I don't agree with Thomas Massie about a lot of things, but

 I totally agree with him on this point

 There need to be alternative parties that truly represent the people.

HE'S GUILTY

The trial is ending with an admission. 

 Live with it.

Especially since you wasted your money on his defence:

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did.  

Your energy would have been better spend trying to change the system through legal means: not violence. 

Former republican makes a shocking confession

 Back to what I have been saying about Bernie Sanders and his politics being popular if it was given a chance.

 

El Salvador's Nayib Bukele shows why believe Bernie Sanders would have been popular and shaken up US politics if he had a chance

Lina Seiche on El Salvador's Nayib Bukele with a story which sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.

On thing people neglect to mention is that "Socialist" Bernie represents a historically red state. Bukele's rise reminds me of Sanders since they both started as "leftists" who managed to unify a politically polarised nation. I think Sanders would have done so if he were given a chance.

Unfortunately, Sanders' time was 2016. 

I'm of the opinion that the duopoly won't let anyone vaguely like a Sanders or Bukele get anywhere near the American people. Also, the people who truly influence politics don't want someone like a Bukele in power.

I don't agree with Bukele's positions on a few things, but he proves that a polarised political climate can be changed. 

A repost of Bernie in a deep red state. 

 

Trump is not "Putin's Pet"

 I've got to admit that I'm surprised I would agree with Fiona Hill, but

 Trump wants to be Putin's pet, but he's not.

Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes for my dogs and Bozo the clown if there were still choices.

But this video shows that Hillary is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

More Uruguay

I posted about this last December, but I am posting this again since part of Trump's insane expansionism is based upon a continued reliance on fossil fuels. Energy independence makes more sense if we are talking about national security than relying on fossil fuels coming from other nations.

And Uruguay proves it can be done. 

 

Liberals aren't Leftists, and neither is the democratic party

 Yet another way to distract you from the US uniparty to give an illusion of choice. The people who scream socialism and communism would freak if either system were anywhere close to being implemented in the United States.

Uruguay proves that energy independence is possible and good for the economy.

OK, time for a change from Palestine. And a bit of good news at that since this is indeed true.  On the other hand, the US politicians and media are so in the pocket of big money that you wouldn't know this.

Fact check this if you don't believe me.

And I can't believe the crap I am going through to get solar panels on my roof (and yes, the historical commission is a part of all that).

Actually, they did give approval since my house was built in 1980 and very modern, but there were still people who talked about "the historic character" is this area.

What if Bernie had run in 2016?

I think he would have won. After all, he represents a state which is a historically red state. However, despite what Fox News tells you, The Democratic party is in no way "left wing". They preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

After all, he is  a threat to the big donors for the duopoly.

Trump isn't.

Former Maine State Senate President Majority Leader Rick Bennett on the two party system

 OpenPrimaries is having a video chat with Rick Bennett on this topic:

“I’m running as an independent because Maine’s next chapter can’t be dictated by party bosses in Washington or by the special interests pouring dark money into our elections. Too many politicians today are more focused on partisan point-scoring than problem-solving. The system thrives on conflict, not resolution, and the issues that matter most – housing, our economy, our schools – get lost in the noise.”

I definitely agree with him as my posts on the duopoly and US politics bear out. It's nice to see someone admit that they cannot work within the duopoly system, especially if they were a part of it.

I may be comment adverse, but I have been known to sign petitions to get candidates and parties on the ballot that I do not support. Especially since that's about the only way to break the duopoly lock on the electoral process.

AI is denying your healthcare (and it's getting worse)

More on why I think that Luigi Mangione is a total dickbrain. I mean he's supposed to be this tech genius, but he missed that it's Artificial Intelligence that is causing health care to deny claims. Lots more on this topic, but things would be vastly different if he had gone the AI route rather than blaming a human who was doing a job.

A new, far more evil set of players come up.

But they are harder to hit: especially if he's working solo. 

How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

What If America Had More Than Two Parties?

One of the main reform which needs to happen before the US can truly see "democracy" (or a republic). I like to quote Julius Nyerere: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." On the other hand, there needs to be different parties to avoid the consolidation of power caused by the duopoly.

And the there really isn't a difference between a democracy and a republic:

Well, other than the founders had an unrealistic idea that the Roman republic was somehow stable and democracy was the equivalent of nihilism.

Politics and appearance: Mangione's supporters explained

OK, the US political system is broken. I doubt it was ever functional from 1759 onward. Benjamin Franklin suggested a plan for unifying the thirteen colonies the Albany Congress on July 10, 1754 in Albany, New York. The Albany Plan of Union was rejected. Franklin wrote about the rejection of his proposals: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

Joseph Galloway suggested a similar proposal at the First Continental Congress of 1774 but was also rejected. The Articles of Confederation were proposed at the Second Continental Congress and finally accepted in 1781! Of course, the Articles of Confederation were a failure, and its replacement is nearly as bad.

Anyway, the US has had a culture of violence and disunity from the start.

I'm sorry the founders didn't just admit they messed up.

Is Luigi Mangione a vigilante or a terrorist?

 Ok, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, they tend to overlap.

I need to set up some definitions. I will define vigilantism as "collective coercive practices undertaken by non-state actors in order to enforce norms (social or judicial) and/or to take the law in their own hands". 

British criminologist Les Johnston suggests several criteria for defining vigilantism in his article What is Vigilantism?:

it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; it is a form of autonomous citizenship and, as such, constitutes a social movement; it uses or threatens the use of force; it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

The punisments meted out by vigilantes can be quite spectacular and symbolic: vigilantes cannot arrest all criminals but can make punishment into a symbol to frighten others. Sanctioning often takes the form of physical punishment, public humiliation or, more rarely, execution. These sanctions are an attempt to control by exemplary punishment. So, the use of lynching is an example of both vigilantism and terrorism.

Terrorism  is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

What we have is the common factor of violence used to enforce, or create, a norm. Extra-legal or extra-Constitutional use of threats, or physical and psychological violence to punish, or to cause, incite or stoke fear and hate are common to both vigilantism and terrorism.  I would say that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two since they share the characteristics of (1) use of force (2) for a political purpose. 

Some might want to say that vigilantism is supposed to enforce the "law", or at least the established order. On the other hand, it is a non-governmental actor using force most of the time in violation of the law. To go back to the lynching example: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) targeted African-Americans as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists. The KKK used physical assault and lynching, against politically active blacks and their allies, even if the latter were whites. This was all done in opposition to the civil rights movement.

As I said, there is not a clear line between vigilantism and terrorism: both use violence for a political purpose.

OK, Luigi Mangione supporters!

 Yeah, I want to see him convicted.

And for some very good reasons, which I am going to try to explain for your sick minds.

Let's start off with what Brian Thompson did was NOT ILLEGAL! Yeah, no law against it. You might have been able to sue him, but you couldn't send him to prison for his business decisions regarding healthcare coverage, but being unethical doesn't make it illegal. The revolting nature of the business decisions of Brian Thompson and UnitedHealthcare, its cruelty, much though we may deplore it, is not a legal basis for murder. And if you have issues with what Thompson did there are methods in the system for you to change it.

But you are a bunch of lazy fucks who aren't going to do the serious work needed to change the system. I am trying, but I am on my own.
And you're not helping!

Next, murder IS ILLEGAL. Toss in that just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to kill outside the law. You are just as bad as the anti-abortion activists who have no problem with killing abortion providers.

And where will it take us if you want to have the fucked up belief that killing someone outside the law is in any way justified? The pictures are of Alan Berg. He had outspoken atheistic and liberal views along with a confrontational interview style. He was known for upsetting some callers to the point they began sputtering, whereupon he would berate them.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés of the Moderate Voice website wrote in 2007: "He didn't pick on the poor, the frail, the undefended: He chose Roderick Elliot and Frank "Bud" Farell, who wrote The Death of the White Race and Open Letter to the Gentiles, and other people from the white supremacist groups... the groups who openly espoused hatred of blacks, Jews, leftists, homosexuals, Hispanics, other minorities and religious groups".

Berg was assassinated by members of the white supremacist group The Order, which believed in killing all Jews and sending all black people to Africa.

As I have pointed out before, your support for Mangione takes you into extreme right wing territory. Toss in that you don't help your cause because you make it plain that Mangione's actions WERE political, which puts him square into the defintion of being a terrorist.

Some people don't get that it isn't how many people you kill that makes you a terrorist, but your reason for killing the people.  If Alan Berg had been killed by someone he pissed off, that wouldn't be terrorism. But the fact that he was killed by the Order because of his beliefs: that he "was mainly thought to be anti-white and he was Jewish."

Let's go to the definition of Lynching:

Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged or convicted transgressor or to intimidate others. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation.

Of course, Emmet Till wasn't lynched by a mob. So, a lynching can also be used to mean an act of violence used to intimidate. And it wasn't just blacks who were lynched. I would suggest looking up Wiley Brownlee.

But, an act of violence done for political reasons fits the description of terrorism: whether you like it or not.

So, is this something you really want to be associated with: especially when Mangione's confession.

Er, "manifesto" is made public? I don't think you will want your internet history coming out when you find out what an arrogant little psycho Mangione happens to be. You may be smart, but you are the epitome of ignorance if you are supporting him.

I would like to think that the light turned on in your head if you read this, but probably not.

After all, do you want to live in a world where people get away with murder?

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination

Let's start with defintion:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation uses a definition of terrorism that tracks with the Patriot Act. “Terrorism” encompasses “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” It distinguishes between international terrorism (acts occurring abroad) and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily within the U.S.

I'm going to focus on (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This is because terrorism requires an intent. Just killing people to kill people doesn't cut it no matter how many people get killed.

On the other hand, we are given a handwritten confession which states an intent:

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Let's toss in that he shouted  "It's completely out of touch! It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people!" as he was being escorted into court. Which in my opinion caused him to waive any recourse to Miranda.

I know that he has shown an interest in the Unabomber. There are some other things I have heard mentioned about his possible intent, but I'm not going to bother with that stuff. First off, it's pretty much superfluous given the basic evidence out there (e.g., handwritten confession, possession of the murder weapon, possession of the ID, DNA and fingerprint evidence, etc.).  He's put enough out there to at least put him away for life.

 Mangione's actions and intent place definitely, show that he wanted to influence, or effect, the conduct of government through at least one act of violence. 

I would add that Mangione's supporters are his own worst enemies. Its too bad that insurance will not pay for a procedure to remove their heads from the assess.

As someone who has wanted to see healthcare reform in the US for a long time, I am disgusted by the actions of the people who are willing to lionise a person with a serious personality disorder.

The far better course of action would be to use the system to get healthcare reform.

While I would love to see Manione executed, that is the wrong course of action. It would be far better for him to be exposed for what he is (not someone to be idolised). And then stick him away where he may live out his life.

Or another inmate may terminate his life.