Your comment indicates to me you didn't read the article being it's completely off topic.

@William_Mary I admit. I have stopped reading a lot of your stuff because I find it so long.

@rogerbenham I'd say that's a shame being the article is only a few minutes read, but I'm fairly certain your true intent was to take another smear shot at me. More importantly that speaks volumes to me and the group as a major negative on you and why you even visit here then. While you totally missed the narrative of the article in your comment, you then took the time to like a comment by another who made the same classic social media type of rhetoric statement out of ignorance also. It seems to be a tell backing up my initial developed opinion your only purpose here is to be seen and heard on your own conditions in which you have used occasionally to attempt to smear me at times. I could go on with a few other observances over the past but I'd be wasting my time. With that said I'll simply thank you for finally showing your true self and worth to me and the group.

@William_Mary Wow, I understand why some have left the group and why some dislike you. You use the group daily to expound your views and dislike ant criticism or disagreement. That seems to me to be an odd behaviour of a group moderator.

@rogerbenham yea, it's call an objective purpose towards an agenda. I think I have that right as the group creator. If you weren't so seemingly narcissistic you might be able to understand what the group is about and the direction I structured it towards. Not only have I made no attempts to hide this but occasionally repeat this in comments, while also making post directing new/ish members to visit the Pinned Pages to understand this while welcoming them into the group. While after all this time you just now understanding this again speaks volumes to me and the group. And you believe this is a good means to attack me? I'd say quit while you're ahead but you're deep into a rabbit hole in my eyes.

If you need help out I can provide it. You've now become one of the problematic type I don't want here that can deter others from wanting to stay and learn what I'm attempting to expose in the nature of empire building and a failed capitalist world. And quite frankly, if you're not going to use your vast knowledge to help me get these points across to the members and here just to boast your fucking ego with constant useless one liners that offer us nothing, or to take smear shots at me, please leave.

Your comment indicates to me you didn't read the article being it's completely off topic.

@William_Mary I read what you posted. Unless what you posted is completely off-topic from the link you included, it's absolutely on-topic...
What you posted talks about a president not being fully in charge because of the power of his unelected cabinet. Additionally, however, the parts you posted seemed to insinuate it would have been more of a factor for Biden than Trump as if Trump didn't make promises to get votes that were not in line with his subsequent cabinet picks.

@JeffMurray you're to funny to a point it's sad. What did I post?

@William_Mary Good talk. I already posted my response. Refute if you can. Make more snide comments if you can't.

@JeffMurray what's the matter. Did you finally realize how wrong you are?

@JeffMurray We both got the same response from the group moderator!

@rogerbenham That's because he's only interested in spreading misinformation. Notice he didn't try to refute what I said, just tried to silence me with rude comments. People like him are the reason we don't and won't ever have legitimate, constructive discourse in America ever again.

@rogerbenham for the same reasons obviously. You're both making yourselves prime examples of parts of the negative narratives of this group and you just don't get it. And that's all on you two. And within your ignorance's you've gone on to buddy up and turn your sights on me. Have a good life in your delusional realities.

@rogerbenham He likes to call us ignorant. He likes to point out that he knows what our misconceptions are, yet fails to specify after being asked repeatedly, seemingly because he doesn't have a good reply and just wants to remain in his echo chamber without pesky observations about the nature of reality creeping in to fuck it all up.

It would affect any president, including Trump. The post says as much anyway. So what's your point? Are you saying you only want Trump held accountable, but not Biden or a Democrat? Is this the "but Trump did it" argument or can it be an objective adult analysis? Both parties are slime. Both parties benefit from this stuff. Can you admit that? Can you admit that Biden is picking warhawks and corporate whores to his team? Yes, Trump did it and it was wrong.............Biden?

@Piece2YourPuzzle Read this whole thread. I said exactly what you just said.

@JeffMurray

"Additionally, however, the parts you posted seemed to insinuate it would have been more of a factor for Biden than Trump as if Trump didn't make promises to get votes that were not in line with his subsequent cabinet picks."

I read exactly what you posted.

I don't think he did any such thing.

@JeffMurray I missed the part where you admitted Biden is selecting warhawks and corporate whores to his administration though.

The OP posted an article and made no opinion of his own in the text. The article already admits Trump did it. I still don't understand your beef.

@JeffMurray ...and why are you attacking this from the right? If you're a left winger then I would think you would be in favor of this and/or holding Biden's feet to the fire. The article says Biden is a center right Democrat, which he is. He can even be considered a 1980s moderate Republican just like Obama claimed himself to be. So you don't think voters should elect administration picks to at least try and keep presidents and their promises more honest, whether it's Trump OR Biden? You didn't answer my questions about Biden. So again, why are you attacking this from the right if you're a left winger?

@JeffMurray I have been getting increasing concerned about his obsessions and lengthy diatribes. I've got better things to do.

@altschmerz I agree with all that, but knowing that, you think people are going to suddenly care so much they're going not only start looking up stuff on candidates before the election but they're also going to research all of their cabinet picks too? Come on. Anyway, even if we did have access to that information and even if people did look it up, we are so polarized the results of that search likely wouldn't mean anything. I'm so convinced that another 4 of Trump would end our democracy (that is if the first 4 didn't do it) that there's practically no one Biden could pick for his cabinet pre-election that would have changed my vote. Furthermore, the pre-election cabinet picks can only hurt the Democrats. Republicans have shown all they care about is power, and we know they'll always line up to vote for the Republican, so their picks wouldn't hurt them, while the fractured left would take a hit for picks being not centrist enough or liberal enough.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I want to thank you for actually reading the article in which you based an intelligent means to give an opinion on. Which I didn't get that respect from my 2 attackers. Which obviously lead to their misunderstanding and different views of seemingly reading only the paragraph's I used to highlight interest in the article. I attempted to draw them to the article to no prevail to intellectually continue a debate, hence my silence. I refuse to argue with ignorance being it can potentially drag the educated down to their level.

The placement of biasness wasn't present in the article by Joe Lauria, unless you want to consider his advocacy of voters having a right to participate in the confirmation of cabinet members as a biasness. Which was the primary narrative of the article! Voters rights in the process! Lauria correctly, in my opinion, correlated the actions of both Biden and Trump being the same as can be related to all past administrations as a failed system for the citizenry. All citizenry without biasness.

His only exclusion might have been the obviousness lack of experience and capitalist installed which he might have been attempting to expose in the second paragraph I used in Trump's appointees. That could be a worthy debate. But I'd argue on that point that those people compared to Biden's will only reach the same results. Those that Biden is voicing support for have a long list of conflicts within the departments they'll go into in which many worked in corporations with conflicting agendas also. Basically the results will be the same in which Mike Papantonio is already exposing.

[rt.com]

@JeffMurray

{I agree with all that, but knowing that, you think people are going to suddenly care so much they're going not only start looking up stuff on candidates before the election but they're also going to research all of their cabinet picks too?}

We're doing that now. That's what the sources do for us that I use in this group. Educate us in a means the MSCM will not. Attempt to draw more people from the MSCM into these sources to be better educated. Why are you so intent on fighting against this rather than help spread this knowledge? By your ideology we might as well lay down and continue to be enslaved.

@William_Mary You may be, but a vast, vast majority won't. Ever. Tens of millions of eligible voters can't even be bothered to pull a fuckin' lever, even in an election this big, so an informed electorate isn't a pipe dream, it's an impossibility. My problem with it is that it's conveniently at a time that is more accusatory of Biden, with the token inclusion of 'Trump did it too', even though Trump's cabinet picks were far more egregious.
If the outcome was neutral, I wouldn't be fighting it. It isn't. This push is far more detrimental to the Dems, so, no thanks.

@JeffMurray but Trump is no longer in the spot light, so to say. So it's imperative we expose Biden who now is! I'll suggest that you're allowing yourself to be drawn into the divisional divide to dampen the vision needed to advance. Break away from the tribalism tactics of conditioning to confront the here and now. Forget about Trump! Until we need to worry about Trump again.

We can't just say, O well, we have to many fucktards out there who don't get it, and leave it at that. Stand up and take initiative with people like us here and spread the knowledge you have. If you refuse to do this than your argument is empty rhetoric that offers no sense of direction to change. You're seemingly only confrontational here. What purpose does that serve us!?! So why then get on a forum to spout your disregard for your fellow citizens if you have absolutely no confidence in them to produce change? That quite frankly suggest your full of ego with a need to be heard, and have a bullies way to which only furthers the divisional divide in our country.

More people are waking up each year. Be part of helping the cause or play a part in stifling it. Those are the choices.

@William_Mary I'd be more than happy to help when it wouldn't be detrimental to democrats. And I'm not full of ego, I'm being realistic. I'm as liberal and progressive as they come, but not at the expense of protecting people from conservative policies. I support free college, free health coverage, pro-choice, gay rights, climate change legislation, I even want to see profit-free government-run automobile insurance and zero-deduction taxes. Try to name a progressive policy I wouldn't support or a progressive candidate I wouldn't vote for.
How progressive is someone, really, if they protest-vote someone into the White House that wants to reduce healthcare coverage, give billionaires more tax breaks, take money away from public schools, deport dreamers, privatize the post office, etc?
It's crazy that we want the exact same things, yet just because of a difference in what we think are possible avenues to get there, we're fighting each other. It's not like I'm in the center and you're on the far left and we're splintering. This is how we lose so much.
For the Republicans, all that matters is "( R )". Work on changing who gets the nod in the primaries. Work on all those people that don't vote at all to get to the polls at that time. That will show the party that they don't need to worry about the shifting electorate, because with that much new support on the far left, if it really does exist, the electorate wouldn't actually be shifting right. But don't wait until the general and then cause/almost cause a Republican win.

@JeffMurray

Quote: "I'm so convinced that another 4 of Trump would end our democracy (that is if the first 4 didn't do it)"

Really? The world didn't end. America didn't end. Trump didn't call for the military to barricade him into the White House. He didn't order them to kill his opponent. He didn't call for martial law on American citizens because he lost the election. He didn't put you in a prison camp. I think you are fearmongering. I mean reality is right in front of your face. Trump is a jackass and more establishment than his followers think, but he didn't destroy anything. I still would say that George W. Bush was much worse. If you don't think so then I seriously question your judgment. Even Obama expanded 2 wars to 7 wars among other things. This is the problem I have with BOTH sides! They aren't objective!

Quote: "that there's practically no one Biden could pick for his cabinet pre-election that would have changed my vote."

Therein lies part of the problem. Both parties' unwillingness to open their minds and get out of the corrupt system. You're telling me that Biden couldn't pick anyone bad enough to make you vote for someone else? I know you think Trump is the anti-Christ, but come on! Henry Kissinger? George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Hitler? Darth Vader (even though I already mentioned Cheney)? Nobody?

You talk about people not being willing to research cabinet picks etc., but do you? You still haven't admitted to Biden having horrible picks for his administration that are warhawks and corporate bootlickers. You ignored every question I gave you.

Quote: "Furthermore, the pre-election cabinet picks can only hurt the Democrats. Republicans have shown all they care about is power, and we know they'll always line up to vote for the Republican, so their picks wouldn't hurt them, while the fractured left would take a hit for picks being not centrist enough or liberal enough."

It can only hurt the Democrats because you know they would pick conservatives or "center" people. They have abandoned the progressive wing of the party voters and you're ok with that? They're basically Republican-lite, but just on social issues. It's the whole "lesser of two evils" crap as both parties keep moving further to the right. As long as one party is seen to be worse than the other then nothing will change because people will always vote for George W. Bush instead of who they think is "Hitler". Do you claim to be a progressive or a left winger? The only way I can see you being ok with them not fighting for left wing or progressive ideals is if you're neither of those things. You would rather have the status quo of corporatism, cronyism, corruption, and aggressive foreign policy? Then again, it didn't hurt them in this election because even people who are supposedly left wing said they had to pick Biden because they had no other choice. One dimensional thinking. It's not smart. It leads to the same crap every time and these politicians know it. That's why the system is the way it is.......to manipulate the public into picking the "lesser of two evils".

You say Republicans will always vote for the Republican no matter what, but what has been the Democrats slogan? "Vote Blue No Matter Who". You have Democrats that didn't dare vote for Bernie because they ate the propaganda that he couldn't win and that they HAD to pick Biden because he was the practical choice. That's hypocritical!

How do you explain the public overwhelmingly being for left wing policy such as Med4All etc., but then voting for Democrats that promise to not give it to them?

@JeffMurray

Quote: You may be, but a vast, vast majority won't. Ever. Tens of millions of eligible voters can't even be bothered to pull a fuckin' lever, even in an election this big, so an informed electorate isn't a pipe dream, it's an impossibility.

Why not at least have the option of having the electorate have the choice of approving them? If they aren't educated enough or motivated enough to research or not then no harm done.

Quote: My problem with it is that it's conveniently at a time that is more accusatory of Biden, with the token inclusion of 'Trump did it too', even though Trump's cabinet picks were far more egregious.

Who is the incoming president? It's Biden. And it's "your guy", so of course you think it's more accusatory against Biden. I don't support either party or either candidate and I can see that the article is accusatory of BOTH Trump AND Biden! What was the author supposed to say to make you think it was equally accusatory? He already said it was the same situation under Trump. What more do you want? Should the author have thought of this 4 years ago and written the same article? Is that the only way you would think it wasn't biased towards Biden? And what if it is? Does it negate the horrible people that Biden is putting into his administration? How can you say Trump choices were far more egregious when both of their picks are for the people in the same corporate and foreign policy aggressive swamp? I mean for fuck sake, Biden just appointed an ex-Raytheon employee (weapons manufacturer) to be his Secretary of Defense!!! If you don't think that that's egregious then what is in your opinion?

Quote: If the outcome was neutral, I wouldn't be fighting it. It isn't. This push is far more detrimental to the Dems, so, no thanks.

This is the peak of partisanship. Hold your party accountable instead, or else you're just as bad as the Republicans in terms of "Republicans have shown all they care about is power, and we know they'll always line up to vote for the Republican, so their picks wouldn't hurt them."

@JeffMurray

Quote: "I'd be more than happy to help when it wouldn't be detrimental to democrats. And I'm not full of ego, I'm being realistic. I'm as liberal and progressive as they come, but not at the expense of protecting people from conservative policies. I support free college, free health coverage, pro-choice, gay rights, climate change legislation, I even want to see profit-free government-run automobile insurance and zero-deduction taxes. Try to name a progressive policy I wouldn't support or a progressive candidate I wouldn't vote for.

Aren't you protecting conservative policy though? You say you support progressive and left wing policy, but you keep voting for people that are telling you that you're not getting it. So how is that different? How is that supporting or voting for a progressive candidate? Democrats are not giving anyone free college, free health care, Joe Biden's climate change policy includes not banning fracking and supporting oil companies, etc. I know people don't want to do this because they feel the Green Party can't win, but if you guys didn't have that collective mentality with voting propaganda then they could win. The Green Party wants to give us all that you mention and more.

Quote: How progressive is someone, really, if they protest-vote someone into the White House that wants to reduce healthcare coverage, give billionaires more tax breaks, take money away from public schools, deport dreamers, privatize the post office, etc?

You are assuming that people that didn't vote for Biden or don't support Biden would vote for someone like Trump. I don't support Biden, but I would have never voted for or supported Trump. You are also acting like Democrat politicians don't support the same policy you are talking about here. The Republicans seem to want to take it a little bit more quickly than the Democrats though. Lesser of two evils stuff.

Quote: It's crazy that we want the exact same things, yet just because of a difference in what we think are possible avenues to get there, we're fighting each other. It's not like I'm in the center and you're on the far left and we're splintering. This is how we lose so much.

Your avenue is voting for status quo with Joe Biden. The man that told corporations and billionaires that "nothing would fundamentally change", that he would veto a Med4All bill, a man that is pro-war, etc etc etc.

My avenue is voting for people who actually want to give us left wing progressive policy.

I don't compromise for status quo. There is no change there.

Quote: For the Republicans, all that matters is "( R )". Work on changing who gets the nod in the primaries. Work on all those people that don't vote at all to get to the polls at that time. That will show the party that they don't need to worry about the shifting electorate, because with that much new support on the far left, if it really does exist, the electorate wouldn't actually be shifting right. But don't wait until the general and then cause/almost cause a Republican win.

...and like I said before, the Dems are the same way. "Vote Blue No Matter Who".

It's shifting right because left wingers/progressives like you keep voting for the people who keep shifting right because the other party is more right wing. Vote your ideals instead of voting out of fear.

Democrat voters today: "Oh my God, the Republicans are running Darth Vader for president. I must vote for Hitler because Darth Vader wants to destroy the whole universe and Hitler just wants to kill all the Jews." "Lesser of two evils". Whereas I want to vote for someone like Jill Stein who wants to give us healthcare for all, free college, real climate change action, no war etc., while holding corporations accountable for operating in a society that supports their business without exploiting people, but people will throw propaganda around that she's a kook or a Russian asset with absolutely no proof other than her sitting at a table at a dinner with Putin in which she had no choice in the seating arrangement and because she once said that vaccines should be researched to make sure they're safe. So she's "not electable". If people voted their ideals then she would be electable. All the polls say the majority of people who participate in those polls would benefit most from her politics.........and it doesn't even have to be her. It can be anyone with those ideals. I don't vote for specific people. I vote for ideals and policy. Not flashy words or propaganda.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I know you put more time into that than you wanted to! And for fucks sake I highly apprecieate your time in intelligently deciphering all that with historicly correct commentary.

@Piece2YourPuzzle It would be nice if that were true, but it just isn't. For hundreds of years Duverger's Law has not failed to be true, so people know it will be a wasted vote that will elect the worse of the two [in some cases, the worse of the two evils]. I'm asking how you can make it happen instead of just restating an if/then statement. Sure, if everyone wrote in John Stamos on their ballot then he would become the next president. The question is how do you convince enough people that enough people are going to do it to get him the win before you actually know/can show you have the numbers? That's the Catch-22.
Would it be nice if everyone voted their ideals? Absolutely.
Would it be nice if no one stole anything so we could all spend the money we spend on security measures on other things. Yup. Those things are based on the same principle. People will take advantage of weaknesses they see in others because humans are innately selfish (or pragmatic if you prefer). While some people are voting their ideals others will sacrifice a little of what they want to guarantee the rest every election. The Republicans figured this out. Do you know that if 25% of the people who voted for Jill Stein in Wisconsin, 75% from Michigan, and 88% from Pennsylvania had realized they were throwing their vote away and voted for Clinton instead, we would have never had a President Trump. How much better would the environment be in if there was no Trump? How much better would everything be if Clinton had won? If you think all the bad shit that happened under Trump was worth it to vote your ideals, then I guess we're kind of at an impasse.

@JeffMurray Democrat voters don't give up "a little" of what they want. They give up probably north of 75% of what they want.....every election. Everything you mentioned that you wanted in one of your previous posts is NOT getting enacted by Biden. It wouldn't have been enacted under Clinton either.

You are assuming that Clinton, and very naively based on her record, that she was better for anything.

The first thing I would try to do is get people out of their two party propaganda ridden system thinking. That's obviously not working though......and then again you probably think the Democrats didn't rig two straight elections against Bernie Sanders.

The way you talk about it is very irking to say the least. People don't "throw their votes away". They vote. Nobody owes you or anyone else their vote. Seriously, how dare anyone talk like that and expect others to succumb to what they want. Can you criticize any of Jill Stein's policy positions (that you supposedly are in favor of) or is the only thing you have to say about it is that people "wasted their votes" on her? It's one thing to criticize policy, but to automatically say people should vote how you want or else your candidate will lose and the other side that basically is the same will get elected is madness. There are minor differences between the two main parties. The Democrats talk nicer and are better on social issues. They are the same in every other way, especially corporations and foreign policy. Haven't you been paying attention? The social issues are starting to get blurred though as the Dems are even moving further to the right than before on those too.

@William_Mary I don't even know why I bothered. He doesn't answer 90% of my questions or address most of the points I made.

@JeffMurray

Civilization needs its monsters. These monsters are constantly manufactured for us by the ruling class and those who manage this perception for them. Public relation firms to MSCM to politicians. A man trying to change the world fails for one simple reason and avoidable reason, everyone else.

Based on all your ideology from a previous post that I spent a large part of the day trading messages with you deciphering your developed opinion, and now this post as Piece2YourPuzzle put his time in doing exactly the same, you leave only one conclusion for every critical thinking person and for yourself that you can't see. You betray your own developed opinions. You fall in line with everyone else. Against your own spoken words you are not you. Just who are you? I see 2 of you. Who do you expect me to believe? Why should I now believe you?

@Piece2YourPuzzle
Honestly, I want to, but I'm responding to both of you and it's a lot.
I'm not a typical Democrat. Like I said, I think I'm as liberal as they come, so what I'm giving up isn't the yard stick to measure by. Also, you're missing an important component pragmatic people weigh in. If I want thing X and I can either compromise to get 50% of X or lose and get thing Y which is the exact opposite of thing X, then you could consider that 50% is least 75% of what I want or more depending on how bad thing Y is.
I won't respond to all of the points I see in a different way at this juncture. If you'd please list the specific questions you want me to answer and we can start from there instead of each trying to wade through all that was said.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I'm sorry I went through it with him on another post about a week or 2 ago. I picked apart every argument he made like you did that took up all my morning into the afternoon getting nowhere. I was hoping a new view might help. My only answer now towards him is purely cognitive dissonance .

@William_Mary Your accusations of me are irrelevant. If you want to think I'm two people or I betray my ideals, etc. that's fine. You don't need to like me. We don't need to be friends. I don't even need to be having this conversation. You can write me off right now and save me some time. I'm still going to be pragmatic and do what I do because no one has convinced me it's wrong yet. I tried to clearly explain what ideally I'd like, and what I'd be willing to do to get it. All of life, at least for me, is a cost-benefit analysis. I want universal healthcare and the like. I'd vote in the primary for the most progressive candidate I could. But in the general I'll only vote for the more progressive of the two major party candidates because I know Duverger's Law has accurately dictated for hundreds of years that third party candidates can't win in non-proportional-representation democracies with a first past the goal post winner. I really think my analogy about the security measures makes a lot of sense. It seems like you're trying to convince people everything would be better if no one had to use any security measures (which it would) and in light of that, people should be idealistic and stop locking their doors, otherwise they're just giving up and being part of the pessimistic system. The people you want to convince to stop locking their doors will all likely require different levels of evidence or proof that it's safe to do. Some are willing to sacrifice anything to work toward that goal, like you. Others need more assurance because they perceive they have more to lose from a loss than they have to gain from a win. Still others aren't concerned with what can be won or lost, but rather the likelihood of a win or loss. While people like me weigh a combination of these factors to determine the best course of action. None of these ways or picking who to vote for are objectively wrong, regardless of your personal preference. If you were attacking me for picking my candidate out of a hat, that would make perfect sense, but I'm not. I don't know why you're so insistent I'm wrong about my opinion.
And as I stated before, if this is how progressives are treating people they're trying to convince to risk wasting their vote for a chance at something better, I have far less confidence they'll be able to get enough people on board, making it that much less likely I'll risk my vote.

@JeffMurray

Quote: If you were attacking me for picking my candidate out of a hat, that would make perfect sense, but I'm not.

No, you're picking someone who was picked for you.

You want me to list my questions.........again? You say it's too much, and then make a long post. You're not interested in answering questions or looking at another view. You didn't take the time to read what was posted and didn't care about trying to make your point in a way that counters my points. Why would I post my questions again, and even if you went back to read and answer them now, why would I respond knowing how you "counter"? William_Mary is right, It's cognitive dissonance. You will ignore your party and candidate's role in a corrupt system and still think they're better. Your actions don't match your supposed beliefs. You are justifying a corrupt party and candidate and supporting them to make yourself feel better. It won't be too long before the honeymoon is over though. Probably after the first 100 days. The Republicans did it with Trump, like they didn't already know who he is.

@Piece2YourPuzzle

1. Like I said, I don't need to convince people like me of anything, you do, so you can call me what you like.
2. That long post wasn't to you, and though possibly verbose, was essentially only an answer to one thing. If you don't care to ask or answer, I'm fine with that.
3. I'm not ignoring their role, I'm simply choosing the lesser of two evils because I don't want the worse candidate to win. There's no cognitive dissonance there, just pragmatism. I don't know how you can say my actions don't match my beliefs. My belief is that Donald Trump is so terrible he would end our democracy if given another 4 years (if it isn't already over). I believe that based on hundreds of years of Duverger's Law holding true, one of only two candidates can possibly win in the general, thus I will vote for one of the two. Since I believe I only have two choices and no one has demonstrated otherwise, I will always vote for the better option. I voted for Biden. All of those beliefs and actions are perfectly consistent with each other.
   And we're ALL essentially picking someone who was picked for us, unless you're writing your candidate in...
4. Are you suggesting that 2016 Trump voters realized he was terrible after he got into office, but then a vast majority of them, plus 11 million more voted for him in 2020?

@JeffMurray

Duverger's Law:

[blogs.lse.ac.uk]

[researchgate.net]

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Piece2YourPuzzle

1. It's hard for me to take seriously an author that thinks Britain disproves Duverger's Law considering they have proportional representation, a key component of why the Law doesn't work there, as stated in your third link, "whereas proportional representation would have the opposite effect".
2. Your second article doesn't say what you think it says. Immediately after the abstract the author states, "I show that the contemporary evidence tends to disconfirm Duverger’s law but I argue that the basic intuition behind the law is valid."
3. I don't see anything in the wiki page that discounts Duverger's Law either. What exactly are you trying to say with those links?
   Most importantly, even if you think the law is a "dead parrot" it's been working as if true for hundreds of years in the US. You need people to believe their third party vote isn't a wasted vote, so getting them to believe Duverger's Law isn't real, regardless of whether or not it is, is your cross to bear. And citing websites that don't support your goal doesn't seem very beneficial.

@Piece2YourPuzzle @William_Mary
I have an excellent idea for you. I was thinking about the problem of how to get everyone to go third party at the same time so that the first people that do it won't be discouraged when it doesn't work and then fail to do it again. There needs to be database that gets contact info that will ONLY be used to alert the progressive voters in a race that they have reached a critical mass. So people can continue to vote pragmatically until they get the notification that there are enough people that have agreed to vote progressive that they'd win. Even as the list grows it may force candidates to the left, so it's not even a waste as you're building up steam. What do you think? See, not really a negative Nancy after all.

@JeffMurray Believe what you will.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I'm trying to help you...

@JeffMurray ...and you are beyond help.

@JeffMurray I would imagine that is already being done, just as the 2 establishment parties do. Being I'm currently registered as a Green I'm aware I'm on their data base. As I primarily advocate for SEP I can join their party at will via their party site or WSWS site, which would put me on their data base. I donated to their campaign run this year so I'm probably already in it to at least some degree.

I've never been registered as a republican or donated to any aspect of theirs, yet I'm constantly flooded with emails and phone calls from their representatives and propaganda entities.

I'll go out of the limb here and suggest I'm not alone in this realm of constructed competition that's full of conditioning measures towards swaying perceptions. Believe me I have in the past attempted to spend useless amounts of time trying to unsubscribe from mailing and phone list to no avail. Today our information comes at a dime a dozen and our attempts to limit its effect in this nature is vastly limited in ending unwanted approaches. Only to be approached by the same entities via a different email address or phone number even if such attempts to limit work.

The data problem that it is, is not, and solution will not be, in aspects to data bases. Another narrative you seemingly miss here is based on information. How it is delivered, who is deceived by it, who can manage to decipher the genuine from the deceptive. Towards awareness that there is a purposeful attempt in deception coming from the information we receive.

I'll repeat this for you in another way. According to your given information/opinions, on 2 different threads of post now, you have shown a tendency to contradict and or betray your own spoken political values by voicing support for those who don't share those political values with you. Tossing aside given documented history and evidence that highly suggest they oppose and or at a large degree at odds with you. Personally, this gives me an extreme reason to question just who you are and what you might support. You're actually supporting both establishment parties and don't realize it.

@William_Mary I tried. Like I said, I'm not one that needs to convince people of stuff. You guys are both making unsupported claims about me and only probably turned people off to your desires and methods in the process. Despite all that, I wish you good luck in your endeavors because I'd like progressives in positions that can result in them actually winning, but I don't see actions like yours cutting the mustard. Peace.

@JeffMurray you and I obviously have a difference in the description of progressive. Peace to you also!

@William_Mary Yet another obstacle in your quest for a critical mass of support: exclusion of people who agree with your principles because they don't "progressive" to your satisfaction based on your definition. Thinking there's only one possibly way to be progressive isn't very... what's the word I'm looking for here? It's like forward-thinking. I think it starts with a P...

@JeffMurray Progressive to you is voting for Hitler because Darth Vader is his opponent. That you don't get that argument speaks volumes. No thanks. Keep your "progressivism".

@JeffMurray I'm fairly certain there are few to many in this group who identify as progressive. Who I've never excluded for their opinions or from participation. I'd be excluding myself if I did so. I just also happen to identify my progressiveness with a combined socialistic ideology behind Marxism and Trotskyism. Quite frankly, it's an open area of debate to either of our developed opinions as to what the processive political arena construct would mean. I simply said your sense was different than mine, compared to you using yours to now attack me. But then you're just giving legitimacy to my previous confrontational opinion of you. While you attempt to manufacture a false narrative towards me onto the membership. rabbit hole

I spent a few years going around the block with Roger on occasions without excluding him by any means other than trading some minor debates. I however will not allow you to draw me into negative name calling towards him as you've just done to me as I use this for an example though. While I had my reservations towards Roger I also held a measure of respect for many of his developed opinions. As tough as it was to get to understand them with his sparse participation and lack of detailed acquirements. A number of subtle hints to get him to provide such never came to fruition though. Hell, he even labelled me as too conservative in one message I read which I found to be quite funny.

As you managed to draw him into a rabbit hole that became lead to a narrative of attack mode and further content towards me and my managership of the group, which was new news to me from him. A mistake seemingly taken on by him also within my rights as the group creator and group narrative. Over the obvious matter of neglected observation of an article, which he eventually seemingly admitted to, leading to the 2 of you to create a narrative to attack me, still never to acknowledge this yourself. As you have just moved towards on a baseless measure. I've never excluded anyone from this group or its pages based on opinion or party affiliation, but only disruptive natures and attacks on members outlined in and by the group narrative. Which you have been slowly digging your own rabbit hole.

Having suggested now to 2 members that maybe this group wasn't their preverbal cup of tea within coherency to these natures, I'll now pass that on to you. Quite frankly I've wasted to much of my time on you from my educational requirements to fulfill my duties and purpose here. If all you have to offer my group is confrontations and sarcastic smears, a sense of discontent for its purpose, please feel free not to return.

@William_Mary When did I attack you ?! Over the course of this thread alone in your collective comments you called me an ignorant, egotistical bully that betrays his own ideals and is a waste of time, plus made other disparaging remarks about me. I never attacked you like that. I've simply been posting my point of view, not even an argument really, because I'm on your side. I think we only differ on what to do when there isn't a progressive enough candidate in a major party to vote for. I even tried to help with what I thought was a really good suggestion and you both basically told me to pound salt. The reason I thought it was a good idea is because I don't want to sign up for normal updates and info; I'm already fully sold on the progressive movement, and the only reason I don't vote for them currently is because I have no assurance it isn't a wasted vote. If there was a database that was ONLY used when there was enough people in a particular race I could vote in that would vote with me for the progressive, that would give me the push I needed to vote 3rd party. But what do you guys do? Attack me again, and I don't need that. I do want you to be successful, though, which is why I've continued to respond.

@Piece2YourPuzzle
And progressive to you is not voting against a party who promises to take away or reduce health care coverage from tens of millions of people because you didn't get your way in the primary. That you don't get that speaks volumes. This is a difference of opinion how to reach the goal, and I'm the only one that offered an actual suggestion of what to do to help get there. You just resort to name calling that only hurts your cause.

@William_Mary
Also, you said, "I'm fairly certain there are few to [sic] many in this group who identify as progressive."
How is that helpful? Not only is it a No True Scotsman Fallacy, but you have people that self-identify as members of a group you NEED more members in, and you discount them as disingenuous/fake/not progressive enough/what have you. Instead of looking past what minor differences you have, you have to create more infighting in an already politically weak electorate. Yet another reason Dems and especially progressives cede/fail to win power so much.

@JeffMurray

Quote: And progressive to you is not voting against a party who promises to take away or reduce health care coverage from tens of millions of people because you didn't get your way in the primary. That you don't get that speaks volumes. This is a difference of opinion how to reach the goal, and I'm the only one that offered an actual suggestion of what to do to help get there. You just resort to name calling that only hurts your cause.

That's not progressive, and show me where I called anyone names. Progressive isn't voting against a horrible party for another less horrible party. Progressive is voting for positive change, advancements, and candidates that actually agree with your policy ideals. Progressive isn't settling for the status quo or someone who will just not be as shitty to you as the next person. That's always a recipe for both of those people or parties to get worse, but you still choose the "lesser of two evils". You can spin it however you want, but definitions don't cease to exist because of it. Progressive is ADVANCEMENT, not status quo, and not slightly better than the other group, but still worse than better. The Republicans bring us 3 steps back and the Dems bring us 2 steps ahead and YOU call that "progress". It always results in a net loss.

People need to be leaders, and not wait to see who everyone else is voting for to decide to vote their ideals. Those people are followers. They will never change anything. There will always be something to persuade them to be followers. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't say, "Well, I'll do it if other people do it!". Rosa Parks didn't say, "But nobody else is doing it. I'm not doing it unless someone else does it".

The Libertarians and the Tea Party people don't give a shit about who other Republicans vote for. They know it's their right to vote their ideals and they aren't going to let other's propaganda change that. They have balls though. It seems most "progressives" don't.

@JeffMurray

Quote: Instead of looking past what minor differences you have, you have to create more infighting in an already politically weak electorate. Yet another reason Dems and especially progressives cede/fail to win power so much.

Minor differences? Voting for Biden's central to center right ideals, and I'm being generous, is not a "minor difference". I'm a Libertarian Socialist ala Noam Chomsky. I don't believe in conservative ideals. Joe Biden does. How is that a minor difference? And no, I don't agree with everything Chomsky agrees with. He was pushing to vote for Biden. I don't agree with him. If you know anything about Chomsky's career and ideals he's promoted over his lifetime then you know they're nowhere near what Biden believes in.

There are Democrats that are conservatives, center right, center, center left, liberal, and left wing. That includes neo-cons and neo-libs. These AREN'T MINOR DIFFERENCES!!! This is what happens when you root for a TEAM (Rep and Dem) and not your IDEALS!!!

Most Democrats would be better off just joining the Republican Party of the 1980s because that's who they really identify with. The Overton Window in the U.S. has moved way to the right. What is considered left wing or liberal in the U.S. is considered conservative in most other developed countries.

So I don't agree with the "minor differences" argument. It's obviously not a minor difference when people like you want to vote for and support Biden (who is a conservative - or haven't you researched his past actions, policies, and speech?) and people like me that actually want a left winger who believes in my ideals to run our government.

Why do you think Independents are the biggest voting block in the U.S.? Why do you think almost HALF of the voting eligible population doesn't vote? We could drive a MAC truck through your "minor differences" argument.