V.3

this is complex, but a good overview of the key concepts regarding what source signal is all about https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1LT75qFtns/

my faith is in intelligence, regardless of the container

regardless of what you think about religion or metaphysics, this is a good explanation of why esoteric knowledge would be withheld from the public. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17i4tkWYTp/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19cevbWUnv/

he bought several pairs of these $150 shoes for each of his cabinet members, based on his estimate of their shoe size, which he said, "tells a lot about a man." (did we pay for this part of their cult uniform?) this says it all. the control of his sycophants, the whimsical decision-making, senility, stupidity, etc..

a salient reason why the Lyin' King garnered as many votes as he did: https://www.facebook.com/USdems

the effect is thumbing your nose, because it's never remotely been a viable strategy for actually seating someone with the ideals you believe in. Quite the opposite. here's the REST of my quote from the "who would you vote for thread" that you left out. iow, my #1 preference has always been the green party, but i'd never throw my vote away and, in reality, not just theory, hurt my fellow citizens to make a point.

indeed, if conservatives are "happier" than liberals an explanation could include them being pack animals who find comfort having clearly defined leaders and political and religious groups who do the thinking for them. Their tight knit circles of friends and family and news bubbles are reassuring. To empathize with all of humanity and life on earth can weigh heavily on the mind. but the liberal upside i'll take any day of the week is the "Psychological richness of a life filled with new, varied, and stimulating experiences"

it seems to me that there are several doomsday scenarios in the poll options but i'm all ears, Rob. Can you tell me the option you'd like added to the poll?

and, btw, though this might be a "portrait of 3 men who have too much time on their hands" -- it's a discussion that needs to take place among 300 million Americans. Though the case could be made, that none of the 3 might change their tune, regardless of the evidence submitted, there are potential readers who have had less time on their hands to contemplate such issues. They might benefit from the deliberation. but i concede this conversation has started to loop and is becoming repetitive

reality check: BD and V3 talk a different talk, but walk the same walk -- vote the same way, for the same reason. Neither is remotely satisfied with the Dem Party. The 3rd active participant in this debate, feels the same way about the Dem Party, and that the Republican Party is worse, but is willing to risk losing to the Republican Party to thumb his nose at the system, despite that never showing any sign of working. There was never a poll in any stage of an election that indicated enough voters support the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or those kinds of fringe ideologies THAT is pissing in the wind. At least the BDs and V3s got Obama and Biden elected, and would have gotten Gore elected, and, likely, Hillary too, instead of THE LYIN' KING, McCain, and the Mormon who believes in magic underpants. at least the BD's and V3's got some healthcare reform and emission regulations, etc (aka incremental change) instead of downright regression back to the tyranny of being ruled by a King

yes. blame the SC. yes, blame the Dem Party. yes, blame the Nader voters all 3 happen can and are true like the Republicans, you're both treating this like a team sport, but there's only 2 sides in this football game, as is. Focus on getting the ball over the goal line until we can change the rules. the ONLY way a 3rd Party candidate gets in is if it's someone with enough star power to compete, up against the 2-Party's connections and cash advantages. Then, for example, either the Green Party or the Dem Party needs to concede and throw their voters to the other before the election. strategy. execution. not rhetoric and purity tests the time for all idealists, like myself, to fight, is during the Primaries, and independents like Bernie and progressives like the Green Party should participate. But if you sit on your hands while the Republicans close ranks, you ARE part of the problem.

that's a good point BD, but it also makes my point if Gore won in 2000, I believe we would at least not had those wars so, it was not people like me voting for Gore that lead to that it was people like the Nader voters and people like you who support the protest voters like i said. regardless of any other talking points on this topic... there never was, and still isn't enough public support for a 3rd party progressive IF EVERY VOTER WHO WOULD HAVE PREFERRED NADER HAD VOTED NADER, WE STILL WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BUSH but if 1% more Nader voters voted Gore we would have likely not had 2 bloody, costly, unproductive wars AND climate policies that could have SAVED THE FRIGGING WORLD 26 years ago! we can't even get people to stop supporting a pedo lunatic and you think we can get real progressives elected by splitting the progressive vote? all we need is another trifecta of the 3 branches and we could get real election reform that would pave the way for a ranked voting system that would make your daydreams a reality 3rd parties have been trying to send a message to the Dems all our lives and they've gotten no where. no where! you know the definition of insanity. repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different outcome

i'm very sorry that there's reason to create this thread for the next war that the American people do not want.

some, yes. but unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they prefer one of the 2-party candidates. i venture to say there has never been a 3rd party candidate that the majority of voters actually preferred. in actual votes, only 8 in 200 years got at least 10% of the vote. truth is. if more people acted like you, we'd keep getting the wrong candidate elected and humans would be on an irreversible path to extinction before a winnable candidate emerged truth is. if no one thought like you, we might get incremental progress instead of further regression. the path i suggest only requires 5% or 10% more voters to get off their ass and vote, period your route requires about 45% more voters to vote specifically for the 3rd party candidate next election tic toc they might say you got what you deserve and you'd both be wrong we all deserve better

odds. 1% iow, it's not impossible but maga is proof it's even less possible now than it was a hundred years ago it takes voting for the best Primary candidate then the best candidate that gives this country a real shot at changing what's wrong with the election system so we can actually get rid of the 2-party system for example. even if Nader won in 2000 he wouldn't have gotten much done and we'd still have a corrupt 2 party system today the framework has to change and it never will if the messaging is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, even if they blow off your nose, to spite your face

i didn't watch the SOTU speech. nothing new to see but i did torture myself by watching the Dem rebuttal awful, as usual one mention of Epstein files, only a few mentions of other scandals and corruptions once again playing it like politics business as usual with a conservative democrat at the mic economy, safety, blah blah blah the public would overwhelmingly be with us if we were more openly against him they passed on Kamala because she had no b⚽lls figuratively and literally

feel free to drop in some small shots or thumbnails of your work. i'd like to see them, as would others, i'm sure

the scientific reason why the Right so afraid... https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17saUa5Y8v/