If you want to see some great Republican hypocrisy, read up on Carter and his beehives. They made a huge deal about what a national security risk him selling honey and how he needs to divest from it, but then let Diaper Don slide right in by.
The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.
But since that hurts the current holders of power, it’s pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.
Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…
From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.
Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can’t this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I’m old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I’m not saying that it’s easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it’s actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn’t an incredible compromise.
Maybe a stupid question but how come in a nation of 330 million people, many of them should be qualified, the people are limited to two bad choices?
Has it always been this bad in US presidential elections?
Nope. I’ve been following politics since Nixon and Biden is the best president we’ve had in the last 50 years.
Carter was pretty good. Got ousted from his boat by a rabbit, but he was still a decent president.
If you want to see some great Republican hypocrisy, read up on Carter and his beehives. They made a huge deal about what a national security risk him selling honey and how he needs to divest from it, but then let Diaper Don slide right in by.
The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.
But since that hurts the current holders of power, it’s pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.
Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…
From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.
Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…
Not this bad but yeah
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can’t this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I’m old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I’m not saying that it’s easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it’s actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn’t an incredible compromise.
There’s actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.