BS: US Justice Party

Subject: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

Heard this guy Anderson talking on TV....is this a reasonable alternative to the Dems for US voters?

I was very impressed by his views on US foreign policy.
Maybe this could be the end of the "one party system"?

Sincerely interested in American views, piss taking UKers NOT welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:03 AM

US justice?

The first thing a new party would have to deal with is removing the somewhat hilarious oxymoron in their name.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:13 AM

I do like Rocky Anderson.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 11:19 AM

Guest...what do you mean? Mr Anderson's policies seem very good especially on foreign affairs.

He was talking about co-operation between the major powers to defeat terrorism and to open the door to a new vision of international politics. He sees the two major parties as a hindrance to progress, in that they are forever "playing politics" for short term personal advantage....to many fingers in the "American Pie"

The Clinton Bush hierarchies come in for some severe criticism from Mr Anderson.

I am very impressed indeed and thought there might be a good response from the membership?

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

Well, since they appear to advocate equal rights for sexual religious and ethnic minorities, I am very surprised by your fondness for them Ake. I do smell some libertarian tinfoil-hattery on their web-pages though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Since when does the non-moderator initiator of a thread on an open discussion forum get to dictate who posts?

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:02 PM

I would prefer it to be a serious thread, without interruptions from would be smart arses, piss takers, trolls, or any combination of the above.

Some people come here for information and discussion. Its not all about you or your friends.
Your opinions on the US Justice Party would be of little interest to members, as I suspect you know as little about it as I do.

I am interested in what Americans think about it.

Most of the Mudcat membership seem disillusioned by US politics, Mr Anderson has some new and original ideas.

Richard, wake up. All political parties advocate equal rights for everyone regardless of qualifications, to do otherwise would be "media suicide". This thread is not about MY views, either contribute to it or go away in short sharp jerks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM

In the 2012 presidential election, Anderson was on the ballot in 15 states and secured official write-in status in 15 additional states. He recieved 34,521 nationwide. The Justice Party holds zero Seats in the Senate, zero Seats in the House, zero Governorships, zero seats in State Upper Houses, zero seats in State Lower Houses.

"Reasonable" alternative? You've got to be joking.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM

Thanks Greg, but I knew they were a minority Party...it is a "Two Party System" so they are bound to be in that position. American politics seems to be nonsensically polarised.

I just wondered what intelligent people like our US membership thought about the policies of Mr Anderson and his party.
They appear to include some real politics and a political vision for the future?

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM

It would be a fine thing to bring in a third or even a fourth party to fuel open debate on real issues. It hasn't really been done seriously since Teddy's Bull Moose party, despite several valiant tries.

The idea that a real discussion on national issues can occur between only two groups is foolish, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:12 PM

The Justice Party's ideology and positions are very much in line with my own. But, being a pragmatist, I probably won't vote for their candidate. If there's any chance a Republican might be elected, I'll vote for the Democrat. If it looks like a cakewalk for the Democratic candidate come November 2016, I may cast a protest vote for Mr. Anderson.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:16 PM

I'd never heard of it, but after a bit of reading the Justice Party's platform and vision statements, and Mr Anderson's TV appearance, sound quite liberal/progressive - pretty much like what Bernie Sanders is saying. This US resident agrees with a lot of them.

Our friend GfS should like their statement that "GOP & Dems (are) just puppets of wealthiest US families".

Voices like these are enormously important because they force the mainstream candidates to address concerns that they would rather ignore. Not that Anderson gets any air time here - the interview we see is from Russian TV.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:01 AM

A liberal leaning party would just serve to take votes from the democrats, which is self defeating.

Still, keeping equality on the agenda isn't a bad thing. It worked over the border in Canada last month and the Scotch have their SNP which stood on a platform of gay equality and liberal minded socialism, which got them votes from those who see their petty nationalism as a national embarrassment.

Anything can happen in politics. Even for those with no idea what they talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

Scotch is a drink, not a nationality. "Liberal" does not mean "left-leaning". It is a term of economic theory. I still don't see why our resident homophobe and racist would endorse the US Justice party. There is a US communist party, you know. And he claims to be a communist...

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Airymouse
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM

"Scotch is a drink, not a nationality." You might enjoy Kenneth Galbraith's autobiography, "The Scotch."

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

Irony is a word, but not, it would appear, in the vocabulary of the quasi legal profession.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:47 AM

Well... the US, for various reasons, does not have the mechanisms for serious multiple party candidates. There are numerous 'other' parties, but no way to officially give them some % of seats in Congress related to the number of votes.

The system allows all 50 states to conduct elections using local rules, but when national elections are held, all we are actually voting for are 'electors' who convene and vote for candidates they are committed to in the 'electoral college'

"Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of "proportional representation."

This was a fine system in the 1700s, but it now distorts and fails to recognize the wide range of actual voters opinions. There is no way to formally form coalitions, as they do in Israel, for example.

Any moderately successful 3rd party can merely steal votes from the major party they are closest to. Several times this has resulted in the candidate who got the largest # of national votes actually losing... depending on which states he won.... as in Bush v. Gore. Ralph Nader is widely thought to have been a major reason Gore lost in 2000.

"The Greens gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election, when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke, won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was vilified by some Democrats, who accused him of spoiling the election for Al Gore. Nader's impact on the 2000 election has remained controversial.?

This is why Bernie Sanders entered the Democratic race.

Now... as closely as I follow politics, I had NOT heard of the Justice Party. When I read their platforms and issue statements, what hits me is that even though they are 'liberal', much of what they say is negative... like this from Rock Anderson...

********************************************************************
"Hillary Clinton is the presumed front-runner for the 2016 presidential
election. She has a recognized reputation for lying, distorting, and evading.1   

The American people deserve better -- they deserve the truth -- but they
won't get it if the media continues its lazy and/or timid (often seemingly
driven by bias and even complicity) inquiries of Hillary Clinton.   

These are issues of war and peace, of life and death, of fundamental human
rights and economic justice, of integrity, of the habitability of the earth --
and the next President of the United States has a crucial, perhaps a
dispositive, role.   

Please, Journalists: Ask the questions competently and persistently -- and
get the answers, finally, for the American people.

                                                
1
"A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn't 'honest and trustworthy.'
Steven Thomma and William Douglas, "Is Hillary Clinton dishonest? A lot of Americans think so,"
Gazette.com, April 5, 2008 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997528/posts ). "Issues of honesty
have dogged Clinton for years. In this week's poll, a third of Americans says she has less honesty and
integrity than most people in public life." Kathleen A. Frankovic, "Reputation Audit: Hillary Clinton,"
YouGov, February 27, 2014 (https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/02/27/should-hillary-run/ )
**********************************************************************

Now, what I read there tells me nothing about WHY he is painting Ms. Clinton negatively.... it merely cites polls reflecting how thoroughly the IDEA that she is not considered 'honest and trustworthy' has been inserted into the discorse. To me, this is condemnation by insinuation and implication.
When I listen to her, I don't see this... and... one of the politicians I DO trust, Senator Al Franken, has praised her highly, both for competence and for honesty...and Franken gives specifics.

I am sure that parties like Green & Justice.. and even Libertarian.. have many good ideas and principles I can agree with, and I'd like to see some way they could be recognized without simply being 'spoilers'.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM

I I was most interested in Mr Andersons views on US foreign policy, he is obviously a believer in diplomacy.
His attack on Mrs Clinton and the "Two Party System" is well deserved after her involvement in the Libya debacle and her guilt over the Benghazi issue.
His views on non issues like homosexual "marriage" are of no interest as all parties now pay lip service to the media.

Trolls please depart.
Mr Anderson appears to be a proper liberal, unafraid to confront his ideology when its effects are brought into question.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

Mr Anderson echoes the views that I have been expressing here for years on US FP
Rocky Anderson

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:42 PM

What is homosexual "marriage "?

In The USA, same as Scotland, there is marriage that homosexual couples enjoy equally but "marriage" is a rather sickening term. It means nothing, but that doesn't remove the stench of hatred contained in it.

Perhaps the troll should indeed depart.

After all, if we are discussing the US Justice Party we should do it justice. They reject homophobia, just as all decent people do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:34 PM

Bill.... the interview above shows partially why Mr Anderson and arguably almost half the American electorate see Mrs Clinton as having
"less honesty and
integrity than most people in public life."

Troll(TM)...If you wish to discuss homosexuality, open another thread, I will be pleased to debate it with you, don't try to get this thread closed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:35 PM

and her guilt over the Benghazi issue.

Sorry Ake, but but among other things it has been proven many times over that the whole Benghazi exercise is merelely a Republican witch-hunt erected out of horseshit with no substance whatsoever.

Sorry to impinge upon your deep-seated hatred of Mrs. Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:49 PM

I don't hate Mrs Clinton Greg, just cant understand why anyone would vote for her after Iraq and Libya? It's not just a "Republican witch-hunt". The world needs diplomacy right now and Mrs Clinton is certainly no diplomat.

Actually I thought YOU would be a supporter of Mr Anderson's views.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:29 PM

" her involvement in the Libya debacle and her guilt over the Benghazi issue."

You need to give up that crap, Ake... those are subjective opinions, not facts. I do not care how much you have read about Libya & Benghazi, NONE of 7-8 'investigations' have shown that she deserves blame for causing anything. (I saw a LONG interview with the CIA officer [on the Charlie Rose TV program] who was on duty during Benghazi and followed the events in real time. He stated plainly how it developed and answered all relevant questions about what was done. If the only claim it that the embassy building 'should' have had more protection... that is easy in retrospect, but they had all they asked for, and Benghazi was did not even have the formal status of an 'embassy'.

   Ms. Clinton was responsible for a couple of hundred places, and her diplomatic credentials were well respected among the diplomats who depended on her. Sad events and terror are not automatically the 'fault' of the person in charge!

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:44 PM

There was absolutely no need for the US to support the terrorists in Libya....everyone who has studied Western foreign policy over the last couple of decades were pretty certain that the overthrow of Col Gaddafi would leave the country a breeding grounds for terrorists and an arsenal for ISIS.

Give President Obama his due, I am sure that he realised the danger and was very unwilling to commit to the slaughter of Gaddafi's troops by air assault, but he did not have the strength to stand up to the "Hawks" in his administration led by Hillary, a woman on a mission, which unfortunately looks as if it may be fulfilled.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:17 PM

Actually I thought YOU would be a supporter of Mr Anderson's views.

Some of them yes, Ake - others not. I think he's well-meaning & his heart is in the right place.

HOWEVER his chances of accomplishing anything are less than nil, unfortunate as that may be.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM

Those are still just opinions- starting with the definition of 'terrorist'. And no, NOT "everyone who has studied Western foreign policy... " blah, blah... was certain of any such thing.

"Hawks" is another subjective label tossed about carelessly. It is almost never defined and explained... it is just pinned on, as if there are only 'hawks' and reasonable people! And what the hell does "woman on a mission" mean? Where DO you get these amazing bits of 'information' that I can't seem to glean from several years of following this?

You may believe anything you wish, but that sort of lable tossing generalization must be met with demands for detail... more than just right-wing talking points.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:31 PM

The Democrats really need solidarity in the face of Tea Party domination of the Republicans. It's come to the point that there's no such thing as a reasonable Republican. We just can't let those people gain the White House or maintain a majority in Congress. a "third party" on the left would be political suicide, like what Ralph Nader did to the Democrats in 2000.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 05:59 AM

The "don't split the vote" argument is very dodgy. The people who lost it for the democrats were the voters, not Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM

US politics, equality, Middle East...,

Is there no beginning to the fool's talents?

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:06 PM

I absolutely agree with Steve here, we had the same problem for years in maintaining that electability was the important thing.
Labour or Tories? Under Blair there was no difference.

It is now about educating the electorate, that is what Mr Corbyn is attempting in the UK.....It may not be successful, but there is no option. Returning a Labour government which carries out Tory policies will no longer be acceptable.

I think the US voters should consider that, there will never be an alternative to the Pub/Dem circus which will sweep into power, people must be persuaded and intelligent people like Bill and Joe should realise that.
We have to start thinking about what happens to future generations not about self and personal rights.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:52 PM

A Labour government that has some Tory policies may not be my cup of tea on all areas for that matter but it is perfectly acceptable to those who vote for it.

That's the problem with democracy. Although there is no alternative. Regarding Corbyn, I am looking for who the hell they have lined up who can carry on his mandate for fair deal politics but is electable to the millions who will decide in 2020. He can't even get his own cabinet to follow him, especially when it turns out it is he, not them who are at odds with their own party policies.

For The USA? I have some comfort in that the slightly more credible GOP candidates wiped the floor with the novelty acts yesterday, and the real race for The White House can now begin in earnest.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 10:40 PM

"The people who lost it for the democrats were the voters, not Nader. "

And THAT is just rhetoric. Of course voters ... ummm.. voted! Nader asked for votes for a cause. His cause was not "to make the Republicans win", but he gleaned votes that mostly would have gone to Democrats. I didn't even claim that the loss could be attributed to Nader... I said only [or tried to] that his 'cause' was one factor in an electoral system that penalizes one or the other of the major parties if a 3rd party does too well. It has almost happened to Republicans too...in 1968, George Wallace actually won several states, and if his platform had not been so hateful and obnoxious, he might have caused Nixon to be defeated.

If Nader had run AS a Democrat, like Sanders is doing now, he might have done more for his cause.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I think the next President of the United States will be Bernie Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM

Yes #, he sounds a good man, but is he not still part of the Democrat/Republican Show?

Remember that nice Mr Obama, whatever happened to him and all the change he promised? Now the pendulum has swung and it looks like Mrs Clinton will be the "heir apparent"

How can the American centre/left ever vote for someone with her record?...It is simply beyond reason, is it because they feel she will be electable, regardless of her views or her record in government?

We took that attitude over Mr Blair and it did not end well.
Wholesale privatisation of public services, the use of cheap imported labour rather than proper training schemes, and never ending war in the middle East......things that the Tory party would never even have attempted at that time.....and if they had tried, they would have been roundly defeated. So rogue "liberals" are more of a danger in political terms.

To effect proper social and economic change, someone who can break through the Republican/Democrat polarity is required, someone from outside the circus who can inspire people with conservative views and those with liberal social views.

If that someone cannot be found, it will be an endless parade of self serving frauds and useful idiots, with a couple of psychopathic warmongers thrown in for light relief. No matter who you vote for the SYSTEM always wins.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM

Joe Offer: "It's come to the point that there's no such thing as a reasonable Republican."

..nor honest candidate!!

That being said, I think Sanders is FAR more honest than Hilary Clinton, but when it comes time to vote, the Democrats would rather vote for a known, and proven LIAR, because they think she can win!! How sane is that????

michaelr: "Our friend GfS should like their statement that "GOP & Dems (are) just puppets of wealthiest US families".

Not exactly, Michael..the GOP and Dems are puppets of the global corporate oligarchy. The Bushes and Clintons are just part of that group...and so are the 'super pacts'...they are bought and paid for. We really don't have much of a say at all.

Myself, I'm an independent...NOT 'Independent Party'...just independent, as in not endorsing any party.....and as said be me, on many occasions, "I'm not with the party...I'm with the band!"

Any more, you can only vote for the candidate who you think is 'a little more honest than the rest'....the policies they spout, is just rhetoric...the decisions are made in the board rooms, and not subject to the accountability or 'will of the people'....We are NOT represented..get over it!

What else is new??

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:09 PM

Who pulled his chain?

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:26 PM

"The people who lost it for the democrats were the voters, not Nader. "

And THAT is just rhetoric. Of course voters ... ummm.. voted! Nader asked for votes for a cause. His cause was not "to make the Republicans win", but he gleaned votes that mostly would have gone to Democrats. I didn't even claim that the loss could be attributed to Nader... I said only [or tried to] that his 'cause' was one factor in an electoral system that penalizes one or the other of the major parties if a 3rd party does too well. It has almost happened to Republicans too...in 1968, George Wallace actually won several states, and if his platform had not been so hateful and obnoxious, he might have caused Nixon to be defeated.

If Nader had run AS a Democrat, like Sanders is doing now, he might have done more for his cause.

Totally out of order, Bill. I'm surprised at you. If you want a democracy you do not try to manipulate who does or doesn't stand on the basis of tactics or splitting votes. You embrace the philosophy of cheerfully accepting that anyone who wants to stand should be allowed to stand without all your umming and ahhing. You are arguing for the perpetuation of a bloody rotten two-party system that could in any case do with a healthy shake-up. In a proper democracy you should be encouraging a whole spectrum of opinion to be aired so that the people can make a real choice, not manipulating your own man into power. That's the way they do it in countries that end up with leaders who you and I would regard as total undesirables. Don't make me list names. As an aside, perhaps you could look up "rhetoric" in a dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:28 PM

What chain is pulling and restricting you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:34 PM

". You are arguing for the perpetuation of a bloody rotten two-party system that could in any case do with a healthy shake-up."

I am? I thought I was explaining how futile & awkward it is. I have wished for a better system ever since George Wallace.

".. you do not try to manipulate who does or doesn't stand on the basis of tactics or splitting votes. "
Oh really? It happens that it can be effective. *I* was persuaded to run in the 1964 Democratic primary for the Kansas State senate. The incumbent, Curtis McClinton, (the first black senator in Kansas history) had not filed to run again, and a black friend of mine decided to run. He was opposed by Lloyd Andrews, a segregationist Democrat... (we had those in Kansas back then). It was proposed that I enter the race, appear TV twice, answer a questionnaire by the League of Women Voters and see what might happen to help my friend. Then Senator McClinton, at the last moment, did file for re-election, thus imperiling the hopes of my black friend. We did the TV thing and I evidently managed to say reasonable things about state issues, because I got 'about' 745 votes and carried 2 precincts, and McClinton won over Lloyd Andrews by only a couple hundred. I was a distant 4th, but the 'white' votes I got kept McClinton in office and an ardent segregationist out. There were some very nice parties to celebrate.
Now, that being said, I STILL would hope for a better system that did not lead to those tactics OR important major races being decided by candidates who had no hope of winning even seats for his party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhetoric..."Using language effectively to please or persuade"

Perhaps 'obfuscation' is a better word for your remark? Call it what you will, you were changing the meaning of what I said to push a different point.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 10:16 PM

Akenaton: "Yes #, he (Sanders) sounds a good man, but is he not still part of the Democrat/Republican Show?

Correct....not only that, I think he is a lot more of an honest and sincere man than either of the Clintons....or Bushes.
That being said, I don't know if he would be a very savvy, or effective leader, or Commander-in Chief...but he, you would think, would be the choice of Democrats, who are constantly having to defend the lies, and mislead intentions, of what we've just been through....and yet, reality is not base on 'what you want it to be'..but rather, how it is!...something our local pundits can't seem to distinguish!

GfS

P.S. I'm not endorsing any candidates, from either side, at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:08 AM

Gosh, in one thread I get bashed by an imperfect definition of bigotry, in this one by an imperfect definition of rhetoric! Desperate stuff.

I have nothing against tactics, and I agree with your sentence at the end of your tale. I am opposed to briefing against people who are accused of "splitting the vote" by standing. It is a tactic, all right, but in my book it's an underhand one.

A long time ago I contested our staff room election for the teacher governor of the school. I stood against the long-standing incumbent who had become rather self-serving. A rather right-wing fellow, quite a popular chap, also threw his hat into the ring. The said incumbent sidled up to me and advised me (somewhat threateningly) to withdraw, as I was splitting the "left" vote. I refused. Well, she lost the election. And I won!

Subject: RE: BS: US Justice Party
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:47 AM

The old saw says: "All's fair in love, war and politics"

It isn't, of course, but some people will always justify 'underhanded' tactics with...ummm... rhetorical devices. The line between good & bad tactics depends on "who's ox is being gored."