Jump to content

How did so many Americans become so cultlike in their politics?


Craig234
 Share

Recommended Posts

One thread after another, we watch as right-wingers say false things that support their ideology, get corrected, and ignore the correction and go on to the next false thing.

 

The trigger for me making this comment is a thread a right-winger started in defense of Roy Moore, claiming that it was a nothing issue, as the girl said 'they kissed twice in months' and that was all.


He posted this to argue that Moore deserves support and his attackers are just liars and making up false attacks.

 

It's not hard to respond with the fifth victim's allegation that at 16 he pulled her head to his crotch and tried to force her to pleasure him and when he finally gave up he threatened her that she would not be believed if she told because he was the DA.

 

It's not hard to respond with the many people who have come forward saying he was banned, as DA, from the local mall for harassing girls.

 

And this is where a person with rational responses, with any honesty and integrity, would acknowledge the new information and adjust his position. I don't have to read the thread to know that's not what happened.

 

He'll say he's 'for' good things; and if Moore were a Democrat he'd be screaming about how bad the behavior was and demanding the person withdraw.

 

It's remarkable how blinded these people are. They'll defend this behavior - and a lot worse. They'll act extremely differently based on who the offender is. And they seem to be clueless they're fighting for a person this bad to be in power, as if they don't know why any more than a trained dog knows why he jumped through the hoop - they just feel the compulsion.

 

This has pretty scary implications for democracy - people who can be so manipulated. It challenges the basis for self-rule, and begs the question: what if more and more Americans are turned into 'pod people' like this? What's to stop it?

 

We don't seem to pay much attention to this, because we don't know what to do about it, but it's a pretty important issue for society to deal with.

 

It reminds me a bit of the message of the 80's music group 'Devo' whose name was about de-evolution - humanity going backward. We're seeing it before our eyes.

 

What can we do? For one key thing, try to have better media that shakes them out of the cult, but that's a lot easier said than done. They scream 'fake news' and keep the blinders in place.

 

Ultimately it's probably about fighting the concentration of wealth, to lessen the funding for the propaganda, but that battle is like the Jews in the Holocaust saying they needed to defeat the Nazis. Good idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is raw basic instincts that have been brought to the surface. We have become very blindly tribal, by design. Our entertainment culture is all them or us mentalities, our religions are all Heaven or Hell. Our working and living conditions are sliced into rich or poor. Our compassion for others is even divided.

 

Finding the middle is getting harder and harder day by day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are both trivial and serious accusations.  Friends of the accusers, in one case,  back up the accuser who told them, at the time, that she was seeing Moore.  There is also evidence, such as Moore being banned from the local mall for badgering young women.  All told, I'm guessing Moore is guilty of all or most of it.   Then again, I identify with the Left and see Moore as a sleazy, reactionary, religious lunatic and a dangerous far right wing zealot.  If I identified with the Right, I might see him as a wholesome, righteous defender of the faithful and the ordinary people.

 

Anyone who admits and believes Moore is guilty but dismisses it as a "nothing issue", is at the very least expressing a deep contempt for women ...  And the notion that men should have their way with women.  This has been a gradually disappearing viewpoint but Right Wing propaganda strives, not only to keep it alive, but make it respectable again.  In general, Right Wing politicians benefit by promoting tribalism.  They tout 'political incorrectness' as a virtue, not least, because it rankles the sensibilities of Liberals.  But within the reactionary tribe it's members are reassured that their prejudice, bigotry, sexism, etc, are OK.

 

=============================================================================================================================

 

So today, in the dog park, I was talking about this subject with Conservative acquaintances, all of whom watch Fox.   They contend that the women are being paid by the Democratic Party  to make these accusations.  They say "No one keeps quiet for 27 years and then, suddenly accuses someone.  Then they say, loudly, and with force, something like "Whatever happened to trial by jury?  Now you can hang someone before they're even proved guilty". 

 

I asked "where is the evidence that these women are being paid?"  and they ask me, "Isn't it obvious to you.  Whatever happened to trial by jury?  Now they're hanging people without evidence"  It has a power of its own and is repeated loudly and forcefully, as long as needed to convince themselves of the absolute proof of their position.  (It shouldn't but it does)

 

I point out that Moore isn't exactly being hung, or even in prison, but just being accused, in the middle of an election.  In fact, he's free to continue campaigning.  Again, loudly and reinforced with different voices:  "Whatever happened to trial by jury?  They're hanging people now without evidence.  Isn't it obvious to you, what they're doing to him?"   Then, between themselves:  "These Liberals have got to be taught a lesson". 

 

I made the tactical decision to bow out while the bowing was good.

 

One of them apologized to me after the incident saying "I hope you didn't feel offended".  I said "Think nothing of it Jerry.  We're all entitled to our opinions".  He's basically a nice guy and so are most of them.  I feel I can continue coming to the dog park.  But they have a fine madness, they share.  And they get it from having red meat thrown at them from Right Wing media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same discussion with my good friend who is also a Con. She parroted the EXACT same line "Whatever happened to trial by jury?  They're hanging people now without evidence.  Isn't it obvious to you, what they're doing to him?" and there was no trail to or from logic. I know my friend listens to rightwing radio in her truck..Laura Ingrahm and Rush and the lot..I could track down the source but I simply can not stomach listening to those trolls for any length of time. But I would bet my left boob this is where they are getting this crap from.

 

Worst part is there is no talking them down from this nonsense. They become small children that cover their ears going nahnanana. I am starting to firmly believe we are against sheep and unless our story is totally insane they will not even hear us. Now if we counter the girls were black is when and ONLY when they would turn away from Moore and his BS defense. This is just how shallow these Cons are becoming. This is basic instinct to defend at all cost..even their dignity.

 

One shinning light tho..we do have the numbers and hopefully...none of ours will be staying home this time...in any race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I have some sympathy for the issue of, what if a woman lies about this? That people are destroyed based on accusation where the case of someone lying isn't really protected against.

 

It's a tough issue, because the women who are telling the truth deserve so much support and help - yet the potential for abuse is there also and we do have 'innocent until proven guilty' for a reason. And that principle doesn't just mean criminal law, it has relevance to the court of public opinion also.

 

We have a heck of a balancing act trying to find the middle course and cover both sides. We're currently using a system that uses cases like '50 women have accused Bill Cosby' to sort of use the overwhelming number to say 'obviously, there's a problem there'.

 

But what about if it's just one or two women? What if one or women do decide to lie? What about a case like Bill Clinton's where there's a whole army of enemies who could plausibly recruit false attacks (not saying that's what happened)? cases like Tawana Brawley or Duke LaCrosse are just two examples how it can go wrong.

 

The issue with the right-wingers goes well beyond the legitimate issue of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

It goes to not making any fair judgment; not looking at the strength of the case against the person; giving huge blind assumptions in the favor of the person on 'their side', while doing the opposite if the person is their opponent; of rationalizing supporting them even if their guilt isn't in question (a popular form of this is the 'what about the other side' statement).

 

Yesterday, I saw an anecdote about hypnotism - the hypnotist of Sirhan Sirhan easily programmed him to start climbing the walls of his prison cell like a monkey after an alert. He did. Then the hypnotists pretended to be surprised as Sirhan was climbing around and asked him 'what in the world are you doing?'

 

Sirhan answered simply, oh, just getting some exercise. Sirhan's brain didn't look at the oddity - he made excuses for it. That's the behavior I see with these people, as if they're hypnotized to support 'their side' and however little sense it makes, to defend 'their side' and attack the 'other side' however weak the case.


And this isn't about these 'attack and defend' issues - they're just an example.


It goes to their agreeing with all kinds of bad policies and ideology. And we see the same problem when, as they are confronted with evidence showing their statements false, they never seem to say 'oh, good to know, I'll correct my statement', but they just move on to the next false one. It is a sort of hypnotized citizen.

 

I wonder if the propagandists understand that and are intentionally adopting the techniques of hypnotism, of it's just an inadvertent effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

Actually, I have some sympathy for the issue of, what if a woman lies about this? That people are destroyed based on accusation where the case of someone lying isn't really protected against.

 

It's a tough issue, because the women who are telling the truth deserve so much support and help - yet the potential for abuse is there also and we do have 'innocent until proven guilty' for a reason. And that principle doesn't just mean criminal law, it has relevance to the court of public opinion also.

 

We have a heck of a balancing act trying to find the middle course and cover both sides. We're currently using a system that uses cases like '50 women have accused Bill Cosby' to sort of use the overwhelming number to say 'obviously, there's a problem there'.

 

But what about if it's just one or two women? What if one or women do decide to lie? What about a case like Bill Clinton's where there's a whole army of enemies who could plausibly recruit false attacks (not saying that's what happened)? cases like Tawana Brawley or Duke LaCrosse are just two examples how it can go wrong.

 

The issue with the right-wingers goes well beyond the legitimate issue of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

It goes to not making any fair judgment; not looking at the strength of the case against the person; giving huge blind assumptions in the favor of the person on 'their side', while doing the opposite if the person is their opponent; of rationalizing supporting them even if their guilt isn't in question (a popular form of this is the 'what about the other side' statement).

 

Yesterday, I saw an anecdote about hypnotism - the hypnotist of Sirhan Sirhan easily programmed him to start climbing the walls of his prison cell like a monkey after an alert. He did. Then the hypnotists pretended to be surprised as Sirhan was climbing around and asked him 'what in the world are you doing?'

 

Sirhan answered simply, oh, just getting some exercise. Sirhan's brain didn't look at the oddity - he made excuses for it. That's the behavior I see with these people, as if they're hypnotized to support 'their side' and however little sense it makes, to defend 'their side' and attack the 'other side' however weak the case.


And this isn't about these 'attack and defend' issues - they're just an example.


It goes to their agreeing with all kinds of bad policies and ideology. And we see the same problem when, as they are confronted with evidence showing their statements false, they never seem to say 'oh, good to know, I'll correct my statement', but they just move on to the next false one. It is a sort of hypnotized citizen.

 

I wonder if the propagandists understand that and are intentionally adopting the techniques of hypnotism, of it's just an inadvertent effect?

 

It's never just one or two. For guys who do that shit it's a power trip. They don't stop. Unless they run into somebody who puts up with a submissive role in an ongoing relationship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zaro said:

 

It's never just one or two. For guys who do that shit it's a power trip. They don't stop. Unless they run into somebody who puts up with a submissive role in an ongoing relationship. 

This is totally true and most of them are usually married. Zaro and I are females, different ages but none the less females so we get this crap on a daily basis, especially at work. It is no where as bad as it was in the 70s 80 & 90s but it is still very bad. If we complain we are shunned and the situation is turned on US. If we stay silent we are condoning it. It is a loose, loose so anyone that does come forward has nothing left to loose, like a job or a grade. When several come forward on 1 man you can pretty much take it to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2017 at 2:29 PM, Middl3 said:

Finding the middle is getting harder and harder day by day.

I am not sure that 'finding the middle' is desirable anymore.

 

It once was, but for the last few decades, there has been rapid acceleration toward extreme right wing ideology, taking the 'middle'  along with it.

 

It appears to me that the 'middle' has become a sparsely populated mirage.

 

Where exactly is the middle ground on building a border wall?            Perhaps half as tall.

Where is the middle on Tax reform?         Perhaps only give the wealthiest half a Tax break.

Where is the middle on Health care?     perhaps only half as many people lose their coverage.

the middle on LBGT rights?     perhaps.....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

I am not sure that 'finding the middle' is desirable anymore.

 

It once was, but for the last few decades, there has been rapid acceleration toward extreme right wing ideology, taking the 'middle'  along with it.

 

It appears to me that the 'middle' has become a sparsely populated mirage.

 

Where exactly is the middle ground on building a border wall?            Perhaps half as tall.

Where is the middle on Tax reform?         Perhaps only give the wealthiest half a Tax break.

Where is the middle on Health care?     perhaps only half as many people lose their coverage.

the middle on LBGT rights?     perhaps.....

 

 

 

I myself can't abide centrist ideology any more than conservative or reactionary, Centrist simply means partial equality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steventhegreenie said:

I myself can't abide centrist ideology any more than conservative or reactionary, Centrist simply means partial equality

 

The thing to understand about centrism is that it's very appealing to most Americans. They''re always happy to reject Nazis and communists to pick 'the middle'.


This has always resulted in a mess of a political culture, in that everyone running on the 'left' side has an interest in trying to paint the opponent as a Nazi and everyone running on the 'right' side in painting their opponent as a communist, but that's not the worst of it.

 

This obsessive preference for the middle allows for 'moving the goalposts' - so that what was once radical right becomes 'center' over and over and is still called 'center' anyway.

 

So under FDR, choosing a top tax rate of 90% instead of 100% was compromise, while today lowering corporate taxes to effectively 10% instead of 5% is a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

 

Actually, I disagree. I think that the type of politics we don't even have a good word for - but let's call it Democratic Socialism - has always been the better pick for centuries.

That is more along my of thinking IF the definition I use applies. Middle was the wrong term to use. These days I try not to name where I am on politics because I identify to the left of things mostly and that usually shuts down many a convo by applying a title to my thought process makes it even worse.

 

These days I want politics to be fair..nothing more nothing less..just fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Actually, I disagree. I think that the type of politics we don't even have a good word for - but let's call it Democratic Socialism - has always been the better pick for centuries.

 

Yup.  The name Democratic Socialism doesn't describe it adequately.  But it's proven to be the fairest, most egalitarian form of government on the globe, so far.  I'm with Bernie on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Middl3 said:

That is more along my of thinking IF the definition I use applies. Middle was the wrong term to use. These days I try not to name where I am on politics because I identify to the left of things mostly and that usually shuts down many a convo by applying a title to my thought process makes it even worse.

 

These days I want politics to be fair..nothing more nothing less..just fair.

 

OK; the thing is, 'fair' is very nebulous - there's what's 'fair' to a donald trump or a Paul Ryan, what's fair to a dreamer or Muslim or worker, what's fair to Nancy Pelosi...

 

To Republicans, using their wealth to buy elections is 'fair'. They paid their money for it. We need more than 'fair', we need new words for egalitarian economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bludog said:

 

Yup.  The name Democratic Socialism doesn't describe it adequately.  But it's proven to be the fairest, most egalitarian form of government on the globe, so far.  I'm with Bernie on this.

 

And as long as Republicans can conflate Democrats and Democratic Socialists and Socialists and Communists and terrorists, they get a lot of votes by doing so.

 

Back when Bush ran in 2000 on all kinds of phony promises (it's easy to forget, but he said he'd make the US *less* arrogant globally, more peaceful, and that he'd pay off the national debt within ten years), I said, what's going to happen when voters see how false those promises are, how do they ask for votes again?

I predicted then that the answer was, they'd come up with some flavor of 'new Republicans' that would denounce the 'old Republicans' for failing on promises, but vote for them...


And that's exactly what happened with the Tea Party. At the time, I was saying progressives should do that within the Democratic Party - and I still think that might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

OK; the thing is, 'fair' is very nebulous - there's what's 'fair' to a donald trump or a Paul Ryan, what's fair to a dreamer or Muslim or worker, what's fair to Nancy Pelosi...

 

To Republicans, using their wealth to buy elections is 'fair'. They paid their money for it. We need more than 'fair', we need new words for egalitarian economics.

See this is the thing about word play...we were discussing a label Democratic Socialist....or something along that line. A label

 

Not what should be wrapped in that label...fair

 

We could start with the basic description of the word and use it as a guide for future decisions.

 

fair1
fer/
adjective
adjective: fair; comparative adjective: fairer; superlative adjective: fairest
  1. 1.
    in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
    "the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"
    synonyms: just, equitable, honest, upright, honorable, trustworthy; More
    impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, neutral, even-handed;
    lawful, legal, legitimate;
    informallegit, on the level;
    on the up and up
    "the courts were generally fair"
    antonyms: unjust, biased
    • just or appropriate in the circumstances.
      "to be fair, this subject poses special problems"
    • archaic
      (of a means or procedure) gentle; not violent.
    • Baseball
      (of a batted ball) within the field of play marked by the first and third baselines.
    • Baseball
      pertaining to the fair part of the field.
      "the ball was hit into fair territory"
  2. 2.
    (of hair or complexion) light; blond.
    synonyms: blond/blonde, yellowish, golden, flaxen, light, light brown, ash blond More
    "fair hair"
    pale, light, light-colored, white, creamy
    "Hermione's fair skin"
    antonyms: dark
    • (of a person) having a light complexion or blond hair.
  3. 3.
    considerable though not outstanding in size or amount.
    "he did a fair bit of coaching"
    synonyms: reasonable, passable, tolerable, satisfactory, acceptable, respectable, decent, all right, good enough, pretty good, not bad, average, middling; More
    informalOK, so-so, ‘comme ci, comme ça’
    "the restaurant was fair"
    • moderately good though not outstandingly so.
      "he believes he has a fair chance of success"
  4. 4.
    (of weather) fine and dry.
    synonyms: fine, dry, bright, clear, sunny, cloudless; More
    warm, balmy, clement, benign, pleasant
    "fair weather"
    antonyms: inclement
    • (of the wind) favorable.
      "they set sail with a fair wind"
      synonyms: favorable, advantageous, benign; More
      on one's side, in one's favor
      "fair winds"
      antonyms: unfavorable
  5. 5.
    archaic
    beautiful: attractive.
    "the fairest of her daughters"
    • (of words, a speech, or a promise) false, despite being initially attractive or pleasing; specious.
adverb
adverb: fair
  1. 1.
    without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.
    "no one could say he played fair"

 

 

Fair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Everyone says they're fair - Hitler, trump, Bernie, Hillary, you, the righties, everyone. And everyone argues the rest are not. It's a very subjective word.

 

See all the posts from misguided right-wingers saying the rich pay most of the income taxes, so they're OVER taxes and fair would be lowering their taxes?

So, sure, they're for 'fair'.

The issues go well beyond 'fair'. Right-wingers have a warped view that the masses should, basically, starve, and that's 'fair'. That needs to be addressed. To them, the word fair doesn't mean much except 'the poor take way more than their fair share in benefits' and 'communism'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't, nor should be, about any one party anymore since both have splintered anyway. Blowing up the system sounded good in sound bites but in reality it has to be done the old fashioned way in small bites. The "right-wingers right now are as lost at sea as we are. Neither side has a go to person to actually get anything done to even pretend to be "fair" about anything.

 

We are in the age of dominance and power for the simple possession of both. Look at Trump as an example..if he was a good man imagine the things he could do wielding all that power..House, Senate the whole enchilada. He is a weak man so I do not expect much from him at all TG. Now the House and the Congress they could do major damage but even they are split..the GOP that is. They will do nothing as well. Again TG.

 

All the anger in the Republican party theses days is over the lack of backbone they had over the last 8 years. The Trumpettes hate them almost as much as they did Obama. They are not that bright and down ballot voted the ones they despised back in because they had an (R) in their names. So here we sit.

 

The Dems did the same thing just the names and the (D) changed. The rest sat home. Bernie or bust, well...we busted. I so wanted him in place today he had a vision of "fair".

 

We can debate all day on what items are the most important to start with and the details but for now the USA is in total dysfunction. We are lucky to continue to get our SSI checks and so on..tho that could change if we take our eyes off the ball for 1 second.

 

Bottom line is both parties blew it. The Left seems to have a better grasp on what they want or hope to see. The GOP is a time bomb waiting to blow it all to kingdom come, they seem to have no clue what they want exactly. All these bills they are trying to shove thru are written by the establishment GOP..I find that one odd. It has turned into a football game where they simply rooting for the other side with zero logic attached.

 

I say let one of these crap bills pass and then they will see how it personally affects them, talking does not help...maybe blowing it all up is the answer to get everyones attention once and for all then go from there. The next 3 years are not going to be good years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOP lawmakers have a clear vision which unites them:---  Concentrating more wealth at the top by increasing economic inequality ...   The rest is smoke and mirrors.  The only gridlock that worries them, for real, is the inability to get their economic agenda passed.  For instance, their current tax bill.  But, backed by big majorities, they will keep trying.

 

Much more profound is the divide between Corporate Democrats, willing to watch the Republican economic agenda succeed and Progressive Democrats, in favor of re-growing a solid  Middle Class and preventing further wealth inequality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bludog said:

GOP lawmakers have a clear vision which unites them:---  Concentrating more wealth at the top by increasing economic inequality ...   The rest is smoke and mirrors.  The only gridlock that worries them, for real, is the inability to get their economic agenda passed.  For instance, their current tax bill.  But, backed by big majorities, they will keep trying.

 

Much more profound is the divide between Corporate Democrats, willing to watch the Republican economic agenda succeed and Progressive Democrats, in favor of re-growing a solid  Middle Class and preventing further wealth inequality.

 

 

They agree on that one, where the mess up is how to get there. This is a good thing. They have just enough establishment Cons that believe in their communities (imagine that :P) to halt most crap trying to get passed. Then they have the deficit hawks..Rand Paul can still vote. Like I said they have no plan they are making it up as they go and it shows. This is a good thing.

 

I say to hell with the middle class right now..we are still here. No one I know that is/was middle class is hurting. In fact we are doing pretty darn good and I am in FL. We are usually slow to catch up. The ones hurting are the ones where their jobs took a skip and a jump over seas. The hourly folk. The factory town folk. The ones that have a corporate boot on their necks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Middl3 said:

I say to hell with the middle class right now..

 

"To hell with them.  I've got mine"?

 

9 minutes ago, Middl3 said:

we are still here.  No one I know that is/was middle class is hurting. In fact we are doing pretty darn good and I am in FL. We are usually slow to catch up. The ones hurting are the ones where their jobs took a skip and a jump over seas. The hourly folk. The factory town folk. The ones that have a corporate boot on their necks.

 

If current trends hold, either you or your progeny will be negatively affected.  Same goes for me and many others.  In a nineteen year time period a Pew Research study found that...

Quote

 

 between 1991 to 2010, the portion of American adults living in middle-class households fell from 62% to 59%.   It defined middle-class households as those with incomes of anywhere between two-thirds and twice that of their country’s median disposable household income. In the case of the U.S., that meant a range of roughly $35,000 to $106,000 a year for a household of three. (See: Which Income Class Are You? for more information.)

The study didn’t consider other common markers of middle-class status, such as occupation, educational attainment or home ownership.

 

 
The alarming thing is that Republicans now have majorities in EVERY branch of government and the rate of increase in Income Inequality will quicken dramatically.  Plutocrats now own the Government, as never before and we are bound in that direction. 
 
 As the Middle Class shrinks, leaving a handful of ultra-wealthy and a huge lower class, we are watching the conclusion of a prosperous America, as we knew it.  In my estimation, the rise of Plutocracy is the most serious domestic problem in America today. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bludog said:

In my estimation, the rise of Plutocracy is the most serious domestic problem in America today. 

 

 

I'd say that's an understatement. Like 'the civil war is the most serious domestic problem in Syria today.' It isn't just #1, it dwarfs every other. Yet most are oblivious to it, unlike in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

"To hell with them.  I've got mine"? No. not at all. I lost most of it when I got sick but the middle class was made by the housing boom and killed off by the same. I am 63 and crawling my way back to a secure spot. I think we need to concentrate on the full package for a change. An infrastructure bill would be the cats jammies if done right but we all know that will never happen. This would kick start a new running start. Banking and monopolies need to be curbed. Small business needs to make a come back by getting rid of the WallyMarts and Amazons of the USA. At the very least cut them up into small bite size pieces. If we get into a pissing war with China and they with hold a months worth of product it would bring us to or knees.

 

 

If current trends hold, either you or your progeny will be negatively affected.  Same goes for me and many others.  In a nineteen year time period a Pew Research study found that...

 
The alarming thing is that Republicans now have majorities in EVERY branch of government and the rate of increase in Income Inequality will quicken dramatically.  Plutocrats now own the Government, as never before and we are bound in that direction. 
 
 As the Middle Class shrinks, leaving a handful of ultra-wealthy and a huge lower class, we are watching the conclusion of a prosperous America, as we knew it.  In my estimation, the rise of Plutocracy is the most serious domestic problem in America today.  The middle class will grow naturally if the above is put into place but that does not seem to be of any interest to politicians..they all want to go big. Less people to call for donations when money is concentrated in large companies. A few are much easier to control than many small companies. I know all sectors below the 1% are at a stand still but many of us out there at least had a fighting chance before the likes of Home Depot and the rest. There are many solutions and many answers but we are up against the power players. The changes would have to be so radical and politicians do not have the backbone to deal with it. We the people also sucked it all in with cheap crap from China and Bangladesh..so we have helped put them in a place of power and control.
 
This idea to curb the banks and monopolies would give us a real trickle down in the form of mom n pop stores again. The only Fed help we really need is a kick start. Get the small money flowing and the rest should fall into place.
 
I am speaking from personal experience and mine varies from other of course. In anything we or they do there will be pain at 1st but if it is done properly we would at least have a running start.
 
People as a rule find a way to drag themselves forward but the laws and acceptance that have become the norm are smothering us to death and this reaches down to the poorest of us all as well. Tax breaks is BS and will not help any of us down at this end. Healthcare was a biggie, that alone will throw many backwards all by itself if you don't die 1st.
 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

 

I'd say that's an understatement. Like 'the civil war is the most serious domestic problem in Syria today.' It isn't just #1, it dwarfs every other. Yet most are oblivious to it, unlike in Syria.

We are already having a Civil war here..it is them against us..the rich and the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Middl3 said:

We are already having a Civil war here..it is them against us..the rich and the rest of us.

 

Calling this a civil war is like calling the Holocaust a war between the Jews and Nazis. One side is fighting the war and winning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...