An englishmans thoughts.

Hello america, i just thought id share my thoughts on the whole ordeal taking place at the moment. Everytime i turn on the telly here in ol blighty all i see is two faces which to be honest would fit in quite nicely at halloween, but seriously i don't completely understand American politics.

For a start why do you only have two choices for president? There not great choices either, seems to me like one big set up for a civil war. Now this is the main reason im starting this thread and heres my prediction.....because it seems to me like you are being set up, there not going to let trump win so hillery will win by a large margin and trump will kick off and call for a revolution! They wont be trump supporters because all the interviews i have seen are with people who are only voting trump so hillery doesnt win, they will take to the streets and riots will ensue.

Then cue the invasion from russia/north korea/china or whoever else you lot have pissed off making www3 a reality. So what choices do you have then??
Dont vote!!!!
If your not happy voting for either one then dont vote!
Simple!

Maybe this should be in rants or something, anywho, just my thoughts. Thanks for your time.

originally posted by: Lompyt
For a start why do you only have two choices for president?

There are plenty of other candidates, the issue happens to be that most voters are caught up in the paradigms of the two major parties and are unwilling to set aside their partisanship to vote for someone other than whom their party directs.

There not great choices either...

They are awful.

Then cue the invasion from russia/north korea/china....

Invasion? They gonna walk or swim here?

a reply to: Lompyt

It's probably something American.

As a Canadian (a country with several competing parties) I've tried to understand it too, to no avail.


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!"

-Albert Einstein

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Lompyt
For a start why do you only have two choices for president?

Invasion? They gonna walk or swim here?

When the counrty is ripped apart from all the fighting there just fly In and kill the rest.

originally posted by: Lompyt
Everytime i turn on the telly here in ol blighty all i see is two faces which to be honest would fit in quite nicely at halloween

You're quite right.

So what would happen if the whole country just didn't vote?

originally posted by: Lompyt
When the counrty is ripped apart from all the fighting there just fly In and kill the rest.

Sounds incredibly plausible.

I think there were a couple of crappy Red Dawn movies with the same silly premise.

a reply to: Lompyt

Actually, as of October 15th, there are 1,910 candidates officially registered with the Federal Election Commission who are running for POTUS.

Here are the top 8 that have over 15 percent for general election Ballot:

Hillary Clinton - Democratic Party
Donald Trump - Republican Party
Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Jill Stein - Green Party
Darrell Lane Castle - Constitution Party
Rocky De La Fuente - Reform Party
Evan McMullin - Independent
Gloria Estela La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation

FEC Presidential Candidate Summary

The reason you only hear mostly about Hillary and Trump is due to the media and money. In our world over here, the media pretty much tries to control what they want people to hear, see and read. Truthful journalism has been gone for a very, very long time over here.
Money - those that have the most money are those who will control advertising and getting the world out. Because the Democrats and Republicans tend to have the most money for doing this, it is pretty much why you only hear about them in most places, and would have to hunt down any other candidates.

Mind set - Most Americans have been brought up to think that there really is only two parties in this country and therefore only 2 candidates. I personally blame sports for this (and most of us Americans are big sports fans), which is almost always 2 teams going against each other. Believe it or not, many Americans see the elections this way: as a sporting event, hoping that their "team" wins.

Sad state of affairs, when we pick our ruler based on how much we want the other side to loose, instead of actually finding someone who can do a good job and doesn't have a horrible background.

a reply to: Lompyt

decades of brainwashing that people have to vote against the other guy rather than for someone they believe in have lead us to this point.

a reply to: eriktheawful

man you forgot your pick and mine Limberbutt McCubbins for president!

or have you withdrawn your support of the cat, cause he was acting like a stray cat.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

No, No.

Liberbutt McCubbins is on that list of 1,910 candidates.

a reply to: Lompyt

US politics at the Federal POTUS level is really easy to understand. Theres only 1 National Party, the Democrat party. The other parties dont command enough supprt to win elections on that level.

And yes I wont be voting for the position of POTUS.

originally posted by: Lompyt

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Lompyt
For a start why do you only have two choices for president?

Invasion? They gonna walk or swim here?

When the counrty is ripped apart from all the fighting there just fly In and kill the rest.

That's honestly very unlikely.

Unless things were that bad the USA started receiving bulk aid from China and instead of containers full of rice the US received containers full of Communist soldiers.

I just can't see it happening, too many reasons. One being the US military has more force projection with it's troops and hardware on foreign soil than probably any other nation. Russia could do it, but they'd need to build a highway over the Bering Straight because they won't get there by sea.

Well good luck to you all, and I'll hopefully see you all on the other side. Cant wait to get back to my usual mind programming tv shows. 😉a reply to: Lompyt

If your not happy voting for either one then dont vote!

a reply to: Lompyt

Everything you said lays out the problem with our two-party system. Not voting still won't solve the problem, because other voters will end up deciding which candidate will be elected. If you mean all voters should stay home and not vote, that would surely send a message that we don't want either candidate.

I think American voters should organize and call for everyone to stay home from work one day and launch a protest day over the terrible choices we have to choose from. We should also demand a change to our election process that eliminates the predominate 2-party system. Our system should allow anyone to run for president and have a system in place to narrow down a choice of maybe five candidates. Of course legislatures would have to eliminate all corporate campaign financing and make sure all candidates were on an equal playing field.

Greetings from across the Atlantic.
It's been a while since I've roamed about in the UK; I always love it over there.

Regarding your question, my opinion is that we always have to contend with two major political candidates because that's the way TPTB want it. A truly workable multiparty system will never be allowed to function in this country because it weakens the dialectical paradigm of opposites TPTB use to achieve their predetermined ends.

Someone else in this thread used the sports analogy, and I tend to think there's merit in that; it's something akin to being forced to watch the same two teams in the superbowl year after year. Someone else mentioned the media, and that's an excellent point as well. TPTB uses the corporate media to surround us with the same oppositional rhetoric.

Apathetic as it may sound, I won't be voting this year unless there's some meaningful referendum on the local ballot.
If so, then I'll probably cast a write-in vote for Homer Simpson (which would invalidate my ballot, so I'd be wasting my time either way, really). There's a lot of pressure to vote, and I've been guilted for not exercising my voice. However, logic would suggest that not voting is also a right, a choice, and form of voice. In my opinion, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. I won't have that on my soul.

Regardless of the outcome, I don't think it will come down to an invasion or nuclear war--unless that's what TPTB want, and I don't think that's the case.

-Cheers

originally posted by: Lompyt
For a start why do you only have two choices for president?

This is about having two main parties, and that's fairly normal. For that matter, we in the UK normally have a choice between two main leaders. Historically, political divisions are always prone to resolve themselves into a two-way conflict.

There not great choices either, seems to me like one big set up for a civil war.

I think the obsession with voters choosing the party candidates themselves is actually part of the problem, because the choice is then restricted to those who can raise the most money.
If they allowed the parties themselves to choose their own candidates and then finance the campaigns as a party, they might wind up with better choices.

Dont vote!!!! If your not happy voting for either one then dont vote!

It isn't obvious how this would improve matters.
If nobody wins, more political tension leads to a greater chance of rioting and violence, more internal distraction leads to a greater chance of opportunist wars. That is supposed to be a solution?

a reply to: Lompyt

Briefly

We have two political parties because of tradition, our "winner takes all" voting system that supports it, and our Constitutional allocations of power that supports it. That's what our country's original leaders thought best for us. Our system is based on the notion of compromise between the two governing parties.

This has done well for us, until now. The two parties have always "reached across the aisle" to get things done, because there were left, right, and center in each party. Since 1980 the country has been made to divide over cultural wedge issues, with one party becoming the "home" for right wing wedge issues, taking in many of the other party's conservatives, while their own party began to lose its liberals and centers. Since 1990 the party gave increasing political power to its right wing reactionaries and extremists, causing an historical asymmetry, as less extreme members dropped out. Plus, the party started to refuse to find compromise with the other party, preferring to act as obstructionists.

Note, this obstructionism went nuclear in 2009, when it became "Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail" (an ATS thread)

At the moment, we have asymmetrical political ideological power with no way to enforce compromise or force "coalitions".

Re multi parties. As noted in erictheawful's post prior, we do have other parties and candidates, but only the two major parties are registered in ALL 50 states and have experience governing in ALL 50 states and at ALL levels of state and local govt. Parties and candidates that only show up every four years are given the term "vanity".

If citizens wish to establish party apparatus and govern everywhere as the two major parties have done, they are free to do so. Some third and fourth parties are registered in many states, but have no (or a tiny) record of governing. This takes citizen effort, money, and time. Also, for a third or more party to govern at the federal level, once it has established that it can govern, some of the structural barriers (as noted in first paragraph) must be changed. This is not something that can be completed in a short time.

I think that for a large country with 50 independently governed states, we have done pretty well so far. I live in a state that ranks 7 or 8 in world income, if it were its own nation, because we are part of a great nation. This mess at the federal level will take years of unwinding. Either we try to get back to symmetrical political power or we abandon our traditional structure of government by compromise.

my 2c data ran out

a reply to: Lompyt



You know what? I'm an American, and I agree with you Mr. Englishman. What you've said about this election matches with my envisioning of the possibilities of the outcome exactly, to the "T". I wonder if having several presidents of America would be a better thing. The "hoax faker" John Titor is more and more right every day. He predicted civil war in America, and a Nuclear WWIII. I don't believe he was a time traveler, but his predictions need another looking at.

If Hillary wins, it will be a riot of gun owners who want to protect their rights on the streets in a "final blaze of glory". All of the other unsatisfied people could join into those riots. Then, you would have the Catholics and other anti-abortionists to jump in. It would be utter chaos.

If Trump wins, Soros will keep on funding racial division and other structures intended to break down American society. Soros is the one who "collapses countries 'for fun'!". The racial division could be financed so well by Soros, that it could begin to collapse police departments and other civil service (fire departments, hospitals, etc.). This could also become chaotic.

Either way, America better figure out the answers to a LOT of problems very quickly. Everyone I know is worried about the future of America, no matter which "puppet" occupies the Oval Office!