Freedom, I think we’re in more agreement than you might think. Sure, the banksters own the politicians … through corporations, unions and trade organizations. The bankster wants power without fanfare — the pol wants the appearance of power and the adulation that goes with being able to buy love (or at least, votes) with other peoples’ money. The bankster has lots of O.P.M., thanks to the pols, who passed uncountable laws making it possible for him to steal it by taxes, usury, and inflation — a “marriage” truly made in Hades.
But the parties have found many profitable ways to sell their rank and file membership out, and most of the membership still hangs in, even if they don’t contribute much $$. (They don’t need to — the banksters and their subordinate businesses and organizations take care of that.) And most of the membership still holds their noses and votes, anyway. Besides, the RINOs are happier in second place, as long as they are getting paid off, and their donors are getting their screw-the-public laws. After all, that way, they get to blame the sucky state of affairs on the mean ol’ majority DINOs. Ain’t that how it worked, at least until the voters double-crossed them and voted them into the majority hot-seat? A lot of them are already hoping to crawl back into peaceful political minority, where their voters will no longer be able to demand the government’s boot off their necks, and mess up their sweet, profitable little gig.
I’m still expecting the 2016 presidential election to be a prearranged contest between the Hildebeast, and Jeb, because they’re who the banksters want. By whom do you prefer to be shafted? Or will you “throw your vote away,” by voting for someone else, by voting, indeed, at all? I’m pulling for “None of the Above.” My vote’s already been thrown away many times, occasionally by those I voted for.
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by L Tecolote.