Most people want a 3rd party POTUS

@no1marauder said
That's a lame excuse; IF the People were as dissatisfied with the two big money parties' candidates as you say they are, they'd vote for somebody else.

The bottom line is this: most voters in the US support either one of those parties or the other and vote that way.

I believe that people vote for the one they dislike the least. To suggest that Trump or Biden is the best you have got is ridiculous. Both are pathetic. Not just a bit, a lot. And people do not necessarily support either party per-say, they just do not feel as though they really have a choice.
The reality that we have to live with is that one of the 2 "will" win, so what one are we most prepared to live with. That in no way infers support.

@jimmac said
I believe that people vote for the one they dislike the least. To suggest that Trump or Biden is the best you have got is ridiculous. Both are pathetic. Not just a bit, a lot. And people do not necessarily support either party per-say, they just do not feel as though they really have a choice.
The reality that we have to live with is that one of the 2 "will" win, so what one are we most prepared to live with. That in no way infers support.

Biden has an 82% approval rating now among Democrats, which is the lowest it's been during his Presidency. https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/

@metal-brain said
Most people don't want Biden or Trump as POTUS in 2024 and that is why that will be your choices.

https://rumble.com/v14enak-58-of-voters-want-third-party-candidate-for-president-in-2024.html

That is how democracy works in the USA. Whoever you don't want you will get. That is how I know I live in a plutocracy. The corporate news media is guiding your choices. Most p ...[text shortened]... cracy is under threat from this or that. You cannot lose something you never had in the first place.

I’m going to hazard a guess and say you’d like a POTUS that would pull the US out of NATO

@metal-brain said
Most people don't want Biden or Trump as POTUS in 2024 and that is why that will be your choices.

https://rumble.com/v14enak-58-of-voters-want-third-party-candidate-for-president-in-2024.html

That is how democracy works in the USA. Whoever you don't want you will get. That is how I know I live in a plutocracy. The corporate news media is guiding your choices. Most p ...[text shortened]... cracy is under threat from this or that. You cannot lose something you never had in the first place.

Heres an idea, do not have presidential candidates tied to either party or better yet do not have a president.
I’m sure the position of POTUS only came about because Republican nations feel they have to have a replacement for the traditional enthroned monarch but how about no monarch at all 🤷🏻‍♂️

@averagejoe1 said
Not on subject, but I think there should be a triumvirate of 3 presidents. Think about it. I mean......one man decides fate!!?!?

They tried that in Rome. It didn't work. The last one was mockingly known as the triumvirate of Gaius, Iulius and Caesar.

@metal-brain said
Yes, and they are determined to keep it that way.

People are easier to control when they are divided into 2 factions. Dividing people into 3 factions would not be as effective. The whole system is rigged against a 3rd party.

It's a lot worse than that.

In a real democracy, you do not have "a 3rd party". You have parties, all of them. A system of two main parties who do all the contesting, a third party who can play second fiddle, and a lot of nobodies, cannot be solved by turning it into a system of three parties who do the contesting amongst each other, and a lot of nobodies. That will all too soon turn back into the original state. What you need is a system in which all parties have a chance. But you won't have that as long as you have a first-past-the-post system.

@no1marauder said
(Shrug) With the way campaigns can now be financed i.e. with direct contributions a click away on the internet it should be easier for third party candidates to raise money comparable to what the major parties can.

That they fail to shows that the People in the US really aren't terribly interested in third party candidates no matter what they say in generic polling well before the election.

Ah, yes. The great force of the individual millions worth a few bucks each, versus the few corporate sponsors worth millions each.

Oh, no, wait. The corporations are worth billions, not millions.

Face it, your country is corrupt as all hell.

@no1marauder said
Your stupid conspiracy theories get more and more preposterous.

What happened to Jill Stein was hardly comparable to the media frenzy about something as insignificant as Hillary's e-mails. And Tulsi Gabbard was always a fringe candidate with little support.

I don't watch your Jimmy Dore videos and have no intention of wasting my time doing so. He's hardly original i ...[text shortened]... claims but the bottom line is that the People in the US have a wide range of candidates to vote for.

Were the other actions of Hillary insignificant, like destroying govt property and paying for the fake dossier? No1, why do you libs cherry pick incidents which fit your narratives? Why did you highlight just her emails? Why don't you admit Hunter is absolutely horrible? Why don't you find Hillary horrible? What's your angle?

@kevcvs57 said
Heres an idea, do not have presidential candidates tied to either party or better yet do not have a president.
I’m sure the position of POTUS only came about because Republican nations feel they have to have a replacement for the traditional enthroned monarch but how about no monarch at all 🤷🏻‍♂️

Won't work. You need a head of government, no matter what you call him; and the state needs a figure-head, both for diplomatic and for psychological reasons. The problem is that the USA combines these functions. In this way, it is much closer to the absolutist monarchies of pre-revolutionary France and mediaeval England, than to the parliamentary monarchies of the modern UK, or the Netherlands.

If you'd split those functions, you'd be slightly better off already. However, for an example of how to really pull it off without having a monarch, have a look at how Germany does it. They're a federal country as well - not as strongly so as the USA, but still - and they have a president for a figure-head, a chancellor as the head of government, and a mixed system of partly FPTP, partly proportional representation.

Oh, no, wait. That would never work in the USA. They don't elect their local chief of police, chairman of the state transport board, chief scout, and head dog catcher on the same ballot as their national president, so they aren't as free as US citizens.

@shallow-blue said
Won't work. You need a head of government, no matter what you call him; and the state needs a figure-head, both for diplomatic and for psychological reasons. The problem is that the USA combines these functions. In this way, it is much closer to the absolutist monarchies of pre-revolutionary France and mediaeval England, than to the parliamentary monarchies of the modern ...[text shortened]... d dog catcher on the same ballot as their national president, so they aren't as free as US citizens.

That’s what a president should be a figurehead with diplomatic skills to represent the country. It might be telling that the US came up with the role of POTUS at the exact same time as they freed themselves from a monarchy and they rightly thought an elected monarch was preferable to dynastic one but like most good political ideas of the 18th century it looks a bit clunky and anachronistic in the 21st century.
Curb the powers of the POTUS, reform the senate or curb its powers and increase the powers of the individual states so people can vote with their feet if they don’t like what the more powerful and democratic House of Representatives is doing.

@averagejoe1 said
Were the other actions of Hillary insignificant, like destroying govt property and paying for the fake dossier? No1, why do you libs cherry pick incidents which fit your narratives? Why did you highlight just her emails? Why don't you admit Hunter is absolutely horrible? Why don't you find Hillary horrible? What's your angle?

The 'angle' is reality, not tabloid conspiracy theory.

@averagejoe1 said
Were the other actions of Hillary insignificant, like destroying govt property and paying for the fake dossier? No1, why do you libs cherry pick incidents which fit your narratives? Why did you highlight just her emails? Why don't you admit Hunter is absolutely horrible? Why don't you find Hillary horrible? What's your angle?

Why don't you stay off the booze? You're rambling again, boy.

@kevcvs57 said
That’s what a president should be a figurehead with diplomatic skills to represent the country.

Yeah, but you still need a head of government. The problem is not that you have or do not have the one or the other, the problem is that you Yanks combine the two into one, all-powerful, first-past-the-post, personality-cult office.

@shallow-blue said
Yeah, but you still need a head of government. The problem is not that you have or do not have the one or the other, the problem is that you Yanks combine the two into one, all-powerful, first-past-the-post, personality-cult office.

Well that would be the likes of Chuck Schumer or, on a bad day Kevin McCarthy. It’s literally not a foolproof system, it’s how we ended up with Boris Johnson but Boris could theoretically be pushed out of office tomorrow, it’s the party that gets elected or rather the individual constituency candidate who belongs to any given party and collectively they choose the prime minister. Also any given candidate can cross the aisle midway through a governments tenure if they really don’t like the direction it’s heading in or resign and cause a by election in that constituency.

@shallow-blue said
It's a lot worse than that.

In a real democracy, you do not have "a 3rd party". You have parties, all of them. A system of two main parties who do all the contesting, a third party who can play second fiddle, and a lot of nobodies, cannot be solved by turning it into a system of three parties who do the contesting amongst each other, and a lot of nobodies. That ...[text shortened]... /i] parties have a chance. But you won't have that as long as you have a first-past-the-post system.

I admit I've never understood such arguments. The US has more than two parties, many more. It is the People's decision not to vote for them though presently there are two Senators who do not run on their lines and it is not unprecedented to have candidates for major offices run as independents or third party candidates and win.

Of course, I'd be fine with various electoral reforms like ranked choice or other types of voting; I'm pretty sure, however, the results would not be substantially different in the US.