03-20-2024, 04:29 PM
This post was last modified 03-20-2024, 04:30 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
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.
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.
