Your rehashing about how it's all over, that there's no difference between the major parties, no reason to try to enact any real change, is quite a bit different than trying to find some ground on which a viable third party can be constructed. Defeatist attitudes don't get taken seriously, because it's just letting those who espouse the great union of corporate and government power win. They haven't won. They're more on the back foot now than they were a century ago, and history doesn't suggest they will win, either.
Let's break this down into its respective parts, shall we?
Your rehashing about how it's all over
I believe I've stated, and more than once, that I do not construe the decline or even outright collapse of the United States to mean "it's all over." Tying the fortunes of the entire human race, or even industrial civilization, to the future of one nation is an extremely parochial, nationalistic view. Empires have fallen, the human race goes on. There were people living reasonably happy, productive lives even in the ruins of Rome.
that there's no difference between the major parties
I stand by that assertion.
no reason to try to enact any real change
Uh...not exactly. What I mean is there's no reason to try and enact any real change within the framework of the existing system
. More on that:
is quite a bit different than trying to find some ground on which a viable third party can be constructed.
The problem is that, under the current system, a viable
third party cannot be constructed. The same people that own the Democrats and Republicans, own the mass media. Why else do you think that the Greens, the Socialists, the Constitutionalists, the Libertarians, et. al., get next to zero press coverage? They also effectively own the Electoral College. Let's say you have a major state (like California) with 20 million people who vote. Let's say the state has 20 electors. 8 million people vote Democrat. 7 million, Republican. 5 million, Green. The system says that the Democrats get ALL of the electors. The other two parties, even though they got a combined plurality of the vote
, get nothing. This means that 15 million votes are, for all intents and purposes, thrown away.
This is why a third party will never be viable. The media will be ordered to ignore it, and even if it does manage to get 10 to 20% of the popular vote, those votes will be discarded. Remember what Stalin said: those who vote, decide nothing, while those who count
the votes, decide everything.
Defeatist attitudes don't get taken seriously
I prefer hard realism to fluffy-bunny idealism. It might not be as sexy and appealing, but it's generally a more reliable "compass" to be guided by in decision-making.
because it's just letting those who espouse the great union of corporate and government power win. They haven't won.
What's your definition of "won?" Because right now, we live in a country where corporations were ruled by the highest court in the land to have the same rights as people, and where our leaders are part of a global cabal that go to meetings where the militaries of sovereign nations act as their bodyguards. Sounds awfully much like a "win" to me.
They're more on the back foot now than they were a century ago, and history doesn't suggest they will win, either.
Show me a nation in history that's gone as far down the imperial, money-printing, debt-driven foreign auxiliary/mercenary using path America is going down now, where it ended well.
The bottom line is some people don't like what I post because I tell it like it is, not as they would like
it to be. I'm sure many people here would love to think the good guys are going to win and that gas will be back down to $2 a gallon, the economy will rev up again, and we'll go back to prosperity and respect for human rights in America. It's an appealing notion. I'd love to believe it too. Unfortunately, history far more often proves out the hard-nosed realists than the Pollyannas. But people prefer the Pollyannas.