@metal-brain said
I don't watch TV that is not free.

The very first part of that video is a clip of Bernie Sanders on Meet the Press, a show that airs on local NBC affiliates on Sunday morning (and has done so for 70 years). In it, he's "making waves" about DWS and calling for her resignation.

@metal-brain said
So you don't believe the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll? That is Dore's source.

https://thehill.com/news/campaign/3462899-58-percent-of-voters-open-to-backing-independent-candidate-if-faced-with-biden-trump-poll/

"Open to supporting" is not equal to "wanting".

At any rate, if 58% of the voters really want someone besides Trump and Biden in 2024, they'll have ample opportunity to vote accordingly.

@no1marauder said
"Open to supporting" is not equal to "wanting".

At any rate, if 58% of the voters really want someone besides Trump and Biden in 2024, they'll have ample opportunity to vote accordingly.

Are you in favor of rank choice/instant runoff voting?
It would eliminate wasted vote syndrome which is illogical, but a lot of people still think their one vote is enough to swing an election for some reason.

@no1marauder said
On Earth, some place you obviously only have a passing knowledge of.

No, the major networks did not bury the DWS resignation story; they put it right on their convention coverage.

I watch the PBS News hour and NBC nightly news most of the time. Most people do not watch the Sunday political talk shows. That doesn't really count, but it just helps prove my point. Meet the Press is NBC and they didn't mention it much the NBC nightly news.

I do remember them reporting DWS resigning, but they only mentioned it once on that day and nothing much since. It should have been a huge scandal, but the corporate news media controls what becomes a big scandal and what doesn't for the most part. Just take the Russiagate nonsense for example. The investigation was started from a hearsay false rumor. It was continued with manufactured evidence and the investigation ended without finding any direct evidence of DJT's involvement in anything illegal.

The corporate news media has proven it can make a big scandal out of a false conspiracy theory started with no evidence. To suggest they cannot suppress scandals is absurd. They did that with the Hunter Biden Laptop story. The irony is that they used their false conspiracy theory to do it. They blamed the Russians, right? They said it was Russian disinformation as I recall. We now know that was a lie.

The true disinformation was the false claim of Russian disinformation. Doesn't that tell you something?

@metal-brain said
I watch the PBS News hour and NBC nightly news most of the time. Most people do not watch the Sunday political talk shows. That doesn't really count, but it just helps prove my point. Meet the Press is NBC and they didn't mention it much the NBC nightly news.

I do remember them reporting DWS resigning, but they only mentioned it once on that day and nothing much since ...[text shortened]... true disinformation was the false claim of Russian disinformation. Doesn't that tell you something?

You've ceaselessly lied about the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and it appears you will never stop doing so.

I refuse to waste any more time "debating" it with you.

As I've shown, the major media extensively covered the DWS resignation story. The clips I've shown are of their coverage of the Democratic Convention and the DWS story was the first thing discussed on the day the story broke. That your memory is faulty and/or you are lying about it doesn't change the fact the network news considered it a big story and covered it as such. The clip of Bernie on Meet the Press was the lead on the NBC Nightly News story I cited.

@metal-brain said
Are you in favor of rank choice/instant runoff voting?
It would eliminate wasted vote syndrome which is illogical, but a lot of people still think their one vote is enough to swing an election for some reason.

Yes. And pretty much all the things in the Green Party Platform section on "Political Reform" here. https://www.gp.org/platform

In general, I vote Green and was registered in that party from 1998-2016 when I changed back to Democrat so I could vote for Bernie in the primary. The only Democrat I regularly vote for is my Congressman, a liberal who's office did me a solid a while back.
IF the Democrats nominate more progressives, I'll vote for them.

@no1marauder said
I haven't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1992.

Given that you've sided with Trump over Ukraine, that's been obvious for quite a while.

My god, the last two pages of this thread really have been moron versus moron, haven't they?

@shallow-blue said
Given that you've sided with Trump over Ukraine, that's been obvious for quite a while.

My god, the last two pages of this thread really have been moron versus moron, haven't they?

Jesus, you're an idiot.

I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President or any major office as anyone who has even looked at my postings here in a cursory manner would know. Accussing me of voting for Trump must be one of the most laughable claims ever made on this board.

@no1marauder said
People don't owe votes to a candidate that they do not believe represents their views.

Very true and, of course, some call it a wasted vote.
Like it or not, it's a two party ballgame.
Idealism is fine, so is realism.

@jimm619 said
Very true and, of course, some call it a wasted vote.
Like it or not, it's a two party ballgame.
Idealism is fine, so is realism.

"Realism" is overrated if all it gets you is Joe Manchin calling the shots.

I vote my conscience; if others don't that's up to them.

@no1marauder said
"Realism" is overrated if all it gets you is Joe Manchin calling the shots.

I vote my conscience; if others don't that's up to them.

Right on 🙂

@no1marauder said
You've ceaselessly lied about the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and it appears you will never stop doing so.

I refuse to waste any more time "debating" it with you.

As I've shown, the major media extensively covered the DWS resignation story. The clips I've shown are of their coverage of the Democratic Convention and the DWS story was the f ...[text shortened]... it as such. The clip of Bernie on Meet the Press was the lead on the NBC Nightly News story I cited.

What lie?
You know fully well I didn't lie at all. You are just getting tired of me kicking your butt around by exposing all of your double standards.....and your own lies.

@no1marauder said
A wonderfully stable system like in Italy.

I personally prefer elections at set intervals and removal for misconduct in between.

The British system is a lot more stable than the Italian one.
When you say removal for misconduct are you talking about the virtually impossible impeachment process whereby the undemocratic senate needs 60 votes to complete the process, or is there a system for the removal of senators?

@kevcvs57 said
The British system is a lot more stable than the Italian one.

So are France, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Belgium...

The problem in Italy is not the system, it's that for a short while it was run by hot-heads and dumb, Washington-centric Americans still believe in the stereotype. In reality, its last election was four years ago, and the one before that a similar distance. What is less stable in countries with proportional representation is that elections are actually contested, everywhere, and new political parties can gain a foothold if they do well enough. This is good: the world changes, politics should change with it and not stay fixated on one single age-old feud. What's both more and less stable is that you get coalitions. These can be less stable in the short term because they can break; but in the long term, it actually leads to more stability, because the direction of the country doesn't flip-flop between two extremes every time a new government comes in.

And the problem with the British and USA system, FPTP, is that it is too stable - or if you insist, too bi-stable. No other candidate than the two main powers stands a chance of having any real power, ever. Both countries have only ever gained successful new parties once or twice, and that decades ago.

@kevcvs57 said
The British system is a lot more stable than the Italian one.
When you say removal for misconduct are you talking about the virtually impossible impeachment process whereby the undemocratic senate needs 60 votes to complete the process, or is there a system for the removal of senators?

It's true impeachment is meant to be difficult and reserved for "Treason, Bribery and High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One Presidential impeachment trial failed by a single vote and Nixon would surely have been impeached and removed if he hadn't resigned.

Expulsion of a member of Congress is also possible though rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress