The 20th & 21st century has been the Rich waging war on the poor

a reply to: TrueBrit

So exactly what advantage did you get in that regard? None, is the honest answer.

I never said we did. I was explaining people's perception of why they wanted Trump. I didn't sell it as some sort of victory, just explained how it happened.

I'm not alone on this, Michael Moore had a documentary explaining how this was going to transpire before it did.

Noam Chomsky has said things to similar regards on how we've gotten here.

To ignore how this happened will just enable more failure in the future for people getting candidates who truly represent them.

Make no mistake, the president after Trump will be a corporate bought Democrat or Republican picking up where Bush/Obama left off.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Why though?

Are you suggesting that not enough people in America are capable of understanding that Trump is EXACTLY as corporate sponsored, if not more so, than any of the people who have come along prior? Why would they repeat the exact same mistake they made with the current Moron In Chief, by replacing him with yet another corporate stooge? Are you of the opinion that even now, a statistically insignificant minority of people have actually learned anything from the consequences of their last decision?

Or are you suggesting that only the vat grown, mindless money drones will be put forward for election next time around, thereby preventing the people from making any useful choice at all?

a reply to: TrueBrit


Only about 50%~ of eligibile Americans vote in presidential elections.

A good percentage of them are going to vote party lines regardless of candidates.

A vast majority of the remainder get their information from sensationalized corporate entertainment news.

You tell me. Do you think we're going to make a prolific change next time around with the environment we're currently in surrounding Trump, or are people going to welcome an establishment party member with open arms to "escape the hell" that was Trump?

The last election showed hope, a front runner from each party were perceived as outsiders willing to shake up the status quo.

I'm looking at all of this as objectively as I humanly can.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Here is the crux of the matter.

The parties will only get away with what the people ALLOW them to get away with. The Dems must NOT be permitted to run a centrist, corporatist appeasing candidate. The PEOPLE have to make that happen, by turning up and DEMANDING better. The Republicans must NOT run yet another in a long line of either limp minded idiots, or sociopathic manipulators, bent on destroying the world with more fossil fuels and less regulation. The PEOPLE must make sure they do not.

The people must turn up, every where they possibly can, and demand PROPER representation. If the Republican voters are NOT a bunch of closet fascists with a hard on for power playing, shady dealing, thieving, narcissistic scum, with no loyalty or honour to speak of, then they must demand an acceptable candidate, who does not make a vote for them, look like a vote for the regressive ideals of a daft old man who thinks that 50's America can rise again. The Democrat voters must turn up, and DEMAND a candidate who is FROM the streets, to speak for the majority of Americans, who are NOT middle and upper class people, who do NOT have access to good, solid healthcare, at a price they can easily afford. They must DEMAND a candidate who will dismantle the surveillance state, declaw the MIC, and have its participants clapped in irons before they can say "Better start a proxy war to further legitimise our black budget!". And BOTH sets of voters need to make sure the parties understand that refusal to provide appropriate, real, passionate, intelligent, articulate and capable candidates, will result in some form of negative consequence, potentially a civilian led effort to destroy government continuity, until such time as proper candidates are bought forward.

The business of government MUST cease, if no appropriate candidates can be bought forward, its as simple as that. The time for accepting the hegemony is well over!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Don't vote, or the Govt will get in?

a reply to: TrueBrit

And I agree with you that is what should happen.

But I don't think it will.

We have become us vs. them, pick a side.

I've even noticed rhetoric starting to be aimed at moderates for not picking a side and fighting with it.

It doesn't look good though.

a reply to: oldcarpy

More like "Provide proper candidates, or we will make governance impossible until you do".

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: SR1TX

OMG dude, you are so badass. Very cool

Thanks for gifting us with your presence.

IKR

You're totally welcome man. I really do try and frankly I think everyone should worship in my wake.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Its ironic that some people manage to understand that, but do not manage to understand that putting a billionaire with a poor record of money management in charge of one of the worlds richest nations, was a STUPID BLOODY IDEA!

It is working well for us over here, too bad it is not so well for you on your tiny island. Another 10% tax cut for the middle class was announced last night. Tax cuts are always good for us here. 6 more years of winning on the way here! Perhaps your Brexit will break in your favor.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It is working well for us over here, too bad it is not so well for you on your tiny island. Another 10% tax cut for the middle class was announced last night.

Unless they release spending cuts to accommodate that tax cut, it's virtually worthless.

It would be like if you had credit card debt, and they mailed you a letter saying "congratulations, you don't have to pay any bills for 90 days".

You still have the debt (or in this case the spending), you're just putting off when you have to pay it.

That tax cut means we get temporary relief, but either us or our children will have to pay for it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Its working well for you specifically, but not your country on the whole.

There is a difference.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Unless they release spending cuts to accommodate that tax cut, it's virtually worthless.

I don't disagree with that statement.
I expect the next congress to tackle that, reasonable proposals have been submitted before. No reason they could not be submitted again, after winning the midterms.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its working well for you specifically, but not your country on the whole.

There is a difference.

As you have a skewed perspective on my country, from your view I would expect no different.
Lots of jobs available here, lots of room for advancement, lots of room for bettering ones economic situation by ones own means.
Things look much better here than they have in the last 10 or so years.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I expect the next congress to tackle that,

You have way more faith than I do.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: shooterbrody

I expect the next congress to tackle that,

You have way more faith than I do.

I have an expectation of them actually doing their jobs. Part of that is ensuring the economic security of our nation. When the economy is good here everyone wins. There is no reason we can not plan to maintain the economy for the foreseeable future.