BobDylan

I agree with both of those, and election reform should include Ranked Choice voting, which would eliminate the two party stranglehold, but the major parties would never allow it..

No Rob, I haven't. But I have read some of the writings of Smedley Butler, the retired general who exposed the racket of war, and how he was a hitman for corporate America and the military industrial complex, against the Third World countries the US preyed on. I suppose the book you mentioned it similar to that.

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan, both of which were costly in money, lives, and with soldiers suffering permanent PTSD and brain injuries. Those things in themselves, count for more than "not getting much done".... And our national deficit would also be much smaller. We also would have gotten something better than the ACA...

And it's also telling that America currently has a higher % of its inhabitants locked up, than did Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union in its gulag days... But you can blame all that false belief by most Americans, in our country being superior in all those categories, to the corporate media's propaganda, as well as our degraded public education systems, both of which have long preached the myth of American exceptionalism...

Mac and V., I've really enjoyed reading the dialogue between you two. Two people who are both very bright, knowledgeable, and brutally honest with others. All rare traits in this Kardashian/Idiocracy world, or at least country, that we live in. I fully agree, this site deserves much more robust and wider participation from its members and visitors, but I don't have a clue how to make that happen or encourage more of it. Maybe most of us on the lefty end are feeling just too demoralized, stressed, and depressed to participate in discussions here, who knows? But I agree with both of you on your points made in your comments above. I don't feel either of you is more right than the other in the debate over human flaws, consistency and hypocrisy. For what it's worth, mac, I probably only meet about half of your four standards about morality. I do care about animals, but will still continue to be a carnivore, who supports animals being treated well while they are living as pets, in shelters, zoos, or in the wild. I will gladly pay higher taxes, as long as it benefits all of society, not just me and my age group, and also not just white people, the rich, or corporations. I am an Agnostic, so I guess Christian hypocrisy doesn't apply to me. Lastly, even tho I will likely be dead before the 💩 really hits the fan with climate change, I do care about the world left to younger people after I'm gone, and even tho I still drive a gas powered Ford Fusion, I would gladly ride a bicycle some of my travels, if I lived in a climate warm enough to do it most of the year, or would drive an electric vehicle, if I lived in a home that would allow me to plug it in. But I don't live in such a place, and my condo apt, fits my needs best for housing, as well as being affordable. I suppose that my next car will at least be a hybrid, if I can find a late model used one in a couple years or so. So judge me as you will, mac, but I honestly think I am trying and doing better at it than most.

One thing is certain, a society in which a large % of young men are asexual and socially isolated or alienated from women, is not a good thing for said society, same as the whole incel culture these days. It only corrodes our society..

I think we all know the answer is the latter one, that not only would the Watergate story, nor the Pentagon Papers being published, ever happen. And even if they did, the Repub Party would never agree to impeach a president of their own party, as they were ready to do to Nixon, before he resigned in disgrace. Bottom line is, things have changed greatly since the 1970s, and mostly for the worse, when it comes to power and accountability for the rich and powerful.. Another thing, in the 1970s, most of the large newspapers were family-owned, and much more ethical and accountable to their readers, compared to now..

Call me cynical, but some people are just plain selfish and wicked, so that even if we had a socialist utopia, like I would prefer we have, there would still be a need for laws, cops and government, esp. government.... The opposite of my desired utopia, is some sort of post apocalyptic world, like the Walking Dead, universe, where everything is chaos and everything is about the strongest and most ruthless having all the power and being completely free to prey on the weaker people who are still left.. I would frankly rather be dead, than going on and trying to survive and suffer in such a world..

I agree scary, as I too hate ghosting, but in the case of someone who is obviously conservative or a Trumper, and thus incompatible, then it's obvious in that case, that the person either didn't read your profile, or if they did, they just want to engage or match with you to send you trolling messages. So in either case, an exception is justified as far as ghosting them, because you have already set an appropriate boundary, which has been ignored, and nothing good will come from it, as you say, by engaging with them..

I have heard the same sort of thing from women on dating sites, who have very clearly stated their being very liberal and their desire to reject any men who are conservatives or Trumpers, and yet there are always men who will either message them on the other sites or match with them on Bumble, all so they can send trolling messages to those women. If these people are truly secure in their political beliefs, you don't have the need to seek out and troll others who have done nothing but put themselves out on a dating site, while being open and honest about who they are politically. I have never felt the need to troll people I encounter on dating sites, because I'm secure in who I am, and don't need to engage or connect with the politically incompatible, to insult or lecture them on how wrong they are, etc.. I guess having some class in how you conduct yourself, is more common among the left than the right, not surprisingly...

The problem with the party is not messaging, it's the lack of character and courage of the leaders and pols in DC, as well as their policies..

Right on, scary! A woman after my own heart. I feel exactly the same about wishy washyness. As the congressman said, "It's time to choose a 🍆>🐱ing side!".... And I take dating too seriously, or at least long term relationships, that I won't date someone I don't respect, or who doesn't respect me, as well.. Also, feel free to say more on this topic, glad I brought up something you were passionate about... BTW, I used to message or show interest in women's profiles that listed Moderate as their political affiliation or label, but I stopped doing that, once I saw that the vast majority of them were just using that as a cover for actually being a Trumper or conservative. I too hate dishonesty in dating profiles, dating behavior, and the dating game in general. But obviously most people feel differently, since dishonesty is so rampant in the dating game these days. Still I remain an idealist on that point, probably because my father was a career judge, so honesty is my top value, when it comes to character...

Well said, V., and I'm also way too old to be doing flings, lol, and I didn't even do them when I was a young man. Guess I was just too shy or uptight then. But since these women are paying $35 a ticket for this event, I would like to think that about all of them are after more than a fling, since they were all age 55-70, and were more likely looking for something real and long term, if possible. But I could well be wrong, since the way it turned out, I think that looks, same as on the dating sites, was the main factor for most of them, same as with the men, in who they chose to match with after the event ended. I like to think I was pretty open-minded and not overly focused on looks, in who I chose to match with, since I selected to match with 13 of the 21 women who attended, but ended up with only one mutual match. But I heard, from another guy who was there, as well as the organizer. that it's pretty common for men at those events to only end up with one or two mutual matches, and sometimes no mutual matches. So it could have been worse, but it still felt like a real gut punch, to be honest, tho not that much different than my rejection rate on the dating sites, of how many replies I got out of the first messages I sent to women, about a 10-15% response rate.. I also think that compatibility on religion, or lack of it, is also becoming almost as important as politics these days in dating, at least for relationships that are supposed to be long term and not superficial or casual. etc.. And I think the same honesty and openness should apply with that, in both profiles and early messaging or sharing with a prospective partner..

Last month I went to a local speed dating event, and had an interesting experience with it, particularly regarding politics. I chatted with 21 different women during the series of 4 min. rounds, and because having compatible political views is important to me in who I choose to date, as well as also having compatible values in other areas, including religion and lack of religion in them and me, I asked each woman to say where they feel they fit in the political spectrum, from conservative to liberal, etc. Surprisingly, at least to me, 7 of the 21, a full third of them, refused to answer this simple,, basic ?, saying either that they "weren't political", "don't discuss politics with anyone", to saying " I only discuss politics with those close to me,,,,, (adult children, closest friends, etc.). I respectfully honored their refusals and didn't try to argue with or criticize them for their stance, even tho I suspect that all of them were either closet Trumpers or conservatives, and felt defensive or embarrassed by how their side is acting these days or the backlash against them, etc. But I did immediately write each of them off, as far as compatibility or any further interest in getting to know more about them, since they had already failed one of my few dealbreakers on a woman's personality, character, values, etc.. I have also run into much of this same thing with the dating sites like Match, Bumble, etc., where the women don't openly say they refuse to discuss politics, but instead, they simply leave out any indication of their political views or political affiliation, also sometimes they use evasive or dishonest language to describe their political traits, such as saying they're apolitical, when they later inevitably turn out to be Trumpers or conservatives, once you connect with them and begin trading messages. Or they use vague, misleading labels like Independent, or Moderate, when they also later turn out to be conservative or a Trumper.

Well said, capitalism is anything but a fair and victimless system. In fact, it has millions of victims, who usually end up blaming themselves, rather than the system, for their suffering..

It's esp., been true since the early 1970s, when the SC began ruling that campaign money was protected speech, and therefore couldn't be limited or regulated. This was long before their Citizen's United decision, which was more of a final nail in the coffin. It's really interesting to me, that the corporate media will occasionally mention how high our rate of non voting is in elections, compared to other developed democracies. But at the same time, the corporate media never does any studies, research, or analysis of why that is, esp. when it comes to asking registered voters why they don't vote. My take is that those voters see no real diff between the two major parties, esp. on economic issues and policy, and that's why they don't bother voting, esp. in fed elections. But the corporate media doesn't want to admit that, much less let those voters ever know about any third party or independent candidates, that offer a real option for voting outside the duopoly, and someone who isn't bought, because those parties and candidates don't have the money to buy ads in the corporate media, so the corporate media protects their big money clients, the major parties. And so it goes, on and on...