#AI ChatGPT - OpenAI: What about a republican candidate for presidency with a democrat as his vice-president running mate, or vice-versa?"

I asked ChatGPT: 

"As so many Americans are tired of their red or blue polarized America, and demand it to be more purple, what about a republican candidate for presidency with a democrat as his vice-president running mate, or vice-versa?"

ChatGPT answered: 

"The idea of a Republican candidate for presidency with a Democrat as their vice-president running mate, or vice versa, is often discussed as a potential means to promote bipartisanship and bridge political divisions. Such a scenario can be seen as an attempt to create a more inclusive and balanced ticket, appealing to a broader spectrum of voters.

There are a few potential benefits to this approach. First, it can symbolize a commitment to unity and collaboration across party lines, which may resonate with voters who are tired of partisan gridlock and polarization. Second, it can bring together different perspectives and expertise, fostering a more comprehensive approach to governance and policy-making. Third, it can potentially encourage bipartisan cooperation and bridge divides within Congress, making it easier to pass legislation and address pressing issues.

However, it's important to recognize that selecting a running mate from an opposing party could face challenges and potential backlash from both party bases. Party loyalty and ideological alignment are strong factors in American politics, and some supporters may view such a decision as a betrayal or compromise of core principles.

Furthermore, the success of a bipartisan ticket would depend on several factors, including the specific candidates involved, their policy positions, and the broader political climate. It's worth noting that a vice president's role is largely determined by the president, and the ability to influence policy direction may be limited compared to other positions.

While the idea of a bipartisan ticket has been discussed in theory, it has not been widely implemented in practice. Nevertheless, it is worth exploring innovative ways to bridge political divisions and foster greater cooperation in the pursuit of a more inclusive and effective governance system."

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT

Where do I come from? Here!

In USA purple and violet are expelled. It is either red or blue.

Amanda Ripley in “America must step out of this self-destructive zombie dance” Washington Post November 1, references an ad by two candidates running for governor of Utah, in which they committed to respect and uphold democratic norms and a peaceful transition of power.

In a world where we hear polarization artists singing “Anyone you hate I can hate better; I can hate anyone better than you.” “No, you can’t “Yes, I can… Yes, I can”, that sounds like a great initiative. 

I would though like to see included a direct reference to the need of respecting the middle ground, the undecided, those swimming in the middle of the river being thrown stones at from both shores.

I speak from personal experience. Decades ago, in my homeland Venezuela, in an Op-Ed I wrote: “I write in green but my readers send me loads of hate mail, based on that they can only read me in yellow or blue.”

In America right now, purple and violet seem prohibited. It is either blue or red, and both blue and red polarization profiteers seem to love it that way.

PS. https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2010/05/speakers-corner-speakers-have-moved-to.html

Red and blue, or, red or blue?

On the radio, C-Span recounted details about “Intelligent design,” which according to its defenders is a valid scientific alternative to the evolution theories of Darwin. I could not resist post-scripting the following to my American friends.

Unity is a very precious thing for a country (I should know as a Venezuelan), and there are some issues better left alone. This is clearly one. Pitting “intelligent design” against “evolution theories” can never lead to anything good, and you surely must all be aware that you will never ever reach something close to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

As a Christian, I know we are challenged by a lot of apparent contradictions in our faith but, as a Christian, I also believe that we are supposed to find ways to make peace with those demons of contradiction, so as not to let the devil triumph. Friends, how can I put this warning any clearer to you? Well, if we were still in the “good old days” of the Cold War, I could have advanced the thesis that the very bad Communists had seeded this destructive and divisive debate in the heart of your heartland.

That said, I cannot refrain from mentioning that, if you absolutely have to, I would prefer the term “Divine Design,” since “Intelligent Design” sounds to me like opening the door to an equally unnecessary debate about more mundane issues such as quality controls.

I switched channels and I heard Faith Hill singing “Is everything A-OK in the good ole USA?”

The above is from my Voice and Noise of 2006

PS. No Faith Hill, sadly, purple/violet is gone, USA is more red or blue than ever

PS: A speech at the World Bank, May 2004, on "Communications in a polarized world"

PS. Social media, which allows polarization and redistribution profiteers to send out their hate and envy messages at zero marginal cost, has become social harmony’s worst enemy.

PS. Distinctively alike

PS. One prime reason for my criticism of regulators risk weighted bank capital requirements not gaining much traction, is that in these times of extreme polarization it's hard to make it a red against blue issue, and violet is so out of fashion.

PS. A tweet January 17, 2021: "Will America end up with red or blue hotels, red or blue grocery stores, red or blue schools, red or blue universities, red or blue social media, red or blue tv-channels, red or blue newspapers, red or blue states, red or blue counties, red or blue taxes?"