We've Got to Find a Way to Stop the Imperial Presidency Before It Permanently Destroys Our Great Co

Really this is breaking commentary. And please note that it is a non-partisan post by Ralph Nader. I could be wrong but I do believe most people respect Nader for his tireless work for consumers. Both safety wise and just giving us the information we need to make 'informed' purchases (as required for a true free market).

As always, his points are salient, timely and concise.

Please read the article:

www.alternet.org...

Mr. Nader's conclusion:

For our national security, the American people must recover control of our runaway, unilateral presidency that has torn itself away from constitutional accountabilities and continues to be hijacked by ideologues who ignore our Founding Fathers’ wisdom regarding the separation of powers and avoiding foreign entanglements that become costly, deadly and endless quagmires.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Yes... we need to get rid of this imperialist President, so that we can get another imperialist President.

"meet the new boss... same as the old boss" - The Who

The President isn't the problem... he is just a pawn

The PROBLEM is the banking CABAL and Wall ST criminals that put him there....

Why don't we charge ourselves interest instead of giving the interest to a private bank....

Changing ourselves would be more effective. Then we could democratically elect better representative and give the government the oversight it needs. I just don't see that happening any time soon. As it stands, if we remove someone from office we will just replace them with someone worse, then pat ourselves on the back for doing the right thing.

take back the unfederal b.s. bank of the U.S. and print real U.S. silver certificates ala JFK and conduct real audits.
bankonit
of course - 'JFK's assassination lies at the feet of LBJ.' E.Howard Hunt

We had a chance to vote in Ron Paul, but apparently he was too old, too crazy and too racist.

Good post !
I could not agree with you more.
The only problem I see, is the fact that this call is about fifth years behind it's beginning.
Anyone who would disagree should try a little open minded reading of presidential history.

Originally posted by Zaanny
The President isn't the problem... he is just a pawn

The PROBLEM is the banking CABAL and Wall ST criminals that put him there....

Why don't we charge ourselves interest instead of giving the interest to a private bank....

I agree with you ... but careful with that logic. You end up with what may be called 'Benghazi Syndrome'. Everyone is at fault, so no one is at fault. Blame too many before even starting to see to change happening ...and it may as well be an insurmountable task giving way to more reason to do nothing.

I know that's not what you mean, but the logic trap is part of what we, as a population, have been introduced to in these troubling times and seem quite happy to embrace as a way to feel better about doing nothing about what we see.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i think YOU have to be careful with THAT logic
everyone is at fault so everyone is at fault
there is more than enough blame to go around and focusing blame on individuals is what allows this kind of nonsense to continue and grow as it has
the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend
....this isnt like dealing with a snake where you can just go for the head ....a top down approach is unlikely to ever work.... changes need to be made from the bottom up and that means change in the ignorant apathetic turds that make up the general public
there is a serious disconnect between people and reality
world events are seen as entertainment rather than actions with serious consequences and everybody has a favorite team or actor and are too enthralled with the current action to remember what happened five minutes ago
so long as the public gobbles this half baked carp up with glee the politicians will continue to pander and mislead
the only reason theyre able to sell what they are is because people are buying


and lets leave benghazi and all the opinions and rhetoric that go with it for another thread

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Wow..... I hadn't intended to spark such a vicious response?

However, the topic and title is imperial presidency. The murder of an ambassador to be blamed on a youtube video we now know the President was aware, had nothing to do with it whatsoever, to be followed by a blanket cover-up DOES, as it happens, fit that...like a glove.

I'd also ask, if we are to blame no individuals, then precisely who or what is it we would seek to change? "Change the system" sounds great. I'd ask where the "system" is. What am I to protest? Sue? Seek to remove from elected positions or seek to change positions for in general? Blaming everyone leaves nothing TO change and hence...nothing to do but accept, complain and watch it get worse.

Without specifics and individuals at that, change is a bumper sticker and a feel good slogan. This was the core of what, in my personal opinion, was wrong with Occupy America. The target was an amorphous "1%" which some of us agreed on a definition for ...others didn't. Some saw the Koch brothers, some didn't....while others saw Soros or Buffet and others rebelled at the very notion.

Personally, I figured all of the above and more of the same worthless class of those SO rich that entire national GDP's fall short of their personal net worth. That's just me though. I'm a simple kind of bunny with simple outlooks on life.

too late. when he was elected he called "No Taksies Backsies".

it's a shame that elections are won by "the better actor" rather than what a person actually accomplishes and the real answer was posted by the person who said "we can't blame him, he's merely just a pawn". so whether he's impeached or not the crap that goes on will continue unimpeded so we're fooling ourselves if we actually think it'll change anything or do any good whatsoever.

accept defeat or make the change.. while we're beaten into submission we still really have the power to make real changes we just need the spark to set it off.

Originally posted by n3mesis
too late. when he was elected he called "No Taksies Backsies".

it's a shame that elections are won by "the better actor" rather than what a person actually accomplishes and the real answer was posted by the person who said "we can't blame him, he's merely just a pawn". so whether he's impeached or not the crap that goes on will continue unimpeded so we're fooling ourselves if we actually think it'll change anything or do any good whatsoever.

accept defeat or make the change.. while we're beaten into submission we still really have the power to make real changes we just need the spark to set it off.

So you think Romney would have better?

I am curious? I dont. I think we had two terrible choices and both would have resulted in essentially the same outcome. We will have two more terrible choices in 2016 and two more non choices in 2020.

-Not that I am an Obama supporter (I am NOT) I wasted my vote on the Libertarian party (I am also not a Libertarian) as a protest vote since tweedle -dee and tweedle-dumb were so transparent. Do I think the Libertarians would have been better? Hmmm. Not much, but maybe- besides the point though, they never had a chance.

We've Got to Find a Way to Stop the Imperial Presidency Before It Permanently Destroys Our Great Co[untry]

Ooops, darn it all to heck, just a tad too late now!

Should have been done last November.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN

I have to say, I do think Romney would have been better. It isn't for any partisan reasoning though. Heck, he called Ted Kennedy a friend and among my archives, I have campaign flyers of the two campaigning together in Mass on joint causes. Talk about flip sides of the same wooden nickel.

No, I think Romney would have been better for only one reason, in the end. He would have been a 1st term President and still concerned about becoming a 2nd term one, at some future point. Bush didn't go right off the deep end into la la land for ideology (in the view of many conservatives) until his second term and nothing to lose. Likewise, I thought Obama to be a bad leader but not a dangerous and reckless one until seeing his "new face" as his second term has begun.

I think there is something to be said for leaders who still have re-election to worry about. When that's gone? They have nothing to lose if they also have the muscle, charisma or a combination of both to ram through what they see as their own perfect vision of the future. We've now gotten a look at both sides, at their worst and within a decade.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

I have to say, I do think Romney would have been better. It isn't for any partisan reasoning though. Heck, he called Ted Kennedy a friend and among my archives, I have campaign flyers of the two campaigning together in Mass on joint causes. Talk about flip sides of the same wooden nickel.

No, I think Romney would have been better for only one reason, in the end. He would have been a 1st term President and still concerned about becoming a 2nd term one, at some future point. Bush didn't go right off the deep end into la la land for ideology (in the view of many conservatives) until his second term and nothing to lose. Likewise, I thought Obama to be a bad leader but not a dangerous and reckless one until seeing his "new face" as his second term has begun.

I think there is something to be said for leaders who still have re-election to worry about. When that's gone? They have nothing to lose if they also have the muscle, charisma or a combination of both to ram through what they see as their own perfect vision of the future. We've now gotten a look at both sides, at their worst and within a decade.

Interesting thoughts.

Certainly plausible.

I still think there would be no real difference but your logic does make alot of sense. I guess we will never know. I think we will never have a real "choice" and think its always been that way (speaking of at least my lifetime) and always will be.

I have given up on the process and have voted across the board Libertarian but mainly as a protest vote (knowing it will not really matter but feeling a need to do my Civic duty) but I WOULD have Voted for ron paul. I think R.P would have won since both democrats and republicans would have found reason to vote for him- That said, I even think R.P. is a "fake" (i.e. A created persona) and never had a chance- But again, I think he would have made some really wise choices and at least tried .

Funny how it does not seem to matter the President, whether Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, or Obama, the theme is always the same. We must do something to stop (insert standing President here.) Meanwhile, the real power still sits in a Congress who enjoy unlimited terms in office and who almost always win re-election in their Congressional districts.

None of the Presidents mentioned above have had anywhere near the power as Congress enjoys every day. Even when people complain about Congress it is rare to find the topic to be about the OP's representatives in the House or Senate. It's always the other people screwing it up.

Can we just try to make it so the congressman and senators don't stay in for their whole life and get a phat pension and private contracts, and insider trading first.

This is the true problem.

At least there's an eight year limit on the top puppet who really doesn't control anything anyway.

Seriously, think about it. The president has like no power whatsoever. Sure, he may be commander in chief, but he's still completely subservient to the special interests that encompass the entire governing body. Ultimately, they call the shot's. He doesn't operate on his own accord here. I actually like president Obama, for many reasons, but his time in office has only proved the willful stagnation of our society by other governing bodies.

He has a great family, and if he was to step beyond the boundaries these corporate bodies have designated, I'm quite sure there would be kidnappings, perhaps bloodshed directed towards them.

As a parallel, I have first hand account's of individuals who threaten the coal companies in West Virginia (ever heard of Larry Gibson?). He fought mountaintop removal more diligently than any one out there, and do you know what he got? Numerous death threats and attempts on his life. They hung his dog outside his house from a thin metal wire that was strung so tight it almost decapitated it, as well as blowing up his family cemetery. Do you think things would be too different if Obama were to prove a threat against these people? How easy it would be to frame an attack on him, and get away with it. Why do you think he's so reluctant to act on the overwhelming proof of the negative environmental and humanitarian impact's these companies have wrought the world over. He's as powerless as we are.

reply to post by FyreByrd


The U.S as it was known is gone. The deficit both national and government will never be paid off, it's a downward spiral all the way to the pre-planned endgame which is total collapse. The DHS is ready, law enforcement is ready and the banks are ready. THERE IS NO OUT.

Wait so the President has some power now? Amazing then he can never do anything he wants to do. I am pretty sure Congress is where the power is, followed by the courts. The President is at the bottom of that power structure.