeals to me. The punishment wouldn't have to be draconian -- $10 to a public elections fund or something. Then perhaps we could afford to have publicly funded elections while we spend billions to blow the legs off of children hither and yon. In any case, you and I both know that a democratic republic can't function without citizen engagement ... and really not just engagment; commitment. If people don't BELIEVE in a democratic republic, it can surely be argued that they don't deserve one and they certainly can't sustain one.. So longer story shortened, I don't really buy into what I would call a remaniticizing of the disengaged citizen. I think rather that Trumpism -- populist authoritarianism -- is, along with a lot of other things like resentment, grievances politics, and appeals to authoritarianism, a manifestation of citizen disengagement.
I don't think that I understand your "first past the post"reference. Could you flesh that out a bit for me? I'd be happy to try to cook up a coherent response.
Thanks again for the engagement.
First past the post refers to the way a winner is determined. That is if candidate A gets 1001 votes and B gets 1000, A is the winner. Americans and Canadians use this method for most elections. In terms of presudential votes, it is the Electoral College that actually choses the president state by state. So, for example, if in Pennsylvania Harris gets 10 million and 1 vote and Trump 10 million, then Harris gets all of the EC votes for that state, etc. It's an intrinsically unfair system that leaves a lot of the population feeling disenfranchised.
Next, I think your characterization of those who don't vote or vote for "fringe" candiates is overly simplistic. Perhaps you are correct, but your arguments would be bolstered by references rather than just your opinion.
I get that you think Trump is vulgar, a narcissist, a threat to democracy, etc. etc. Likely all true. But we've arrived at a stage of the American republic when we have Trump vs his competitors, the latter being the Democrats with Harris and Walz with their endless warmongering and efforts to exert even more control over the freedoms that we used to take for granted. I think we are all missing a crucial observation. Namely, that roughly half the voters in the country are going to vote for Trump. Why? Are they all neo Nazis or white supremacists? Not likely. Have you considered why Trump appeals to so many? What's missing here? At the same time you denigrate Kennedy and consider him a kook. So, Ken, what's your solution to this dystopian mess? Is there one?
Thanks for your comment, Chris. It's great to have an honest question I've written at length and at various times with respect to my take on the comparative flaws of the two parties. Notice that I left out virtues? I find that both parties are shockingly lacking in virtue of any sort.
And speaking of lack of viftue, you are 100% correct that I believe Trump is "vulgar, a narcissist, a threat to democracy, etc." Don't you?
But to reply more directly to your first point, the inference that the Democons, or Harris and Walz, are the "party of war" is, I believe, factually inaccurate ... or perhaps artificially selective. BOTH parties are the party of war. Both parties support the Ukraine proxy war; both parties are fully on board with Zionist slaughter and expansionism. The latter is virtually unanimous in both House and Senate; they gave Netanyahu the greatest number os standing ovations in US history ! The Dems are more united on Ukraine, no doubt, and only a whacko frienge of the Republicons oppose it and I give them credit for it; the great majority of Repubs are solidly on board. The Republicons are more united on the Zionist scurge; heck, the leader of Cult 45 even ordered the recognition of Jersalem as the "eternal capital" of the Hebrews and moved our embassy from Tel Aviv -- the only internationally recognized capital of Israel -- to the so-called Holy City. Pardon my exclamation ... "Jesus Christ !!"
Anyway, it's a wash on war as far as I'm concerned. Bottom line: NO PERSON CAN BE ELECTED TO HIGH OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO OPPOSES THE ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE. (caps for emphasis, not for yelling ... chuckle)
One more small quibble dependent on definitions ... as always. It's not half of the electorate but half of voting electorate. That 1/2 is not even 1/3 or the electorate (those registered to vote), much less of those qualified to vote who aren't even registered to vote. The net effect is that America's highest offices are elected by a fairly small fraction of its citizens and that fraction looks WAY bigger than it actually is. Perhaps things would be better if citizens were required to vote. I would personally favor such a statute including a criminal penalty. Would it fix things? I'm less sure of that.
As for my overall solution, I have some and I believe they would work. I don't, however expect to see it happen. My first "solution to this dystopian mess" is free, universal, compulsory, and secular public education from kindergarten to 12th grade and free higher education for those who qualify. It's my firm belief that the nation as a whole has a critical interest to mainstain an educated citizenry; and specifically a citizenry educated to the rights and DUTIES of citizens ... because as Thomas Paine wrote,
"When we speak of right we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties; rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right."
Thomas Paine
DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
My other solution to the present disaster is to overturn the SCOTUS "Citizens United" decision, remove corporate "personhood" from the judicial system, and strongly regulate if not wholly eliminate all corporate lobbying. The Sherman Antitrust Act should be restored and strengthened; the largest corporattions broken up.
There's a starting program. I'm sure there are other things that could be fine-tuned (issues around AI, social media, internet "ownership," to name a few), but the previous would be a start. As I said, I don't expect the USA to do this. I believe we are on a hell-bound train. But I am still committed to work for the best while preparing for the worst.
Thans again for an honest and good question.
Maybe that’s why the maggots can’t disentangle.
Well the MAGA asshats can't even untangle themselves, but the real question -- or so I think -- is whether the Republican Party and the rest of the country can get them off us.
"Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don’t tu’n ’im loose he butt ’er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck."
And likewise Democrats invited Hamas and Hezbollah, Jew hating left wing cowards on campus, as long as it got them votes. Now Kamala is trying desperately to distance her campaign from the same people she embraced 6 months ago.
This is a reckoning for all Americans, and it's a mistake to believe only one side is guilty, or only one side needs to see the light. We all do. We all must be called to our better angels.
Thanks for your comment, Russ. Appreciated. You seem to agree on my basic claim. OTOH, your comment seems kinda defensive ... like "YEAH, but WHAT ABOUT ______ !!! (fill in the blank)." aka Whataboutism. If you'll take the time to check my previous posts, you'll find plenty of criticism for the Dems; HARSH criticism, I think. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I have nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party. So nobody here is thinking "only one side is guilty." That strikes me as a straw man.
No idea why you're so triggered on this "Jew hating left wing cowards" thing. You certainly miss no opportunity to raise this shout. Would it be fair to assume you're a Zionist of some sort? I THINK I've commented on the problems I see in Zionism and Israel's conduct elsewhere. That would, it seems to me, be the right place to share your criticisms or grievances on that particular topic. I TRY to stay topical by post as much as possible.
Either way, thanks for chiming in my friend.