A Party of Two

The two-party system in the United States is a powerful force that impacts the political landscape in many ways. It has been argued that this structure of two dominant parties inherently creates a “rigged” system that stacks the deck in favor of the two established parties. This system of two parties has been in place for many years and has been difficult to break. As a result, it has been extremely difficult for third parties to gain enough traction to gain ballot access, let alone achieve electoral success.

This system of two parties creates insurmountable hurdles for third parties to overcome to gain ballot access. In many states, third-party candidates are required to collect a significant number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. This process can be both costly and time-consuming and can be especially daunting for third parties that lack the resources of the two established parties. Furthermore, in some states, the requirements to gain ballot access are so strict that it is virtually impossible for third parties to qualify.

The two-party system also creates a situation where the two major parties are in a position to control the issues discussed and the public discourse. This control of the narrative can be detrimental to the American electorate, as it limits the range of options and ideas that are available to them and can lead to a false sense of only two choices for voters. Furthermore, the lack of competition within the two-party system can lead to issues of complacency and stagnation, as there is no incentive for the two major parties to make real changes or innovations.

One possible way of eliminating this party of two would be to fund election campaigns publicly - this would also help curb the epidemic of dark money and special interests currying favor in government while making it impossible for third parties to compete. However, the current two parties would never let this happen. It would be an existential threat to them. It would also be the first time the two parties worked together on anything in decades, possibly. (That statement may seem to catastrophize this possibility to some but it seems to have a ring of truth.)

Overall, the two-party system in the United States creates a “rigged” system that is difficult to break and has far-reaching consequences for the American electorate. The system limits the choices available to the public and can lead to a lack of innovation and progress. Third parties are almost completely excluded from the process and have virtually no chance of achieving success. The only way to truly give the American people more choices and to ensure that their voices are heard is to break the two-party system and open up the process to more voices and more competition.

Scapegoats for their own misdeeds

We've been seeing this crop up in right wing circles for a spell. Obviously it's being shared in a piss poor attempt to to align the Nazis with the modern day abolitionist movements.

SO LET'S FACT CHECK.

Prior to the 1930's Germany, the police forces were very decentralised and municipal in nature. The nazis in their rise to power instituted reforms to create a police state. The first of these was The Enabling Act 1933 which pretty much gave political power across a very diverse Germany, to the singular state authority. Part of this process was the creation of a unified central command for the police.

They were then placed under the control of the SS, who in turn placed members of the Gestapo and security services within the ranks of the local police forces. Subsequently the focus changed and they began to treat crime as a matter of race. 

All police forces act on the mandate of the state.

Criminal Intent

I've been limiting my exposure to news for the past several weeks for reasons I won't go into here, now.

Events of the past few days has penetrated my self-imposed news diet. I'd rather be sharing my own words but I find myself with a lack of them.

However, the whole article which I quote below is well worth a read. 

He knew, and because he knew, my mind is reeling with questions. How many times has he put his own supporters in danger, as they gathered by the thousands without protection, while knowing he was putting them in danger? How many times has he golfed while knowing the pandemic was killing so many people city officials had to dig mass graves? How many times has he ridiculed people for wearing masks, thereby insulting the memory of the dead, while knowing the virus was airborne. How many times has he attacked public officials, whose job is serving the public’s interest, while knowing their service prevented the death toll from being even bigger? Most important of all, how many Republicans understood that a man who commits treason is the kind of man who stands by while Americans die in droves—if that’s what it takes to win?

Give the whole article a read. It feels good to know you're not alone.

The United States is the most Dangerous psychotic on the planet

I don't WANT to be critical of the commander in chief of the United States. I'd just like – ONE TIME in my life – to have a leader who is not a con man, mentally deranged, or a war criminal.

I was born in 1959. I vaguely remember the JFK assassination. From all I've learned about him, though he was a personally flawed individual (and aren't we all), he was wildly popular with the electorate – though the arms industry had a dramatically different take on him.

But since then, since a leader I barely remember getting shot, not one single president has NOT been a con man, mentally deranged, or a war criminal – or a combination thereof.

NOT ONE!

This speaks volumes as to who WE are as a nation and a people. Those highly flawed leaders are simply flawed people who we as a people thought would be the best choice to lead us.

And this is what makes us despised laughing stocks on the world stage. We are stupid, weak-minded, selfish, destructive and dangerous.