This article / discussion is about neither Trump nor Biden, but about whether there should be choices beyond the Democrat and the Republican when we vote for President of the United States.  Please discuss that point rather than wallowing in the "I hate Trump" or "I hate Biden" mud.

Thanks and let the fireworks begin

No Labels and the like will get Trump elected, and yes, you will be reminded of that long into the future. 

John

I am not sure that is true, but even if you are right, do the people of this country not deserve the right to have more than two choices on the ballot for president?  There is no where in the constitution or the law that says only one Democrat and one Republican should be listed on the presidential ballot.

That is the basic question

Dont we have a right not to have a traitor be president of the United States?

I dont want to ruin the further progress of your article here, so I have said all I am going to say. 

[This comment stands.  To the flagger - the author determines the scope of the topic.  As he has responded to comments about Trump, he is allowing them to be part of the discussion.]

Don't we have a right to something better than Brandon the traitor who has repeatedly sold this country out to our enemies? Who has engaged in criminal acts of holding classified documents since he was a Senator; and whose administration's only purpose is to let massive amounts of illegal immigrants into this country- while using the FBI, IRS, and DOJ to protect him and his family while going after his enemies?

I would love more choices. I don't believe they have a good chance this time around but it would be a great time to start. Maybe if they get enough votes the other two parties will be more interested in nominating better people.

I agree

Thanks for the input

Cue the banjos and fiddles.  No Labels is just another song 'n dance to distract everyone.  What's needed is serious election reform instead of plaudits, pabulum, and pandering.

Want to get serious?  Consider these two election reforms as a start. 

First, all voters are allowed to vote in all primaries.  So, if there is a Democrat primary and a Republican primary, every voter gets to vote in both primaries.  The importance of that reform is that voters are not required to affiliate with any political party to participate in any election.  That reform would essentially make the entire electorate independent.

Second, the Vice President should be selected by voters in a separate election.  At present the Vice President is a selected office and not an elected office.  Voters do not really have a voice in selecting the Vice President.  So, the second in line of secession has not been elected.  We saw how the current method of selecting a Vice President failed with Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford.  

It appears that the country is going to be stuck with either Trump or Biden.  No Labels won't even bend the curve.  So, we all know the country is fucked, no matter what.  And nothing is going to change until we do the hard work of election reform that includes the primaries.

So, the second in line of secession has not been elected.

That's supposed to be "So, the second in line of succession has not be elected."  The edit function timed out before I caught the error.

Do you anticipate that a D could ever end up elected POTUS with a separately elected R VP, or vice versa?  This country is far too divided for that to happen.  Even if it did happen, the results would be even more of a gridlocked government than we see right now.  The consequences of VP are just a part of the decision on who to vote for for POTUS.  Adding another election would just be shoveling more federal dollars into the furnace with less than nothing as a result.

Do you anticipate that a D could ever end up elected POTUS with a separately elected R VP, or vice versa?  

Could it be something similar that has happened in the past.  The Kennedy / Johnson ticket comes to mind.  Kennedy needed to overcome his Catholic, "northern liberalism" to some, especially in the South, and LBJ was deep in Bible-Belt "Dixie-crat" land so...

I'm sure there were other tickets, Reagan / Bush?

Maybe one that didn't work out so well (at least for Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie) was McKinley / Roosevelt 1896 ticket?

I looked at their F&Q page where it discloses that they won't name their donors.  Strike one.

I looked at their team.  Googled Jay Nixon representing Jim Bakker for selling fake covid cures.  Strike two.

I am not wasting more time finding more reasons why I would not support this organization for any reason.

I voted for Perot in 1992.  I will probably vote third party again, but only if the party is transparent about their donors and leaders.

Thanks for the the input, do you figure we can find similar or worse scoundrels and ne'er do wells in both the Democratic and Republican party organizations.   

I would simply like a third and maybe even a fourth choice on the ballot

do you figure we can find similar or worse scoundrels and ne'er do wells in both the Democratic and Republican party organizations

Who do you figure is behind this Unity Ticket organization if it is not career politicians?

What draws people to a career in politics other than money and power over others?

People, who really want to serve others/help others usually become nurses, teachers, fire fighters, and other occupations that actually help ordinary people.

So you agree that the major parties are riddled with corruption and people interested only in money and power?

So you agree that the major parties are riddled with corruption and people interested only in money and power?

It should be fairly well known that any profession that involves having immense power over other people is likely to draw the toxic personalities that crave power over people and don't really care about the well-being of others because they can't.  They are wired for power not compassion.  

People, in power, may have advisors, but ultimately have to have the ability to make decisions that are unpopular and not suffer a mental/physical breakdown because of the backlash from a group that feels (or is) slighted, oppressed or massively harmed in other ways.  

The "new" organization is probably filled with people who can't (or didn't) get the power in the two major political parties.

There is a top 10 list at the link below for most and least likely careers for psychopaths.

Which Professions Have the Most Psychopaths? The Fewest? | TIME

CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths.

But first off, psychopath doesn’t just mean someone who cuts you up with a chainsaw — though the majority of people who do things like that are psychopaths. What’s the   definition ?

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously described as   characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial character, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle   and criminality.

So which professions (other than axe murderer) have the most psychopaths? What about the least?

And the next thing that comes to mind is:   Why ?

Most of the professions on the right require human connection, dealing with feelings and most of them don’t offer much power. Psychopaths, by their very nature, would not be drawn to or very good at these things.

On the other hand, most of the roles on the left do offer power and many require an ability to make objective, clinical decisions divorced from feelings. Psychopaths would be drawn to these roles and thrive there.

So you agree that the major parties are riddled with corruption and people interested only in money and power?

more info on political positions rife with toxic personalities - and the reasons why.

Narcissism: Why It's So Rampant in Politics | Psychology Today

Consider that two of the things narcissists most desire are money (i.e.,  lots   of money) and power (the more the better). And these two assets can be tightly interwoven. Consider also that many of the individuals entering the political arena have  already   made their fortune, or inherited it. So what typically drives them is a lust for power, prestige, status, and authority. These (let's call them) "objects of admiration" not only gratify their need for self-aggrandizement by feeding their oversized ego. They also provide them with compelling evidence to confirm their sense of superiority to others—probably their most coveted need of all.

There's little question that politicians—especially those on the federal level— wield vastly more power and control than the average citizen. Moreover, privy to non-public, industry-related knowledge affords them all sorts of opportunities (blatantly unethical but not yet illegal) to substantially augment their income through "insider" trading and investments. For many of them (and here, as elsewhere, I'll resist the temptation to name names) their  appetite  for material riches can be insatiable. (And here, see my closely related piece  "Greed" The Ultimate Addiction".   )

And this boundless appetite helps explain why it's not uncommon for them to leave office with far more wealth than when they entered it. 

sound familiar to anyone?

Narcissism: Why It's So Rampant in Politics | Psychology Today But while they may delude themselves that their country sorely requires their unique talents and skills, they experience little  motivation  to serve the citizenry as such. They've won their position primarily to serve themselves—and they can do so almost obsessively. The saying "Promises are made to be broken" rings particularly true for them. It's become almost a joke that the devout pledges they make on the campaign trail bear only trifling resemblance to what they do once in office. The ability to convince voters that they'll best represent their interests is what defines their success. Actually  implementing   what they avowed they'd tirelessly work for isn't really an essential part of their agenda—which is typically well-hidden from constituents (and many times from their conscious selves as well). In short, their campaigns measure how well they can dupe the public, not how well they'll fulfill their responsibilities once declared victorious.

So you agree that the major parties are riddled with corruption and people interested only in money and power?

Food for thought on why it is critical to understand the personalities of anyone whose only career path in life is seeking and attaining power over other people.  This can be extremely difficult because some of the most toxic people rise to immense power because they are charismatics.

I have only watched half of this video and will have to finish it tomorrow.  I thought it might be helpful in explaining more fully the toxic personalities of some of our elected officials and the people seeking to be their replacements.

Don't think a spoiler group is desirable in 2024.

Seems the choices in front of us are night and day.

Trump is evil and insane. Biden is a good man and sane. 

Thanks for the input, but just as many people think as you say about Trump, millions consider Biden to be a doddering fool.  So without agreeing with either group a third choice is needed

There should be no argument that Biden can talk at length and on the spot about the features and history of our federal government that Trump knows little to nothing about.

Biden is a good man and sane. 

Only when viewed with a leftist TDS prism.

Brandon is guilty of everything Trump has done and more. His administration is the most corrupt in history. China thanks you for supporting their puppet.

Being a Canadian I am knowledgeable about the benefits that can be achieved when more than two parties are viable choices.  In Canada, besides the Liberals and Conservatives, there is the NDP (New Democratic Party) and a few minor ones.  Coalitions are permitted, and it was because of that the benefit to Canadians of single-payer government health care, i.e. free health care for Canadians, came to be.  

As for No Labels, does anyone vote blindly for any party unless they are aware of what the party platform was?  I don't see in the whole article above one word about a platform. 

So far I have not seen any candidate I really like and a lot I don't like so more choices might bring out an acceptable one  

Exactly what I am feeling

You are obviously not alone in how you feel. I heard about No Labels quite some time ago and I know the party has done the leg work in creating a path for a candidate. My question is when do you expect the No Labels party to produce a candidate?

Well, I sure as hell would never vote for an anti-vaxxer.  Had it not been for Dr. Jonas Salk, maybe even I would have spent the rest of my life lying in an iron lung.  For me, integrity is a major requirement, and I've already made it clear about who I would vote for if I were entitled, and if that person were running.