Seeing as the President campaign is just entertainment, why not......?

[frigidweirdo]

Just do it this way?

The election has just become about entertainment, so why not just make it more entertaining. They can say whatever they like, but someone else does a voice over for them. It'll make as much sense as if you're listening to them talk for real.

 

[GLASNOST]

Just do it this way?

The election has just become about entertainment, so why not just make it more entertaining. They can say whatever they like, but someone else does a voice over for them. It'll make as much sense as if you're listening to them talk for real.

I understood NOTHING! But it was great fun!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just do it this way?

The election has just become about entertainment, so why not just make it more entertaining. They can say whatever they like, but someone else does a voice over for them. It'll make as much sense as if you're listening to them talk for real.

I understood NOTHING! But it was great fun!

You're not supposed to understand, it's all been nonsense for over a year now.

 

[GLASNOST]

You're not supposed to understand, it's all been nonsense for over a year now.

I understand that. I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're not supposed to understand, it's all been nonsense for over a year now.

I understand that. I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

Probably because if you don't, then they don't realize it's crazy.

 

[GLASNOST]

I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

Probably because if you don't, then they don't realize it's crazy.

And do they now?

Anyway, thanks for the "BAD LIP READING" intro. I never heard of it before but I am now enjoying their 'Star Wars' LIP READING. Funny stuff!

 

[frigidweirdo]

I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

Probably because if you don't, then they don't realize it's crazy.

And do they now?

Anyway, thanks for the "BAD LIP READING" intro. I never heard of it before but I am now enjoying their 'Star Wars' LIP READING. Funny stuff!

No, almost certainly not, but you kind of have to tell them anyway.

 

[GLASNOST]

I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

Probably because if you don't, then they don't realize it's crazy.

And do they now?

Anyway, thanks for the "BAD LIP READING" intro. I never heard of it before but I am now enjoying their 'Star Wars' LIP READING. Funny stuff!

No, almost certainly not, but you kind of have to tell them anyway.

Leaving the ballot box empty is the ONLY way to do that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I just think - why put words into their mouths while their own words are madness enough. You can't make up a dialogue that's crazier than the original.

Probably because if you don't, then they don't realize it's crazy.

And do they now?

Anyway, thanks for the "BAD LIP READING" intro. I never heard of it before but I am now enjoying their 'Star Wars' LIP READING. Funny stuff!

No, almost certainly not, but you kind of have to tell them anyway.

Leaving the ballot box empty is the ONLY way to do that.

Not really, voting 3rd party would be better.

 

[GLASNOST]

Leaving the ballot box empty is the ONLY way to do that.

Not really, voting 3rd party would be better.

Maybe you are right, but I am not convinced. I think it's the system that encourages idiots like Trump and Clinton and Baby Bush and Reagan that's the problem. Take a look at Obama. He had all the right credentials. The right background. Enough good deeds prior to his run for presidency to make him the best president the US has ever had. But what happened? Yeah, what happened? We can only assume the God Father had a chat with him, informed him who it is who really makes all the decisions, and what a nice horse he has ..... and what a shame it would be if something bad should happen to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Leaving the ballot box empty is the ONLY way to do that.

Not really, voting 3rd party would be better.

Maybe you are right, but I am not convinced. I think it's the system that encourages idiots like Trump and Clinton and Baby Bush and Reagan that's the problem. Take a look at Obama. He had all the right credentials. The right background. Enough good deeds prior to his run for presidency to make him the best president the US has ever had. But what happened? Yeah, what happened? We can only assume the God Father had a chat with him, informed him who it is who really makes all the decisions, and what a nice horse he has ..... and what a shame it would be if something bad should happen to it.

You'll never get change unless you have the vehicle for change. And you won't get that unless other ideas can come out. If a 3rd party were to establish itself then these ideas would become legitimate and you might get a 3rd party presenting PR to the people.

 

[GLASNOST]

You'll never get change unless you have the vehicle for change. And you won't get that unless other ideas can come out. If a 3rd party were to establish itself then these ideas would become legitimate and you might get a 3rd party presenting PR to the people.

And you see that vehicle for change/other ideas as a 3rd party? Nothing other that? Suppose we focus on one detail of that 3rd party vehicle for change. Or lets's just say that an example for vehicle for change is a simple, hitherto non-established idea and it doesn't need to be a whole new party, a 3rd party. Wouldn't that be a good start? And just for the sake of discussion let's say that medical aid for ALL CITIZENS is the new vehicle for change. Do you feel that the power moguls would try to stop it ......... I mean as opposed to their reaction to a 3rd party trying to do the same thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'll never get change unless you have the vehicle for change. And you won't get that unless other ideas can come out. If a 3rd party were to establish itself then these ideas would become legitimate and you might get a 3rd party presenting PR to the people.

And you see that vehicle for change/other ideas as a 3rd party? Nothing other that? Suppose we focus on one detail of that 3rd party vehicle for change. Or lets's just say that an example for vehicle for change is a simple, hitherto non-established idea and it doesn't need to be a whole new party, a 3rd party. Wouldn't that be a good start? And just for the sake of discussion let's say that medical aid for ALL CITIZENS is the new vehicle for change. Do you feel that the power moguls would try to stop it ......... I mean as opposed to their reaction to a 3rd party trying to do the same thing.

There are possibly other ways, but nothing has ever changed. I believe that this is the best way after having seen different political systems in different countries and the impact 3rd parties growing can have on politics. Like the UK, UKIP were a third party, they have one MP and they all hate him, yet they managed to get something changed in the country, not for the good mind, but it was change they wanted.

 

[GLASNOST]

You'll never get change unless you have the vehicle for change. And you won't get that unless other ideas can come out. If a 3rd party were to establish itself then these ideas would become legitimate and you might get a 3rd party presenting PR to the people.

And you see that vehicle for change/other ideas as a 3rd party? Nothing other that? Suppose we focus on one detail of that 3rd party vehicle for change. Or lets's just say that an example for vehicle for change is a simple, hitherto non-established idea and it doesn't need to be a whole new party, a 3rd party. Wouldn't that be a good start? And just for the sake of discussion let's say that medical aid for ALL CITIZENS is the new vehicle for change. Do you feel that the power moguls would try to stop it ......... I mean as opposed to their reaction to a 3rd party trying to do the same thing.

There are possibly other ways, but nothing has ever changed. I believe that this is the best way after having seen different political systems in different countries and the impact 3rd parties growing can have on politics. Like the UK, UKIP were a third party, they have one MP and they all hate him, yet they managed to get something changed in the country, not for the good mind, but it was change they wanted.

I am trying (very gently) to tell you that those change-fabulous nations are not controlled by a corrupt, Mafia style, Military-Industrial Complex .

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'll never get change unless you have the vehicle for change. And you won't get that unless other ideas can come out. If a 3rd party were to establish itself then these ideas would become legitimate and you might get a 3rd party presenting PR to the people.

And you see that vehicle for change/other ideas as a 3rd party? Nothing other that? Suppose we focus on one detail of that 3rd party vehicle for change. Or lets's just say that an example for vehicle for change is a simple, hitherto non-established idea and it doesn't need to be a whole new party, a 3rd party. Wouldn't that be a good start? And just for the sake of discussion let's say that medical aid for ALL CITIZENS is the new vehicle for change. Do you feel that the power moguls would try to stop it ......... I mean as opposed to their reaction to a 3rd party trying to do the same thing.

There are possibly other ways, but nothing has ever changed. I believe that this is the best way after having seen different political systems in different countries and the impact 3rd parties growing can have on politics. Like the UK, UKIP were a third party, they have one MP and they all hate him, yet they managed to get something changed in the country, not for the good mind, but it was change they wanted.

I am trying (very gently) to tell you that those change-fabulous nations are not controlled by a corrupt, Mafia style, Military-Industrial Complex .

I know. But then again one of the reason they are not controlled is because they have more than 2 parties and the change for much mobility among parties due to their system. If enough people were to come out in favor of such a thing, then there might be real change.

 

[GLASNOST]

I know. But then again one of the reason they are not controlled is because they have more than 2 parties ...

The reason is far more interesting than that. Europe is a continent of close neighbours, many of which have different cultures, different languages, and even (to a smaller extent) different mentalities. But we have formed alliances at one time or another and we've learned to appreciate our neighbours on some level and been able to understand them even if we have disagreed. The common denominator is culture ... not the same culture, but well-developed ones. Over the centuries we have learned from one another and shared the advantages whenever it is possible. Survival has depended upon democratic principles and there have been revolutions to achieve those principles.

The US has forsaken democracy in the very same way that Hitler did. The difference is that Germany had its' back against the wall, making a Nationalist like Hitler seem like a welcomed saviour. And he did actually save Germany, but banned all other political parties and so went from being a Nationalist to becoming a Fascist. The rest of that story we already know. This is exactly what the US has done. It's become a Fascist state. But it didn't become that way out of necessity, as 'might be argued' Germany did. The US has become a Fascist state out of greed. So I wonder if you really think the US can return to Democratic principles without a fundamental destruction of the Fascist infrastructure it has created for itself. Germany couldn't.

... and the change for much mobility among parties due to their system. If enough people were to come out in favor of such a thing, then there might be real change.

Would you say that a multi-party system in the US is forbidden? Would you say it is illegal? Would you say the majority of the American population is adequately educated and have access to unbiased, international political philosophies? Look at the pages of this forum. What do you see? I see cliches, catch-phrases and absurd rhetoric. It doesn't look to me that Americans are able to express anything other than "Typical Leftist!" "Typical Conservative!" Come on ..... a great many of Americans think that Obama is a "Socialist!" A "Far Leftist!" These people are not able to grasp the two political philosophies they have now. In their defense, I have to say that there isn't much difference between the two anyway, no matter how much they are PR'd as being opposing forces. But that's part of what makes it unlikely that any 3rd. party would get to the ballot. Remember that the US thinks in terms of "With us or against us!" That thought doesn't allow for more than two choices on any subject.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know. But then again one of the reason they are not controlled is because they have more than 2 parties ...

The reason is far more interesting than that. Europe is a continent of close neighbours, many of which have different cultures, different languages, and even (to a smaller extent) different mentalities. But we have formed alliances at one time or another and we've learned to appreciate our neighbours on some level and been able to understand them even if we have disagreed. The common denominator is culture ... not the same culture, but well-developed ones. Over the centuries we have learned from one another and shared the advantages whenever it is possible. Survival has depended upon democratic principles and there have been revolutions to achieve those principles.

The US has forsaken democracy in the very same way that Hitler did. The difference is that Germany had its' back against the wall, making a Nationalist like Hitler seem like a welcomed saviour. And he did actually save Germany, but banned all other political parties and so went from being a Nationalist to becoming a Fascist. The rest of that story we already know. This is exactly what the US has done. It's become a Fascist state. But it didn't become that way out of necessity, as 'might be argued' Germany did. The US has become a Fascist state out of greed. So I wonder if you really think the US can return to Democratic principles without a fundamental destruction of the Fascist infrastructure it has created for itself. Germany couldn't.

... and the change for much mobility among parties due to their system. If enough people were to come out in favor of such a thing, then there might be real change.

Would you say that a multi-party system in the US is forbidden? Would you say it is illegal? Would you say the majority of the American population is adequately educated and have access to unbiased, international political philosophies? Look at the pages of this forum. What do you see? I see cliches, catch-phrases and absurd rhetoric. It doesn't look to me that Americans are able to express anything other than "Typical Leftist!" "Typical Conservative!" Come on ..... a great many of Americans think that Obama is a "Socialist!" A "Far Leftist!" These people are not able to grasp the two political philosophies they have now. In their defense, I have to say that there isn't much difference between the two anyway, no matter how much they are PR'd as being opposing forces. But that's part of what makes it unlikely that any 3rd. party would get to the ballot. Remember that the US thinks in terms of "With us or against us!" That thought doesn't allow for more than two choices on any subject.

The problem is that it's not about the culture of respecting each other. I can point to systems all around the world.

Algeria, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Benin, Bhutan and on and on.

The Argentinian Chamber of Deputies has 12 Alliances made up of between one and eight parties. That's 37 parties in parliament.

Yes, the US has forsaken democracy, it's sad, but they think they have democracy, which is even worse. The US could return to democratic principles, but there would have to be a massive fight to make it happen.

But, then again Slavery was entrenched, and it changed, Segregation too. Gay marriage is now acceptable and protected. Things do change, and you have to fight for what you believe in, even if it's a struggle.

 

[GLASNOST]

1). Yes, the US has forsaken democracy, it's sad,

2). but they think they have democracy, which is even worse.

3). The US could return to democratic principles, but there would have to be a massive fight to make it happen.

We are in agreement on all points here.

 

[BluesLegend]

I think we need a new party. The Democratic party is corrupt bought and paid for. The Republican party is corrupt bought and paid for. The American people are cannon fodder for these scumbags. The press have completely failed, in many ways they are worse than the politicians.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think we need a new party. The Democratic party is corrupt bought and paid for. The Republican party is corrupt bought and paid for. The American people are cannon fodder for these scumbags. The press have completely failed, in many ways they are worse than the politicians.

The press has not FAILED. They are doing what they get paid for ... to spread political propaganda. There is no more "Free Press". The American media is now all 'embedded'. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Mussolini did it. North Korea is doing it. The UK and Sweden are on the verge of it as we speak.