Bad guys rise regardless of whether the good guys vote or not because the options available for the good guys are both the same. Both bad.
Exampled by......
Clinton, initial 'H', Cluster bomb Biden, Bush #1, Killer Obama and on. A little while ago, Bush #2 should be in jail sharing a cell with Cheney and likely others such as Blinken (soon to be a likely Israel nominee), Pompeo, Bolton. Nuland, (the disgraceful trio) all the "Neocon consultants", deserving of public condemnation and investigation under the banner of "Un-American Activities” and even death…. if real justice was the measure.
But real justice is not the measure in the USA today. If it was, no President would be alive today. Not one.
If a criminal can be disposed of for killing one man, how does a President like Bush survive after killing 2 million
In my book, with some experience, none represent the America and the Americans I know and have known over forty five years.
And there's the rub. It is not America and sadly, never will be again. Too much damage done. Recovery to the 1960 values?
Ah if it were just.that.simple (putting responsibility of America’s good/bad global actions/reputation onto individual US voters themselves but no, never the infrastructure/system itself nor the appointed admins/elected leadership) but then too it would also prove to be:
good guys rise when bad guys don’t vote.
Sorry, but I had to reply...it’s just a case of catchy phrases that make you go: hmmm, wait what?
Actually, it’s just a case of yes, each person is responsible for their actions and their responsibilities to their governance. It’s the basis of all democracies. It’s when the citizens become so lazy and spoiled—like PNAC wanted them to become—that bad guys move into the vacuum. The Greeks, the 1st Democracy, called people who didn’t vote “idiota”. And with good reason.
So you’re saying it’s: “pay NO attention to the man FUNDING behind the curtain” because democracy/Greece/voting is equal everywhere so basic problems within a nation’s leadership/government is due to its non voting citizens?
Really?... Because no matter which state nor global time period, or who’s nominated, or any existing differences in whichever “democracy”, a la Citizens United et al or not, it’s really only your citizen voter who determines their democracy’s outcomes and they are the smart ones exactly because they vote. But their bff who’s a non voting but educated and dependable neighbor of theirs is a loser because they didn’t prioritize similarly?
Hmm, this dynamic kinda reminds me of the highly unsuccessful labeling of those dang deplorables, ugh. Candidates and their supportive parties and organizations have become hugely monied powers period (and whether it’s PNAC or MOVEON or whatever NGO, corporation or politically dependent donor/org), so like many I’ve evolved as big disbeliever in the let’s punch down and blame the voter racket.
the elected people in our so called democracies are rich entitled people who have ignored climate change and who foment wars. there aren't any others to vote for.
So go to the precincts and take back the party in your state. If a bunch of dirty hippies could do it in ‘68, surly a few yuppies could break away from their latte’s to do it. Instead, the voting age yuppies whined that “you can’t fight city hall” and ran off to get the goods, working for corporations and buying sweatshop-made Nikes to jog to Starbucks. Totally abdicated their civic duties and now want to blame others for not “giving” them anyone to vote for. Puke.
The problem is that the wealthy have sophisticated, effective propaganda, as well as the funds to blast it everywhere, massively influence the thinking of most of the population, and the normal people who know what's going on don't have the resources to combat that and to get more honorable, well-informed people elected and others writing good policies which will be implemented by the elected.
Bad guys rise when good guys can't figure out how to overcome that obstacle.
A good analysis. But bad guys have always bad that power, especially under the Hearst empire. But FDR took it away from them and we had a wonderful period of stepping on the oligarchs and empowering the workers for about 50 years. Then the Civil Rights act passed and as LBJ said, there goes the party for the next 50 years. And he was right—whitey didn’t want to share with Blacks and thought they lost jobs because of the peace movement and decided to go Republican and Southern in their voting. And the Dems had no answer and just abandoned the field to these reactionaries, the Reagan Democrats and it’s been downhill ever since.
Back in 68 lots of people THOUGHT real changes were coming. But mostly they did not. I don't live in a state, I live in a province, but still, there is no real democracy. Still dominated by money and quests for power. The economy take first place. People, the climate, the earth, the creatures who live on the earth.......all subject to the state of the economy. All subject to the whims of a few rich people who value the economy above all else. Corporate media has given in too, mostly reporting in a "safe" manner so as not to lose their funding.
Real changes were coming and did come, which is why there was such a huge backlash from the terrified Right. I was there. And maybe there’s no real democracy for a people who still considers themselves “subjects” of a king, but where there are citizens there is representative democracy and it’s been proven here over and over. Just because it doesn’t stay that way without constant vigilance doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Running around blaming the rich and the media for your lack of vigilance is just a cop out. And trying to tell me what we thought “back then” is really pathetic.
Bad guys rise when good guys don’t vote.
Bad guys rise when we all buy into the idea that being rich is good and being poor means you were too lazy to get to work.
If bone hard work and dedication were truly the keys to success, African market women would be the richest people on the planet.
Jeano,
Bad guys rise regardless of whether the good guys vote or not because the options available for the good guys are both the same. Both bad.
Exampled by......
Clinton, initial 'H', Cluster bomb Biden, Bush #1, Killer Obama and on. A little while ago, Bush #2 should be in jail sharing a cell with Cheney and likely others such as Blinken (soon to be a likely Israel nominee), Pompeo, Bolton. Nuland, (the disgraceful trio) all the "Neocon consultants", deserving of public condemnation and investigation under the banner of "Un-American Activities” and even death…. if real justice was the measure.
But real justice is not the measure in the USA today. If it was, no President would be alive today. Not one.
If a criminal can be disposed of for killing one man, how does a President like Bush survive after killing 2 million
In my book, with some experience, none represent the America and the Americans I know and have known over forty five years.
And there's the rub. It is not America and sadly, never will be again. Too much damage done. Recovery to the 1960 values?
Too late.
Ah if it were just.that.simple (putting responsibility of America’s good/bad global actions/reputation onto individual US voters themselves but no, never the infrastructure/system itself nor the appointed admins/elected leadership) but then too it would also prove to be:
good guys rise when bad guys don’t vote.
Sorry, but I had to reply...it’s just a case of catchy phrases that make you go: hmmm, wait what?
Actually, it’s just a case of yes, each person is responsible for their actions and their responsibilities to their governance. It’s the basis of all democracies. It’s when the citizens become so lazy and spoiled—like PNAC wanted them to become—that bad guys move into the vacuum. The Greeks, the 1st Democracy, called people who didn’t vote “idiota”. And with good reason.
So you’re saying it’s: “pay NO attention to the man FUNDING behind the curtain” because democracy/Greece/voting is equal everywhere so basic problems within a nation’s leadership/government is due to its non voting citizens?
Really?... Because no matter which state nor global time period, or who’s nominated, or any existing differences in whichever “democracy”, a la Citizens United et al or not, it’s really only your citizen voter who determines their democracy’s outcomes and they are the smart ones exactly because they vote. But their bff who’s a non voting but educated and dependable neighbor of theirs is a loser because they didn’t prioritize similarly?
Hmm, this dynamic kinda reminds me of the highly unsuccessful labeling of those dang deplorables, ugh. Candidates and their supportive parties and organizations have become hugely monied powers period (and whether it’s PNAC or MOVEON or whatever NGO, corporation or politically dependent donor/org), so like many I’ve evolved as big disbeliever in the let’s punch down and blame the voter racket.
the elected people in our so called democracies are rich entitled people who have ignored climate change and who foment wars. there aren't any others to vote for.
So go to the precincts and take back the party in your state. If a bunch of dirty hippies could do it in ‘68, surly a few yuppies could break away from their latte’s to do it. Instead, the voting age yuppies whined that “you can’t fight city hall” and ran off to get the goods, working for corporations and buying sweatshop-made Nikes to jog to Starbucks. Totally abdicated their civic duties and now want to blame others for not “giving” them anyone to vote for. Puke.
The problem is that the wealthy have sophisticated, effective propaganda, as well as the funds to blast it everywhere, massively influence the thinking of most of the population, and the normal people who know what's going on don't have the resources to combat that and to get more honorable, well-informed people elected and others writing good policies which will be implemented by the elected.
Bad guys rise when good guys can't figure out how to overcome that obstacle.
A good analysis. But bad guys have always bad that power, especially under the Hearst empire. But FDR took it away from them and we had a wonderful period of stepping on the oligarchs and empowering the workers for about 50 years. Then the Civil Rights act passed and as LBJ said, there goes the party for the next 50 years. And he was right—whitey didn’t want to share with Blacks and thought they lost jobs because of the peace movement and decided to go Republican and Southern in their voting. And the Dems had no answer and just abandoned the field to these reactionaries, the Reagan Democrats and it’s been downhill ever since.
Back in 68 lots of people THOUGHT real changes were coming. But mostly they did not. I don't live in a state, I live in a province, but still, there is no real democracy. Still dominated by money and quests for power. The economy take first place. People, the climate, the earth, the creatures who live on the earth.......all subject to the state of the economy. All subject to the whims of a few rich people who value the economy above all else. Corporate media has given in too, mostly reporting in a "safe" manner so as not to lose their funding.
And it's not even the real economy - it's just the stock market. (The stock market is not the economy!)
Real changes were coming and did come, which is why there was such a huge backlash from the terrified Right. I was there. And maybe there’s no real democracy for a people who still considers themselves “subjects” of a king, but where there are citizens there is representative democracy and it’s been proven here over and over. Just because it doesn’t stay that way without constant vigilance doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Running around blaming the rich and the media for your lack of vigilance is just a cop out. And trying to tell me what we thought “back then” is really pathetic.