#metoo

[Snarky Oracle]

I still say I'm beginning to see all the "woke" stuff as a rightwing intelligence deep-state psy-op plot to divide the working class further and turn the left woke and stupid and thus bring it down.

It was just a theory, but Crystal said the same thing on Breaking Pints the other day, so now I've convinced myself that it's true.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I still say I'm beginning to see all the "woke" stuff as a rightwing intelligence deep-state psy-op plot to divide the working class further and turn the left woke and stupid and thus bring it down.

It was just a theory, but Crystal said the same thing on Breaking Pints the other day, so now I've convinced myself that it's true.

This sounds much more plausible to me now than it did a few years ago.

With the neocons having successfully infiltrated the Democratic Party, the lefties that bought into the woke crap get to be unwitting dupes for a right wing agenda anyway.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I don't know about that. The level of planning would have to be immense, and unless one thinks that George Soros is an ultra conservative in disguise,
it wouldn't explain the proliferation of extreme left DAs funded by Soros, the defund the police activists, the spontaneous riots, looting, burning, mayhem, assaults
that follow when police arrests/detain/use next step measure when dealing with criminals. Big cities are experiencing more and more crime, and I don't see
how that benefits anyone, unless making more and more people dependent on Government programs is the goal.

Yes I believe the activists are funded, but by who?
There is also the matter of big Tech billionaires (Gates, etc.) who have always identified as Democrats and have funded the Democrats lavishly.
There is also the allegation that social media being utilized to silence conservative voices
These are o lot of seemingly unconnected happenings, unless, as is implied, it is indeed connected.

The Republican party has usually consisted of two major constituencies: The corporate wing and the Evangelical Christians.
Instead of Inner City Minorities who are Democrats and at the poorest income levels as a group, The rural populations who are Republican
may depend on Govt subsidies, and are generally not at the highest income levels.
That may be changing with an increasing populist base, but it is not as monolithic as some people may believe.

Anything is possible, and there may be and most likely is more to it than is visible,
so I can't rule anything out.
I just don't know that anything is that well-organized.
I think it is more likely that events develop and happen, and the wealthy elite, regardless of ideology and party affiliation, have the resources to
utilize and manipulate such events to their (financial) advantage,

I think George Carlin was on the right track when he talked about the "Real" owners of the country.
The very poor have a seemingly unlimited number of social programs to keep them dependent,
while the middle and working class compete for increasingly limited resources.
All the while, the wealthy elites accumulate more and more.
Once in a while, the Weinsteins and Epsteins become the ones who are the visible examples of "thrown to the wolves" so to speak.
By and large, the concept of ambition vs ambition takes place at a higher level, with the biggest players playing a kind
high stakes poker or chess, and the winner takes an even bigger chunk.

More and more, Carlin's words about the economy seem more and more relevant

 

[Frank Underwood]

I think George Carlin was on the right track when he talked about the "Real" owners of the country.
The very poor have a seemingly unlimited number of social programs to keep them dependent,
while the middle and working class compete for increasingly limited resources.
All the while, the wealthy elites accumulate more and more.
Once in a while, the Weinsteins and Epsteins become the ones who are the visible examples of "thrown to the wolves" so to speak.
By and large, the concept of ambition vs ambition takes place at a higher level, with the biggest players playing a kind
high stakes poker or chess, and the winner takes an even bigger chunk.

More and more, Carlin's words about the economy seem more and more relevant

Yes, and in fairness to the rest of your post, many self-proclaimed Dem "leaders" are just pro-choice/pro-lgbtq corporatist war mongers. The culture war is a distraction from the awful things both sides are really up to. I can't say with certainty that there are infiltrators and instigators, but the powers that be certainly get their way no matter what.

As for the poor, they don't receive a fraction of help that wealthy elites and corporations do. Even Ukraine received billions as Americans face an inflation crisis. Like George Carlin said, the reason homelessness hasn't been solved is because the politicians and corporations don't stand to get richer off of it. As he put it, the real owners of this country want more for themselves and less for everybody else. The two party system gives the illusion of choice, but it really only serves the interests of the real owners.

And since you mentioned Epstein, both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump flew on his plane. The Clintons were even friends with Trump and attended his wedding to Melania! It really proves George Carlin's point about the elites being part of an exclusive club. They pretend to hate each other in public, but many of them are friends behind the scenes.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

many self-proclaimed Dem "leaders" are just pro-choice/pro-lgbtq corporatist war mongers. The culture war is a distraction from the awful things both sides are really up to. I can't say with certainty that there are infiltrators and instigators, but the powers that be certainly get their way no matter what.

I tend to agree, and I think there is some further context

I think that one of the points that I would add is this leads to diminishing resources for the middle and working class, and there is more
and more competition for these dwindling resources. Law abiding people who are trying to provide for their families may have limited choices, but what is their alternative?

They can't just drop out and let those whose agendas would harm them go unchallenged.

Both sides are flawed, but right now it is the Democrats who have given us the highest inflation in 4 decades, gas prices that have more than doubled,
a border crisis, inflated grocery store prices, baby formula shortages, cessation of drilling on federal lands, a rise in crime, a stock market that is lower than the day that they took office 17 months ago and a near record low going back 4 decades in the Workforce Participation Rate (which is a more reliable indicator than the
unemployment rate), a possible slowdown in real estate market, and a clear failure of international leadership, as Putin wages war.
The Biden Administration wanted to audit every bank account with an annual net change of $600, hire 87,000 more auditors, creating
a probable unconstitutional overreach with regard to privacy rights and a paperwork nightmare of mammoth proportions
They wanted to create a modern day Ministry of Truth.
The National School Board Association wrote a letter of apology because the Attorney General's office was preparing
to use the FBI and US Attorney's office to investigate the parents in a manner consistent with domestic terrorits.
Talk about overreach!

This is not about any one Politician, there is more than enough negative stuff about any number of them.

Again, both sides are flawed, and there is legitimate criticism on both sides, but right now, the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, as well as the Executive branch, and the Nation is suffering. Can the American voter really be expected to continue to support this?

 

[Snarky Oracle]

Again, both sides are flawed, and there is legitimate criticism on both sides, but right now, the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, as well as the Executive branch, and the Nation is suffering. Can the American voter really be expected to continue to support this?

The reason the Democrats can't get anything done when they're in control of the entire government is not due to political incompetence; it's by design.

Both sides aren't flawed -- both sides are utterly crooked. And nothing will be fixed while either is in power -- only a viable third party (with strong internal rules about campaign donations and accepting jobs on corporate boards) will help -- which is why it will not be permitted.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The reason the Democrats can't get anything done when they're in control of the entire government is not due to political incompetence; it's by design.

Both sides aren't flawed -- both sides are utterly crooked. And nothing will be fixed while either is in power -- only a viable third party (with strong internal rules about campaign donations and accepting jobs on corporate boards) will help -- which is why it will not be permitted.

Precisely right. That's why I never believed Biden would bring about "harm reduction." If anything, things have gotten even worse.

The squad was elected to exert political leverage on the corrupt Dems, but they turned out to be a bunch of virtue signaling Twitter warriors who support the establishment.

And yes, the duopoly does everything in its power to crush third parties. That said, a third party run by Jimmy Dore excites me, if only to watch establishment heads explode.

Kyle Kulinski posted this picture today, which I find rather fitting:

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

The reason the Democrats can't get anything done when they're in control of the entire government is not due to political incompetence; it's by design.

Both sides aren't flawed -- both sides are utterly crooked. And nothing will be fixed while either is in power -- only a viable third party (with strong internal rules about campaign donations and accepting jobs on corporate boards) will help -- which is why it will not be permittedYou make valid points. My point is that until then (if

The reason the Democrats can't get anything done when they're in control of the entire government is not due to political incompetence; it's by design.

Both sides aren't flawed -- both sides are utterly crooked. And nothing will be fixed while either is in power -- only a viable third party (with strong internal rules about campaign donations and accepting jobs on corporate boards) will help -- which is why it will not be permitted.

You make valid points.
My point is that unless something like that happens, we are stuck with the here and now,
and the nation can't continue like this, if we are to retain any benefit of the Constitution.
I didn't care for the Carter administration, but they are Einsteins
next to this ... I need a stronger phrase than gross incompetence.

Then again, maybe people want this - this is what they voted for.
The political process is the determination of who gets what.
Elections, however imperfect have consequences, and whatever minimal resources
are available will be distributed to the groups aligned with the winners.

I have heard any number of conspiracy theories.
I don't say that I necessarily agree, but I would say that
I don't dismiss them as impossible

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Trump is everything bad we say he is, but the electoral college elected him, and his fan base doesn't care what he does.

As a point of clarification, the Electoral College has elected every president, as per the Constitution
In some elections, the Courts have been involved, but the genesis is still the Electoral College.

In theory (Putting aside state laws for a moment) A candidate could lose the popular vote in every state, and still win the
Presidency if the Electoral College chooses to vote for another candidate

 

[Frank Underwood]

Then again, maybe people want this - this is what they voted for.
The political process is the determination of who gets what.

The mainstream media ran a full blown propaganda campaign in which they assured voters that Biden was the "most electable" and would bring about "harm reduction." Voters didn't want this current mess, but they got it thanks to DNC meddling, mainstream media fear mongering, an unprecedented pandemic, and Trump's constant madness.

Working in the confines of the two party system is self defeating. It leaves us ping ponging between two corrupt parties because the party in power is always abysmal. I will grant you that this administration has been especially bad, but people were wanting a "return to normalcy" after the batshit crazy Trump era. Instead, they got neoliberal hell.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As a point of clarification, the Electoral College has elected every president, as per the Constitution
In some elections, the Courts have been involved, but the genesis is still the Electoral College.

In theory (Putting aside state laws for a moment) A candidate could lose the popular vote in every state, and still win the
Presidency if the Electoral College chooses to vote for another candidate

It sounds similar to the DNC's use of "super delegates." Both sound undemocratic to me.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

It sounds similar to the DNC's use of "super delegates." Both sound undemocratic to me

I don't dismiss your point-far from it.

The superdelegates by the DNC does mean that some candidates, those favored by party leaders will benefit more.

The USA is a actually a (Constitutional) Republic not a democracy, As such some voices do matter more in legislative outcomes
It has worked remarkably well for 246 years, and has self-correcting mechanisms, and checks and balances, thanks to the wisdom
and insight of the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a pure democracy process, but instead. a form of representative democracy.

They also did not intend public service to be lucrative career, they favored the citizen legislator who would have a limited time.
My guess is that that is why they didn't call for term limits, because they did not anticipate the evolution of
elected seats as careers.

I think the Supreme Court is flawed in that it should not be a lifetime appointment.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court seemed to expand its authority by legislating,
especially in the 60s and 70s. This was never intended to be their role.
They were supposed to be arbiters of whether the Executive branch or Legislative Branch had
the authority in various policy disputes. (Someone needs to explain this to AOC who
couldn't name the 3 branches of government when asked)

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a wastebasket for all of society's disputes.
Some cases should remain at the state level, at according some theories of Constitutional Law.
One theory of Constitutional Law is that any rights not explicitly granted to the
Federal Government belong to the states.
Remember that going back to the Revolutionary War, the States had their own
specific laws, customs, economies and populations
The Supreme Court can indeed refuse to hear a case, a stance they should take more often,
so that they do not do what amounts to legislating.

In the end, the Founding fathers did not want a permanent majority to make all the laws.
It can be argued that this is failing right now, and that is another topic.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The USA is a actually a (Constitutional) Republic not a democracy, As such some voices do matter more in legislative outcomes
It has worked remarkably well for 246 years, and has self-correcting mechanisms, and checks and balances, thanks to the wisdom
and insight of the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a pure democracy process, but instead. a form of representative democracy.

I understand that, but we always hear talk about "democratically elected" representatives. Yet that's not how the presidency is determined.

They also did not intend public service to be lucrative career, they favored the citizen legislator who would have a limited time.
My guess is that that is why they didn't call for term limits, because they did not anticipate the evolution of
elected seats as careers.

They should have known better based on human nature alone.

I think the Supreme Court is flawed in that it should not be a lifetime appointment.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court seemed to expand its authority by legislating,
especially in the 60s and 70s. This was never intended to be their role.
They were supposed to be arbiters of whether the Executive branch or Legislative Branch had
the authority in various policy disputes. (Someone needs to explain this to AOC who
couldn't name the 3 branches of government when asked)

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a wastebasket for all of society's disputes.
Some cases should remain at the state level, at according some theories of Constitutional Law.
One theory of Constitutional Law is that any rights not explicitly granted to the
Federal Government belong to the states.
Remember that going back to the Revolutionary War, the States had their own
specific laws, customs, economies and populations
The Supreme Court can indeed refuse to hear a case, a stance they should take more often,
so that they do not do what amounts to legislating.

In the end, the Founding fathers did not want a permanent majority to make all the laws.
It can be argued that this is failing right now, and that is another topic.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I understand that, but we always hear talk about "democratically elected" representatives. Yet that's not how the presidency is determined.


They should have known better based on human nature alone.


Yeah, that sounds about right.

I think you are right about them maybe considering human nature, especially since
they envisioned checks and balances

 

[darkshadows38]

i think the founding fathers weren't quite as evil as some them in power today so they of course didn't see that coming either