What can be done to defuse America?

[TexMex477]

I think they are more than likely puppets with little to no actual wealth, of course not all of them as some will also have 'lineage' or become a bigger fish along with the bankers and other 'big business' owners.

 

...all the while the cats quietly remain to be seen or heard.

 

The puppet masters are well known but you mention their names and you get called nut job with conspiracies even though all of it is well documented.

Now days most see the puppet masters as heros.

 

Bilderberg Group

George Soros

Bohemian Grove

Koch

 

As shown in video below with #1 item on his list "the fascist group" still isn't over they now go under guise of sjw, pc culture and liberal.

Nothing more funny than watching someone who does not know what a liberal is call themselves a liberal than try to shut down opposing view through violence calling others fascist.

 

"Liberal: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

"Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism"

 

 

The most well known fascist was man named Hitler who didn't declare he was fascist but stated he was pushing for the "progressive movement"

While they burned books and attacked people who attempted to give speeches to speak out against them.

[IrishSpyral]

Sortition, select representatives from the eligable voting populace randomly. That way there's no lobbyist, no party politics. Depending on your liberality some people may be excluded (criminals, children, the insane) although to be truly fair you could argue that anyone above the voting age should be eligable.

 

If that's too radical, option B is select randomly from anyone who volunteers to be put forward.

 

This method would require more cooperation between politicians and it would ensure that it's not just rich connected people who end up ruling.

[TexMex477]

Sortition, select representatives from the eligable voting populace randomly. That way there's no lobbyist, no party politics. Depending on your liberality some people may be excluded (criminals, children, the insane) although to be truly fair you could argue that anyone above the voting age should be eligable.

 

If that's too radical, option B is select randomly from anyone who volunteers to be put forward.

 

This method would require more cooperation between politicians and it would ensure that it's not just rich connected people who end up ruling.

 

When the influence of puppet masters do not get their way you get paid for violent protests like the CIA has done in other countries and 24 hour a day misinformation from corrupt media. As the old saying goes "A person is intelligent but people are dumb" it is easy to fool masses.

 

What does that remind you of? This racist man below?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1-nzxzzug

Edited August 16, 2017 by TexMex477

[kvnchrist]

The one thing about conspiracy theories is that most people have a hard time believing that their side could never be apart of one. They are too interested in conspiring the those who share their beliefs to cast the other side in the darkest light possible

 

The one thing many of the rank and file Democrats haven't seem to realize is the isn't any left in America. There are Republicans and Republican lite. What we have in America are teasers and pleasers. . They dangle opportunity in front of the poor and prosperity in front of the middle class and yank them back whenever they see we are about to grasp them. The one thing the elitists are terrified of is that we will one day wake up and realize we don't need them and that is why they pit the traditionalists (right) against the dreamers (left). The real tragedy is that people look at the opposing side as if they were stupid or immoral and they are too in love with their own self image to notice, for the most part, they are looking into a mirror.

[PoobahGorg]

Someone above decided that "career politicians" are the problem, and that term limits are the solution.

 

NOPE.

 

Who do you want running things, someone who knows what they're doing? Or a bunch of rank amateurs? We've had seven months of a newbie politician as President, how's that been going.

 

The two-term limit on the presidency works out OK because it's the highest rung on the ladder. After you've done it there's just your memoir, presidential library, paid speeches here and there and appearances at conventions. There's only one president at a time, as well.

 

Putting this on representatives and senators would get us far more politicians who're out to make a quick buck. If anything it'd LOWER the quality of people vying for these positions.

 

Would YOU want to get a job without much of a future? Only if it's reasonably likely there'd be something good to move on to.

[TheMastersSon]

PoobahGorg, the bottom line is that 75% of the people favor term limits for Congress. It's always been the case. It ignores not only basic logic but the histories of countries around the world to claim that it makes sense to have term limits on only one of three branches of our, or any government.

 

If you haven't read it already, and I seriously doubt you have, read what happened when GWB's Defense Secretary (Don Rumsfeld) tried changing a few budget procedures at the Pentagon. His boss (Dick Cheney) is as ingrained in the Pentagon establishment as anybody in our country, yet Rumsfeld was still treated like a barely tolerated guest, and was eventually villified:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA442491

 

So another bottom line imo is that civilian control of our military was lost either with or not long after the assassination of JFK, and it hasn't been seen since. Our Pentagon functions as a permanent, unelected shadow government, with an annual budget that's substantially larger than most countries on Earth. The business end of this machine is a direct result of the lack of term limits in Congress, especially our Senate and federal courts. One senator may and does cost our country trillions of dollars over the decades, because protectionism and cronyism once established are virtually impossible to unestablish. The best we can do is limit the damage by imposing time limits on corruption that is inevitable as human nature.

 

It's why nothing ever substantially changes with our military and defense squandering, or our foreign policy which now consists of constant war and threats of war, regardless of who sits in the White House or their party. Our Congress and president can now simply point to erroneous SCOTUS decisions, such as their magical creation of the four words "except in special circumstances" into our Fourth and other Amendments etc. Not many options exist in this situation and I believe it's the main reason the constitutional convention clause was added by our founding fathers.

Edited August 31, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Look at the mess career politicians have gotten us into. Do you think 'amateurs' would do worse? When you are NOT more concerned about your re-election campaign, than doing the business of the country, maybe the business of the country will actually get done......

[TexMex477]

Who do you want running things, someone who knows what they're doing? Or a bunch of rank amateurs?

 

What?

Political parties are not even suppose to be a thing but lazy dumb people are the reason they came to be with policies that allow money talk.

 

The original concept of those that would work in the government was to not be career politicians but to be average people from all the communities of society.

They would than go to work at a centralized location for short term to represent the people of those communities giving voice to the unheard than to return to their homes.

It was even tossed around that hold on wait for it , they would not get paid but to encourage them to spend time from their much more profitable careers the concept of paying them was introduced at which point we allowed congress to decide how much to pay themselves and it got out of control.

 

POLITICIAN IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A JOB OR CAREER BUT A DUTY MUCH LIKE SERVING IN MILITARY

 

Unless of course you think bush is still president and Putin invaded South Korea?

Fairly sure you understand these people do not know politics and its just them talking out their butt.

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by TexMex477

[Beriallord]

I support term limits for the House and Senate. I think 3 terms is fair.

 

This would make it more difficult for corporations and special interests to buy people off. The ranks would be constantly shuffling, and they'd have to start from scratch, rather than count on the luxury of having career politicians in their pocket. This would also open the doors for more new ideas.

 

This is a non-partisan issue here. Both the left and the right should be for this. Neither the left or the right likes it when their political representation gets bought off by corporations, foreign governments, and lobbyists.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Beriallord

[vixsyn]

My dad used to tell me that people voted Conservative (in the UK) because of their old fashioned faith in passing responsibility to their social "betters." It's quite frightening to see the poorer end of society (which is, technically, most of society) vote for things that hurt them financially, socially or personally. The use of propaganda is obvious really - for instance, Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun, Rupert Murdoch is a Tory supporter, The Sun is Tory leaning, Sun readers tend to vote Tory. In the States the same sort of news spread is seen - there's little middle ground, newspapers that appeal to one side go out of their way to pedal the agenda they're pushed to pedal.

 

Part of the grander issue is lack of education. Many times I've had statistics rattled at me which have actually come from politician quotes and which are twisted by spin; given I tend to read a lot I often pick up on this, but not everyone does. If you believe what x politician or y paper is telling you, without further fact checking, then you're not really researching your topic or giving the matter much thought beyond face value. People who invest themselves in their political arguments might tend to educate themselves better about policy, but I think most people just don't care that much. They agree with such and such paper/politician because that view represents the environment they grew up in, the beliefs of their friends/family, and the more a certain view is pushed by the media the more people start accepting it as the norm. A good example of the phenomenon would be the leaning towards accepting very small sizes to be the ideal female - I don't mean, say, a healthy UK 8-16 (dependent on build/frame), but the relentless promotion of the 00. Now not EVERYONE was warped by this, but there was a steady increase in, especially young, women developing eating disorders.

 

I generally think a lot of peace and understanding could be achieved by both sides if more were willing to talk to each other and less inclined to make sweeping generalisations about the opposite side. Sadly that sort of discourse is actually a sort of intellectual snobbery, because not everyone is truly capable of having informed and logical discussions.

 

What I'll personally never understand is extremism in any way - extremely strong beliefs always contain an element of arrogance that I find baffling, although I do sometimes admire that anyone can be so sure of themselves. Still, what motivates people to join, say, the KKK? What's going on in a person's head to make them think that way, to hate so much? Again, many people who fall into those extreme areas don't do a lot of their own thinking, but even if you're a total idiot, how can you think attacking others based on race (or insert other factor) is a good idea? We're all people.

 

Also, a big dose of what HeyYou said:

 

 

More like our political leaders decided that government service sole purpose was to make them rich. Have a look at just about anyone in congress. If they weren't rich when they got there, the most certainly were by the end of their first term. So why would they want to do what is 'right for the country', if that would actually cost them money?