7 years ago
13
WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground
WHAT THE HECK is going on at WikiLeaks? In the last two weeks, the font of digital secrets has doxed millions of Turkish women, leaked Democratic National Committee emails that made Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign look bad but also suggested the site was colluding with the Russian government, and fired off some seriously anti-Semitic tweets. It’s…weird. WikiLeaks is always going to be releasing information some people don’t like. That is the point of them. But lately the timing of and tone surrounding their leaks have felt a little off...
Continue Reading
https://www.wired.com
Join the Discussion
Wikileaks morals are not in question. The world knows all about Wikileaks and what it does and they have been branded harshly before. Articles like this spotlight how screwed up the media is. The concentration and talking points should focus on the less than stellar morals of the DNC and the shit show that is American politics under a 2 party system. But instead we are spoonfed news on Evil Russians and Evil hackers rather than the Evils of the Democratic and Republican parties. Even before the releases of the documents I decided not to vote because between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both horrible choices. I also knew that I had NO choice when it came to the Democratic party.
The United States doesn't have a two-party system. Forgetting for a moment the fact that there are like thirty-five or forty officially registered political parties in the U.S., and the fact that neither of the two major parties today even existed when the country was founded, there is absolutely nothing in either the Constitution or the US Code that limits the number of political parties in the United States.
The problem isn't a lack of alternative, it's that the alternatives suck. You want a viable alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, then go find one of the dozens of smaller parties out there currently, or start your own, and take your message to the people, they decide who the major parties are.
You are correct. It is my brains fault for only thinking about the Democratic and Republican presidential choices. I have looked, off and on, at the other parties out there but never really dove in to try and find another alternative that fits me.
Change doesn't just happen. There's nothing that says we couldn't have three, or five, or ten major political parties in the United States, but people have to be willing to do the work because those parties aren't just going to build themselves.
And maybe that is something I can work on doing.
My advice, if it's something you're serious about, is to find your one "core issue" and go from there. Figure out the one issue where your position is absolutely non-negotiable, and use that as the foundation for your search. You might not find a party you like that way, but you'll definitely be able to tell which ones you don't want.
The real problem is the first past the post method used, it doesn't matter how many good alternatives there are. With a system like the current it is very hard for anyone outside the two main parties to be a real contender.
It's hard for anyone outside the two main parties to be a real contender, because they usually run bullshit candidates. The last time there was a serious third-party challenger he did pretty damn good, so it can absolutely be done. But when you have porn stars, Roseanne Barr, and Vermin Supreme as the standard for third-party candidates, it's not too difficult to see why most Americans don't take third-parties seriously.
Sure, but I would say that that's a symptom rather than the cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
Aye this conundrum we find ourselves in...tis blasphemous is it not laddy.
Well, there -was- a good third alternative until he "joined" the democratic party after they "asked" him.
I would go with Bernie if he was an independent.