Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mention unrest as a challenge to state legitimacy. I think that a good barometer of the economic health of the American people can be found in the black communities. There is increasing unrest in those communities. What is going on in the black communities is going on to a lesser extent in the white communities. The Middle class in the USA is weakening.
I am personally convinced that the elites in every country hold all of the power.
There has never been a successful uprising of the "common people", in all of world history. The common people are always and forever, merely used as pawns by the elites, to further their interests.
When we discuss "racial politics" in America. Let us be honest here, the current BLM movement is not a natural and organic outgrowth of concern by people of color. It is being manufactured by various special-interests and other well-funded political organizations, and their operatives within left-wing media companies, for the purpose of swaying the votes of blacks and other minorities, in the hopes that they will vote for Hillary Clinton.
These operatives get on TV every day and misrepresent and exaggerate the truth, to paint the most-negative picture possible. And even when they are called out on their lies and distortions, they just keep pushing.
The truth is, the BLM movement is being exploited by wealthy special-interests, as a tool to push along their own agendas. And they will be abandoned the moment they are either of no more use, or the moment they are suddenly getting in the way.
I don't mean this to be only an indictment of Democrats or BLM, this applies across the board. The religious right, and the libertarians, have long been exploited by big-business to push along their own agendas. Big-business needs big-government to protect and further their interests, but they also want low taxes, and deregulation.
So they play a never-ending game between the left and right, manipulating the common people through what amounts to propaganda, to keep government just the way they want it. And they are succeeding. Because people are too stupid to realize what is going on.
To put the situation in better perspective. You need to understand just how powerful the media really is, and who actually owns and controls the media.
Imagine for a moment that Fox News got on TV tomorrow, and started telling people not to pay their taxes, to buy guys, and prepare for war. What do you think would happen to this country?
Fox News isn't going to do that of course, because Fox News is a corporation worth billions of dollars, and its own money comes from other corporations, all of which are worth billions and billions of dollars, with massive amounts of assets scattered all across the country, or all across the world.
The rich always want to keep things more-or-less as already is, but only with minor changes. In the end, the rich will always fight for the status quo, being that, the status quo has already made them rich.
Why would these "elites" possibly want to risk their positions, their fortunes, and their lives? And for what exactly?
The moment we had a "French Revolution on Wall-Street", most of these bankers and CEO's would be dragged out into the streets and hung. Let-alone the multitudes of government officials, media pundits, intellectuals, and anyone else who might come into the cross-hairs. We're basically talking a Stalinist purge of America.
They don't want that, and they will use all their money and resources to make sure it doesn't happen.
With the current hot mess that is our 2016 presidential election, it seems the US could stand the emergence of a new political party. More and more people are becoming disenfrancheised with the republican and democrat parties and it's becoming increasingly obvious that they're both sellouts to corporate influence. I'd even go as far as to say they're both two sides of the same coin using hot-button social issues to pit us against one another, when in fact they both share a core interest of keeping certain power structures in place.
Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform.
Could this be a thing? Why or why not?
Why, because we have a lot of corrupt, greedy, self-serving politicians in both political parties at the moment? Go ahead, make another political party, and then continue to get fooled into electing more corruptocrats into office, rinse, repeat.
Greetings ... Ripe for a dictatorship perhaps ? ... or could it be the last Emperor? ... such a the last days of the Roman Empire with Constantine and a totally useless Roman Senate? ... We The People keep losing our basic Freedoms and Liberty and allow our "Gobbermint" to continue to gloss over us and disregard U.S. laws at the current alarming rate
and continue to display an acute hatred for America ... we may well wake up one morning and discover that we have been gifted with a "New Emperor" and don't have to worry about an further worrisome ole elections evermore !!! ...
And we are indeed ripe for such an unthinkable event such as this !!! ... We should kick our own azzzzzzes for allowing the political coircus to achieve its current "Ludicrous Status" ... Old Sgt. Lamar Says So !!!
The Libertarian party is supposed to be about spreading the message of liberty, not compromising on principles for votes. Funny, because they're compromising a bit for votes, and not spreading the libertarian philosophy well, if at all.
Side note - I think a libertarian political party is a contradictory idea. It's like being against slavery and trying to elect your own slavemaster.
Would you rather have some degree of Liberty or none at all?
Righteous indignation and a quarter will get you a phone call.....if you can still find a pay phone.
Kind of hard to spread your message if no one will listen to you.
"President Obama is the son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father who met at the University of Hawaii in 1960. The president last saw his father when he was 10, when Obama Sr. made a brief visit to Hawaii from Kenya, where he moved when the future president was just a toddler."
Hardly enough time to instill a political philosophy in a toddler. Don't you think?
A more logical conclusion could be that the President formed his economic philosophy by seeing the misery in the South side of Chicago.
Look, Obama wrote a book called "Dreams from my father".
He didn't write "Dreams from my mother", or "Dreams from my grandparents", even though those were the people he actually was raised by.
The truth is, Obama has an obsession with his father, whom he sees as a great man, a revolutionary, and even a savior. He has made it something of a goal in life, to carry on what he believes to be his father's legacy.
In simplest terms, Obama wants to be great. He wants to be the savior.
I do not, nor have I ever believed that Obama has a mean bone in his body. And no one honestly doubts his fidelity to his wife Michelle. Why?
Obama has an image of not only who is father was, but also who he is, and who he should be. He wants to, for a lack of a better word, be perfect, to be all good. And to do evil, would be to shatter his image of himself, and thus, to shatter his entire view of the world.
They often joke that Obama is a kind of messianic figure. And that doesn't mean he thinks he was sent by god, or that he believes he is Jesus reincarnate. But simply, that he imagines that it is his job to save us.
This mentality is actually a patriarchal mentality. He is the father who has the power, and the duty, to save his children, even from themselves. He wants to be the father his father wasn't. The perfect father for all humanity.
The problem of course, is that Obama never really knew his father, so the man Obama imagines his father to be, is not the man he actually was.
This mentality is actually quite common in men with daddy issues. Or more-specifically, daddy-abandonment issues.
Would you rather have some degree of Liberty or none at all?
Righteous indignation and a quarter will get you a phone call.....if you can still find a pay phone.
Kind of hard to spread your message if no one will listen to you.
"Some degree of liberty"?
What's that? Getting robbed at gunpoint with a smile instead of a scowl?
Sure few if any listen to us anarchists. Shall we break our principles and start committing acts of aggression (voting, supporting the State) so more people can hear our message of voluntarism, non-aggression, and cooperation?
That makes no sense.
Here's the thing about those of us not suffering from megalomania and who are not hellbent on being authoritarians...the means are more important than the ends to us.
Got my indignation but I'm pure in all my thoughts - Eddie Vedder
With the current hot mess that is our 2016 presidential election, it seems the US could stand the emergence of a new political party. More and more people are becoming disenfrancheised with the republican and democrat parties and it's becoming increasingly obvious that they're both sellouts to corporate influence. I'd even go as far as to say they're both two sides of the same coin using hot-button social issues to pit us against one another, when in fact they both share a core interest of keeping certain power structures in place.
Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform.
Could this be a thing? Why or why not?
It doesn't matter......
The two political parties control the process.
They control what happens at a local/state level, and the rules are made to support only the two.
If the Libertarian party couldn't get off the ground in this election cycle, where people have a strong distaste for both candidates, they really need to take a serious look at their policy platform (Americans will never support open borders) and for God's sake find a solid, electable candidate.
Gary Johnson looks like a deer in headlights.
They looked even worst when the party was hijacked by former congressman Bob Barr a while back.
It's strange that smaller parties in the US seem to relish in their oddball leadership and their unelectability. I don't get it. One of you Americans wanna enlighten a naive Canadian?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
