Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

As someone who is not represented by either party, but who votes GOP because they don't hate my life, my values, and what I want for my children, the third party is an interesting discussion. The two party system is an inherently conservative system - it pulls everyone into an simplifying either/or in theory and in fact through most of its history in practice.

During my voting lifetime grassroots dissatisfaction with the two party system has led to 3 different third party "events" lets call them (because the particulars did not endure): Ross Perot, Tea Party, and Trump. On the surface all three seem to have come from the "conservative" GOP side, but I think much of the people/energy of all three came from the large hole left from the Democrat party repudiating its "conservative" wing . It is telling that the more conservative you were/are, as opposed to merely a typical "neo-conservative" (what I call libertarian) GOP supporter, the more you were attracted to all three. It is also revealing I think of how liberal/progressive/democratic party biased the media (in general - exluding the "conservative" alt media) has become from Ross to Trump, in that Perot was given credence, the Tea Party was dismissed as radical, and Trump was simply hated and actively undermined.

The courts are an interesting aspect of this as well, because the more conservative you are the higher the court issue rises as a direct factor of your vote. The willingness of SCOTUS (really the whole judicial branch) to step in and decide for the progressive side on almost everything and anything has of course not gone unnoticed. However at the same time there has been a paralysis for various reasons of the legislative branch, so the courts are merely filling the power vacuum. Still, such naked use of power used to benefit one side of an ideological divide is bound to prompt an equally powerful reaction - more energy to a third option.

Despite all this the two party system has proved very robust. The increasing divide between the haves (the elitists' who control both parties, government, media, universities, etc.) and the have nots (the "average" person who is not nearly as culturally liberal as these elites, yet who at the same time want to see a less neo-conservative economic policy for the lower/middle classes) is obvious for all to see. How long can this tension - this chasm last? Yet, as I said, the two party system has proved very robust so far...

 

Maybe. I suspect conservatives may be right in that he is Anthony Kennedy 2.0 - seeming to be "above the fray" but in point of fact leading the court's activist choosing-of-sides in the ideological divide.

 

Looks like SCOTUS is not going to brother with the PA case.

 

Yup, this is not a shocked at all.

 

Why stop at three parties? Seems to me to be an absolute minimum! I do agree that things can get messy and unstable when a multi-party election leads to no single largest party and things depend on horse-trading power to get numbers. But two just seems so unimaginative, especially when there is not something like an old-fashioned clear-cut capitalist/socialist difference.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...hms-create-a-poverty-trap-lawyers-fight-back/

"....Consumer reporting agencies, including credit bureaus, tenant screening companies, or check verification services, amass this information from a wide range of sources: public records, social media, web browsing, banking activity, app usage, and more. The algorithms then assign people “worthiness” scores, which figure heavily into background checks performed by lenders, employers, landlords, even schools."

I'm curious. Do people think:
1) This is how we're going to see social credit scores in the US or other somewhat "free countries"? With acceptance coming via "of course those irresponsible deadbeats deserve it..." - that is, until a "glitch" messes you up?
OR
2) Inept bureaucracy and gubbamins once again not thinking and working through the details until it's too late on another "hurr hurr I DEED ET I FEEL GUD" program?

 

coalitions, if not of too many parties/elements (cf the horse-trading thing), can moderate, adding checks and balances into the process. Might not work so well on the opposition side, though.

 

Otoh, adding more idiots to an existing group of them rarely works to anyone's benefit ime.

 

Sorry for asking but who gives a shit anymore if it is 2 or 22? You want 47? I am fine with that. If Messieurs Bazos, Zuckerberg, Dorsey and CEO of Google decide to support one of those 47 the remaining 46 are fucked. There are many useful distractions: cancel culture, woke politics, corruption, the number of parties etc etc.. But the problem is there for everyone to see: the ownership and monopoly of the information flow. But it is so difficult to tackle that we want to pretend it is something else.

 

In this case absolutely yes, she was dumb and messed up her own score, but based on the quote I extracted and the rest of the article, this is kind of my point. Will we also get a social credit score system where we all sit around and say "lol they dumb"... until one day we get zapped too b/c "you no bow to illuminatis / you no say extra PC things and hurt muh feelings".

 

When I came to Canada 30 years ago the first thing I noticed is that people are very tolerant of "stupid". "They", according to tolerant Canadians, were saying "stupid" things, but it was funny, and "stupid" were young, and it was was hip until one day stupid got twitter and became invincible. So your point is very valid, except that you do not have to wait to get zapped for all those things you mentioned.

 

Did those Canadians told you to go back to Europe? Native born folks don't always like outsiders telling them they suck. I saw that upfront more than once.

 

This has nothing to do "conservative" of "liberal". I am East European and as conservative as they come but 80% of journalists I support through direct subscriptions on substack are people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, other who are sometimes very left wing, but they are honest, and their only transgression is they refused to toil on Mesrs Dorsey and Zuckerberg plantation. Just remember Bernie Sanders and what other news were most prominently suppressed in recent months on Twitter and Facebook. Sanders and Trump are the same for Silicon Valley and the establishment, and they were both dealt with in a very effective way.

If it was a Democrat or a third party candidate challenging them, or refusing to be relaxed about China's theft of American technology and jobs, Silicon Valley would do anything in their power NOT to allow such a candidate to win.
It does not have squat to do with right wing or left wing. or who is allowed, this week, to still play on youtube or Facebook.

 

No they did not because, as an outsider, I was smart enough not to talk too much. When I came everything and everyone seemed wonderful, and still does to certain extent.
And I only reached this conclusion, about misguided tolerance to stupid, after many years of living there.