Is the Electoral Fix Already In?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do you dispute the substance of my post? It's pretty simple, even for you:

Yeah, actual history is useless as a guide to assess what is essentially a rigged electoral system.   (SARCASM)  

(Note:  That means I believe history is the best guide we have.)

I suppose it's true, Trump and MAGAs have totally disabled sarcasm.

I'm focused on anti-democratic tactics by a group to disallow parties to appear on a ballot.

You're arguing something completely different in that history tells us they cannot win. Winning is irrelevant to the discussion. 

And for the record, with the right candidates, I think they can make a substantial run. With the right candidates, they will garner my vote. 

[homersapien 11,428]

59 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Go back to the OP homey. The discussion is about subverting democracy. Further explained, the attempts by a group to disallow another to gain ballot access, i.e. Kesnnedy, No Labels. In other words, a conspiracy to stop alternative votes, a long-honored democratic norm. When you stop these groups from gaining ballot access you are preventing the American people from getting ballot access. That is not a democracy.

Using the legal system to challenge what is possibly an illegal political initiative fueled by nefarious intentions is not an affront to democracy.  Nor is it a conspiracy. It is utilizing the rule of law, which is a critical component of democracy.

Your problem is you can't divorce your biases from an issue and examine it objectively. You default into conspiratorial partisanship, then project that onto others.

[homersapien 11,428]

59 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Go back to the OP homey. The discussion is about subverting democracy. Further explained, the attempts by a group to disallow another to gain ballot access, i.e. Kesnnedy, No Labels. In other words, a conspiracy to stop alternative votes, a long-honored democratic norm. When you stop these groups from gaining ballot access you are preventing the American people from getting ballot access. That is not a democracy.

Using the legal system to challenge what is possibly an illegal political initiative fueled by nefarious intentions is not an affront to democracy.  Nor is it a conspiracy. It is utilizing the rule of law, which is a critical component of democracy.

You do believe in the rule of law don't you?  You sure don't talk like it. 

Your problem is you can't divorce your biases from an issue and examine it objectively. You default into conspiratorial partisanship, then project that onto others.

 

[homersapien 11,428]

59 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Go back to the OP homey. The discussion is about subverting democracy. Further explained, the attempts by a group to disallow another to gain ballot access, i.e. Kesnnedy, No Labels. In other words, a conspiracy to stop alternative votes, a long-honored democratic norm. When you stop these groups from gaining ballot access you are preventing the American people from getting ballot access. That is not a democracy.

Using the legal system to challenge what is possibly an illegal political initiative fueled by nefarious intentions is not an affront to democracy.  Nor is it a conspiracy. It is utilizing the rule of law, which is a critical component of democracy.

Are you saying the people challenging this legally don't have a right to do so?  You do believe in the rule of law don't you?  You sure don't talk like it. 

Your problem is you can't divorce your biases from an issue and examine it objectively. You default into conspiratorial partisanship, then project that onto others.

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Using the legal system to challenge what is possibly an illegal political initiative fueled by nefarious intentions is not an affront to democracy. 

What has Kennedy or No Labels done that is an illegal political initiative?

What are the nefarious intentions?

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Your problem is you can't divorce your biases from an issue and examine it objectively. You default into conspiratorial partisanship, then project that onto others.

If aligning myself with democracy is criminal, well I guess I'm guilty. In all seriousness, it is you who hasn't examined this objectively. Quite certain it is due to your biases.

Look back at your first sentence above regarding illegal initiatives and nefarious intentions and tell me again who is conspiratorial and partisan?

Edited February 5 by AUFAN78

[homersapien 11,428]

17 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

What has Kennedy or No Labels done that is an illegal political initiative?

What are the nefarious intentions?

 

1. I don't know.  What exactly has been done in opposition Kennedy and/or "No Labels" from running that you object to?

2. The intent to spoil an existing candidate's chances with zero intentions of presenting a viable alternative. (Trying to indirectly sabotage one candidate.)

Edited February 5 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1. I don't know.  What exactly has been done to prevent Kennedy and/or "No Labels" from running?

Here's a nice primer for you:

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

2. The intent to spoil an existing candidate's chances with zero intentions of presenting a viable alternative. (Trying to indirectly sabotage one candidate.)

To your second point, they are trying to obtain ballot access to submit alternative candidates to the millions of voters asking for it. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx#:~:text=In 2023%2C 34% say the,a third party is needed.

[homersapien 11,428]

20 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'm focused on anti-democratic tactics by a group to disallow parties to appear on a ballot.

You're arguing something completely different in that history tells us they cannot win. Winning is irrelevant to the discussion. 

And for the record, with the right candidates, I think they can make a substantial run. With the right candidates, they will garner my vote. 

You're certainly correct about that.

Edited February 5 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,010]

23 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Here's a nice primer for you:

 

What drives be crazy about the anti no labels guys is that both sides will quietly admit they have extremely weak, to be kind, candidates (except maybe the maga zealots) - and meanwhile the moderates are disgusted with the 2 party’s extremist ideologies.  So no one’s really happy …. but there’s no solution to it. Just fear mongering that it’s hopeless and they’ll just elect trump or Biden (ie depending if it were manchin or Haley).  

So what’s the solution? Accept this clown show? The parties are imo extremist broken. How many elections does the country have to hold their nose picking between the least bad options? Plus now we also get to throw in dementia for good measure. Dear lord.

 

Edited February 5 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,428]

25 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

To your second point, they are trying to obtain ballot access to submit alternative candidates to the millions of voters asking for it. f

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx#:~:text=In 2023%2C 34% say the,a third party is needed.

That's meaningless. We already know that a large number of people would prefer different candidates. What we don't know is how many people will chose Biden over Trump - or vice versa - which are the only two candidates we have.

The reality is a third candidate will only draw votes from either Biden or Trump, possibly swinging the election to whoever has the least amount of actual support (thanks to our winner-take-all electoral system).  

Our system favors two candidate races. A three candidate race will be inherently counterproductive in our current system.

As far as the "nefarious intent" goes, I don't for a second believe Harlan Crow is interested  in anything but increasing Trump's chances.  He's not about to support a party/candidate that will harm those chances.

We'll see once/if they produce a candidate.

Edited February 5 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

31 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Here's a nice primer for you:

 

Horrors!  The opposition is expressing their opinions on the internet!!  What BS .

So bottom line, "No Labels" objects to free speech (by people who oppose them).

Got it.

Get back to when someone who opposes "no labels" gets convicted for intimidation or making threats or otherwise committing a crime.

Edited February 5 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's meaningless. We already know that a large number of people would prefer different candidates. What we don't know is how many people will chose Biden over Trump - which is the only two candidates we have.

The reality is a third candidate will only draw votes from either Biden or Trump, possibly swinging the election to whoever has the least amount of actual support (thanks to our winner-take-all electoral system).   Our system favors two candidate races. A three candidate race will be inherently counterproductive in our current system.

As far as the "nefarious intent" goes, I don't for a second believe Harlan Crow is interested  in anything but increasing Trump's chances.  He's not about to support a party/candidate that will harm those chances.

We'll see if they produce a candidate.

How is trying to obtain ballot access to a unity party meaningless? 

Of course, they'll draw votes from Biden/Trump. But at the same time offering alternatives to American voters. I'll write someone in any way as I've done for years now, so potentially this gives voters like me options. That's a great thing. 

That's your opinion and it may be valid, but we can't know his intent with certainty. And he's just one guy and his desires have no bearing on the millions of Americans wanting choices other than what presumably the two parties will put forward.

Indeed.

[homersapien 11,428]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 How is trying to obtain ballot access to a unity party meaningless? 

 

It's not.  How exactly is that being prevented, and by whom?

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Horrors!  The opposition is expressing their opinions on the internet!!  What BS .

So bottom line, "No Labels" objects to free speech (by people who oppose them).

Got it.

Good grief man, you're deranged at times. Threats, intimidation, coercion, etc. are perfectly normal in your world. Just unbelievable. 

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Get back to when someone who opposes "no labels" gets convicted for intimidation or making threats or otherwise committing a crime.

Evidence submitted. We'll see if the Biden DOJ takes up the case. Admittedly, I'm not holding my breath for the many reasons submitted in links on this very thread.  

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's not.  How exactly is that being prevented, and by whom?

 

Have a cup of coffee homey. 

[homersapien 11,428]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good grief man, you're deranged at times. Threats, intimidation, coercion, etc. are perfectly normal in your world. Just unbelievable. 

Show me some evidence.

You are completely gullible to anything that agrees with your bias.

[homersapien 11,428]

 

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Evidence submitted. We'll see if the Biden DOJ takes up the case. Admittedly, I'm not holding my breath for the many reasons submitted in links on this very thread.  

  Cite it.

(You'll need to do better than presenting a bunch of snowflakes complaining about internet insults.)

Edited February 5 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,010]

Just now, homersapien said:

BS.  Cite it.

(You'll need to do better than presenting a bunch of snowflakes complaining about internet insults.)

Regardless of whether or not anyone is or has been blocking no labels - do you support allowing a 3rd party candidate?

[homersapien 11,428]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

Regardless of whether or not anyone is or has been blocking no labels - do you support allowing a 3rd party candidate?

Not without major electoral reform. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Show me some evidence.

You are completely gullible to anything that agrees with your bias.

I've shown you plenty of evidence. Go read the links. 

Hypocrisy.

[homersapien 11,428]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I've shown you plenty of evidence. Go read the links. 

Hypocrisy.

Lying.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

  Cite it.

(You'll need to do better than presenting a bunch of snowflakes complaining about internet insults.)

The actual letter to the DOJ was submitted for viewing previously in this thread. Go read it.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Lying.

BS. Your bias won't allow you to read it. Tell the truth.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

10 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Regardless of whether or not anyone is or has been blocking no labels - do you support allowing a 3rd party candidate?

And you’d still believe that even if you were convinced  a 3rd party would help the Dems win right?