Quote:The CIA works for military contractors, providing a steady pipeline of forever wars. The health agencies are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from chronic disease. The Fed, held captive by big banks, floods the canyons of Wall Street with money. The agencies that are supposed to be stewards of American security, prosperity, and health are no longer working on behalf of you and me. They’ve become sock puppets for the industries they are supposed to regulate. Corporate capture is the biggest threat to American democracy.

(03-20-2024, 04:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: I am actually afraid to respond to this post.

Not because I feel like hiding my personal choices in politics, but because I know how people coalesce and congeal over politician imagery. I rather disagree that politics is only about "politicians" which goes against the grain in the "popular" sport of political theater.  There's always a guy/gal to hate on, to denigrate, dehumanize, and characterize.

I feel like anything I say about a politician will automatically be considered partisan.  Say something "good" and a horde of crows come to heckle you about all the other "not good" things.  Say something "bad" and you get lampooned as a 'this' or 'that.'  I usually opt-out of the dialogue.

But I can 'decompress' by dismantling something he said:

The CIA works for military contractors, providing a steady pipeline of forever wars.

To state the CIA "works for" implies they are simply obeying 'contractor' orders.  The CIA's mandate and "orders" are very clear.   The is no ambiguity in what they can and can't do.  Perhaps it is best to opine "Some CIA leadership works "with"... instead. 

"Military contractor" designation is vague, and to a degree, misconstrues the black-market activities as legitimate NGO's. Many of them aren't.  Some of them have proven to be 'fronts' for the CIA itself.  Ahhh, the tangled web of espionage.

The United States has never existed in peace (save a 17-year hostile action gap.)  This is not to say "we" have been at war... but our government seems always to have been.  This is not necessarily a malevolent thing... it's just so worth mentioning because the CIA isn't "responsible" or even "purposed" towards the establishment of peace.  This is their bailiwick.  They are always embroiled in some plot or other.

The health agencies are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from chronic disease.

No, no, no.  Health Agencies are controlled by the government... whose political leadership "appoints" pharmaceutical industry executives into the agencies.  The agencies, their employees, and maybe even some of their leaderships are left carrying out policies authored by de facto "employees" of pharmaceutical companies.  The problems aren't with the agencies, it's with who we allow to make policy.

The Fed, held captive by big banks, floods the canyons of Wall Street with money.

Again, no, no, no.  "The Fed" is a Bank, not an "American" institution.  That old dog won't hunt.  The last thing we need is to pretend that the Fed is "captive" of anything other than her private and secret owners.  What they do, they do for "the One Bank" ... whatever form that takes behind closed doors.

The agencies that are supposed to be stewards of American security, prosperity, and health are no longer working on behalf of you and me.

That is somewhat hyperbolic.  It is more accurate to say that they operate favoring some citizens (mainly corporations) over others. Which stands to reason as they are populated by commercial leadership installed by political partisanship.  

They’ve become sock puppets for the industries they are supposed to regulate.

I am of the opinion that politicians should avoid the term "sock puppets" given the nature of their jobs.  Most political utterances are the stuff of 'scripts' and subject to "direction"... much like any other theatrical endeavor.  What we see in the political theater is as scripted and directed as professional wrestling. Sure, there are "star players," but they rarely become that on their own merit... and it is often just a "performance."

Corporate capture is the biggest threat to American democracy.

The complete subjugation of governance policy to a corporation or cabal of corporations is a threat to ANY democracy.  If there is one thing all corporations share in common, it's that they are not "democratic."

Frankly, this quote feels like targeted marketing. In other words, "campaigning."

Not to say he might not be a great candidate, worthy of consideration... but if we went by "what the politician says" we would be setting ourselves up for disappointment... and in the end ... we would be voting for his speech writers, not him... and we've been there before... many times.

(03-20-2024, 03:21 PM)putnam6 Wrote: No candidate has ever verbalized this well-known "conspiracy theory" mantra. It's definitely been my thoughts since Ukraine.

Secondly, Trump will just likely bring chaos and riots, as the Democrats, MSM,Hollyweird freak out again REALITY

Kennedy's more competent, intelligent and thoughtful than both, and we need to end the 2 Party monopoly on real democracy in America. 

Not to mention in some way perhaps takes us back and addresses the shift in of our 1960's timeline. Right or wrong collectively we were robbed of JFK's likely 8-year term as well as RFK's term(s) all because of a few individuals.

Not suggesting we can go back to the 60s peace love dope, but maybe a real RFKjr push we could find out how much you know who controls still controls. 


[Image: https://media.tenor.com/C3lj14Kch6sAAAAM/biden-confused.gif]


https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1770506626887241969?s=20
 

(03-21-2024, 12:34 AM)Kenzo Wrote: Just no!   


That person is either directly on Kremlin payroll, or is the dumbest person on Earth .

RFK Jr. Blames Zelensky and U.S. ‘NeoCons‘ for Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Fact Check: RFK Jr. Claims U.S. Pushed Ukraine to War With Russia

RFK Jr.'s Big Lie on Ukraine

(03-20-2024, 10:28 PM)Maxmars Wrote: putnam6,

You're very kind.

I'm not really out to be "convincing" in the regular sense.  It's just that I enjoy being corrected... it's how I learn.  I can only hope my responses aren't seen as an offense of some kind.

When a thread like this exists, I find it suffers an unfortunate hazard... partisanship.  Of all the things that can foil any discussion, partisanship is the most aggravating to me.  Religion in most civilized places manifests with an inherent respect for those who don't believe... partisanship has no respect for anyone theoretically outside the party (or its attendant characteristics.)  It gets ugly fast.

---

But before I go further, let me address your specific points:

... if the world is 100% that reality your response implies I have 2 questions.

Is that how you want your country/government to operate?

I think it's more important that I specify, what I want of the operation of government can only be expressed from my perspective and thus wouldn't be meaningful to many.  The appropriate question to me seems to be "What do WE want?"  We have a good starting place, much of the foot work is already in place.  The hybridization of republic and democracy seem the best of the lesser-flawed potentials... (There are certain irritants the government should have avoided, such as the elite's penchant for cloistering (and profit hording) was not balanced with proper transparency and accountability.  But that's not an easy fix, especially now.)

We needn't abandon the experiment... we just need to stop pretending that the system is "seeing to itself."  It is not.  Citizens need to engage differently, before the entrenched make that impossible, or worse, a crime.

Which candidate can navigate that reality the best, while ensuring we don't have WWIII, an economic collapse, and perhaps offer some stability and a chance for improved livelihoods for the lower and middle classes? 

I need to know the candidate.  In all practicality that is impossible.  Candidates are 'party-sanctioned' offerings.  I don't like them... they seem like autocratic 'frat houses.' (Or maybe like big music labels, or Hollywood studios.)  They take credit for every progress and target their opponents for all deficiencies - predictably.

If you ask any candidate to list their supporters, they will lead with the biggest donor... inadvertently telegraphing that money is what matters most.  I can't fund a candidate when I have to fund myself.  I'll always be at the bottom of the list. 

Some of the challenges we face are surprisingly simple... with simple solutions that "just can't be" in the eyes of 'big money' parties.... they'll 'see to it' that they become 'complicated' and require multiple layers of middlemen (money again.)

I can't declare that one candidate or another is necessarily better or worse because I have no way to reasonably expect that I can count on them to actually "do" anything.  They make big promises, and grandiose plans... then it won't happen because of "politics."  Over and over, administration after administration, year after year.  And we never tire of the evident excuse-making machinery that somehow never changes.

If you feel that WWIII is a realistic threat, consider:  Could ANYONE really stop that?  Really?  When a "government" wants to go to war... can anyone really stop that?  I thought about it, and I can't remember that ever happening... such a person said "Stop!" and the war was over or averted?  I don't think that's how wars work.

Economies operate based upon whatever the hell bankers say it does.  Governments can only plead, threaten, or negotiate with them to avoid utter economic collapse.  That problem has to do with THE bank being more powerful than government.  Government can do nothing other than break the covenant which they embarked upon granting all monetary policy to a private entity.  In short... the economy is not a government "thing" ... it could have been (maybe even should have been) but it is not.

As for the 'classes' non-elite.  I, for one, get the impression that only when it affects voting does it really matter to politicians.  Sad, but true.

And now for the TLDR part... go on - you can skip this I know my response is way too long already.

---

I hesitated even posting here because I know it's not Deny I's mission statement and this haven was born because of the saturation of this topic elsewhere.

If the DI's PTB determines please remove the thread and I'll refrain from further discussing the topic

I like the moderation style here at DI.

DI doesn't want to "stop" political discussions... DI attempts to minimize posting behaviors that are antithetical to civil discourse. 

Especially when directed at another member, name calling, derisive memery, dehumanizing characterizations, personal attacks, libelous or slanderous accusations, are simply unacceptable.

If we want to talk about politics... let's talk about politics. 

Politics is not defined as "what the politicians say."  In fact, most politicians never even talk about politics.  Only beautifully virtuous, or righteously necessary "causes."

"Politics" is a valuable concept to explore, if we want to understand how to get along with each other.

Political issues are about things like due process, limits to authority, the application of social justice, defensible rights, recognizing sovereignty, and under what terms those things can be agreed upon. How we get there is the dialogue... not a "fight."

Except essentially, politicians are all 'activists.' Every. Single. One.  Every utterance feels like "fighting words" with that type.

The subject of politics has nothing to do with the personal lives of politicians, how idiotic they might appear, or how poor of character they may be. The decision to support one or another is entirely individual.  Everyone should vote how they will, and people should neither call out their choice like it's a 'club' nor attack people who might align with a different 'club' (that's not politics... that's behavior.)

US Political parties (all two of them) foist up candidates based upon who knows what - because it is clearly NOT always merit. 

Then the melee begins... over personalities, and all the baggage that can be laid upon them.  Sounds an eminently wise way to select a "leader," right?  Not to me. 

The political duopoly has managed to even fix it so that any non-party candidate has to overcome the "why bother" hurdle - convincing most everyone that any vote outside the two parties is NOT 'wasted.'  The duopoly fills the field and have a permanent foothold within in the system, everywhere.  Neither party "protected" us from the affliction we now face.

Partisanship is a club.  Made and nurtured by people for whom club membership is a necessary "given."

Ironically "Politics" was never a "clown show" until the media began its "activist journalist" phase (Dear Lord, please make it end.) 

The reporting media industry suddenly threw out the notion of "The facts matter... let the public "decide." 

Before that such manipulation of stories and editorials stood out, when they happened. It was often called out.  Now, the absence of editorialization is very rare.

Now partisanship is almost everywhere... all the time... even here among the virtual spaces, it has spewed its particular stylish brand of 'information.' 

The monopoly of information was so strong and so pervasive that they almost successfully labeled anything other than their own narrative as "mis" or "dis" information - by virtue of it not being their property.  We appear to have slowed them... for now.

By the way, I applaud the courage and character of any off-party candidate... the duopoly will certainly not be "welcoming" and looking to cooperate with them.

---

There you have it... I talked about politics without resorting to adolescent crap-flinging, hyperbolic flummery, or other nonsense.

See? It can be done.

(03-21-2024, 02:09 PM)putnam6 Wrote: ....

Is there a reason you don't want to answer the questions specifically? 

barring a surprise candidate we have

Biden/Harris 2.0 Saving our souls is taking longer than we thought

Trump/whomever 2.0  Sequels usually suck

KennedyJr/ and his selection It isn't perfect but it's preferable to thing 1 and thing 2

(03-21-2024, 12:34 AM)Kenzo Wrote: Just no!   


That person is either directly on Kremlin payroll, or is the dumbest person on Earth .

RFK Jr. Blames Zelensky and U.S. ‘NeoCons‘ for Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Fact Check: RFK Jr. Claims U.S. Pushed Ukraine to War With Russia

RFK Jr.'s Big Lie on Ukraine

(03-21-2024, 03:38 PM)Maxmars Wrote: I get it.  It might appear that I'm being coy about the choices. 

My cynicism towards the theater of it all makes me hesitant to commit because I keep seeing myself in the future thinking "That was the wrong choice."

But then I remember that the way the apparatus is systemically played by the "political class" often leads to the choice as being irrelevant.  No one seems to actually "do" anything that improves (or even illuminates) the actual processes that need fixing.  They get embroiled in "more important/emergent" matters and a trifle they call "politics" serves as an excuse to embrace the status quo.

I can understand why ANYONE would choose not to support any one of the candidates at all.  I can even understand why someone might choose to support a specific candidate (well, maybe two out of the three.)  But it appears that my deepest problem is with who "selected" the candidates.  I was always in favor of the "write-in" option.  I think that would be a valuable bit of information to provide social awareness to the public, for whom this process is supposed to be a service.  Even if everyone voted for SpongeBob SquarePants.  It would be a good to know.

I tire of politicians telling the country "This is what you think."  It reeks of "This is what the party says."  I also don't care about how much bravado or charm you can display to the public.  This role is supposed to transcend the trite "appearances" game it has become... "appearances" are for grifters and thieves.  Neither of which I feel is a requirement for leadership... even if it is a requirement for "political" leadership.  I suspect all three candidates are political showmen... not a criticism, just my baseline.

I choose to hold a standard that none of them seem eager to meet.  And my country isn't a school lunchroom (where you have to pick something even if you won't eat it.) That kind of autocracy is to be expected from the political class, (whose baseline is that "you'll choose whoever we tell you to, and if you don't, we'll call you names." (Another feature of activism.)

I believe that my ideal candidate, whoever or she might be, would be at best - actively thwarted at every level, or at worst - in physical danger, were they to serve, let alone run.

Write-in... definitely write-in.  Too bad they "got rid of that" because ... reasons.