Here is the New York Times story about the New York gubernatorial debate of October 22, which included the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian Parties
Here is the New York Times story about the New York gubernatorial debate of October 22, which included the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian Parties
They really dropped the ball with the coverage of Hawkins and McDermott. Journalistic integrity isn’t important, I guess.
I wonder how things could have been different had the candidates spoken about a way to unify?
We get the same unequal treatment of third parties and independents in particular in many other places.
I’ve concluded that it’s simply because of financial reasons as to why the media reports. Newspapers want to control the agenda in order to increase advertising of their own self-interests (i.e. to make money).
Fortunately, we have the internet. That is the downfall of those who think they alone can control events. No longer are they the only source for news. The news is this new unity that proper elections generate.
It’s not google and it’s not “99%”. Unity is the new USA Parliament and the correct mathematical equation is now 99.98% (plus 5000) votes.
Not 99% like in 2011.
Sorry, in 2011 when Roseanne spoke on day one at OWS, the correct figure for the USA Parliament’s satisfaction level was 99% (plus 100 votes).
We’d been using that for 17 consecutive years and now with a 5,000 free member cap and a 5,000 dues-payer member cap for a total of 10,000 members of USA Parliament, the guaranteed minimum satisfaction level among voters is 99.98% (plus 5000 votes).
100% of the names get elected until the 5001st name.
My theory is that the 99% derived from the folks in NYC since Roseanne was a financier for them, I was teaching Roseanne how it works by posting on her blog and so when they were inviting her to speak they saw the guaranteed satisfaction level “99%”.
But they used it to project division (i.e. 99% against 1%) instead of unity…(we’re for ALL voters, even #101, 102, 103 etc. who are consecutively ranked names as back-ups.
We’re “us vs them”, “99% against 1%”. This is a new unity psychology that helps team spirit too.
Unity is the juice that the 9th USA Parliament has been generating since founded from “eballots” on August 6th, 1995 when we united the two POTUS candidates on our team.
It’s the dividers, slanderers and those promoting conflict and division who slow us down.
But we have the unity and it will be the juice that neither google nor the NY Times will understand.
Through the free speech in the internet we’re able to grow this unity. But it’s very difficult because of all the fighting that people find as acceptable. That has created a huge momentum against us.
Meant to write;
We’re NOT “us vs them” or “99% against 1%”. This is a new unity psychology that helps team spirit too.
The New York Times has been rather anti-Hawkins in particular. In their endorsement of Cuomo, they called Hawkins’ campaign “unrealistic”. I had never seen so much support for a Green Party candidate as I saw in the accompanying comment section, it seemed about a third of the 300 plus reader comments were for Hawkins…
The way team psychology addresses problems is the team should ignore things we can’t control and focus on making the team stronger;
Practice, practice, practice…repetition, repetition, repetition…the team, the team, the TEAM!
Look at the bright side…he was in the debate, he had a chance to attract votes with his ideas and he got good ink for his name.
Obviously, I’m not a member of the Green Party and I might not agree much philosophically with Mr. Hawkins. But I love it when a 3rd party or Independent candidate appears to “get under the skin” of the establishment – especially if The establishment is WRONG!