Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46765
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    The attached editorial from the NY Times is excellent. Early on both Trump and Sanders were dismissed by the media pundits and political elites, their campaigns not to be taken seriously. Now here we are with Trump having a commanding lead no matter the extent to which the Republican elite and their Democrat partners try to undermine him. Sanders was also treated as a non-serious candidate, a joke really, and now look at him slowly catching up to the Hildebeast. The article talks about their success being reactions to both parties no longer caring about the concerns of average people.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/opinion/america-the-unfair.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

    #46766
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10
    #46767
    Profile photo of Roadracer
    Roadracer
    Survivalist
    member7

    OK with tinfoil hat firmly in place. Here is a theory to ponder.

    Some big name politicos including Robert Gates, former SecDef are starting to say Hillary needs to face criminal charges for her email server. Gates said Russia and China surely have accessed the server.

    With Sanders coming up in the polls, and with many Dems in Iowa New Hampshire now identifying as Socialist, are we looking at Sanders becoming the nominee and heading into a battle with Trump for the Presidency.

    If elected will he complete the dismantling of the Republic?

    #46769
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    The mere fact that Sanders has the support he does is testimony enough to the dumbing down of America by the education system (something Russell Means talks about heavily in the video I posted elsewhere). At LEAST two generations have no real concept what “socialism” really is. “Oh, it’s not the same as communism!” Oh yeah? You mean like the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?” Or the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America? And other “just” socialist organizations and nations? None of the people under 50 ever hid under their desks at school for any drills, except for tornadoes. They don’t know what “fallout shelters” were really for, and how there were fallout shelter signs all over every city in America. They might have seen a grainy black and white video of school kids diving under their desks and covering their heads and shielding their eyes, in practice for the day the nuclear explosions hit their areas. And not one of them has any clue what it was like as we sweated out the Cuban missile crisis, wondering when the nuclear bombs would start flying in both directions.

    They also don’t know further back about what happened in Russia (pre-USSR), China, Laos, Cambodia, etc., with the mass murders that took place. All that has changed is that the term “socialism” has been redefined, or perhaps more accurately, given a different “connotation” even though the “denotation” has not really changed technically. But all people know about is the 21st century connotation of the word. It’s harmless – Sweden, Norway, other nations are still intact, and they’re socialist, modern day America (and much of the world) thinks.

    I may wear a tin foil hat at times, but one thing I know is the history I lived through, and the earlier history I researched, and the extensive study of communism and Marxism I did during college, and particularly since. Do I think nice, lovable Bernie will “complete the dismantling of the Republic?” I need only look at his history, where he’s traveled, who he’s supported, and what he’s said and written over the years – and I know the answer to that question. A resounding “yes!” Thomas Sowell (as I’ve said here before – sorry if it sounds like a broken record) was interviewed just days before the 2012 election about a new book he’d just published. In the interview he was asked if he thought the constitutional republic could survive a second Obama term. He paused just a moment, then stated an emphatic single word answer: “No!” He didn’t walk it back, didn’t qualify it, he merely explained why he had no difficulty coming to that conclusion. I heard it live, and I was stunned – until I let it sink in a bit. While I think a great deal of Thomas Sowell, I am not in 100% agreement with him (though not too far off). And I didn’t come to my conclusion that he was right simply because he said it – that only seriously grabbed my attention BECAUSE of my respect for him. The fact is, that he was spot on.

    And the fact that such a large percentage of the American people are enthralled with this guy is terribly frightening to me – and further reinforces my belief that we’re dead in the water as a nation. There aren’t enough people ready, willing, and able (through knowledge of history and proper principles) to pick up the running of this nation even if “we” all banded together and got Revolution II going strong. Even if we were able to install a constitutional government in theory and practice, not just in name, it would be dismantled again by the dumbed down masses who’d be convinced of the radical, dangerous nature of the revolutionaries. I simply believe we’ve gone too far. And Ol’ Bern would indeed preside over the actual dismantling of the Constitution, not just the de facto dismantling we’re seeing now.

    But heck – that’s just my 2¢….

    #46772
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    The issue with Bernie and with Trump is not their specific pro’s and con’s, it is that neither the politically left or the right feel that the traditional Democrats or Republicans are listening to them or acting in their best interests. Bernie & Trump are the only option most folks are seeing right now. Any port in a storm so to speak. That both sides of the political spectrum are looking at candidates this way really does tell us that the Republicans and Democrats have essentially merged into a single party doing the bidding of the 1%. The main stream media doesn’t see it because they too are owned and driven by the 1%.

    On the whole socialism thing, both parties are big on income redistribution. They differ only in the words they use to describe it and sometimes in who the recipients are. Neither party eschews tacking on pork to any bill that comes along that has a chance of getting signed, stuff that would never get funded if it had to get voted on publicly. Redistributing to a corporation or other organization for something the country doesn’t need and wouldn’t approve if put to a vote is redistribution same as giving it to a welfare momma. Remember some years back when there was a growing clamor from the elderly and others to allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada. Everyone knew there wasn’t an inherent danger in doing that so what did the then Republican party in charge do? They dramatically increased Medicare prescription coverage adding hundreds of billions in new taxpayer expense rather than force big pharma to compete in a global economy. That was redistribution on a massive scale. The Dems then one upped them doing it on an even bigger scale with Obamacare. Bernie differs from the rest only in that he is willing to be honest in calling redistribution what it is, and perhaps more importantly (and this is what scares them) he differs in who the recipients will be.

    #46773
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    (from the NYTimes article:) “[A] common thread is people angry at the way this country is no longer working for many ordinary citizens.”

    MB, I’m not ready to describe an article that (even obliquely) backs the candidacy of Bernie Sanders as “excellent,” but they’re right about how the disaffection of the average voters has finally transcended their airhead abilities to keep more focused on sports, soap operas, and comedy than on who shall control their lives. It’s a pity that we have allowed our government to rule us (who should, after all, be ruling them) but so it is, and it finally has become apparent to a large enough portion of the populace that who governs them actually matters, that even the NYTimes cannot pretend it away any longer.

    If elected will he complete the dismantling of the Republic?

    Roadracer, the dismantling has gone so far, that I’m not sure that any of the leading candidates even could forestall it, but unless either of the two leading Democrats are lying profusely about their intentions, I expect they’d complete it, Slam Dunk!, if elected.

    The salvation of an ostensibly “self-governing” nation cannot, by definition, be left up to the talents and intentions of any “leader,” however capable, and/or well-intended. It must come from the conscious understandings and choices of the people themselves, or not at all.

    Cry, "Treason!"

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of L Tecolote L Tecolote.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of L Tecolote L Tecolote.
    #46779
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Could someone send me a complete copy of the Constitution? Mine is apparently missing the part that talks about two parties, and the systematic locking out of any third parties.

    The mere fact that we’re governed by a two party system in which either or both parties can completely disregard the will of the people as spoken in the primary outcomes, is evidence enough that the Framers, if resurrected today and allowed to remain on earth long enough to observe what’s become of their gift to The People, would be beyond distraught.

    Just think – over the next three months, we’ll effectively choose the two possible choices for President. And because of political “messing” within the parties, many (most?) primaries are no longer winner-take-all, they’re proportional as far as the delegates going to the respective conventions. By itself, I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. BUT – if, when the delegates get there, and the party bosses don’t like the outcome, they can just do what they did with Ron Paul on day-1 of the 2012 Republican convention, and CHANGE THE RULES. Literally, they could just simply flip off all the primary voters, throw their chosen candidate out of the convention hall, and select their chosen candidate on the spot right there in the convention. Very few people are aware of, or have ever even contemplated that possibility and fact.

    I think The People have a vague sense that something’s terribly wrong, but don’t know anywhere near enough to know what it is, nor do they even have any clue how to fix what it is that they don’t even understand how it’s broken. So they select from the two “legitimate” parties, the two most non-establishment (whatever that means) candidates they can – except for Ben Carson, who’s already been very effectively defeated (with his own help, and that of Armstrong Williams). In effect, we have blindfolded people swinging a feather in the air at a menacing sound they hear flapping back and forth past them, not knowing what it is, but trying to knock it down, yet having no idea what they’ll even do if they’re successful. Yet they don’t have the knowledge, skills, or equipment to knock it down and also secure their own safety.

    #46781
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    I don’t think the Republicans learned anything from the horrendous choices (McCain and Romney) they made for the last two elections. They are that out of touch.

    #46783
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    MB, it depends on who you’re referring to as “the Republicans.” If by that you mean the rank and file voters, I’m in mild disagreement. Mild, because most of them don’t know nearly enough to be able to intelligently vote anyway. But the disagreement part would be because that’s all they were given to vote FOR – and they all knew (or at least perceived) that ANYTHING would have been better than Barry.

    If “the Republicans” = the Party bosses (those that control the primary rules and the convention rules), I would say a resounding “amen” to your post. Well, perhaps that even needs to be qualified. Yes, they’re out of touch with those they get to vote for their candidates, but it’s by choice anyway. I honestly believe the final outcome has been determined to the maximum extent they’ve been able to do so. And they have back up plans for contingencies (such as the Democrats in case Billary is actually indicted, for example). So yes, the party bosses are out of touch, because they don’t CARE what the masses think – it’s irrelevant to them. If people really knew and understood what happened in 2012 during the primaries, and at the conventions (on both sides), there truly would be revolution. But “understanding” simply isn’t possible any longer, because the people have neither the knowledge (i.e. education) nor the care factor to understand.

    So in a way, the whole premise of whether the Republicans “learned anything from the horrendous choices [in] the last two elections,” is irrelevant anyway. I firmly believe McCain and Romney were selected TO LOSE, so Obama would become President for nearly a decade, following the massive spending with Monopoly money thanks to W, along with the Patriot Act, various annual versions of the NDAA, etc., that set the stage for Obama to do his fundamental transformation. It was all programmed.

    I shall now remove my tin foil hat and prepare for a much earlier bed time tonight (unless Tec posts another hilarious video).

    #46784
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    MB, the Republican Party learned from those choices that they can, safely, not only ignore, but flip off, their rank and file membership, (a) because the membership isn’t a voting majority, and (b) because they don’t cough up the $$ it takes to gain office, and (c) because they have no better party to go to.

    While both “major” parties can be justly accused of being “about the money,” the Repugs are generally, only about the money, while the Demons are about money manipulations eventually producing “fundamental transformation” of the entire populace (except for themselves and their sponsors/donors, of course) finally reduced to absolute dependence on (hence, subservient to) the (Dem-controlled) government for survival. The Repugs will (evidently) settle for cheap labor — serfs; the Demons want government-owned slaves. Is one manipulator better than the other? You tell me.

    “When a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law, men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims, then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    Cry, "Treason!"

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of L Tecolote L Tecolote.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of L Tecolote L Tecolote.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of L Tecolote L Tecolote.
    #46788
    Profile photo of Roadracer
    Roadracer
    Survivalist
    member7

    I am now suspecting that Hillary will be indicted and lose to Sanders. Then be given a slap on the wrist so she and Bill can continue to raise money for their “Organization” and retire to a life of service to the world. Then Obama becomes Secretary General of the U.N. and good old Bernie helps him usher in the One World Government.

    At that point most American’s shrug and go on with their increasingly miserable lives watching Keeping up with the Kardashians. The Europeans will think that the Euro should become the world’s defacto currency and most Asians and Africans will think their government has been upgraded over the despots that ruled them before.

    I now must leave to add another layer of tinfoil to my hat.

    #46789
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Roadracer, I guess I don’t need to add another layer to my tinfoil hat, because that scenario seems all too plausible. Barack MIGHT not be able to muster enough support because he isn’t looked at with great admiration around the world, from what I can tell. He’s certainly not ingratiated himself with Europe, though as a Son of Africa, all the African nations might band together and vote him in anyway, as Secretary General of the World.

    The only thing that concerns me is just how silent Elizabeth Warren is, and how very little she’s mentioned in the media anymore. There was a time when she was pasted all across news stories, and then suddenly dropped out of sight. No one interviews her and asks her if she’d reconsider her decision not to accept a nomination, despite the fact that the media folks never leave potential candidates alone once they’ve claimed they’re not interested. I have concern that she’s being hidden away for some purpose. If Bernie wins the nomination, Warren could easily be his VP until he conveniently dies of old age in office, after someone questions Putin to learn exactly how he knocked off Litvinenko. And one of the left overs (Bill or Barack) then gets swept up as Secretary General of the World. And 0.002% Native American Warren even gets to choose her own VP at that point. Wheeeee! Politics can be so much fun.

    OR – maybe they need a woman Secretary General, and Liz can bypass all the US mess and go straight to the top of the world. In any case, Ban Ki-Moon’s term is up in January 2017 – timing is everything.

    [I just tried another layer of tin foil to see what would happen, and came up with the following. You’re right – Bernie becomes President. And he names {drum roll…..} Barack Hussein Obama as his VP. The 22rd Amendment does not prohibit that. Then the Litvinenko strategy is employed on Ol’ Bern, and we have – another four years of Obama, fully legal because he was not ELECTED (key word in the 22rd Amendment). Gee, politics is even more fun than I realized!]

    #46791
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    New potential for much grief, no matter who becomes (or stays) prez”

    Cry, "Treason!"

    #46792
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    I saw that ………..good luck attempting it . The armed citizens of the country might take a dim view of it , you want civil war , good way to trigger it . They dont have the man power , Fastest way to turn any people against a government and the military , thats the way to do it .

    #46794
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    I’m not concerned about it. As Tolik noted, they don’t even remotely have enough manpower to have anything resembling what most think of when you say martial law. In this State most communities don’t have their own police and coverage from the County Sheriff’s Depts is minimal. Even the Vermont State Troopers are not staffed 24/7. The only military installation here is the VT Air National Guard facility. They’ve got some serious air power there but not much in the way of boots on the ground.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.