I'm beginning to feel that way about most of the candidates....
Will Rogers/Donald Trump: Times Have Changed!
- Thread starter bybee
- Start date
I'm beginning to feel that way about most of the candidates....
Back to Trump and his use of some of the ideas of the patriot and Tea Party movements -
Since the federal government has become too powerful and lords it over the states, local governments and the people, and carries out policies and practices that are unconstitutional, a candidate who really wants to "make America Great Again" would be all for greater state and local government power relative to the feds.
If Trump is not clearly saying he is for greater state and local power, he is not really following the patriot and Tea Party ideas.
Another thing I became aware of recently about Trump is the possibility that he will, if elected, try to restore the dominance of the Eastern Establishment in the U.S. - by bringing in a little of the ideology from the patriot and Tea Party movements which is popular with enough people to help Trump get elected.
Trump is a New Yorker but at this point in time, to become popular as a New Yorker he needs to promote some of the more "conservative" ideology which is not typical of New Yorkers because a large part o the people are fed up with federal level politics and politicians. For example, a New Yorker would not support the right to own guns.
Since the federal government has become too powerful and lords it over the states, local governments and the people, and carries out policies and practices that are unconstitutional, a candidate who really wants to "make America Great Again" would be all for greater state and local government power relative to the feds.
If Trump is not clearly saying he is for greater state and local power, he is not really following the patriot and Tea Party ideas.
Another thing I became aware of recently about Trump is the possibility that he will, if elected, try to restore the dominance of the Eastern Establishment in the U.S. - by bringing in a little of the ideology from the patriot and Tea Party movements which is popular with enough people to help Trump get elected.
Trump is a New Yorker but at this point in time, to become popular as a New Yorker he needs to promote some of the more "conservative" ideology which is not typical of New Yorkers because a large part o the people are fed up with federal level politics and politicians. For example, a New Yorker would not support the right to own guns.
Voting for president's a waste of time. Anyone who seriously poses a threat to the status quo will never, ever make it that far.
PureX
Well-known member
Let's vote for Sanders and find out. If nothing else, it will at least show the oligarchs and their political toadies that we know what's going on, and we don't like it.
Also, a huge majority of legislators are up for re-election this year. Some 450 of them. If we were to vote every one of them out of office, can you even imagine the shock and awe that would put to the rest of them! And it wouldn't matter how bad the new ones are, because they, too, would know what will happen to them next election is they don't start acting on behalf of the people, instead of their corporate sponsors. I truly believe we would start to see some real changes, almost immediately.
Voting in the primaries is one thing (it's kind of a big deal in my home state). I was referring more to the general election: Whoever gets the nod on either side of the ticket is just one side of the same coin. Total waste of time.
No president really has the power to change much anyway, and certainly the establishment won't allow someone in office who will pose a threat to them. Presidents are caretakers of the status quo. It's been that way since Kennedy. And look at what happened to him.
Yes, indeed. I don't necessarily oppose the idea of voting--certainly not on a small scale, for mayor, town council, even governor and what have you. But once you've been nominated for the big seat you're beyond co-opted.
PureX
Well-known member
It's about sending the message.
When we don't vote, we are essentially telling them that we don't care what they do, or who they put up as candidates. In which case, they will continue to put up toadies, and we will continue to be screwed by them. Why just lay down and take it? Why not use our vote to put some fear into them?
Even if both candidates are just alternate copies, we can still vote for third party candidates, or even write in a candidate. But we need to keep showing them that we are paying attention. That we care. And that we will not just swallow their corrupt toadies without even an objection.
One way or another participating in a corrupt system endorses that system. Now on a smaller scale the corruption's obviously lighter or even benign--buddies on the planning board doing their friends a solid is one thing; outright graft in a larger city is something else. A little larceny's to be expected, in other words. But the higher you go on the food chain, the more faces you've stepped on in order to get there. After a while, you don't represent "the people" any more, at least not the little people--you're carrying water for big business, big money, and the rest of the usual suspects.
When we "send a message" to the establishment by casting yet another ballot for yet another stuffed shirt we're telling them we'll play along, again, but we're suuuuuure not happy about it. And gosh, if we ever have a chance, we'll...ummmm...yeah. We'll really show you. One day. One day, right around the corner. When the right guy shows up. When the white knight finally appears to save us all.
Except he's not coming, PureX. They get killed, or bought off, or smeared, assuming they ever have any interest in public office at all. Any person with any decency gets out while they still can. In part, I think Sanders has been able to maintain his integrity over a lengthy career because he hails from such a small state. Fewer opportunities for corruption, fewer interests he's beholden to.
Or we're saying we no longer wish to participate in a farce. This isn't a representative government anymore so much as it is a business conglomerate with the illusion of change. Occasionally they toss the idiot masses a chance to whack a pinata and run some middle manager out of town on a rail. Big whoop.
Saying people who don't vote can't complain is like saying you can't knock drugs till you've spent time in a crackhouse.
I don't think they have any reason to fear us in the first place. We're armed to the teeth, PureX, and they show zero inclination towards disarming us, despite what some hysterics insist (or would even prefer). What does that tell you? Maybe this is a uniquely American problem, although I doubt it, but we show a remarkable knack for getting angry at the wrong people. Fear us? Why in the world would they do that? What solid reason should the establishment have for sincere fear? Because we're many, and they're few? So it's been since Sumer. And we keep building pyramids.
I don't believe lack of voter participation is due strictly to laziness or disinterest. Folks have a decent ability for knowing when the fix is in. Our votes for the large part don't matter, at least when the stakes grow supposedly greater.
Well...his name is "Trump", after all. :idunno:
Anyone who sits in the White House has bought his way in and belongs to someone other than the American people.
Trump is simply the most ill mannered and boorish among the contenders.
PureX
Well-known member
Much of this is true, but I still need to hope.
Also, we have been in a similar place in this country, before. And after much suffering, and strife, we did finally take control back from the oligarchs, more or less. Granted, blood ran in the streets, and no one alive now even remembers this, but it did happen. And the people did 'win' that battle at least for a time. So if we could do it then, maybe we can do it again.
I'm afraid today's technology precludes the average citizen having much of a voice in anything. One must go off the grid to Alaska or Nevada and hunker in.
What is the answer? Bloody war in the streets so that we can exchange one lunatic for another?
Or make the best of it because we are actually quite powerless.
PureX
Well-known member
Or fight back.
When this happened to us, before, we had no voice at all. Maybe a few printed 'manifestos', that was about it. But the effect of the greed had caused so many of us so much suffering that we finally were willing to stand up, together, and fight. We saw that we had no choice.
Blood ran in the streets of America, then. That's something that few people even know about, today. There were bombings in Chicago and elsewhere. Citizens were beaten and killed by goon squads paid for by the wealthy elite. This is what we were once willing to endure to get back control of our own government, and of our economy. And it'll probably take this and more to do it again. And the longer we cower in fear and hopelessness, and continue to support our oppressors, the harder it's going to be to extricate them from control of our lives.
We have the power. We always have had it. But we have to unite in order to exercise it. And unfortunately, we would much rather blame each other than to unite against the real enemy, because that will mean our having to do something other than blame and complain.
We are not powerless. We are simply divided against ourselves. And yes, we will have to not only unite, but fight. And there will be casualties. But no one ever just handed anyone else their freedom. The only way to get it and keep it is to fight for it, and then to protect it. We didn't protect our freedom once we won it back, and so we have to fight to get it back, again.What is the answer? Bloody war in the streets so that we can exchange one lunatic for another?
Or make the best of it because we are actually quite powerless.
But there really isn't any alternative, anymore, because there really isn't anywhere we can run to and hide from the effects of human greed, and from some people's desire to own and rule the world and everyone and everything on it.
Among my kin were members of "The Molly Maguires".
Will Rogers/Donald Trump: Times Have Changed!
Your personal feelings aside, could you vote for the man if he were the nominee?
Your personal feelings aside, could you vote for the man if he were the nominee?
"We" never took back control because "we" never had it. And "they" never lost it. And to your comments to bybee: Citizens are being beaten and killed by goon squads all over again. If anything we have become much more complacent because in many tangible ways, we have less to complain about now (in terms of creature comforts) than the people did then.
We're the first surveillance state with a well-armed population with many people ready to do the dirty work of the elite for them. That's certainly unique but doesn't really bode well.
PureX
Well-known member
Oh, come on. You're getting a bit carried away, here. "We" managed to gain a number of important socialist concessions in the years after the Great Depression, including the break up of the larger monopolies and the end of speculative investment banking. We instituted social security, welfare for the poor, the 40 hour work week, and ended child labor. It was fantastic progress compared to the ruthless greed that controlled this country prior to the depression.
We haven't squandered all these gains, yet, but we are clearly headed in that direction. But if we were able to make these gains the first time, maybe we can do it again, and even do better.
I agree. That's exactly why we don't care when our neighbor loses his job, his home, his health, or even his life. Because all we really care about is how we're doing.
So the question is, how many of us will have to lose everything before there will be enough of us willing to fight back? And sadly, the answer is probably a lot more. Because the truth is we really don't care about the 'other guy'. We don't see them as being reflections of ourselves. Instead, we see them as 'flawed' in some way that we imagine we are not. So we think what happens to him won't happen to us. … Until it does.
This is where you're wrong. The military is still run by us. And I do not believe it will turn on us even if the government tells it to.
In every other country where this happens, it only happens after the government manages to create a military that sees itself as being set apart from the civilian population. Either by religion, or ethnicity, or by long political and cultural bias … one way or another, they see themselves as their own separate entity within the population of their own countries. Once this idea is developed, and set, the military can be turned against the population if necessary. But our military is not of that mind-set. And I do not believe it would turn against the general population, if it were ordered to. Not once the population was significantly united in it's actions against the government.
However, 'we the people' better be damn sure that we teach our young people, as they join the military, to be very wary of any sort of indoctrination that tries to teach them that they are somehow set apart from the general population. And we had better be very wary of the government creating "special forces" within the military that could become their personal amoral army. (The Bush administration seemed to be very big on this sort of thing.)
Last edited:
I hope your optimism is warranted....