The left had multiple opportunities to have their message reach a much wider audience and they refused them all. Harris promised 4 more years of Biden’s policies. And clearly the majority of Americans voted for 4 more years of Trump instead.
1 Like
Who is CJ?
I think he is referring to Cheeto Jesus who the TDS [Trump devotion syndrome] members believe to be a deity come to save them.
1 Like
A third party doesn’t need to identify itself as a third party. It can simply be parts of both parties who come to a pubic agreement to promote the most centrist candidate, without leaving their party, thus spurning the extremes of their own party.
The Democrats could produce a centrist candidate and tell the Progressive wing they are ditching the most Progressive agendas in the party platform. The loss of Progressive voters could be filled to some degree by centrist-minded Republicans. Mainstream Democrats would see the sense in that, if it led to victory.
But that ignores the reality of how elections are won. Elections thrive on calculated outrage, not consensus. Outrage is the juice that powers the American electorate. MAGAs would never accept a centrist candidate. The Democrats would not accept JD Vance because the man is not a centrist. It’s a matter of the electorate’s damaged psyche more than the candidates involved.
Obama, a centrist president, easily won twice, but he could only win because the country fell into hard economic times and war under the Bush Administration. The country was frightened into hiring a centrist.
And when he was in office, Obama–a man who tried to cross both aisles-- was vilified by the Right as the font of all evil, and hated by Progressives because he did not jail the bankers. Once the fear of recession and war was gone both sides of the political spectrum snapped back to their tribalism.
You’re not going to get any more centrist than Obama. Anyone like him is a non-starter nowadays on the Right–until we have a severe economic downturn again.
A novel way of promoting centrist presidents is by amputating part of presidential power. The less power a president has the less interest he is to the political extremes. One way of diminishing presidential power is my plan to remove all social welfare programs (SS CDC, etc.) to a new league-level of government, which diminishes presidential power. State Leagues for Social Services
Leagues of like-minded states would keep the Union together by reducing the reason for squabbling between them, reducing the reasons for outrage. But both extremes prefer outrage to novel solutions. They are not interested in new ideas. They simply want their perceived enemies punished.
In the end it has nothing to do with candidates, and everything to do it with the damaged psychology of voters of both political stripes, who refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with them.
2 Likes
Ok it took me a while to process this but I think that could work. Would also be a reset for the country. Maybe make things infinitely more clear. States more power. Not the one size fits all for everyone no matter which way you lean. I like it. How would it be legislated federally?
Hey. I had no idea what he was doing or whether it will work. Economic theory says it won’t but I’m reminded Benjamin Brewster is credited with having written in the Yale Literary Magazine way back in February 1882 that ‘in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is’.
So I’m a supporter, but I can’t explain anything about this one.
The best explanation I’ve heard (don tinfoil hat in readiness) is that previously international trade deals (and much beside) between USA and others was with the corporation of the United States and not the actual constitutional United States. The corporation came into existence in 1871. That bit isn’t taught in schools. Did you know? BTW, Australia has also been subverted by the same evil method.
I’ve heard (no link, sorry) that Trump has eliminated the corporation somehow and has used this opportunity to renegotiate all trade arrangements under the proper, reasserted constitutional authority of the US. In order to bring everybody to the negotiating table to do that he (being a disrupter) threw a virtual hand grenade tariff war into the mix and, voila, they are all beating a path to the negotiating table.
All of this is readily available on the internet … just not on any main stream media, main stream search engines. and chat sites such as ours here. Don’t try google etc.
Note, I don’t give you a sarcastic one liner in response as I offer this in the true spirit of a dispassionate exchange of ideas.
In the end, I can’t explain or predict Trump. I can only make a positive overall assessment that he sincerely wishes to make America great again and, in that regard, I think he’s the only one who can do it.
1 Like
"
Nonsense. These are nothing more than identifiers to be used in court session, or legal arguments.
As far as creating the system: once agreed on, the government would announce that in four years time all federal social programs—that is, all the agencies created from the 1930s onward— would be removed from the federal level of government to the new league level. Each league would wholly fund—or not fund—their own social programs.
All the rest of federal government would be untouched.
At the same time the four year process of enleaguing would begin, overseen by the congressional delegation of each state, via commission.
Each state would choose which other states to enleague with, by popular vote in each state. There would be at least three rounds of voting, where citizens decide which states can join their league, but also which states will be excluded from their league. Ties or near ties to be settled by congressional delegation.
Just as in choosing sand lot teams, there will be states no league wants. Each orphan would be assigned to that league whose combined voting record most closely mirrors their own.
Let’s focus on the effect on social security, since that would be the most controversial agency to be affected. Congress would direct the SSA to organize the nation’s SSA in such a way that in four years time each league would now be responsible to administer its citizens’ SS accounts.
You can live in one league and still draw your SS benefits from the league you worked in the most, so that’s not an issue. But each league would fund its own SSA from its own coffers.
Once the completion date is reached the least important yet most contentious parts of the federal government would be completely out of the president’s hands. They would be administered by congressional delegations and a quorum of state governors .
The presidential powers envisaged by the Founders would remain intact. And each league gets the social programs they want.
My guess would be that there hasn’t been a ‘free and fair election for US President’ this century. US elections are the laughing stock of the democratic world. The level of corruption is breathtaking as evidenced by any number of independent assessments, court cases etc in recent years.
My assessment is that Trump will work towards correcting the fairness of elections to the extent that he can. Note that the states are in charge of the presidential elections of delegates and Trump has no authority to interfere. He can, however insist that for example only US citizens vote. He can also pressure states by withholding federal funds or by his more typical bluster to comply with the spirit of electoral conventions.
What exactly is nonsense?
You have cut and pasted definitions from 28 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions (As used in this chapter:) ie the law.
What issue do you have with the law?
Do you realize for the majority of our Nation’s history presidential candidates have been chosen by parties at the convention rather than through some national system of primaries and caucuses? I don’t understand why people suddenly think that how a party chooses their nominee has to be democratic. That’s up to the party to decide.
Choosing the sitting VP as a candidate in lieu of the incumbent when the incumbent is no longer up to the challenge of an election is not controversial. “Saving democracy” has nothing to do with how parties pick their candidates. There are no rules in terms of how parties pick their nominees. The parties decide the rules.
Did you see the role call during the DNC when delegates from every state and territory nearly all voted for Harris? That is how parties nominate candidates. That is nothing new or different. That is in fact democracy. I think you are confusing elections with party nomination processes. The two are very different.
Even during actual presidential elections states vote through the electoral college and then send electors to actually vote for the winner of the election. Nothing says the electors have to vote for the preferred candidate of the state, they mostly do, but not always.
2 Likes
Spot on!
The party selects the candidate. She was already the vice president, selected by the presidential candidate and voted in by the primary that put her in the office. She was next in line of succession. The democratic process was followed, she lost the general election. There are more profoundly illegal and undemocratic affairs in progress today that should bother you more than how a party selected and offered its candidate for voters to decide.
3 Likes
Rid the nation of the criminal that currently occupies it.
Cheeto Jesus! Ripping on a guy for the color of his skin. Brought to you by the side that recently purported that systemic racism is the biggest threat to our nation
2 Likes
Give it a break. It is not racist, it is a jab about the ego and vanity of a profoundly disturbed narcissist who dyes his face orange for a reason that probably baffles or amuses most psychiatrists.
“… systemic racism is the biggest threat to our nation” No, the face dyed felon is the biggest threat to this nation.
2 Likes
You want to see some hypocrisy? I desperately hope VP Vance gets one of his non-Ukrainian/non-Russian speaking family members with zero oil & gas industry experience a lucrative job at an Ukrainian oil or mining company & hear what the left & media says about it.
No issue. The author seems to be trying to illustrate some murky conspiracy theory WRT the United States being a corporation.
Indeed and the author also says the Articles of Confederation are still in effect without explaining that only those articles which have not been replaced by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments over the last 237 years remain in place.
Sounds like some “sovereign citizen” BS.
3 Likes