Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Ryan bites the dust

2

Replies

  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 10,921 Senior Member
    I only meant that even though Scott did some things we didn't like, it was nothing compared to what this guy will do if elected. Levine was the mayor of miami beach
    Scott in the senate? Not so sure, but they are saying he has a chance
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Politicians.................I hate them all. They suckle at the public trough, get in to all the graft, corruption, insider trading, and money from the SIGs (special interest groups), and make millions on what was a $170,000 salary for working only about half the year, and only around 2-3 days a week. I have more respect for hookers. At least hookers don't pretend to be helping, and are up front about what they are and how much they charge for 'services'. THEY service YOU for a set price. The Congress SERVICES you and doesn't use any lubricant or a condom. If you rely on a politician to really help long term, then you're gonna be really disappointed. They're in it for the money and power; YOUR money, and power over you. Period. Did I mention that I HATE politicians?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Dude, you are already in full campaign mode? It's a little early to be going this hard, isn't it?

    You ignore the fact that, with all of its untold faults, the Republican Party is still the only participant in the federal government that even makes a show of allowing debate of the issues. It has a major conservative faction, a small but active contingent of outspoken liberals, and a huge contingent of milquetoast moderates who will simply go with the power. These factions, and some of the individuals, fight tooth and nail with each other to pass legislation in both houses of Congress. Republicans have a majority in both Houses, yet every bill is practically a fight to the death to get agreement.

    Conversely, the Democrat Party marches in total lockstep, with no debate, because any deviation from the party line is suicide. The nearest it has come to dissent within the ranks, in at least the last three decades, was an old commie challenging the anointed candidate in the 2016 election...all the while knowing that the fix was in and he never had a prayer.

    How does it feel to be one of not too many Democrats that actually know how corrupt their own party is, and having to go out and sell it, anyway, to all of the mindless minions, with absolutely no other weapon except vilifying the opposing candidates? Don't you ever wish that your party would actually have some goal that might actually benefit the majority of the country, instead of relying completely on lies and half-truths against the opposition? Wouldn't you be proud of just one dissenter to the party line, who would fight bravely against the party machine to clean it up?

    Sure, if you even bother to reply, you will say that both sides do it. Of course they do. But the difference is that there are factions and individuals in the Republican Party that actually still believe in the Constitution, and are still doing all they can to shine a bright light on the corruption. They have to overcome their own corrupt leadership, as well as every Democrat, and 95% of the media, to be heard, and sometimes they can't get re-elected because their party throws big bucks behind whoever runs against them. They can't get on any of the important committees because the leadership hates their guts. Many of them resign in disgust, after years of swimming upstream, but some hang on, because they are patriots.

    Imagine, if you can, what it would be like if both parties had all of these different ideas, and allowed them to be debated on the floor, before a vote. It would be exactly what the founding fathers envisioned, and similar to what made the country great.



    Bisley-- That wasn't really fair to you at all. Alpha is engaging in elitist theory as a lens while you seem to be stuck looking at things through a partisan lens. Elitist theory is one of many ways to describe the relationships in government. If you look at things through that lens (analyze it from that viewpoint) things make quite a bit of sense and it may help you understand some things a bit better. This is not saying that there is some sort of master plan and these things happen consciously, but they do happen and they theory is an attempt to explain it. When you have some time, Wikipedia has a decent intro of the subject. In college, my political science professor taught exclusively from that point of view. It is very interesting....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Unfortunately (or not?), I haven't had the benefit of being given a lens to look through by a political science professor. In college, when things like this are debated, the participants are given 'parameters' that keep the debate within a paradigm defined by that professor. Naturally, that allows the professor to set the rules for the debate that will hopefully create the type of intellectual debate that he/she is striving for. This may be a very fine method for teaching critical thinking, in theory, but it also stacks the deck in favor of accepting the paradigm. If multiple paradigms are explored, that's fine, but if not, the participants in the debate have been propagandized.

    In Alf's case, I think it has crippled him, intellectually, because he has to make his opponent look through that same lens to be able to sell his argument to him. I contend that if he cannot sell that argument to a yokel with a high school education, he has no hope of convincing anyone with the ability to think, unless that person already accepts the paradigm he lives in. There are lots of smart people out there that can analyze facts, and if you define the rules in a way that throws out any facts that don't fit in the paradigm, you won't convince them. At that point, your only recourse is to talk down to them, and insinuate that they simply aren't smart enough to understand.

    More to the point, if a political science education is meant to teach the 'art' of politics, it has to explore all of the elements of politics. Otherwise, it is teaching nothing but dogma, which is not much different from proselytizing for a particular religion. In order for me to agree with Alf, I have to overlook the fact that the two parties are as I described in my previous post. This is a political trick that liberals make a living off of - basically, defining the rules for the  argument that do not allow the facts to be factored in that will destroy their argument.

    I am not trying to bully Alf. He is very smart, and very likeable, as far as I can tell. But, I try to be realistic in my approach to politics, and that means that his omissions have to be pointed out, so that he isn't able to put his 'debate opponents' in a box that they have to fight their way out of, just to make a simple point.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    bisley said:

    I am not trying to bully Alf. He is very smart, and very likeable, as far as I can tell. But, I try to be realistic in my approach to politics, and that means that his omissions have to be pointed out, so that he isn't able to put his 'debate opponents' in a box that they have to fight their way out of, just to make a simple point.
    I don't find this likeable at all. He was a nice enough guy in person when I met him at a shoot, but his internet tactics pretty much suck a dogs ass.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    That can be said about quite a few people.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #38

    bisley said:
    More to the point, if a political science education is meant to teach the 'art' of politics, it has to explore all of the elements of politics. Otherwise, it is teaching nothing but dogma, which is not much different from proselytizing for a particular religion. In order for me to agree with Alf, I have to overlook the fact that the two parties are as I described in my previous post. This is a political trick that liberals make a living off of - basically, defining the rules for the  argument that do not allow the facts to be factored in that will destroy their argument.
    The elitist argument is not conservative or liberal. It transcends party. It actually ignores party. Partisanship is a way to mask what is really happening-- not so much a mask, but just another lens at looking at things. That box that you accuse others of being in, you say from the comfort of your very own box. While pragmatic, your view is useful for some things, but not for others. It does nothing to explain why when Democrats are in power, the elites win and when the Republicans are in power, the elites win. This is nothing more than an attempt to help you understand that.

    Say we are doing a development. We have some developer with a dream. He has a concept and a vision. It all makes sense to him. Then the structural engineer comes along and offers some insight from his point of view. That may be fine and dandy said the builder, but from the builder's point of view it is silly. Then the surveyor comes along with his point of view and laughs at everyone. From all these different viewpoints, maybe we will eventually see the big picture of this development called reality. 
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    OK. I'm a partisan, but Alf is a visionary. I get it, now.

    Do me a favor, though, when we are going to be looking through lenses. Put it in capital letters, bold it, and underline it so I can get it through my thick head, and butt out early on. No need for me to make those long, complicated posts when I have no clue which lens I'm supposed to look through.




  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #40
    bisley said:
    Do me a favor, though, when we are going to be looking through lenses. Put it in capital letters, bold it, and underline it so I can get it through my thick head, and butt out early on. No need for me to make those long, complicated posts when I have no clue which lens I'm supposed to look through.

    Wait until I utilize FEMINIST or QUEER THEORY.
    ;)
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    That can be said about quite a few people.
    Yeah, it's extremely common through communication by wire. There is a whole generation of people that feel they can say anything they want, because they are immune to a "punch in the face" response from someone that might otherwise be standing in front of them.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    I personally believe that disparagement and/or physical intimidation corrupt real debate.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    I personally believe that disparagement and/or physical intimidation corrupt real debate.
    You would be wrong about the physical intimidation part. I am one big ugly dude in person (yet very sexy). Some of these people that I strongly disagree with online? We get along great in person and I consider them friends. I enjoy their company and they are gentlemen. Online? You have to separate the two. Being Americans (and a few from Peru, UK, and New Zealand) there is a grand tradition where we can have spirited debate. Back in the day, they held these debates at town halls or wherever people would congregate. Today, we do it online. Things are as they should be.

    Disparagement? With this new "town hall" medium, it unfortunately makes it easy to say stuff about people that you do not know, so it becomes a convenient tactic in a heated debate.

    Regardless, a spirited debate is healthy for a free society.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Diver43 said:
    You still don't get that your party has no interest in any of those things. The Republican party and to a lesser degree the Democrats when they can get away with it serve the interest of the global elites and large multinational corporations. Open borders drive down labor costs, free trade is awesome for them, big government budgets mean big government contracts for beltway bandits and the defense Industrial complex. Everything Ryan did was in lock step with what the party wants. Everything was given approval by Heratige, freedom works, the American Enterprise Institute, etc.  Sure many of the voters didn't want those things, but since when do they matter? As long as you promise to defend the 2A and give lip service to a few other social wedge issues they'll continue to vote for you without question. I mean what are you going to do vote for a Democrat? lololololol!!!!
    You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I am well aware of it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or go along with what the traitorous scum of our party does on a daily basis. I hate what these people do, and I spell it out on FB every day. I am as harsh with RINO Republicans as I am with Democrats on FB. I curse them out every day, so thank goodness there's no autocensor on FB. The only difference is I would have all democrat politicians hung for treason, but only about half of republicans. It's the reason why I won't vote for Rick Scott for senator this year. He screwed all Florida gun owners and I will be skipping the box next to his name this November. After the bill he signed on FL gun-control, I can no longer trust him if he becomes a US Senator. The republican party needs to learn that they can't keep screwing the voters and still win elections. This is being proven by the number of Republican Congress people that are no longer going to run again.

    I would much rather have Scott than Phillip Levine.  He is a pay to play, gun grabbing give to the poor jerk
    I don't live in Florida but I too would favor Scott and if those two were actually running against each other, I'd vote for Scott in a heart beat. You make the point that Levine is a "pay to play, gun grabbing, give to the poor Jerk." That's why, no matter how pissed off I am at Scott,  I'd vote for him over this Levine, because this Levine is typical of Democrat socialists. And it is my fervent belief that Democrats and/or Socialist (one and the same thing) are like that for one reason, and that reason is not that they have some kind of dedication to public safety or the poor, the reason is  because they'll do anything to get elected. That's why they're in lock step, no matter their own beliefs. They really have no soul, it's all about being and staying in power. There are a few scattered through their ranks that actually believe in what they claim to be, but for the most part that's all a front they put up so the masses will vote for them.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    Snake-- I got to give @Make_My_Day some credit here for showing some integrity and saying that enough is enough. He can do quite a few positive things but if the guy isn't firm on 2A... screw him. I have had to eat tons of crap that I do not like just to protect that right. But for a candidate to vote against it? What he hell is the point? It cannot be tolerated.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    I personally believe that disparagement and/or physical intimidation corrupt real debate.
    You would be wrong about the physical intimidation part. I am one big ugly dude in person (yet very sexy). Some of these people that I strongly disagree with online? We get along great in person and I consider them friends. I enjoy their company and they are gentlemen. Online? You have to separate the two. Being Americans (and a few from Peru, UK, and New Zealand) there is a grand tradition where we can have spirited debate. Back in the day, they held these debates at town halls or wherever people would congregate. Today, we do it online. Things are as they should be.

    Disparagement? With this new "town hall" medium, it unfortunately makes it easy to say stuff about people that you do not know, so it becomes a convenient tactic in a heated debate.

    Regardless, a spirited debate is healthy for a free society.
    Carry on then.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    I think the real problem online is that since there isn't an in the flesh human to identify with, we tend to make the people that we disagree with inhuman. We lose our humanity. It is so much easier to imagine someone that you do not agree with as some middle aged freak with a beard, wearing a dress and doing strange dances.... oh wait, I just described Zorba. Never mind.

    The point I am trying to make is that since they do not agree with us, we tend to dehumanize them. That is where things start to get ugly. When you meet them in person, they tend to gain back their humanity.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    Pretty good list as far as I'm concerened. Not a path to utopia, but I doubt any of us expect that. Just be nice to see people that know what the inside of a grocery store looks like, punched a time clock, signed a mortgage, severed in the military, met a pay roll, been stuck in traffic, or juggled a budget have some control in the country.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,667 Senior Member
    I think the real problem online is that since there isn't an in the flesh human to identify with, we tend to make the people that we disagree with inhuman. We lose our humanity. It is so much easier to imagine someone that you do not agree with as some middle aged freak with a beard, wearing a dress and doing strange dances.... oh wait, I just described Zorba. Never mind.

    The point I am trying to make is that since they do not agree with us, we tend to dehumanize them. That is where things start to get ugly. When you meet them in person, they tend to gain back their humanity.
    Its a SKIRT, ****!

    But this is really a heart felt, and very accurate assessment. Its human nature to dehumanize others with whom we disagree. I've seen it many times. I'm sure I've done it too - who hasn't?
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    Snake-- I got to give @Make_My_Day some credit here for showing some integrity and saying that enough is enough. He can do quite a few positive things but if the guy isn't firm on 2A... screw him. I have had to eat tons of crap that I do not like just to protect that right. But for a candidate to vote against it? What he hell is the point? It cannot be tolerated.
    In a contest between Levine and Scott, I might have a different opinion, but it is with Nelson and Scott. Nelson has been around here for years, so not voting for either of them in the Senatorial election isn't going to change much for me.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    You would be wrong about the physical intimidation part. I am one big ugly dude in person (yet very sexy). Some of these people that I strongly disagree with online? We get along great in person and I consider them friends. I enjoy their company and they are gentlemen. Online? You have to separate the two. Being Americans (and a few from Peru, UK, and New Zealand) there is a grand tradition where we can have spirited debate. Back in the day, they held these debates at town halls or wherever people would congregate. Today, we do it online. Things are as they should be.

    Disparagement? With this new "town hall" medium, it unfortunately makes it easy to say stuff about people that you do not know, so it becomes a convenient tactic in a heated debate.

    Regardless, a spirited debate is healthy for a free society.
    We lock horns occasionally online, but I respect your opinions, thoughts, and how you come to your point of view. There are things we will NEVER come to an agreement on, but that's O.K., too. I value our friendship above any partisan political bullsqueeze that comes up. I'm at heart a Jefferson Libertarian, and that side comes in conflict with my authoritarian side on some issues. Which one wins depends on which one I feed the best at the time, and the issue at hand.

    I've never liked Ryan and never will. He's too easily swayed to 'go with the herd' on either side of the aisle and screw the country to HIS benefit. He's taking 'early retirement' with a full government retirement package at 48, but wants to raise the retirement age for the 'proletariat' to 72 years old; how egalitarian of him!

    As to Nelson and Scott in FL, the choice seems to be no choice at all between the two. I'll take Make_My_Days estimate of the situation as he is MUCH closer to the problem and has more info on both than I do. When you're presented with two poop sandwiches of equal poop and very little bread, it's best not to take a bite of either! :D
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #52
    tennmike said:

    As to Nelson and Scott in FL, the choice seems to be no choice at all between the two. I'll take Make_My_Days estimate of the situation as he is MUCH closer to the problem and has more info on both than I do. When you're presented with two poop sandwiches of equal poop and very little bread, it's best not to take a bite of either! :D
    Exactly, and that's why in this particular election I don't feel guilty not voting for Scott. He screwed ALL Florida gun owners by being stampeded into signing that gun-grabbing garbage. That's my red line, I told him so in a letter to him before her signed it, and now he does not get my vote.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member

    bisley said:
    More to the point, if a political science education is meant to teach the 'art' of politics, it has to explore all of the elements of politics. Otherwise, it is teaching nothing but dogma, which is not much different from proselytizing for a particular religion. In order for me to agree with Alf, I have to overlook the fact that the two parties are as I described in my previous post. This is a political trick that liberals make a living off of - basically, defining the rules for the  argument that do not allow the facts to be factored in that will destroy their argument.
    The elitist argument is not conservative or liberal. It transcends party. It actually ignores party. Partisanship is a way to mask what is really happening-- not so much a mask, but just another lens at looking at things. That box that you accuse others of being in, you say from the comfort of your very own box. While pragmatic, your view is useful for some things, but not for others. It does nothing to explain why when Democrats are in power, the elites win and when the Republicans are in power, the elites win. This is nothing more than an attempt to help you understand that.

    Say we are doing a development. We have some developer with a dream. He has a concept and a vision. It all makes sense to him. Then the structural engineer comes along and offers some insight from his point of view. That may be fine and dandy said the builder, but from the builder's point of view it is silly. Then the surveyor comes along with his point of view and laughs at everyone. From all these different viewpoints, maybe we will eventually see the big picture of this development called reality. 
    I can't say I blame people for falling into the partisan trap. The entire system is designed to lure people in. People are naturally inclined towards tribalism. Everyone likes being on a team. Winning or even losing it doesn't really matter because you're part of a like minded group of people who accept you for being part of the team. Pick a side and root and fight for it no matter what....blah, blah, blah, blah........

    We can fix the system. Eventually. If we all stop fighting among ourselves and actually demanded real change, but that might require giving up things that may be tactically disadvantageous to our preferred team at least temporarily. A few things to start with:

    Overturn citizens united and get money, to the degree possible, out of politics (difficult, but not impossible)
    Term limits
    Top 2 primary systems to give independent candidates more of a chance
    Eliminate gerrymandering by demanding independent drawing of district lines
    Strengthen corruption laws that last long after candidates leave office, reducing their ability to profit personally from decisions made in office.

    I'm sure there are lots of other things I could add to this list that will never happen as long as the majority of the population is content to play the partisan game and ignore the truth behind the curtain.


    Yes, we can fix the system, and it is nowhere near as complicated as you make it seem. We already have a nearly perfect framework for pluralism to work. It's called the Constitution, and you don't have to have a special secret squirrel 'lens,' nor a political science indoctrination, to understand it.

    The 'elite theory' that you and Jerm use to shoot down political parties does have some evidence to support it. It is really nothing more than the same pessimistic view of democracy and pluralism that all of the 18th century intellectuals had of the American 'experiment.'  Their belief that democracies always become corrupt and destroy them from within may yet be proven true, but those of us who believe in American exceptionalism still have some cards to play. We can still stomp out corruption, if we work together. The people of this country somehow managed to keep corruption under just enough control to prosper for well over 200 years and to become the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nation in the history of the world. There was always some charismatic individual that people would listen to, starting with George Washington, who could rally the unbelievers. We may have used up all of the heros, or the would-be heros may not be able to survive the modern day character assassinations. But the framework still exists, if the people can be rallied.

    A combination of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the the Bill of Rights contains nearly all of the checks and balances needed to make pluralism work. How well it works depends only on the amount of corruption that the populace will stand for. It mostly worked, most of the time, for 200 years because the people had an instinctive understanding of the need to keep the central government as small as possible. At this point, we are teetering on the brink, with somewhere around half of the population who don't understand freedom, or don't understand that it can be lost, or just don't give a damn.

    Even if elite theory is correct in the assertion that the elites of the world will always triumph, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a properly functioning democracy in a capitalistic country can provide immense levels of freedom and prosperity for the masses. It only requires that the public does not despair in their efforts to maintain their individual freedoms. The elites that seek to dominate a nation of free, capitalistic people have learned that they can prosper more by letting the masses profit, too, and feel free while they are doing it. This has never happened in a socialist state, and never will.


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    Very thoughtful post Bisley. I will go through it and discuss it in detail this weekend when I have a chance. Hold those thoughts!
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    It is a thoughtful post.
    It shut me up to think.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    bisley said
    Yes, we can fix the system, and it is nowhere near as complicated as you make it seem. We already have a nearly perfect framework for pluralism to work. It's called the Constitution, and you don't have to have a special secret squirrel 'lens,' nor a political science indoctrination, to understand it.

    The 'elite theory' that you and Jerm use to shoot down political parties does have some evidence to support it. It is really nothing more than the same pessimistic view of democracy and pluralism that all of the 18th century intellectuals had of the American 'experiment.'  Their belief that democracies always become corrupt and destroy them from within may yet be proven true, but those of us who believe in American exceptionalism still have some cards to play. We can still stomp out corruption, if we work together. The people of this country somehow managed to keep corruption under just enough control to prosper for well over 200 years and to become the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nation in the history of the world. There was always some charismatic individual that people would listen to, starting with George Washington, who could rally the unbelievers. We may have used up all of the heros, or the would-be heros may not be able to survive the modern day character assassinations. But the framework still exists, if the people can be rallied.

    A combination of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the the Bill of Rights contains nearly all of the checks and balances needed to make pluralism work. How well it works depends only on the amount of corruption that the populace will stand for. It mostly worked, most of the time, for 200 years because the people had an instinctive understanding of the need to keep the central government as small as possible. At this point, we are teetering on the brink, with somewhere around half of the population who don't understand freedom, or don't understand that it can be lost, or just don't give a damn.

    Even if elite theory is correct in the assertion that the elites of the world will always triumph, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a properly functioning democracy in a capitalistic country can provide immense levels of freedom and prosperity for the masses. It only requires that the public does not despair in their efforts to maintain their individual freedoms. The elites that seek to dominate a nation of free, capitalistic people have learned that they can prosper more by letting the masses profit, too, and feel free while they are doing it. This has never happened in a socialist state, and never will.


    The way I understand elite theory is that it is a constant. Solely by becoming a politician, a person becomes an elite in society. This isn't some secret club, it is the nature of things. You can take a homeless guy off the street and make him a senator. Guess what? While he may be sleeping under a bridge and drinking Bum Wine, that person is now an elite and will have access to the levers of power in our society. He will interact with other elites, have elite privileges, and be sought out by other elites in an effort to influence him. I am not advocating against this system of elites. To eliminate it would require one of 2 states of existence. Anarchy on the far right and communism on the far left, and as far as I can tell, those are both hypothetical states of existence because they have never happened in real life. Some may have called themselves communists, but they never got remotely close to that. Basic human nature prevents pure anarchy.

    There is a system where if you manipulate numbers and symbols and they are interrelated and fit together. Calling it algebra and teaching it to people is not indoctrination. It is education. Your remarks about indoctrination are silly. Pointing out a phenomenon of human nature that some may or may not realize the existence of, and giving it a name is not indoctrination.Sadly, anti-intellectualism has been running rampant in this country and it has been used as a tool by all political persuasions in this country in an effort to blind the masses of their dogma. While the left is totally guilty of manipulating the learning process to generate outcomes that they find favorable to their agenda, the right has had a bad habit of disregarding anything that doesn't fit their own and they tend to toss the baby with the bath water while they do it. The result is that intellectual tools (or lenses) that can be used to expose and shine a light on some of the absurdities go unchecked because they get tossed in the trash, hence encouraging the cycle of ignorance.

    I totally agree that our founding documents do provide us with all the solutions to get our destiny under control. The biggest problem that I see is that parties have way more power than was ever allowed in those documents. I actually do not see where it calls for political parties at all. Why are our tax dollars even paying for primary elections? How did we put ourselves in a situation where political parties are now state sanctioned? I see the 1A right where people of similar beliefs should have the opportunity to form "clubs" and promote their ideas. I also disagree with Alpha that Citizens United was a bad decision. I can't seem to disagree with the premise that money (used to get out a political message) is somehow not a free speech right. Term limits? I am against them because I have seen what it has done in my state, but if that is something that voters want to do, so be it.

    I still see our biggest problem as political parties. They have become too powerful. People put too much weight on them-- so much so, that our founding documents become meaningless and are ignored. What is supposed to be a representative republic is more like a war between two rival gangs fighting a turf war. In a gang war, they are fighting over money, influence, and power. It has nothing to do with what is best for the people and is all about themselves. It doesn't have to be this way.

    Your remarks about a capitalistic country serving the needs for not just the elites, but for all the citizens rings true. Elites are going to do what elites are going to do. Like I said previously, this is not some plot, it is the nature of things and elite theory is simply an observation of that. Ultimately, the people still hold the power. Jeb! Bush plowed how much money into his campaign and fell flat on his face? Many elites were behind him? How much cash was spent on a per vote basis? Hundreds? Thousands? Then Trump (using considerably less money-- less than any other candidate I seem to recall) comes through and smokes him. So there is hope. But back on track to a capitalistic society-- with some checks and balances on power, it should serve us well. My opinion is that too much power has been concentrated with the political parties. Never before in the history of our country has political parties wielded so much power to where the masses and individual candidates that may actually do us some good are no longer a consideration. It is time to bring them into line and check their power.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    You guys don't think the Citizens United decision gives more speech/more concentration of power to those that can afford the purchase price???

    The example of Trump's victory in spite of his non-elite status and lesser monetary expenditure is fine except that I see the contest for executive power as an intentional distraction from legislative monopoly.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #58
    You guys don't think the Citizens United decision gives more speech/more concentration of power to those that can afford the purchase price???

    The example of Trump's victory in spite of his non-elite status and lesser monetary expenditure is fine except that I see the contest for executive power as an intentional distraction from legislative monopoly.
    It does give more speech/concentration of power to those that can afford it. I don't disagree with that but I do not see how limiting it can co-exist with a strong First Amendment. I take the good with the bad in 1A situations, and like it or not, it is what it is. The First Amendment is far too important than to weaken it over big money and political speech.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    By removing the power from political parties that are responsible for group think and mob mentality in a nation of rugged individualists, you dilute the power of those that have so much influence right now. The solution to too much money in politics is neutering the political parties.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    That's a good point that I can't contest. Perhaps an answer lies elsewhere in the democratic process.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 10,921 Senior Member
    By removing the power from political parties that are responsible for group think and mob mentality in a nation of rugged individualists, you dilute the power of those that have so much influence right now. The solution to too much money in politics is neutering the political parties.
    Think of how much money must be changing hands behind the scenes to keep the anti Trump and Gun movements going.
    Republicans turning on their own to keep attention off themself. The left, media keep yelling Trump is a crook, homophobe, racist, womanizer, russian conspirator all day every day on the so called news. That takes power and lots of money, my guess is that it comes from both sides
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement