Re: The Two-Party System

Postby vbattaile » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:37 pm

Pols of both parties are bought-and-paid-for by lobbyists

Rick Jones' articulated his March 6 commentary, "Obama's deficit critics are discredited" very well, but Obama's supporters and many "deficit critics" are seemingly unaware that Obama has no constitutional authority beyond his veto power over congressional legislation to influence America's economy. Other than "interstate" commerce between states and foreign trade, Congress has no authority to regulate or influence any part of America's economy. That lack of federal authority proves the founders intended to protect America's free enterprise system, or "intrastate" commerce (within states), from government interference.

Most grass roots Democrats and Republicans are also unaware that there is no significant difference between modern Republican and Democratic Party leaders.

Professor Carroll Quigley of Harvard (an ardent supporter of a world government controlled by international banks) revealed a major globalist strategy in his book, "Tragedy and Hope": "The chief problem for American political life for a long time has been how to make the two political parties almost identical so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary are no longer subject of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method." Quigley's statement was prophetic.

Today, we have bipartisan support for unconstitutional un-sponsored preemptive wars, foreign military interventions and occupations, policing the world, defense spending, foreign aid, nation building, the Federal Reserve System, an ever-growing national debt, government-run education and healthcare.

Most Republican representatives are Republican-in-name-only (RINOs) who disregard conservative Republican principles. There is much lip service for the welfare of constituents (and Constitution), but both parties and most representative's votes are bought-and-paid-for by corporate lobbyists, as Congressman Merrill Cook testified.

Edward Griffin wrote in his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" (the Federal Reserve): "Politicians come and go, but those who wield the power of money remain to pick their successors."

We have "corporatism" or "crony capitalism", (backroom deals with Wall Street globalists), not true "capitalism", which socialist Michael Moore falsely blames for America's economic problems.

George Washington warned against the "continual mischief of the spirit of party." ... -lobbyists
User avatar
Posts: 2926
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: The Two-Party System

Postby vbattaile » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:29 pm

The False Face of Capitalism

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings' ~ Lewis Carroll

Facebook is an interesting tool; a jumble, a hodgepodge of non-sense, comedy and partisan rhetoric. For instance, a labor friend of mine posted that the top five states for personal bankruptcies were all "right to work states". Fair enough, an anti-Obama friend posted, and countered by citing the many alleged scandals of Eric Holder and, of course, the inescapable" Benghazi meme. And don't forget the Koch brothers and so on and so on. But what I find most startling is the amount of cross-over. The majority of these posts are accusatory, defending some partisan position, ignoring the root cause of our problems.

Is Eric Holder a criminal, who needs removal from office? If his present company is any determining factor" maybe! The Obama administration is filled to the rafters with corporate cronies and functionaries, looking to fast-forward their future employment opportunities. If the top five states for personal bankruptcy are all "right to work states", what did we win? Here look, let me show you how a sledge-hammer works. If Eric Holder is a criminal, is he more of a criminal than say, Barack Obama? Is he more of a criminal than say, George W. Bush or Richard B. Cheney?

It's those Republicans! It's those Democrats! It's the Tea Party! Or my favorite""It's those liberals in Washington." You could find more unicorns in Washington than liberals.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson -- and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. [Woodrow Wilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States -- only on a far bigger and broader basis." ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The premier American liberal politician in the candor of a private letter asserts, the system is fatally corrupt and has been for more than a century. Seventy--five years later, it's only gotten worse. All the rogues, Republicans and rascals of FDR's day are long dead and gone, leaving behind the same rotten system. The America-firsters and followers of Father Coughlin railing against Socialism, only to be replaced by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Partisan apologists, defending their corner to the best of their ability and never, but never, admitting the truth--the system is rotten. ... Owepo.dpuf ... 7-536.html
User avatar
Posts: 2926
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: The Two-Party System

Postby vbattaile » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:32 pm

MarkinLA|4.1.14 @ 8:55PM|#

"The Republicans nominated Romney only after the voters all but handed him the nomination during the primaries."

You mean only after the RNC did everything they could to make it seem Romney was the choice of the voters. ... nt_4419821

iEagleHammer|3.31.14 @ 6:19PM|#

The neocons don't like him, and the left doesn't like him.

Sounds like a good guy to me. That should be a requirement for elected office. ... nt_4416288

GOP Hawks Prepare for War—Against Rand Paul

Matthew Feeney|March 31, 2014 ... -rand-paul

According to several donors at the Republican Jewish Coalition conference held in Las Vegas last weekend, the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is prepared to fund a campaign against Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) if he picks up increased support during his widely anticipated presidential run in 2016.

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries. Adelson’s spending is largely motivated by his strong concern for Israel, and Paul’s positions may well put a target on his back.

According to TIME, one unnamed former Mitt Romney bundler said it was "scary" that Paul could win the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

More from TIME:

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is hard at work laying the groundwork for an almost certain presidential campaign in 2016, but as he broadens his support among libertarian and younger voters, there’s a budding counter-campaign to take him down if he becomes a threat to actually win the nomination.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) meeting in Las Vegas this weekend, Paul was nowhere to be found, but his presence was felt in the form of a straw man — and frequent worry. Speaker after speaker, from former Florida governor Jeb Bush to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, laid into Paul’s more isolationist views on foreign policy. They never mentioned the lawmaker by name, but the message came across loud and clear.

The conference brings together some of the biggest names — and wallets — in Republican politics, most notably billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. At a private dinner for VIP donors in an Adelson-owned aircraft hangar holding one of his pair of Boeing 747s, Bush was asked about the growing isolationist wing of the Republican Party and replied there was no such thing — effectively casting Paul out of the fold, according to attendees.

Background on Paul’s Foreign Policy

Like his father, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), Rand Paul, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, advocates for a less involved American foreign policy. However, Rand Paul’s brand of non-intervention is not a rigid as his father’s.

In February last year, Paul went to the conservative Heritage Foundation and gave a speech in which he argued for a foreign policy that is neither isolationist nor neoconservative and is open to using containment as a way to address the threat of Islamic terrorism. Watch the speech below:

During his time in the Senate Paul has come out against American intervention abroad, perhaps most notably relating to the conflict in Syria and urging the U.S. not to rub Russian President Vladimir Putin the wrong way amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

Analysis and Commentary

Unsurprisingly, some conservatives aren’t happy about Paul’s foreign policy proposals.

The neoconservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has mentioned Paul 143 times between March 1 and March 21 in her blog at The Washington Post. Some of the recent headlines of Rubin’s posts include "Rand Paul’s fake foreign policy" and "Rand Paul is the odd man out of the GOP on foreign policy." Yesterday one of Rubin’s posts was headlined "Rand Paul trashed military option for Iran and blamed the U.S. for WWII."

Writing about Paul’s speech at the most recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Rubin outlined in characteristically blunt language her feelings about Paul’s opinions on foreign policy:

...Paul’s spiel is certainly indifferent to if not at odds with what is going on in the world. Should we be alarmed that Iran is getting the bomb, Russia is invading a neighbor and there is a war of genocidal proportions in Syria? No, the greatest danger is the government’s (nonexistent) eavesdropping on your phone calls. Not only is his shtick divorced from world events, but it also is entirely alien to the experience and concerns of most Americans who are worried about health care, the economy, the middle-class squeeze, etc. Other than people exactly like those in the ballroom, who is going to find this the most compelling message out of all the Republican contenders’ agendas? He keeps saying he will reach out to African Americans and Hispanics, but the crowd that love him was overwhelmingly white and male. And if he is serious about immigration reform (he told Silicon Valley he was), he kept it to himself.

Rubin continued:

He is after all a libertarian, not a mainstream conservative, and his disinclination to speak about anything but his paranoid vision of the government leaves little room for reform or problem-solving. This one-note fear of government has limited selling power in the Republican Party, most especially during times of rising international threats.

Writing in Forbes, David Adesnik, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized Paul for flip-flopping on the Ukraine crisis:

My best guess is that Paul is desperately searching for some framework or ideology that can justify the dovish, perhaps even isolationist instincts he inherited from his father. Yet he doesn’t know enough about foreign policy to think even one or two steps ahead, so he jumps into the breach with a loudly unorthodox position, only to find himself embarrassed when events demonstrate his ignorance. Then he starts firing in every direction, not knowing what to make of a world that doesn’t conform to his preferences. I don’t get the sense Paul is learning from his mistakes, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same pattern play out again before long.

In an oped for Breitbart News, Paul implicitly criticized fellow potential 2016 contender Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for trying to claim Reagan’s mantle after making a distinction between Paul’s foreign policy and Reagan’s. The Daily Caller senior editor Jamie Weinstein wrote that Paul and Reagan have little in common when it comes to foreign policy:

Paul may be right when he says that none of the Republicans considering a White House run in 2016 have a foreign policy outlook exactly like Reagan’s. But what’s undeniable is that Paul’s foreign policy is far and away the least Reaganeque of any of the possible 2016 Republican presidential contenders.

What Paul is trying to do is muddy the waters on Reagan’s foreign policy legacy in order to hide the reality that his foreign policy outlook bears no resemblance to that of the Gipper’s — and, more broadly, is wildly out of touch with the Republican mainstream. Sure, Reagan engaged in diplomacy, even occasionally when some in his own party believed it inadvisable. But that hardly makes Reagan a Rand Paul-style non-interventionist. Far from it.

Paul says he, like Reagan, supports “peace through strength.” Except Reagan’s notion of “peace through strength” focused on increasing military spending. Paul has not yet discovered a military cut he didn’t like.

Paul’s foreign policy has been criticized by liberals as well as conservatives. Writing in Politico earlier this month, Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, argued that Paul’s thoughts on foreign policy put him in a politically awkward situation:

Politically speaking, Paul faces an intractable dilemma: If he embraces his inner libertarian, he’ll stir excitement among liberty-loving younger Republicans—GOP strategist Bill Kristol cuttingly calls them “Snowden Republicans”—as well as many on the left who take a dim view of U.S. power and motives. But he will alienate many social conservatives and Tea Party “patriots” who still believe in American exceptionalism, as well as mainstream Republicans who see military strength as a more reliable basis for U.S. security than withdrawing from a fractious world.

So maybe Paul has no choice but to keep trying to reconcile incompatible conceptions of America’s role in the world. So far, he’s produced only a muddle.

Like Adesnik, Marshall also argued that Paul’s comments on Ukraine are confused:

Consider Paul’s ideas for punishing Russia, which are so inconsistent they sometimes cancel each other out: Paul the geopolitical hardliner calls for restarting work on American missile defense systems in Eastern Europe that were suspended as part of Obama’s unsuccessful “reset” of U.S.-Russian relations. But Paul the skinflint insists that “the Europeans pay for it”—which means the missile shields probably won’t go up. In one breath, Paul calls for more vigorous U.S. action to punish Russia for its rogue behavior; in the next he bemoans the fact that America is “broke” and can’t be the world’s ATM or policeman. This puzzling logic sometimes sound like a Zen koan: “Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less,” he wrote in Time.

While insisting that he stands with Ukraine against Moscow’s attempts to dismember the country, Paul also ruled out U.S. economic aid to Ukraine because it might go to Russia to pay Kyiv’s enormous gas bills. In Paul’s view, energy isn’t just a cudgel Putin uses to intimidate neighboring countries—it’s also the main weapon America has to wean Europeans from dependence on Russian gas and oil. In contrast to Obama’s supposed dithering on energy, Paul calls for aggressively exporting U.S. natural gas to Europe and demands, weirdly, “immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline.”

Reason on Rand Paul

Reason has extensive coverage of Rand Paul and his foreign policy, which can be read here. Some highlights:

Matt Welch wrote on the fight between Paul and Cruz over the Gipper’s mantle.

I wrote about how despite what neoconservatives might say, Paul is not an isolationist. I also considered whether the American public will pay attention to Paul’s foreign policy.

Brian Doherty wrote about the "rhetorical judo" Paul has used on those who criticize his positions on foreign policy.
User avatar
Posts: 2926
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: The Two-Party System

Postby vbattaile » Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:10 am

White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but working-class white men.

A good read. ... re-suckers

White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

Jack Donovan · April 9, 2014

Originally published at

Amanda Marcotte recently wrote that “White men, as a group, vote Republican because they vote their resentments.”

The New York Times article she cited didn’t say or even imply anything about resentment. It did say that straight, working-class white men vote Republican because the Democratic Party has devoted the majority of its resources to appealing to women, gays and the various groups of less-white men who are nostalgically referred to as “minorities.” The Democratic Party has been on the opposite side of issues that working-class white men have cared about for decades, and according to the Times piece, many strategists within the party think it’s a waste of time trying to win them over.

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but working-class white men.

These guys vote Republican because Republicans actually make an effort to tell them what they want to hear.

Basically, white men vote Republican because they’re suckers.

The likes of Marcotte say that working-class white men are motivated by fear and resentment, but the majority of people who vote Democrat are doing it for nobler reasons.

They’re not. Most of them are voting for their own short-term self-interest. Sure, there is a small class of progressive white men who make a big show of putting everyone else’s interests first. They demonstrate their moral superiority by standing up — mostly online — for whatever “rights” they believe that women or blacks or illegal immigrants or transsexuals or chickens are somehow entitled to.

Everyone else is just voting for stuff they want.

Women vote Democrat because they understandably want the convenience of being able to kill their unwanted children. They vote Democrat because they want free birth control and they want free healthcare for the kids they decide to keep. Women also vote for Democrats because Democrats offer special programs to help women get education and jobs.

Women have always depended on men for protection, but they’d rather depend on many men than just one or a few, so they are happy to vote for measures to increase “security.” As a group, women don’t like or understand guns, so they vote Democrat because Democrats promise to take guns away from men — usually those working-class white men — and give them to the big group of men in the government.

Men have historically been suspicious of what big groups of men will do when they have all of the weapons.

Blacks vote Democrat because they are smart and racist. They were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did because he was black, and like sensible people they figure it is better to have one of your own in power. Democrats, as a group, are known for caring more about giving free stuff to black people. Blacks are smart, because they know that it is always better to get something for free than to pay for it.

Blacks also know that you don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You just go buy one from that guy down the street and, you know, take care of business. White men are afraid to buy guns without following the rules, so more rules means less white men with guns. This is good for black men, because they like the convenience of being able to wear a hoodie in the rain without getting shot by nervous white men with guns.

Latinos vote Democrat because their families came to America to take advantage of employment opportunities and all of the benefits and protections that America offers to its citizens. They figure more benefits and protections are better than less, and Democrats always offer more benefits and protections.

In places with a lot of Latinos, Democrats say that you shouldn’t have to go through the trouble of becoming a citizen to get those benefits and protections. This is convenient for Latinos who are not citizens, because using a dead person’s social security number can sometimes be inconvenient.

Gay people vote Democrat because Democrats offer gay people stuff they think they want. Aside from marriage and the sadistic thrill of being able to force Christians to make wedding cakes, this includes free healthcare. Free healthcare comes in handy when you’re a man who occasionally has sex with guys he met 30 minutes ago on Grindr, or a lesbian who occasionally gets drunk and has sex with men. (See the first point about women above.)

Transsexuals vote Democrat because they want the government to pay for the very expensive cosmetic surgeries and hormones that are necessary for them to become who they really are. Also, they are confused about which bathroom to use, so they want more special bathrooms for confused people.

(Chickens are not technically allowed to vote yet, but we hear they want to be free range, which sounds libertarian.)

As Gari Day, the white male bus driver featured in the Times article said, “Republicans make you work for your money, and try to let you keep it.”

He probably doesn’t understand how the government can afford to keep giving everyone free stuff forever. He probably does figure that some of that money for the stuff other people want is coming out of his earnings. But he’s not alone in that — I’ve yet to see a successful Democrat turn down a tax break. No one actually wants to pay more taxes.

Aside from voting to keep more of their own money and to keep the guns they bought, a lot of these straight, white, working-class men are not asking for anything. They’re too proud for that.

As old-fashioned voters, they see themselves as part of the government. They’re not just trying to get more stuff from the government and come up with reasons why they deserve it. They’re voting for a society that works the way they think things should work.

And that’s why they’re suckers.

Democratic and Republican politicians, like everyone else, see the government as a way to get what they want. Politicians want power and status. To get elected, they accept money from regular people, from rich men, from businesses, and probably from foreign countries. In return, they promise favors. That’s how the system works.

People who don’t want anything from the government are useless to politicians, because they are difficult to manipulate and impossible to please. The government, like every big bureaucracy, is in the growth business. Making the government smaller isn’t in the short-term interest of any ambitious bureaucrat. Contraction only makes political sense when you’re trying to reduce an opponent’s sphere of influence.

Democrats promise more government, and more free stuff. Republicans promise less free stuff for poor people, and promise to lower taxes in return, but they rarely manage to lower taxes for anyone but rich guys who — let’s be real — were usually born into money and didn’t work any harder than the guys driving buses. Many of the wealthy elite are white guys, true, but they care about as much about the working-class white guys as the Democratic Party leadership.

White men are suckers because they haven’t figured out that the America they believe in is already gone, and that they are the only ones who aren’t asking for whatever they can get while the gettin’s still good. They’ll vote reliably Republican as long as the Republicans keep talking about self-reliance and how things should work, and that will free up Republican politicians to do favors for people who actually want stuff. ... re-suckers

Give White working men large tax deductions and credits to have children. What is subsidized proliferates. America needs more White children raised by their working fathers. No man with an earned income of $80,000 and five children should pay any taxes. Responsible men making less should receive subsidies so that their wives can stay at home to properly rear the offspring. These men and women could save this country. America hands out money to everyone but the right people. ... 1327803052

Leaving aside the question of what this would accomplish, the state will never implement anything resembling such a policy. The United States will become ever more anti-racist if only as a function of demographics. There is no winning back america through some kind of culture war when the national polity becomes less white every day. The writing is on the wall.

All hope for america lies in a possible future where the United States no longer exists as a political entity. ... 1327853676

So I say we help push the stick forward and nose dive this b**** into the ground. I think the US should borrow 900 trillion dollars. I think our military should be ONLY women and transsexuals. The faster we collapse and Balkanize the better. This cesspool is beyond saving and repair. It was from July 5th 1776. A f***ing abomination from the very beginning. We're founded on anti-fascist ideas and principles and this was bound to happen. Burn it down and start over. ... 1327912918
User avatar
Posts: 2926
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: The Two-Party System

Postby vbattaile » Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:41 pm

The Only People More Terrifying Than Us Are Our Leaders
Hazlitt Magazine (blog)

When a recent survey asked more than two thousand Americans to locate Ukraine on a map, some 60 or so (by my count) placed the former Soviet-ruled country that’s been in the headlines a bit lately… in Canada. A bunch of others chose Greenland. A few, improbably, chose Alaska.

The lamentable state of American geographical knowledge is an old story, but then, geopolitical affairs are supposed to be how Americans get better at this stuff. The good news is young Americans (the ones whose brains are supposed to have been rotted with all the rap music and the iPhones and whatnot) provided a correct answer almost twice as often as the demographic who no longer want to be called “senior citizens.” The bad news is they still only got it right 27 percent of the time.

The more alarming fact, in that survey, is that the worse people’s knowledge of the actual geography of Ukraine was, the more likely they were to support an armed response. In other words, we have a direct correlation here between being objectively wrong and supporting a military intervention somewhere in the world.

(Or maybe we’re being jerks. After all, if I thought Russia had recently annexed part of Alaska, Canada, or Greenland, I think I’d be ready to fire up the B-52s, too.)

The “news” that people who are wrong about things are also prone to supporting wars in far-off places might almost be reassuring if we didn’t have evidence, in the last decade, of their political importance. It would be fun to dismiss rubes who can’t find Ukraine on a map as irrelevant, but there were plenty of very important, well-connected people who supported the great policy disasters of the last decade, starting with the Iraq war and moving down the list from there.

It turns out that it’s not just ignorance that leads to supporting terrible policies—it’s certainty. (The two co-occur more often than we’d like to think.) As Ezra Klein explained in one of the early offerings from Vox, when the political side of our brains gets involved, people seem to actually get stupider, missing math questions they’d otherwise get right.

The key insight is that we don’t want to be correct in some objective, empirical sense—we want to be correct in the eyes of the people whose opinions we value. This is an important problem for democracies in an age in which the Internet, if it isn’t making political tribalism more intense than in previous eras, is certainly making it more easily tracked and used by political powers. If the foundational value of a democracy is reasoned debate among equals, how do we deal with a system where all the incentives are against fostering reasoned debate?

It’s no relief, either, to say only the rabid partisans have their brains short-circuited this way. After all, who do you think constitutes the political parties that sit in parliament?

In democracy’s teething years, Edmund Burke told the voters of Bristol, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” A pretty simple idea: Our politicians are not, in fact, supposed to merely be delegates of the popular will. Rather, they’re supposed to do the work we can’t, devoting their time to using their judgment on matters we don’t have the time or expertise to consider. And, yes, saying no to the rabble when they get some notion in their heads about banning Popery—hey, it was 1774. (Burke lost his seat in 1780, because telling voters you intend to ignore them was no more popular then than it is now.)

The problem is, we have more and more evidence that our modern politics excels at forcing politicians away from their own judgment, away from moderation, and away from general skepticism and intellectual modesty. Instead, the worry is our politics selects for certainty, credulous intellectual obedience, and a total lack of judgement. Resist the urge to aim for some easy target—political parties aren’t to blame, at least not on their own, for adapting to a changing media and political landscape.

Obviously, politics is changing rapidly as new digital tools provide the platform for a more intimate relationship between parties and voters. And maybe voters will be able to make politicians actually use that judgment when it’s necessary—we don’t really know what the future will bring. But I’m worried about who’s listening to those guys who think Ukraine is in Hudson’s Bay. ... ur-leaders
User avatar
Posts: 2926
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


Return to PolitiChat