Former Maine State Senate President Majority Leader Rick Bennett on the two party system

 OpenPrimaries is having a video chat with Rick Bennett on this topic:

“I’m running as an independent because Maine’s next chapter can’t be dictated by party bosses in Washington or by the special interests pouring dark money into our elections. Too many politicians today are more focused on partisan point-scoring than problem-solving. The system thrives on conflict, not resolution, and the issues that matter most – housing, our economy, our schools – get lost in the noise.”

I definitely agree with him as my posts on the duopoly and US politics bear out. It's nice to see someone admit that they cannot work within the duopoly system, especially if they were a part of it.

I may be comment adverse, but I have been known to sign petitions to get candidates and parties on the ballot that I do not support. Especially since that's about the only way to break the duopoly lock on the electoral process.

🚨BREAKING: HUGE problem for Dems!

I always thought she sounded stoned, but this is a real scary thought if this is true.

If there ever was a time for people to vote third party, it's now.

Unhappy with the presidential duopoly candidates? There are alternatives. Here's why you should vote third party.

Lesser evil voting hurts the voters. It also doesn't help our political discussion.

This is worth a listen if you don't like US politics and want change.

Kamala Harris Says She Was a Progressive Prosecutor...

There's a reason why she dropped out in 2020, yet the Democratic party is trying to ram her down our throats without her having to go through the primary process. She doesn't withstand scrutiny, yet she is getting a pass from the media.

Kamala Harris: "She's completely incompetent!"

I thought about posting Tulsi Gabbard ripping Kamala Harris on her record for those people who talk shit about 'Orrible 'Arris being "a real lefty". You can look those up since I disagree with Gabbard's direction these days. And there were questions about whether Tulsi was a lefty back in the day.

But as I like to say, most of "the Democrats are the party of the left" wouldn't spot a lefty if they walked up and smashed them over the head with a "smash the state" sign.

That said, Here is Norman Finkelstein who is a true lefty and the subject of "American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein"

Kamala Harris is in no way a lefty.

It's too bad the Green Party isn't allowed any publicity because we wouldn't hear nonsense about the Democrats being a "party of the left".

Democrats don't discriminate on race, religion, sexual whatever, disability, or just ability for that matter.

Former Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock as Pinocchio with his wife, Glenys as Jiminy Cricket.

OK, I have a different attitude toward plagiarism than a lot of people. On the other hand, Biden chose to use material from Neil Kinnock. It wasn't that he was plagiarising as much as he was being totally insincere. Toss in he could have picked someone better to crib a speech from, as this image from the British satirical series Spitting Image points out.

But the democrats decided to run a three time loser who was beginning to show signs of dementia before the election even began. Then they decided to close ranks to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination.

And don't get me into John Fetterman, who should have withdrawn after his stroke, yet remains in office.

So much for the Dems being "wildly lefty" since what Sanders proposes is pretty much taken for granted outside the US. It's only in the US that people want to work themselves to death because they are heavily in debt. Go figure.

But I digress. 

Toss in that his running mate, Kamala Harris, pulled out of the running because she was a poor candidate. All the opposition has to do is to address her record and she's cooked.

But two really bad candidates managed to win an election based on "Trump bad".

I'm not so sure about Tim Walz, but I have the feeling that the Dems picked another "winning" line up.

Of course, I'm voting Green and hoping the system blows up.

ELECTION RIGGING: US HYPOCRISY IN ACTION.

 Yes, this is the long contemplated post about how hypocritical the US has been about pushing "free and fair elections on a secret ballot", which is a guaranteed right (e.g., The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948). Something that "western democracies" have been preaching to the rest of the world. While the rest of the world realises how rigged the system happens to be. I still want to find the quote from the African leader, probably Julius Nyerere, who said something along the lines of "We have a one party system. Does having two parties make you twice as democratic as we are? Three parties?"

I was just thinking about the people who like to believe their vote somehow counts in the corrupt US System.

So, let's start with the elephant in the room:

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I've mentioned this one ad nauseum, but the basic gist is that the popular vote is pretty much irrelevant in electing the president. Most people don't give a shit about this unless it's their candidate who got screwed over. So, I am hoping that Jill Stein can win the electoral vote since she's on enough states' ballots to pull it off. So, a third party upstart winning the Presidential election with around 24% of the vote in a handfull of states might shake things up.

So, if you don't like the system and the duopoly candidates, Jill Stein is your candidate. Her winning the election will stir things up more than Donald Trump beating Hilary Clinton in the electoral college.

Take the test here if you don't think the Electoral College is something that needs to go:

https://www.270towin.com/quiz/

If that doesn't get you to vote for Jill Stein, I don't know what will. After all, what would shake up the US Political landscape more than having a third party upstart win the election...

This isn't in any real order than what is coming to mind, so:

THE PRIMARY SYSTEM

Every wonder why this process drags on so long: especially with modern communications technology? That's because the system is rigged so that candidates that don't have a lot of funding can beat out other candidates. And even someone like Bernie Sanders can get shut out of the nomination because the Political Parties are not governmental institutions, but private entities who make their own rules.

That should be pretty obvious if you have been paying attention for the past 3 presidential elections.

Unless you really believe that Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris are the best candidates the US could come up with...

Which brings us to the other elephant in the room:

 BIG MONEY IN POLITICS

That kind of goes with the previous aspect to this, but it goes well beyond it as well. The two parties go for who the big donors want, not the people. The "Democratic" party is really obvious about this. The big donors pick and the party tries to whip up enthusiasm for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Any candidate who talks about the issues doesn't make it too far in the process. Even someone as tepid as Bernie Sanders, who had popular support, will be pushed out for someone the big donors don't find threatening.

As I like to point out, which you will learn if you take the 270towin quiz, Vermont is a historically red state. And Sanders (along with Leahy) have represented the state.

You get the point.

Sure ranked choice voting is one way to fight this, but I would vote Jill Stein and then write in my dogs if we had that option in this election.

Ok, I could go into way more detail, but I am very frustrated by people who think voting for the duopoly is going to change anything.

More 'Orrible 'Arris, and she's even more 'Orrible...

The scary thing is that I'm not sure what her position is on cannabis use. That's OK, I don't think she does either. For that matter, I think she's totally out of it.


We won't need ads telling people cannibis use is bad. We will just say--"look at our president..."

It's 'Orrible 'Arris

Every wonder why she is being pushed as the "democratic" nominee despite not having campaigned or won a vote?

Because she's 'Orribe 'Arris. She had such a poor showing in 2020 that she had to drop out early on.

And for those on the right who believe she is somehow a radical leftist.

Give me a break. You wouldn't know a radical leftist if they smacked you over the head with a smash the state sign.

There's no real difference between her and Trump.

Amazon REMOVES Books Critical Of Kamala Harris

No surprise here. Well, other than that her father is a true radical leftist. But Kamala is estranged from him and has been for a while. So much for Rita Panahi who is someone I think wouldn't know a real lefty if they smacked her on the head with a "smash the state" sign.

Don't try and raise our hopes with someone who is in no way progressive, Rita.

Rita should stick to Oz politics since she has no idea about US politics.

But that pretty much goes for most of the Sky News Oz crowd.

Alas, this is a clip of a much longer show, but Caleb Maupin is on a few others as well. Rita needs to swot up (do Aussies understand that term?) on US politics before she says ANYONE in the "Democratic" party is in anyway "lefty".  Start with Real News Network's piece on Undoing the New Deal: the 1944 Coup against Henry Wallace. Bernie Sanders wasn't the first "lefty" to be torpedoed by the duopoly establishment.

Next, Rita, look up "La France Insoumise", they do have translations of the material on the party. You will encounter something closer to the left that wants to nationalise industries and do things that real leftys like.

But steer clear of AI since it is horrible with languages if you need a translator. Mais je me porterais volontiers volontaire pour ce poste.

And while we're at it, this book has been censored by Amazon, which is a LOT OF POSTS relating to how they are something any freedom loving person should despise. Fortunately, you can buy the book at Lulu (https://www.lulu.com/shop/caleb-maupin/kamala-harris-the-future-of-america-an-essay-in-three-parts/paperback/product-zmkjegd.html?q=Caleb+Maupin&page=1&pageSize=4), buying from something other than the monopoly called Amazon is a strike for freedom.

Do your research, Libertarians, Amazon is everything you claim to despise. 

Actually, Lulu is having problems processing the orders for this book. 

‘Knows she can’t win’: Barack Obama withholds endorsement of Kamala Harris

The Dems haven't learned their lesson, but then again there are the people who will "vote blue no matter who" even if the candidate is terrible.

 

For me, Sanders 2016 run was a confirmation of how bad the process is. The duopoly is pretty bad with the Dems being open about how bad the electoral process is.

Not only will they push a candidate, they will push a candidate who hasn't gone through the process of campaigning for office. But that is because Kamala Harris is an awful candidate. I was surprised they picked her to be veep in 2020. Even more surprised when Biden-Harris won the election.

Anyway, Sky New Australia has a good piece on how bad she is and how she is dividing the party, but that began the moment Hilary Clinton ran for president in 2008. I have a long piece on why I don't like the Democrats. 

And the Republicans are pretty much the same thing. It takes culture war issues to give the appearance of a difference.

As I said, get ready for Trump II.

Kamala Harris's Record Will HAUNT Her In November: Elizabeth Nolan Brown

All the people who are thankful that she is running are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

No, I will not vote for a duopoly candidate--especially not this one.

She makes Hilary Clinton look consistent.

And Sky News Australia agree with real progressives!

Could Kamala Harris actually win in swing states?

Sort of a repeat of the previous post, but a bit more in depth.

What I find interesting sort of goes to my comment in the previous post about the Democratic Party being in no way lefty. They ran when Sanders was running: and he is nothing compared to the left once one leaves the the United States.

Yet, he frightens the Democrats and Fox News loves to say how "socialist" the opposition happens to be.

But don't mention medicare for all...

Get ready for more Donald Trump

Joe Biden was bad, Kamala Harris is worse. She will not appeal to much of anyone other than the same people who would have voted for Biden.

 

In the conceptual blog post on how US elections are rigged, the Democratic Party and it's joke primary elections is a prominent feature. The Democrats would rather lose with someone like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, et al than  run someone like Bernie Sanders.

And while Sanders calls himself a "socialist", he's pretty centre on the political spectrum. After all, he does represent a historically red state (and I don't mean that in the way the rest of the world does, which is socialist, communist, and beyond--except for Anarchists, who are black). So, the despite the Fox News attempt to make "socialism" a "bad" word, most people like it.

At least in its more moderate incarnations. On the other hand, maybe people in the US are total idiots.

I mentioned La France Insoumise, the ultra left party, which "won" in the last elections. I have to wonder what people in the US would think about things like:

• reinforcing the 35-hour work-week and moving towards 32 hours (and people in Europe start work with three weeks PAID holiday/vacation); 
• and reducing the retirement age to 60
• The protection of common goods such as air, water, food, living, health, energy, or currency by preventing their commodification in order to preserve the general interest and by developing corresponding public services.
• The separation of investment and retail banks aimed at separating speculative activities from lend and deposit activities in order to protect the latter and the creation of a public banking center, which would finance small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and carry out credit policy on social and ecological criteria.
• Raising the minimum wage (called "SMIC") from 1,149 to 1,326 euros per month net for 35-hour weeks and raising civil servant salaries frozen since 2010.
• Withdrawal from free trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
• The "democratic re-founding" of the European Union treaties including changes in monetary policy, common agricultural policy, and environmental policy. Failing this, the program envisages a "Plan B" of unilateral exit from European treaties, followed by proposing further cooperation between countries.
• The implementation of an energy transition plan towards a target of 100% renewable energy in 2050, following the studies of the Association négaWatt and the public and interdepartmental agency of the environment and the control of the energy (ADEME). This transition involves shutting down France's nuclear power plants, criticised by the movement for their dependence on uranium supply, their alleged lack of safety, their radioactive waste management and their financial cost.

Even if some of those ideas didn't gain too much traction, it would be fun to see them being debated in an intelligent and informed manner.

A vote for the Green Party is...a vote for the Green Party (or any other third party for that matter)

 OK, I didn't vote for John Fetterman in the last Pennsylvania Election (FYI once one emmigrates from the US, one votes in the last place they were domiciled--it seems I am currently stuck with Philadelphia due to bureaucratic BS). I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but I also Demexited in 2016 and haven't looked back on the duopoly since. I'm not going to get into why I dislike the "Berners" who have remained within the Democratic Party other than to say that I dislike them.

I voted Green in 2022 even though Dr. Oz was not my type. Although, I was walking around singing "Arc en Ciel" the day of the election...

 

De toute façon...

My point, My vote for Jill Stein in 2016 didn't change the election result, the electoral college did that. And the Russians had nothing to do with that, unless you want to tell me that Catherine the Great promised the Continental Congress a "Donkey Show" a few centuries later on.

My Green Party votes haven't changed the results since the duopoly pretty much runs things for the time being in the US. And no matter what Fox news tries to tell people, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties.

Seriously, if the "Democrats" really were socialists, they would have run Sanders in 2016 (and 2020) and won.

Electoral college or not.

But the duopoly doesn't want that to happen. And anyone who remains within the duopoly is a traitor to the movement behind Bernie.

Impeachment...or REAL reconciliation?

Time magazine has published an article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, as we wait for the beginning of yet another pointless impeachment. I am even more sure that the result will be yet another acquittal by the Senate 

One can get their own take depending on how you read the Time Magazine article, but the ultimate bottom line is that the US election process needs to be examined. I'm with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who believes that it would be much more constructive to look into changing the system. I differ with him in that the process should be an intensive look into system.

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.



See also:

• BuzzFeed’s Controversial Cohen Story Raises Question: Did Trump Want to Be President?
• The Dismissed DNC Fraud Lawsuit Explained
• Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything
• Hillary Clinton says she didn't prepare concession speech because she was convinced she would win

THEY JUST WON'T SHUT UP!!!!

Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

• With Craig Indictment, Mueller Probe Sends Ripples Through the Swamp
• Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.
• Mueller's report looks bad for Obama
• Is the FBI’s latest probe of the Clinton Foundation a ‘witch hunt’ – or something more?
• Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections
• Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."