I remember watching Mario's speech being covered on TV, when I was a child... There comes a time when you have to realize the people in power have no conscience and are not operating in good faith, and are not going to change their ways. So the only choice left is to fight the machine or submit.. If you look up Mario's history after that speech, he paid a large price for his activism later on, harassment and survelliance from the feds, etc..

So true! Liberals are fine with capitalism and maintaining the status quo of the economic and social hierarchy, so they can keep their privileged place in it. That's why they are all for environmental reform, identity politics and culture war stuff for queer folks, POC, civil liberties, and even an end to endless wars of choice, because none of that usually costs them anything personally, as far as their standard of living or personal comfort. I'll take a radical any day over the typical American liberal, as the latter group is what has paved the way for and given us THE LYIN' KING, twice, instead of Bernie, for example... Liberals are performative in their politics, radicals are serious and wanting to actually change things and be willing to personally sacrifice and risk themselves to make it happen..

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 think the two largest parts of why we are where we are now in America, are that about a third of Americans have simply given up on democracy and politics, and checked out of it completely. They've lost hope in our government ever doing anything that will materially improve their lives by regulating corporate greed and power, as well as any sort of wealth redistribution that will reduce inequality. So they are simply living day to day, trying to survive. The second part of it, is the consolidation of mass media and social media, to where almost all of it is owned and run by right wing oligarchs, who have an overwhelmingly outsized voice, compared to centrist or progressive media, so at least 40% of Americans are constantly bombarded with right wing propaganda thru these sources, while those people never hear any factual, honest reporting on the issues, much less any progressive viewpoints.

This process has been going on for decades, beginning in the 1980s with Reagan and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, followed by all the media mergers in the decades after that. Meanwhile, the rest of the corporate media, that isn't outright right wing, such as MSNBC, provides its own echo chamber for those on the Dem side, giving us alternating news of false hope and comfort, about how THE LYIN' KING's policies are hurting his poll numbers, along with doom news about his latest actions. In both echo chambers, people are not seeing the same stories as the other side, and so THE LYIN' KING's base will always remain from 34-39%. As long as his base sees everything that happens thru the framing of an invasion by brown people, that are hurting their culture, lifestyle and living standards, nothing else will matter to his base.. Even the economic pain he is causing them, will not matter to his base, because they're consuming media that says the immigrants are to blame for his base's poverty, declining income, affordability struggles, etc.. anything but THE LYIN' KING's trade policies or his cuts to social programs. Even the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, will be seen by his base as being caused by immigrants getting free health care they don't deserve, even tho that is all lies and propaganda...

Agreed, it's esp. futile to do those sorts of protests, when you're fighting fascists who have no conscience and, at least nowadays, a public that also has lost most or all of their conscience, compassion, empathy for others, and even their humanity. The protests of the 60s were probably more effective than they would be now, because back then, the public had more of a conscience, more capacity for outrage, more engagement in politics and hope for positive change. Nowadays, way too many people see politics as simply entertainment or background noise that really doesn't matter to them anymore.. In the 60s, most mass media was family-owned, more local and independent, as well as balanced between left and right, so the reporting was more fair and balanced. Also, the leaders were more people with consciences, who more often acted in good faith in dealing with conflicts and problems. Those days are long gone...

Nowadays, the right makes heroes out of people who hurt others, like Kyle Rittenhouse, while the left mainly creates martyrs, out of people like Renee Good, who get killed or hurt. So guess which side most of the public sees as strong and worthy of admiration, rather than seen as weak and masochistic? Comes back to what you said about Patton, most people will go with admiring the person who kills their enemies, than who sacrifices for some abstract principle...

Exactly! Sustained disruption of the machine, businesses, work strikes, boycotting, schools being shut down, all of that needs to happen at the same time and be sustained, not one day protests once a month. The more of it that disrupts the economic machine, the more effective it is..

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...

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

Heaven forbid the Dems ever act like they needed to earn anyone's votes, or show any real fight against the Repubs, instead of their usual arrogant mode of just assuming people will vote for them as the default choice of not being THE LYIN' KING or the Repubs. It doesn't work anymore, because people have caught onto their con, not just THE LYIN' KING's con... As the old saying goes, you can't beat something with nothing... I also thought it was useless and bull💩 for the Dems to just sit there, almost all the time, and silently watch THE LYIN' KING looking sad or concerned, instead of vocally confronting him. On camera, it looked weak and pathetic. Also, what was the point of having all the Erpstein survivors there, and not using them to actively confront THE LYIN' KING, and dare him to have them thrown out of the room?

I know you can never shame the Repubs or THE LYIN' KING effectively, but it would have been very powerful for the survivors to have confronted him and shouted him down, and then been thrown out in front of the nation on camera. Finally, why the hell were the Dems not confronting THE LYIN' KING, on his Cadet Bone Spurs draft dodging, when he spent so much of the time hypocritically showing off law enforcement and military heroes? Same with shouting him down about his pardoning of J6rs after they beat up the Capital Police cops then? You need to show people some strong confronting of his hypocrisy, to his 🍆>🐱ing face on camera, if you want to look strong and get the respect of working class people, as all they respect is strength and courage, not moral superiority or seeming smarter than your opposition..

Well said. Third parties can win, despite the opposition of the major parties and the corporate media, but only if the majority of eligible voters are willing to trust each other enough, research the third parties, instead of just accepting the propaganda and conventional wisdom, etc., of those self-serving groups. There is nothing in the law or election rules to prevent tens of millions of Americans electing third party candidates from winning fed elections. So I agree, that the majority of voters, who stay locked within the duopoly, get the fed govt. they deserve. I long ago got fed up with both major parties at the fed level, once they both had become sold out to corporate donors beginning in the early 90s. Since then, I have only voted for major party candidates in fed elections as a lesser evil, after voting for my real hopes and candidates that might actually represent me, in primaries. But most voters won't even bother to get informed and participate in primaries, so they only vote in general elections, after all the major party candidates are already pre-selected by the corporate donor class, not the voters..

If you stay within just voting for the major parties in general elections, you will be limited to only voting on culture war issues and identity politics, since those are the only things the major parties really differ on much these days. Those things do matter, but economic issues, foreign policy, war, civil liberties, and climate change also matter, even more than culture war stuff.

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...

I don't really see Newsom as a fighter, just someone who's good at trolling THE LYIN' KING and saying the right things at times, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be president. But on the rest of your comment, I agree 100%. Most Americans, unfortunately, lost their revolutionary spirit at least a few generations ago... I don't see us ever voting our way out of the structural problems our system has, and I also have zero confidence the Repubs will allow free and fair elections in Nov.. A civil war is likely coming, as the only way we resolve the current divide. People had best be prepared for violence, whether they participate in it or not..

I agree with you completely about Newsom being a corporate centrist Dem, who will always favor the rich and corporations over the masses, and of course I would vote for him over Vance, or any Repub prez candidate. I was aware of his support of Prop 50, but that is mere partisanship, not a position with our side in the class war. Even tho it's so clear that this country needs democratic socialism to solve our structural problems and restore our middle class, as well as get the working class to stop being drawn to fascism, you can always bet your ass that the Dem Party's leaders will never allow that to happen, no matter what most voters may want or most Dem Party supporters would want..

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

Don't blame the Nader voters for W. becoming president. He was appointed by the SC, after they stopped the election recount in FL, and that is well known, that Gore would have won if the recount had continued. So there... I'm so tired of the vote shaming of third party voters and the continued myth-spreading about the 2000 election and Nader being blamed for W.'s appointment by the SC... Way past time for Dem Party supporters and loyalists to give up that 💩, and admit the corruption and faults within their party...

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.

And that is exactly the strategy and argument the Dem Party uses to first use and then ignore their progressive voters each election cycle. Give us your unearned votes, your volunteering, and even some campaign cash, so that after the election, we can duly ignore you and your desired policy requests, until the next election comes around. And you wonder why a third of eligible voters have simply tuned out and checked out of politics in America, becoming our largest voting bloc, the non voters.... I'm not saying I'm like them, as I always vote each time, even if it's only against someone or for a lesser evil candidate, but in a presidential election, when I know I'm living in a non swing state, and my vote will not affect the outcome, I will gladly vote for a third party candidate, even if it's just going to be a protest vote or a vote to help that party achieve party status for the next election cycle, as the Greens have done a few times in my state, by getting the threshold % of the vote.

I must admit mac, you are a deeper thinker than me, and have a keener insight to the whole picture on this dilemma....

Aw shucks, now you're really embarrassing me, mac. It's rare that a man makes me blush, it's almost always women, who are able to do that easily to me, lol.... Good thing I'm a man so secure in my masculinity, that I can wear pink, lol, tho I do that rarely....

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