1Molly3028
https://www.nolabels.org/
We are a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country's biggest problems.
***
49% of voters are Indies, now. Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade? I would like to see them launch a presidential candidate. I plan to give this organization my support going forward. You?
We are a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country's biggest problems.
***
49% of voters are Indies, now. Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade? I would like to see them launch a presidential candidate. I plan to give this organization my support going forward. You?
2JGL53
No. Any attempt to split the vote at this juncture could lead to the reelection of a malignant narcissist grifter.
Let's just wait first and see if the repukelican party self-destructs.
Let's just wait first and see if the repukelican party self-destructs.
3kiparsky
>1 Molly3028: Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade?
I don't see how it is.
Their premise seems to be the that there's a "middle ground" where most people find themselves located, politically speaking, and that nobody represents that "middle ground". Therefore, the thinking goes, they define their policy as "whatever is between left and right". This is nonsense. In fact, economically speaking, the Democrats have represented the traditional Republican view since Clinton, and the Republicans do not have an economic policy at all. They don't understand trade, they don't understand taxes, they don't understand deficits, etc. - there is no basis for economic policy in the Republican party today, so their policy is simply "no". (Why do you think they shut down the government every time they have the chance?) There isn't a middle ground between "corporate capitalism" and "the other guy shouldn't get anything that he wants", which means there isn't a basis for compromise there.
On social issues, the problem is a little different. Americans broadly speaking agree with Democrats - they don't want women to be slaves of the state, they think reasonable gun regulation is fine, they don't really care about the stuff that the Culture Worriers get worked up about, etc, On social issues, the problem isn't that the middle ground isn't represented - it's represented by the Democrats, on just about every issue. Trying to sell Americans on a compromise between what they actually want (for example, to be allowed to make their own medical decisions) and what the Taliban want (which is that women should be the property of their father, husband, brother, priest, or political representative) is simply not going to fly. Americans don't want that, they want women to be allowed to make their own decisions about their own bodies with the help of the people they choose to involve in the decision. The compromise between reasonable gun control and "you can fire your gun anywhere you want, and it's up to everyone else to not be where the bullet goes" is not something Americans want, and you're not going to be able to sell it to Americans.
The idea that "problem solvers" can "get things done" by making compromises is fine, if you're dealing with an honest disagreement on issues, but today's Republican party doesn't have positions, it's self-defined purely in terms of its opposition to "liberals". Since they don't have positions, any compromise you broker with them will just result in them taking more extreme and idiotic positions, because their brand is solely about being against liberals, and has nothing to do with any independent values or thought.
All of this of course is before we even wrestle with the question of whether Americans are willing to be moved by the idea of returning to the old one-hand-washes-the-other school of pork-barrel politicking, where the game is simply to give each representative or senator who plays along a sack of pork chops that they can bring back to their district and hand around. I'm not convinced that anyone's really all that nostalgic for that era, but that's the essence of the "good old days" that you'd be returning to here.
So, I'm not seeing how this is going to accomplish much of anything. On the other hand, if they're not actually trying to form a third party, I think it's pretty harmless and will die out fitfully in due course.
I don't see how it is.
Their premise seems to be the that there's a "middle ground" where most people find themselves located, politically speaking, and that nobody represents that "middle ground". Therefore, the thinking goes, they define their policy as "whatever is between left and right". This is nonsense. In fact, economically speaking, the Democrats have represented the traditional Republican view since Clinton, and the Republicans do not have an economic policy at all. They don't understand trade, they don't understand taxes, they don't understand deficits, etc. - there is no basis for economic policy in the Republican party today, so their policy is simply "no". (Why do you think they shut down the government every time they have the chance?) There isn't a middle ground between "corporate capitalism" and "the other guy shouldn't get anything that he wants", which means there isn't a basis for compromise there.
On social issues, the problem is a little different. Americans broadly speaking agree with Democrats - they don't want women to be slaves of the state, they think reasonable gun regulation is fine, they don't really care about the stuff that the Culture Worriers get worked up about, etc, On social issues, the problem isn't that the middle ground isn't represented - it's represented by the Democrats, on just about every issue. Trying to sell Americans on a compromise between what they actually want (for example, to be allowed to make their own medical decisions) and what the Taliban want (which is that women should be the property of their father, husband, brother, priest, or political representative) is simply not going to fly. Americans don't want that, they want women to be allowed to make their own decisions about their own bodies with the help of the people they choose to involve in the decision. The compromise between reasonable gun control and "you can fire your gun anywhere you want, and it's up to everyone else to not be where the bullet goes" is not something Americans want, and you're not going to be able to sell it to Americans.
The idea that "problem solvers" can "get things done" by making compromises is fine, if you're dealing with an honest disagreement on issues, but today's Republican party doesn't have positions, it's self-defined purely in terms of its opposition to "liberals". Since they don't have positions, any compromise you broker with them will just result in them taking more extreme and idiotic positions, because their brand is solely about being against liberals, and has nothing to do with any independent values or thought.
All of this of course is before we even wrestle with the question of whether Americans are willing to be moved by the idea of returning to the old one-hand-washes-the-other school of pork-barrel politicking, where the game is simply to give each representative or senator who plays along a sack of pork chops that they can bring back to their district and hand around. I'm not convinced that anyone's really all that nostalgic for that era, but that's the essence of the "good old days" that you'd be returning to here.
So, I'm not seeing how this is going to accomplish much of anything. On the other hand, if they're not actually trying to form a third party, I think it's pretty harmless and will die out fitfully in due course.
4lriley
Apparently Clarence Thomas's Harlan Crow is one of its donors. Other people linked to it are former Connecticut Senator and McCain/Lindsey Graham buddy Joe Lieberman. Tom Reed former Republican congressman from my NY district who resigned after a sex scandal. Dan Lipinski former right wing anti-abortion democrat from Illinois. Super wealthy people as well from high finance.
What I see are people who would like to muddy the water and potentially throw the next election to the guy who tried to stage a coup on his way out in 2021.
What I see are people who would like to muddy the water and potentially throw the next election to the guy who tried to stage a coup on his way out in 2021.
5prosfilaes
>3 kiparsky: I'm a bit nostalgic for the pork barrel days. A little pig fat makes the engine run smoother, metaphorically. Adding pork barrel to the discussion means not every bill has to be an uncompromising fight to the death, instead being a trade off of high value local pork versus issues that may not matter that much to their constituents.
6proximity1
typically and laughably ill-conceived stuff. So I have no doubt your likes shall seize on this.
Politics is the arena of the damnably difficult, controversial and unavoidable matters of life. They may also be damned important --but aren't always so--as, in periods of mass-hysteria, they can come to focus on the insanely stupid to the detriment of much else.
As political theorists, you people don't even rise to the level of bad amateurs.
Labels aren't going away. They serve purposes--good and, for liars and hypocrites, bad.
7Molly3028
People in the middle of a continuum can find agreement and allow good governance to take place. Labeling them, political tribalism, unfortunately allows the people on both ends of the continuum to short circuit agreement and interfere with proper governance.
8prosfilaes
>7 Molly3028: Between 1912 and 1992, the US did not have the political split that characterized government before and after that point. In fact, one of the major divisions was inside the Democratic Party, without formal label. The problem is in the people, not the labels.
9Molly3028
>8 prosfilaes:
In my mind, labelling and tribalism are on separate planets, altogether. Tribalism involves the mixing of blood!
In my mind, labelling and tribalism are on separate planets, altogether. Tribalism involves the mixing of blood!
10Molly3028
George Will of The Washington Post recently affirmed our purpose, suggesting, “A third option might appeal…2024 might bring the most dramatically nonbinary election since 1856…One or both of the major parties might, depending on their calculations of a third candidate’s appeal, accuse No Labels of being a spoiler. Let those parties try to explain how today’s politics could be spoiled.”
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan sees a potential path forward for a No Labels run in the 2024 presidential race. She posits that if a few key elements align, “they’d have an even or better than even chance of surprising history by winning.” We love her optimism!
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan sees a potential path forward for a No Labels run in the 2024 presidential race. She posits that if a few key elements align, “they’d have an even or better than even chance of surprising history by winning.” We love her optimism!
11JGL53
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are Satanists, since tRUMP is Satan and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a Satanist.
I hate Satanists.
I hate Satanists.
12kiparsky
>11 JGL53: I wouldn't want to slander Satanists like that. Most of them seem to be pretty okay folks, and I quite like some of the things that for example the Satanic Temple has been doing for free speech and freedom of religion.
And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, are falling for the "no labels" nonsense.
And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, are falling for the "no labels" nonsense.
13lriley
From what I've seen I can almost classify the No Labels group as Reagan-ites. Lots of pre-Trump classic republicans from 80's, 90's, early 2000's. That's really what the Hogan's and Sununu's are. Throw in Joe Lieberman who campaigned for John McCain and Joe Manchin--more than less democrats that are hardest at the conservative margins. It's not like to me that Biden is all that far away from them in perspective but watering down whatever support he has with someone from the No Labels group is just playing around with putting Trump back in office. People should be happy with the person they vote for. That said after Sanders failed there are no real difference makers left on our political scene as far as I can see and Trump is an existential danger to the nation. Try getting him out of power if he ever attains it again. He has an enemies list already in every sector of the federal government and he intends to purge his enemies and perhaps even abolish our entire electoral system. When you look at some of his allies on the right from the militia groups like Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, to White Supremacist groups, to far right evangelical and Catholic christians who would turn this country into a christian version of Iran.....this guy is corrupt and wants power and could care less about how he attains or maintains it. Next time around he intends to be a dictator and a majority of his base are fine with that.
14JGL53
> 12
OK. I apologize to all Satanists, who, for all I know, are our children's best role models.
Let's substitute the words "dumbass" and "dumbasses":
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are dumbasses, since tRUMP is a dumbass and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a dumbass.
I hate dumbasses.
- There, fixed it.
OK. I apologize to all Satanists, who, for all I know, are our children's best role models.
Let's substitute the words "dumbass" and "dumbasses":
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are dumbasses, since tRUMP is a dumbass and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a dumbass.
I hate dumbasses.
- There, fixed it.
15kiparsky
>14 JGL53: I think that is a much more accurate assessment of the situation. (and I quite agree with you, btw)
16Molly3028
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/11/larry-hogan-no-labels-00135096
Larry Hogan steps down from No Labels leadership
The move prompted speculation that the former Maryland governor and longtime Trump critic could run for president under the No Labels banner.
***
After watching the Desantis/Haley debate on CNN and perusing news about Trump's town hall on FOX News, I gave a generous donation to NO LABELS. Zero GOPers on those stages are fit to lead the country from the Oval Office during America's 250th birthday.
Larry Hogan steps down from No Labels leadership
The move prompted speculation that the former Maryland governor and longtime Trump critic could run for president under the No Labels banner.
***
After watching the Desantis/Haley debate on CNN and perusing news about Trump's town hall on FOX News, I gave a generous donation to NO LABELS. Zero GOPers on those stages are fit to lead the country from the Oval Office during America's 250th birthday.
18Molly3028
NO Labels is working in states across the country to get MAGA reps out of office and keep other MAGA reps from gaining rep spots. In my mind, a contribution to the group is a way to protect our democracy going forward.
19JGL53
> 18
FUCK NO Labels.
They are shit.
Next time you see them tell them I said so.
Thanks.
- BTW, Netanyahu was elected head of Israel with about 23 per cent of the vote. This is what happens when the sane split their vote and the insane concentrate theirs. (Maybe, get a clue?)
FUCK NO Labels.
They are shit.
Next time you see them tell them I said so.
Thanks.
- BTW, Netanyahu was elected head of Israel with about 23 per cent of the vote. This is what happens when the sane split their vote and the insane concentrate theirs. (Maybe, get a clue?)
20kiparsky
>19 JGL53: I wonder if there might be a more constructive way to get your point across?
21librorumamans
>19 JGL53:
In the present Israeli parliament there are twelve parties with at least one seat; there are more than twelve who did not receive the required one per cent of the popular vote.
Netanyahu leads a coalition government, so of course his party did not receive a majority of the votes. Israel can be cited as an example argument against proportional representation with a low bar for gaining a seat. But the insane did not necessarily concentrate their vote.
In the present Israeli parliament there are twelve parties with at least one seat; there are more than twelve who did not receive the required one per cent of the popular vote.
Netanyahu leads a coalition government, so of course his party did not receive a majority of the votes. Israel can be cited as an example argument against proportional representation with a low bar for gaining a seat. But the insane did not necessarily concentrate their vote.
22JGL53
> 20
Was there a more "constructive way" for the Allies to have won WWII? Should they have been nicer to the nazis and Japanese while fighting to preserve democracy?
We are in a showdown regarding the possibility that the Constitution of the United States might get shit-canned this coming November. And you figure being "constructive" is an important consideration? OK, genius, maybe you're right. Maybe you are thinking over my head. Anything is theoretically possible, I guess.
> 21
No analogy is perfect. You are correct, Sir. But let's just consider the U.S. as a stand alone. It is most important here that the sane "concentrate" their vote because of our unique "electoral college", the legacy of our slavery days. H.R. Clinton beat Dame Doody Stench by 2.9 million of our citizens' vote and still LOST the election to the Treason Weasel. Every possible vote from the sane is needed to ensure Biden wins and (imperfect and badly flawed) democracy is preserved and dictatorship is avoided. THAT was my major point.
Blah Blah Blah and Yadda Yadda Yadda about how imperfect and horrible our political leaders in general are all fine and well for those who consider themselves elite eggheads and ivory tower intellectuals but it does not help in the least in the (political) life vs. (political) death match coming up this November.
In summary: I am advising that we all FOCUS on what is important and leave the rest to be settled another day. After Biden is reelected THEN we can all argue about
if he should/should not be put before the Hague to answer for alleged genocidal actions in various countries. Can we fucking make that deal?
Was there a more "constructive way" for the Allies to have won WWII? Should they have been nicer to the nazis and Japanese while fighting to preserve democracy?
We are in a showdown regarding the possibility that the Constitution of the United States might get shit-canned this coming November. And you figure being "constructive" is an important consideration? OK, genius, maybe you're right. Maybe you are thinking over my head. Anything is theoretically possible, I guess.
> 21
No analogy is perfect. You are correct, Sir. But let's just consider the U.S. as a stand alone. It is most important here that the sane "concentrate" their vote because of our unique "electoral college", the legacy of our slavery days. H.R. Clinton beat Dame Doody Stench by 2.9 million of our citizens' vote and still LOST the election to the Treason Weasel. Every possible vote from the sane is needed to ensure Biden wins and (imperfect and badly flawed) democracy is preserved and dictatorship is avoided. THAT was my major point.
Blah Blah Blah and Yadda Yadda Yadda about how imperfect and horrible our political leaders in general are all fine and well for those who consider themselves elite eggheads and ivory tower intellectuals but it does not help in the least in the (political) life vs. (political) death match coming up this November.
In summary: I am advising that we all FOCUS on what is important and leave the rest to be settled another day. After Biden is reelected THEN we can all argue about
if he should/should not be put before the Hague to answer for alleged genocidal actions in various countries. Can we fucking make that deal?
23John5918
Fascism is everywhere on the march. And it’s Trump who sets the pace (Guardian)
The former president’s nihilist, autocratic anti-politics transcend borders. In Iowa, as in so much of the world, voters are opting for the strongman... The comforting conceit that Donald Trump is an unpleasant yet passing American aberration, often heard during his 2017-21 presidency, is harder to believe than ever after his Iowa caucus landslide victory last week. As matters stand, Trump is on course to win a third consecutive Republican presidential nomination and a possible second White House term. The bigger, worldwide picture is more alarming still. Far from being an exception to the rule, Trump reflects, amplifies and popularises a regressive global trend towards authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial, nationalistic and religiously, ethnically and culturally majoritarian forms of rightwing governance. To put it more simply, fascism is once more on the march – and liberal democracy risks being trampled under its marauding boots. Is this a disagreeable hiccup, a passing phase? Or does it herald the start of a post-democratic age?...
24kiparsky
>22 JGL53: It's your thing, do it your way. I'm just thinking, if you were interested in convincing someone of something, maybe "FUCK NO LABELS" and "they are shit" might not be the arguments I'd lead with.
25JGL53
> 23
Ex-fucking-actly. No Labels is for those who do not understand the horror we face in November.
> 24
If I were to post "FUCK NAZIS" or "Nazis are shit" would you, kiparsky, be similarly concerned? LOL.
I was not trying to persuade, I was just pointing out the inanity and insanity of certain expressions of alleged political concerns by certain people, as they ignore or downplay actual concerns of immediate and extreme importance.
If persons are determined to vote third party, that is their thing, for sure. They can also choose to wear clown make-up to work if they want. What's that to me? My only right is to make a comment or two concerning such if I choose to do so.
So - are we clear on all your concerns now?
Ex-fucking-actly. No Labels is for those who do not understand the horror we face in November.
> 24
If I were to post "FUCK NAZIS" or "Nazis are shit" would you, kiparsky, be similarly concerned? LOL.
I was not trying to persuade, I was just pointing out the inanity and insanity of certain expressions of alleged political concerns by certain people, as they ignore or downplay actual concerns of immediate and extreme importance.
If persons are determined to vote third party, that is their thing, for sure. They can also choose to wear clown make-up to work if they want. What's that to me? My only right is to make a comment or two concerning such if I choose to do so.
So - are we clear on all your concerns now?
26davidgn
>25 JGL53: Nobody intent on voting third party is going to be convinced by putting lipstick on the pig. The situation is that the status quo is abhorrent, but still better than the alternative. You can't talk up Joe Biden without earning contempt from such quarters. It's entirely counterproductive, which is part of why I refuse to do it. But you can point to the utter calamity of wholesale collapse of the democratic system. That's where we're at, and any other framing rings hollow.
Not to put too fine a point on it (and no, we're not at this level of societal collapse yet), but I'm ironically reminded of an old Liberian electoral slogan: "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_politician)#Presidency
Some Palestinian-Americans may find themselves confronted entirely unironically with such a proposition. They have every right to reject it, but in practical terms, they may find that it has merit in terms of self-preservation, given what a full-blown Trump dictatorship is likely to mean for them.
ETA:
This is the Zeitgeist. Suggesting that the world is not, in fact, falling apart around Biden won't get you far.
Resistance Liberals Panicking As World Falls Apart Around Biden
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
1.43M subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3uXKuuLEaE
Not to put too fine a point on it (and no, we're not at this level of societal collapse yet), but I'm ironically reminded of an old Liberian electoral slogan: "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_politician)#Presidency
Some Palestinian-Americans may find themselves confronted entirely unironically with such a proposition. They have every right to reject it, but in practical terms, they may find that it has merit in terms of self-preservation, given what a full-blown Trump dictatorship is likely to mean for them.
ETA:
This is the Zeitgeist. Suggesting that the world is not, in fact, falling apart around Biden won't get you far.
Resistance Liberals Panicking As World Falls Apart Around Biden
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
1.43M subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3uXKuuLEaE
27kiparsky
>25 JGL53: If you were trying to persuade someone that voting for Nazis would not be a good move, then yeah, I'd hope you would be able to come up with something a little more convincing than "Fuck Nazis". But if you're not interested in making a case for what you believe, then sure, go to town.
It does strike me as a bit odd that you're not interested in persuasion, though. I'm not sure what your point is, if you're not interested in making a point.
It does strike me as a bit odd that you're not interested in persuasion, though. I'm not sure what your point is, if you're not interested in making a point.
28JGL53
> 26
I have never "talked up Biden" in any sense other than we need to vote for him in a majority to win the
electoral college or we are dead meat. If you consider that "talking Biden up" then, OK, i am guilty as charged.
(I think I even previously mentioned I had no great objection against a move to have him put before the Hague
on criminal genocide charges AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. I consider that bending over backwards to
please you and yours. That is all I can do.
I am NOT high on Biden. It is just that he is the only viable alternative to the orange shit-filled asshole who would destroy the
U.S. if reelected. Clear enough?
> 27
Politically speaking, have you EVER persuaded any other person, at any time in your life, of anything whatsoever?
Just curious.
Expressing my opinions, convictions and understandings is not proselytizing. Maybe that is what you are about.
Fine. But I am only interested in redundantly reviewing the facts. Maybe that will help, maybe it won't. I won't
lose any sleep over the situation in any event.
The fact that you don't like my methods is of no concern to me. Ultimately, you are nothing to me. I don't even
know you. For all I know, you are a Russian bot. If so, then I guess I really am the fool here for interacting with
you umpteen times now.
I have never "talked up Biden" in any sense other than we need to vote for him in a majority to win the
electoral college or we are dead meat. If you consider that "talking Biden up" then, OK, i am guilty as charged.
(I think I even previously mentioned I had no great objection against a move to have him put before the Hague
on criminal genocide charges AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. I consider that bending over backwards to
please you and yours. That is all I can do.
I am NOT high on Biden. It is just that he is the only viable alternative to the orange shit-filled asshole who would destroy the
U.S. if reelected. Clear enough?
> 27
Politically speaking, have you EVER persuaded any other person, at any time in your life, of anything whatsoever?
Just curious.
Expressing my opinions, convictions and understandings is not proselytizing. Maybe that is what you are about.
Fine. But I am only interested in redundantly reviewing the facts. Maybe that will help, maybe it won't. I won't
lose any sleep over the situation in any event.
The fact that you don't like my methods is of no concern to me. Ultimately, you are nothing to me. I don't even
know you. For all I know, you are a Russian bot. If so, then I guess I really am the fool here for interacting with
you umpteen times now.
29kiparsky
>28 JGL53: Politically speaking, have you EVER persuaded any other person, at any time in your life, of anything whatsoever?
Yes, as a matter of fact I think I have. I can think of a number of occasions where people have either told me that they'd changed their minds based on some discussion we'd had, or when their later actions showed that they'd changed their minds. I can also think of occasions where I've changed my mind based on persuasive arguments or new information. Would you find this surprising?
The fact that you don't like my methods is of no concern to me.
As I think I've said, it's not a matter of what I like or don't like, I'm just not sure what the point of a post like >17 JGL53: is. Or is there a point at all? Just curious, that's all.
Yes, as a matter of fact I think I have. I can think of a number of occasions where people have either told me that they'd changed their minds based on some discussion we'd had, or when their later actions showed that they'd changed their minds. I can also think of occasions where I've changed my mind based on persuasive arguments or new information. Would you find this surprising?
The fact that you don't like my methods is of no concern to me.
As I think I've said, it's not a matter of what I like or don't like, I'm just not sure what the point of a post like >17 JGL53: is. Or is there a point at all? Just curious, that's all.
30kiparsky
Thinking about this a little more, I suppose the reason I'm spending time on this is precisely because I basically agree that "Fuck No Labels", but I think there are some pretty obvious good arguments for that position and I'm curious about why you're not interested in making them.
31lriley
Molly has brought up No Labels numerous times over the last several months. She's obviously not satisfied with the idea of voting for either Biden or Trump. My take is she's more on the Republican Party side of things than the Democratic one but she does not want Trump at all. More in the Bush/Cheney lane perhaps. That said I've always kind of looked at Biden as being a conservative democrat. At least until Oct. 7 his presidency had taken a number of cues from more centrist and at times even center left democrats which for often for me kind of against the grain of his natural predilections. I was prepared to vote for him again. Well, not anymore. On the No Labels group. Seems to be backed up by a number of anti-Trump conservative billionaires with any number of conservative republican and center right and right democrat politicians like Lieberman and maybe even Manchin. I don't like them either but the aftermath of Oct. 7 Israeli reprisals against Palestine civilians has effectively put me on the outside of both major parties as well as these center right and right upstarts. Don't like billionaires anyway. They should be taxed to the point where they're no longer billionaires.
32John5918
Do you have "tactical voting" in the USA? In the UK where there are two dominant parties but several smaller ones which may have some influence in certain constituencies there have been occasions when they have combined their efforts in one or more constituencies, either officially whether by withdrawing their own candidate or at least encouraging their own supporters to vote for someone else, or unofficially by simply not campaigning in that area, or sometimes simply by the voters making the decision themselves to vote for someone who would not be their first choice in order to prevent at all costs a right wing candidate from winning the seat.
The two main parties are Labour (left) and Conservative (right, also known as Tory). A significant third party is the centrist Liberal Democrats who, despite forming an ill-fated coalition with the Tories from 2020-2015 which lost them a lot of popular support and which they still haven't been able to live down, generally have more in common with the Labour party than the Tories. There are also parties such as the Greens, and Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose agenda is not primarily left or right, but who also generally have more in common with Labour than with the Tories. In recent elections we have seen more tactical voting, whereby a LibDem or Green supporter will vote Labour in order to keep the Tories out; more rarely, in a seat where the LibDems have a chance of winning but Labour doesn't, Labour supporters might vote LibDem for the same reason, although some diehard voters refuse absolutely to vote for anyone except their own party (an old friend of mine, a lifelong member of and campaigner for the Labour party, simply says, "Don't ever vote for the LibDems. It only encourages them!")
It seems to me that a form of tactical voting is what JGL53 is advocating. Biden may not be your preferred candidate, but voting for anybody else (eg a "No Labels" candidate) or abstaining simply splits the anti-Trump vote and allows him to be re-elected, which is the worst of all scenarios.
As JGL53 says, that doesn't preclude Biden being charged with colluding in genocide at a later date, but electing Trump is not going to improve the USA's human rights record, nor help the people of Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan or anywhere else. The USA's record regarding crimes against humanity is already appalling, and I would say that most of us outside the USA can barely remember which presidents were in office during many of your military interventions over the last few decades. The USA presents itself as a shining example of democracy and human rights, even though we all know it is neither, so while officials in the government or military may be held to account by international courts as individuals, it is nevertheless the USA as a whole whose international reputation is tarnished, not just Biden (or for that matter Trump).
The two main parties are Labour (left) and Conservative (right, also known as Tory). A significant third party is the centrist Liberal Democrats who, despite forming an ill-fated coalition with the Tories from 2020-2015 which lost them a lot of popular support and which they still haven't been able to live down, generally have more in common with the Labour party than the Tories. There are also parties such as the Greens, and Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose agenda is not primarily left or right, but who also generally have more in common with Labour than with the Tories. In recent elections we have seen more tactical voting, whereby a LibDem or Green supporter will vote Labour in order to keep the Tories out; more rarely, in a seat where the LibDems have a chance of winning but Labour doesn't, Labour supporters might vote LibDem for the same reason, although some diehard voters refuse absolutely to vote for anyone except their own party (an old friend of mine, a lifelong member of and campaigner for the Labour party, simply says, "Don't ever vote for the LibDems. It only encourages them!")
It seems to me that a form of tactical voting is what JGL53 is advocating. Biden may not be your preferred candidate, but voting for anybody else (eg a "No Labels" candidate) or abstaining simply splits the anti-Trump vote and allows him to be re-elected, which is the worst of all scenarios.
As JGL53 says, that doesn't preclude Biden being charged with colluding in genocide at a later date, but electing Trump is not going to improve the USA's human rights record, nor help the people of Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan or anywhere else. The USA's record regarding crimes against humanity is already appalling, and I would say that most of us outside the USA can barely remember which presidents were in office during many of your military interventions over the last few decades. The USA presents itself as a shining example of democracy and human rights, even though we all know it is neither, so while officials in the government or military may be held to account by international courts as individuals, it is nevertheless the USA as a whole whose international reputation is tarnished, not just Biden (or for that matter Trump).
33John5918
I wasn't sure in which topic to mention this, but it seems to be connected to my last paragraph in >32 John5918:, so it might be worth noting Dr John Young's new book, The Poisoned Chalice of Democracy: Studies from the Horn of Africa. The blurb on the cover includes the University of Addis Ababa noting "the global decline of Western democracy" and a Canadian university speaking of "the flawed theory and practice of democracy promotion as a tool of US foreign policy. Poorly practiced at home, US 'democracy' embedded in global capitalism, produces failed states in the Global South".
An article by Dr Young on the South Sudanese website Nyamilpedia entitled The Challenge of Democracy in South Sudan has a long opening section entitled "The Failure of US Democracy".
Full disclosure: I have known Dr Young personally as a respected Horn of Africa analyst for many years.
An article by Dr Young on the South Sudanese website Nyamilpedia entitled The Challenge of Democracy in South Sudan has a long opening section entitled "The Failure of US Democracy".
Full disclosure: I have known Dr Young personally as a respected Horn of Africa analyst for many years.
34lriley
>33 John5918: in the western nations capitalism is married to democracy and the issue is that as capitalism has evolved it's an economic system of winners and losers. And as it evolves and evolves the protection of the winners against the losers becomes more and more paramount and what I'm afraid we're going to see not too far into our own future here in the United States is the growth of fascism into real political power. To me that's what Trump's popularity signals but even many Democratic politicians already are showing signs of having this virus. I can't imagine exporting our newer economic fixes into countries in the global South now would be very popular with the great majorities of those populations as they're already behind the economic 8 ball.
35kiparsky
From the Times: No Labels Sued by New York Donors Claiming ‘Bait and Switch’
Two members of the powerful Durst real estate family in New York have sued the centrist group No Labels, accusing it of pulling a “bait and switch” by seeking donations for a bipartisan governing group and then moving to fund a third-party presidential candidacy.
...
He continued: “They never imagined at the time that No Labels would pivot to becoming the organization behind a quixotic third-party candidacy that could skew the most consequential presidential election of our lifetime. The Dursts believe they were sold a bill of goods, and they want no part of it.”
36JGL53
> 35
There is no need for me or anyone else on this thread to make any elaborate and cogent
argument against the No Labels bullshit when you make the best argument. We just need
to stand back and let you do your thing.
You go, girl.
There is no need for me or anyone else on this thread to make any elaborate and cogent
argument against the No Labels bullshit when you make the best argument. We just need
to stand back and let you do your thing.
You go, girl.
37Molly3028
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/former-georgia-gop-lt-gov-geoff-duncan-considera...
Former Georgia GOP Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan under consideration as No Labels candidate
***
I would love to see Geoff take the plunge. Common sense is his forte during CNN political discussions.
Former Georgia GOP Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan under consideration as No Labels candidate
***
I would love to see Geoff take the plunge. Common sense is his forte during CNN political discussions.
38kiparsky
No Labels will not field a presidential candidate
Lead paragraphs from the paywalled article:
(The Wall Street Journal also has a story, also paywalled.)
So that's good news anyway - there's still that Kennedy jackass, but I'm not massively worried about him unless he can link up with the nutcases who think Trump will be better than Biden for the Palestinians - which could still happen, I suppose. The brainless elements of the left could still get Trump in, if they try, but at least this particular attempt seems to have fizzled.
Lead paragraphs from the paywalled article:
The centrist group No Labels has abandoned its plans to run a presidential ticket in the 2024 election, having failed to recruit a candidate, its leader, Nancy Jacobson, said on Thursday.
The group, which said last year it had raised $60 million to put forward what it called a bipartisan “unity ticket,” had suffered a string of rejections in recent months as prominent Republicans and Democrats declined to run on its ticket. The group had told donors and members that it would put forward a candidate if President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump were the main parties’ nominees.
“Today, No Labels is ending our effort to put forth a Unity ticket in the 2024 presidential election,” Ms. Jacobson said in a statement. “Americans remain more open to an independent presidential run and hungrier for unifying national leadership than ever before. But No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”
(The Wall Street Journal also has a story, also paywalled.)
So that's good news anyway - there's still that Kennedy jackass, but I'm not massively worried about him unless he can link up with the nutcases who think Trump will be better than Biden for the Palestinians - which could still happen, I suppose. The brainless elements of the left could still get Trump in, if they try, but at least this particular attempt seems to have fizzled.
