if you disagree with the GOP on this
the opposite is
"unlawful" and "unnecessary"
not
TROUBLING

to just about every Democrat
besides Newsom, Bernie, AOC and a few others,
every despicable, disgraceful, immoral, and illegal act
by this administration and Congress this year has been
"TROUBLING"

What's frightening is that some GOP lawmakers call the boat strikes "lawful". Common sense (oh and the military code of conduct) cannot be more clear on this matter. But then again, Hitler had his officers so why should I be shocked by anything anymore?

indeed. it is amazing what humans can rationalize

the Admiral had an hour to consider the second strike
and a third

even the first was illegal

The Dem pols in DC can be as mealy-mouthed, and weak as they like regarding the crimes of THE LYIN' KING and his cronies, but I'm not going to be any less disgusted, outraged and angry about it. If only we had leaders with as much guts and integrity as those they claim to represent and claim as their supporters... talking about the Dems. And yet people continue to ask me or wonder why so many people on the left and the middle, hate and don't respect the Dem Party and their excuse for pols in DC?

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..

The Repub Party these days, not just THE LYIN' KING, are utterly shameless, and they also usually suffer no consequences for their behavior, so of course as long as that continues, the general public will also mostly choose to go in that same direction, as far as behavior. The same applies to the ultra rich and corporations, also shameless, and rarely suffering consequences for their behavior and actions. More shaming and more equal justice and fair equal treatment under the law, is the only way any of this changes. Even elections will not change the behavior of the Repubs in politics, I fear, as they have decided they can always just cheat their way to winning elections, no matter what the voters want, if elections are even held in the future... My fear of either civil war or permanent dictatorship, without any real future elections, gets worse every day... It's starting to look like civil war may be our only way out of this, but I know our side is never going to agree to wage one against the right wingers.. The other way to overthrow them is general strikes, but those also are never going to happen, because too many working age Americans have their healthcare tied to their jobs, and are living paycheck to paycheck, so boycotts against the worst corporations are probably our best bet for fighting back against our corrupt govt.. Attack their financial backers, and put the pressure on them that way...

we don't need more Panthers. we need more MLK's.

gentlemen, or, should i say, warriors

your sentiments are understandable given the current pressures on our psyches. But Malcolm X was wrong. Violence as an offensive strategy is always wrong. He accomplished nothing but to feed into the stereotypes that fueled racism. MLK succeeded by inspired masses of people to protest, including non-blacks. Gandhi also proved that masses don't need clubs, knives, or guns in their hand.

the "fight fire with fire" philosophy, which we need today, is one that utilizes all legal, non-violent methods to confront violence and illegality. We have, unfortunately, been subjected to the creep of immorality to the extent that good people like yourselves may now be open to unethical behavior as a counter measure. The creep started with this Prez getting away with breaking laws and moral standards in his first term, and treating both citizens and non-citizens inhumanely. The first key breakdown was those on the left, granted him permission to treat "illegals" inhumanely.

in sociological terms this rogue leader has tapped into the "reptilian" part of the human brain often described as the "fight or flight" instinct in nature. We have evolved, should have evolved beyond that. In esoteric terms, it could be called a separation from source -- the energy we all share. Or, in some wise words of a light transmitter, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

practically speaking, morality can not be forced via immoral methods. For one thing, don't wager on ethical beings swinging a sword with more force and accuracy than the immoral. The immoral are better at violence, destruction, and intimidation -- without limitations of mercy or empathy.

nay, brothers, we didn't go wrong by not fighting with them physically. we went wrong by not fighting with them intellectually and spiritually. And the tool at hand, that was not applied and enforced was LEGALITY. Yes, we're missing some laws, but enough were in place to nip their leader in the butt before the creep took hold his first term. We mistakenly trusted politicians on the left to do their jobs rather than just focus on keeping their jobs the next election because the other side was worse.

so, NO. we don't have to be more like them. The separation, the survival of the fittest, the CREEP is about to spread into the world via the abandoning of the better part of America's examples and standards. It started with the incivility within Americas borders that we allowed.

To reiterate and summarize. Justice is a legal matter. The strength that matters is not physical. It's in numbers. Not weapons.

Re-align with what IS right, rather than THE right!

transcript of live conversation

LINDY: i believe international law needs to come into play. NATO should take action

V3: i'm a firm believer in the U.N. concept, but i believe the other nations right now would say it's up to the American people to step up, and i'd have to agree

but, how can we do that if he has control of everything

imo, it would start with the Democrats and rational Republicans taking all the legal steps, as per their oath. Call for investigations and initiate impeachments and force the Republicans to block responsible action. Then would come the interesting part. How the people should step up the pressure

i don't know. we are protesting. calling and writing. telling them they will lose elections. what else can we do?

we need to circle the wagons. unite, and leave aside our strategic differences to organize/coordininate action with a focus on consumer pressure. Sure we've done No Kings Day but it's a general protest, without calling for specific action. We need a leader or group of leaders -- and all progressive political organizations to work together on boycotts primarily, and protests to support that action.

we've tried that. it doesn't seem to work.

we've haven't tried it TOGETHER. so it is the together part that is our weakness. the last blackout was misguided, mistimed, and lacked the right message communicated widely among us all

we need people to work out of work too. but it's very hard to do

you said it. there are limits to citizen's willingness to sacrifice -- to participate

what about not paying taxes

same thing. that's illegal and people would have to be willing to go to jail

not if we all do it together

indeed, the TOGETHER thing is the key. we can accomplish anything together, at the same time, we have the power

what if the King withholds funding for blue states as punishment

he would be breaking the law and it would again come down to our Reps starting the impeachment and us forcing it into reality

to be continued...

1 hour ago, macphysto said:

Say that to Holocaust survivors

preventing the holocaust is consistent with the approach i outlined. Hitler committed crimes before those atrocities that should have been enforced and justice should have been served before he got out of hand. Indeed laws and justice need to be enforced physically, with weapons if need be. And when Hitler's country allowed the atrocities, the world should step in with force -- weapons if all else fails.

this Prez committed crimes that should have already been brought to justice, force-ably if need be. But not by you or i with pitchforks. The system is in place. It's been abused and corrupted. Civility and integrity is still valued by a significant majority.

a stronger argument would be, what were our alternatives to the Civil War? I'd have to think about that...

ok... the answer is the same. Don't buy products made from slave labor. Don't socialize with slavers and have dinner served by slaves at someone's house. Work to pass laws. If laws aren't obeyed, perhaps offer to buy out slaves. If money doesn't work as a last resort, pull out the pitchforks. I'm not up for the unaliving, but i'll stick one in a slavers ass, and let them sit on it for a while.

On 1/14/2026 at 2:23 PM, V.3 said:

transcript of live conversation

LINDY: i believe international law needs to come into play. NATO should take action

to be continued...

LINDY: we've tried everything else. maybe it's time for physical action

V3: what is everything we tried?

protesting, boycotting. laws.

regarding protests/boycotts, minimally. two NO KINGS days is the tip of the iceberg compared to what is required to get it done. do you remember the civil rights movement?

sort of. i wasn't paying attention as a child

there were ongoing masses in the streets. You don't get things done by skipping the protest part and moving right to the pitchfork stage. Even when you do get to the pitchfork stage the change will not happen here because we physically defeat the dictator's forces. sadly, it will happen when citizens have had enough of soldiers killing citizens and there's no more support for the dictator. We're watching it happen in Iran, and those people are used to religious dictators in power. Americans will not tolerate it for long.

regarding laws, yes most are in place. they need to be enforced. example: we passed the Epstein bill, but we didn't enforce it. we need a campaign to force our politicians to enforce it

(sigh) who is going to enforce these laws? the Supreme Court and Congress is his

that's the biggest mistake we make. they're ALL ours! It's a matter of demanding what is ours
for example, we all seem to have this reverence for the the idiots on the Supreme Court instead of giving them a mass-ive dose of our mind on the steps of their court

you know what's going to happen. he'd call in the troops

fine. the people can yell at the troops

and if someone gets pushed you're not going to push back?

no

you're going to let them beat you up?

yes. you'll get beaten up worse if you resist

you've got no Brooklyn in you whatsoever

correct. i was raised in Queens. but i grew-up in the West

(hyperventilating) how can you talk about the people, when there is a solid lock of maga supporters that, apparently, support their team, right or wrong

don't forget that their team is mostly one man. but yes, our friends and neighbors are the key to the whole thing. and the news that they watch. dealing effectively with both of those elements needs a full thread of its own. (sigh)

i keep hearing Renee saying "i'm not mad at you" before she was slaughtered

the details of that homicide have not escaped the vast majority of the public. It will become part of the regime's undoing

let's leave it at that. i have to go out

yes, go blow the stink off of yourself

21 hours ago, macphysto said:

Cap'n, you keep using "should" in your rebuttal, which, for me , makes your argument academic. Step outside your ivory tower and put on some sunglasses because the light that you are going toward is blinding you to How the World Really Is.

What people should do is very different from what people do, will do, or want to do. People should eat a "balanced diet" of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, proteins, and chocolate chip cookies . . . okay, maybe not that last one. But do they?

People should drive with their hands at "ten and two," not "gun it" at a yellow light, and keep one car length for every 10 mph behind the car in front of them*. But do they?

People should "do unto others." But do they?

you realize that you are saying i "shouldn't" say what people "should or shouldn't do." It's a theme you keep circling back to, unnecessarily. We decided people "should" drive within the speed limit, and we enforce it. We say people should eat right, but don't enforce it, because we "shouldn't," so we don't. But we "should" continue to inform people what they "should" be eating for their physical and mental health.

our whole society rightly evolves by telling each other what we SHOULD do. And i will continue to do exactly that. It will include me telling me what i should do, as well as you, voters and politicians.

imo, you should focus your sharp mind on each new issue confronting us without wrestling with semantics shaped by, perhaps, past experiences. but it's just a suggestion. not a law. you're free to be you (the key, in my often expressed opinion, is separating from ego to connect with the real you, apart from your experiential programming)

Quote

"Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so. But how can democratic society function if each person’s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed? When is civil disobedience justified? When is it required?

it's a good question. And that's why violence is a bad idea. If protest is questionable, violence to force your ideas is obviously worse. But the question is the answer.

protest is not about forcing your will on others, it should be about forcing society to QUESTION it's behavior. To examine it. The devil is in the details, and those details need to be exposed.

unfortunately, sometimes, society doesn't care. people are selfish and the power mongers are manipulative. so you keep trying. Slavery, anti-civil rights, women's rights and gay rights were all examples of irrational, bad behavior but we only stuck each other with bayonet's over one of them because it crossed a threshold of inhumanity.

"V.3
. . . It will include me telling me what i should do, as well as you, voters and politicians.

On 1/17/2026 at 3:58 PM, macphysto said:

Well, I, for one, am keenly interested in knowing how that modus vivendi works out for you, Cap'n. Has it actually been successful?

no.

well, actually, it does work pretty well on myself

i don't like the name game, but don't you think President Grump would have been fitting and effective messaging?

Nah, Repubs are allergic to the truth...

5 hours ago, BobDylan said:

...Third parties can win...

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

6 hours ago, macphysto said:

...the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they can't win."

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

Americans who aren't at least willing to research and consider third parties get the American government they deserve

they might say you got what you deserve
and you'd both be wrong
we all deserve better

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...

On 2/26/2026 at 2:16 PM, BobDylan said:

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan

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

9 hours ago, BobDylan said:

Way past time for Dem Party supporters and loyalists to give up that 💩, and admit the corruption and faults within their party...

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.

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

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

Gotta get the corporate Dems out of the leadership, they’re just controlled opposition, they both take money from MIC, Corporations, and Israel.

Welcome to the camp, as The Who said in Tommy, Corey, and thanks for participating in the forums. I'm glad to see another lefty like me, esp. someone younger like you.

In general elections, I never vote in a way that risks losing to the Repubs, and I also never encourage fellow progressives to vote third party, if they live in a state where doing so is going to make a diff in the results, as far as whether the Dem candidate loses to a Repub. It's called strategic voting or voting lesser evil, whichever you choose to label it, in general elections. It doesn't take much effort to keep up on the polling and know when the race between a Dem and a Repub is going to be close or not, and thus whether or not it's safe to vote third party in such a race...

And if other voters choose to ignore that, not keep up on how close a race they are voting in is projected to be, or choose to vote third party in a general election, regardless of how it may affect the result between a Dem and a Repub, that's on them, not me, and I won't be shamed about it by anybody, esp. Dem Party loyalists who may refuse to recognize or admit any faults in their party's leaders or candidates... and to be clear, I'm not saying that anybody in this discussion is guilty of that, but I do get sick of that in general, on internet forums and social media..