1. Roseanne said:

   “This country’s in bad trouble because the one thing that can get it the fastest is if we all, like, unite across these different divisions that they put up for us — and they’re all artificial, except class.”

   I see the same analogies were used by Richard Winger and Roseanne Barr in the past and up to the present; “Unite behind me because I (Winger and Barr) choose who to fight.”

   Roseanne’s division is between the classes and Winger’s division is against Top Two, but in the end it’s the same divisive base in their own agenda of “us against them” which caused great losses to their respective affiliates.

   It’s unity as long as they alone decide who to target in their destructive behavior in trying to proclaim themselves better than others.

2. James – Your comment is curious. Did you not, at least at one time, have Roseanne Barr listed as one of your USA Parliament and/or unity ticket?

3. Gene- I believe at one time Ogle had God and Satan on a unity team in his fantasy football… uh, I mean USA Parliament game. 😉

4. The USA Parliament welcomes all “real” people interested in unifying voting systems and we welcome their name to the team and their marked ballots.

   But every person is different, some are able to work for the unity of the whole, some people work for creating divisions and of course their are as many variations between the two as there are people.

   As a vote counter and web page designer, I do not judge people when I add and remove names or count their votes, just as I happily added and removed Roseanne’s name and counted her votes, and tried to coach her on a new direction, a different way to think and act.

   You never know when a person will be favorable towards either uniting the team or creating divisions. As I stated above, every person is an individual with vastly differing characteristics and personalities.

   Sometimes a divider can help the team and sometimes a unifier may do nothing and/or harm the team.

   Yes, Roseanne was listed as one of our team players in early 2011 and we elected her our Prime Minister on 1/22/2011.

   I ran for POTUS myself promoting several female POTUS candidates by promoting their name as POTUS and mine as Vice-POTUS. I won the MI primary with 52.7% in 2012 and Gary Johnson was on that ballot as a Republican.

   Proportional representation works well for creating gender balance in two-member districts, it guarantees that when 2/3rds of the voters rank opposite gender candidates, that the winning names are also guaranteed to be opposite gender candidates.

   Now in 2016 our team of POTUS candidates has stiffened the qualification guidelines for electing the names on the team which reduced the number of POTUS candidate names from 49 to 15 names by our own team’s votes.

   We would certainly welcome Roseanne back to the team should she request that by electing her own name, but dividers aren’t always interested in working with multiples of names as a team.

   For our team, nobody is smarter than the team, and we’re able to vote and think as a one team too because of the desire to unite.

   Dividers are trying to polarize and divide, and their rhetoric, along with the unifier rhetoric, can come in many forms and sentence structures.

   Ultimately we can only count their votes under ranked choice voting which is dry math, no matter what the rhetoric has been or will be in the future.

   The bottom line is the vote total. Attracting votes requires conciliatory language, because every vote is a potential tie-breaker.

   Roseanne is a potential tie-breaker, just as Obama and George Bush. But Eric Weinrib and Roseanne failed in their journey, and with the 99% concept they and many still embrace.

   Had they understood proportional representation, they could have embraced an equation and guaranteed satisfaction level threshold of 99% (plus 100 votes), in a 100-member district for a peaceful transition/decision-making alternative to force and violence needed so badly in the USA and abroad. That’s what I had been promoting since 1995.

   Instead the conflict, we hear from Roseanne the hostilities and arrogance continually displayed by their group and others, to use the 99% vs 1% (i.e. “us against them”), which wasn’t a message we need a message of unity. Division, force and violence … confrontation, conflict and civil war? No.

   The unifying nature of PR which elects a team of 100, where 101, 102, 103, etc., etc. are consecutively ranked names of team players can be used to help the Arab Spring countries evolve peacefully. But we’re not against #100, #101, #102, etc., because they’re back-ups, and we need them.

   This was her choice she made when she spoke on day one at the Occupy Wall Street event which marked a departure from unity and a turn towards marginalization by Roseanne because of her deep natural tendencies to divide and generate hostilities and negative traits which may be good good for humor or sound bites, but divisive rhetoric is destructive to political campaigns.

   If you’re interested in unity in the future, look at our team which is favorable to that and which has been working relentlessly to promote such a concept:

   The United Coalition’s 15 Candidates for President of the United States (POTUS):

   (POTUS Names in the Order of the Candidates’ Own Rankings Based on Votes Cast as Proof)
   Updated on 3/28/2015
   http://www.usparliament.org/pdc.php

   James Ogle [Republican] for President
   Scot Olewine [Republican- Green Energy] for President
   Keenan Dunham [Libertarian] for President
   Miss Joy Waymire [Decline to State] for President
   Andy Caffrey [Democratic] for President
   Roger Nichols [Unity] for President
   Ralph Hoffman [Unity] for President
   Rhett Smith [First Freedom] for President
   Ralph Beach [Independent] for President
   James Le Sage [Humanitarian] for President
   Ernest Wells [Communist] for President
   Jonah Bolt [One] for President
   Vanessa Davis [Defender of the Republic] for President
   Tony Jones [Libertarian] for President
   Tina Cook [Independent] for President
   * * *

5. How does the USA Parliament fit that many people into one tree house, I wonder?

6. James Ogle: Are these people whom you list in your USAParliament real people, or do you just pull their names out of thin air or look into the telephone dictionary to find them?

   Richard Winger and others are working their butts off to get REAL ballot access, and all you want to do is play games.

   Has USAParliament applied for membership in the United Nations? You ought to apply, as they are made up of so many different languages and think with so many different mindsets, they just might think you are a real country?

7. Roseanne Barr may be good actor, but how can a serious party like the Green Party consider her for President? It would be like the Democratic Party nominating Jon Stewart. How far would they get? How many electoral votes would they receive? Remember when
   George Wallace ran in 1968 on the AIP ticket and received almost 10 million votes, and then when Congressman John Schmitz ran on the same ticket in 1972, he got a little over 1 million votes.

   3rd parties have got to understand the voters want the candidates who not only are serious, but also takes a stand on issues the voters agree with.
   This is why if the Constitution[al] Party would convince Governor Mike Huckabee to run, they probably would get 1 or 2 million votes. As it is, they will run an unknown, and they’ll be lucky to get 125,000 votes at most.

   Some 3rd parties never learn.

8. According to commentary over at IPR the CP is trying to draft former U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas as their “name” candidate.

9. The Green Party’s voters rejected Barr’s bid for the presidential nomination, which is why she trashed the party and found the Peace and Freedom Party to give her a platform.

10. It was puzzling to me that she did not enter the Green primary in Arizona, as six others (including me) did because all you had to do at the time was file a notarized one-page declaration of candidacy, the simplest requirement.

    I said that I would consider myself a “stand-in” for her and would turn over any delegates I got to her, but her campaign didn’t seem to be interested in the Arizona primary. I’m not sure — Richard Winger could probably tell me — if Barr entered any other Green Party primary, as I know there were a handful in 2012.

    Also, the requirements to be a recognized (I’m not sure of the precise term) Green Party candidate for the Presidential nomination were impossible for me or anyone but Jill Stein and Kent Something to meet. The party wouldn’t have given any delegates to any of the other four candidates on the Arizona primary ballot, even if they finished ahead of the two recognized candidates.

    I haven’t seen the film, but it appeared to me that she didn’t seem to have a campaign in the sense of making a serious effort (for example, compete for delegates, meet the party requirements, run in primaries or caucuses) to gain the Green nomination.

11. I see you don’t monetize ballot-access.org, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash every
    month with new monetization method. This is the best adsense alternative for any
    type of website (they approve all sites), for more details
    simply search in gooogle: murgrabia’s tools

12. Hello, yeah this paragraph is truly pleasant and I have learned lot of things from it on the topic of blogging.
    thanks.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.