The modern Democratic Party is a paramilitary organization. It's been a loooong time since a McGovern or a Dukakis would eventually emerge as their "leader" from the fog of internal warfare.
It was certainly a factor, but unions were already heavily funding elections, i.e. on profits were already considered тАЬpeopleтАЭ. I would be in favor of only individual contributions with caps.
I'd be interested to know what people think changed in America that we have two parties moored only in their own self-preservation. Is there something wrong with us (the people) or with them? Is it the economic system or just the times? What the hell happened?
In the 19th and even early 20th century, politicians sometimes had to leave politics to earn a living for their families. There is so much grift, so much feeding at the public trough by both parties that this is simply no longer the case today. That is why they suppress the emergence of third parties, why they exclude them from debates. That is why elections cost millions and, in the case of the Presidency, now into the billions of dollars. People don't give millions of dollars to someone they don't know for nothing. Patronage is alive and well, if more subtle today. The average American never sees this, which is why there is so much uproar over DOGE. If Americans broadly understood this, well....
Aren't you mixing two separate problems? I agree we have people pouring money into the system to buy political favors. I also agree we have a bloated bureaucracy whose members are supporting one party or the other, with little gained by the public they are supposed to serve. But, my outrage over DOGE is, one, there was no independent oversight of what was being done once Musk's crew got into the government records, and, two, how can you trust Musk to stop government waste when he is one of the biggest individual "feeders at the public trough"? Amazingly, the Department of Defense, which failed, I believe, 7 audits in the past years, is going to get more money than before. It seems to me we just switched one bunch of grifters for another.
IтАЩm not close enough to the process to say whether Musk is running roughshod over the poor federal unionized bureaucrats, but I hope he is.
I trust Musk more than anyone in Washington, and he has accomplished more than all of Congress and their children, many of whom will grow up to be in Congress as well.
As for the trough, I agree he has heavily benefited by the Green scam though, unlike most, he has produced good products and advanced human technology. IтАЩm for doing away with all energy subsidies, and for reducing inefficient regulation.
I think you confuse lack of thought with independent thought. Independent thought is consistent and is "independent" because it is rooted in unshakeable principles and values. I don't think that applies to the trio you name.
I know of no politician with "unshakeable principles and values", not one. To me, independent means a willingness to stand for what one believes and not be prisoner to a particular ideology, culture or political party. My definition does indeed apply to those three individuals, however right or wrong history may judge them to be.
Okay. I think "unshakeable principles and values" and "a willingness to stand for what one believes and not be a prisoner to a particular ideology, culture, or political party" are the same thing, provided that what one believes is rooted in consistent rational thought and not just the result of narcissistic grandstanding. Now, explain to me how Sinema and Kennedy exemplify the former and not the latter. (Gabbard, I confess, puzzles me. The few times I saw her in the past, she struck me as straightforward. I tend to think the shit that the Dems threw at her (Hillary in particular), knocked her off course, but that doesn't excuse the cringe-inducing groveling she's engaging in at those cabinet meetings. I have to think she goes home and takes loooong showers.
Yeah, Gabbard has done quite a 180. But imagine fighting for your country, then serving in Congress and for no reason other than opposing Hillary (which the American people also did in an election), sheтАЩs put on a terror watch list! I donтАЩt know, maybe that tweaked her perspective a bit.
To me Synnema is just a moderate with principles, a Blue Dog Democrat. I donтАЩt always agree with her, but IтАЩve always thought she has integrity.
Kennedy and the Kennedys are more complicated. Read Maureen CallaghanтАЩs recent book тАЬAsk NotтАЭ about how the Kennedys treat women, and it makes you sick. He has a point about our terrible diet, but his vaccine theories seem pretty ungrounded to me. Like most lawyers, they are better at arguing than understanding science, finance, energy, etc.
I agree. The way Gabbard was hounded by the Dems was disgraceful, and she was rightfully angry, but now she's supporting people who are doing the same thing to other dissenters. I hoping she'll snap out if it. I thought she had a lot to offer.
Sinema, I don't see her that way, but maybe you're right.
On Kennedy, I'm with you all the way. It's a shame that all the things he's saying about the American diet and the harmful food additives we allow are being ignored because he's the one saying them.
He showed signs of independent thought. He must be crushed by the DNC.
He will go the way of Synnema, Gabbard, Kennedy and others. Independent thought is, well, undemocratic.
The modern Democratic Party is a paramilitary organization. It's been a loooong time since a McGovern or a Dukakis would eventually emerge as their "leader" from the fog of internal warfare.
It's hard to believe the Democrats produced people like Harry Truman or Walter Mondale, men who would not recognize their party today.
Citizens United decision (corporations are people) wrecked our democracy. Now the winner is the one most easily bought.
It was certainly a factor, but unions were already heavily funding elections, i.e. on profits were already considered тАЬpeopleтАЭ. I would be in favor of only individual contributions with caps.
I'd be interested to know what people think changed in America that we have two parties moored only in their own self-preservation. Is there something wrong with us (the people) or with them? Is it the economic system or just the times? What the hell happened?
See m comment above. Citizens United is what happened.
In the 19th and even early 20th century, politicians sometimes had to leave politics to earn a living for their families. There is so much grift, so much feeding at the public trough by both parties that this is simply no longer the case today. That is why they suppress the emergence of third parties, why they exclude them from debates. That is why elections cost millions and, in the case of the Presidency, now into the billions of dollars. People don't give millions of dollars to someone they don't know for nothing. Patronage is alive and well, if more subtle today. The average American never sees this, which is why there is so much uproar over DOGE. If Americans broadly understood this, well....
Aren't you mixing two separate problems? I agree we have people pouring money into the system to buy political favors. I also agree we have a bloated bureaucracy whose members are supporting one party or the other, with little gained by the public they are supposed to serve. But, my outrage over DOGE is, one, there was no independent oversight of what was being done once Musk's crew got into the government records, and, two, how can you trust Musk to stop government waste when he is one of the biggest individual "feeders at the public trough"? Amazingly, the Department of Defense, which failed, I believe, 7 audits in the past years, is going to get more money than before. It seems to me we just switched one bunch of grifters for another.
IтАЩm not close enough to the process to say whether Musk is running roughshod over the poor federal unionized bureaucrats, but I hope he is.
I trust Musk more than anyone in Washington, and he has accomplished more than all of Congress and their children, many of whom will grow up to be in Congress as well.
As for the trough, I agree he has heavily benefited by the Green scam though, unlike most, he has produced good products and advanced human technology. IтАЩm for doing away with all energy subsidies, and for reducing inefficient regulation.
TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!
Have you got a few hours?
If you want the answer in a nutshell, it is known as Shadow Possession. Theory by Carl Jung.
Okay, thanks (I think). Carl, here I come.
I think you confuse lack of thought with independent thought. Independent thought is consistent and is "independent" because it is rooted in unshakeable principles and values. I don't think that applies to the trio you name.
I know of no politician with "unshakeable principles and values", not one. To me, independent means a willingness to stand for what one believes and not be prisoner to a particular ideology, culture or political party. My definition does indeed apply to those three individuals, however right or wrong history may judge them to be.
Okay. I think "unshakeable principles and values" and "a willingness to stand for what one believes and not be a prisoner to a particular ideology, culture, or political party" are the same thing, provided that what one believes is rooted in consistent rational thought and not just the result of narcissistic grandstanding. Now, explain to me how Sinema and Kennedy exemplify the former and not the latter. (Gabbard, I confess, puzzles me. The few times I saw her in the past, she struck me as straightforward. I tend to think the shit that the Dems threw at her (Hillary in particular), knocked her off course, but that doesn't excuse the cringe-inducing groveling she's engaging in at those cabinet meetings. I have to think she goes home and takes loooong showers.
Yeah, Gabbard has done quite a 180. But imagine fighting for your country, then serving in Congress and for no reason other than opposing Hillary (which the American people also did in an election), sheтАЩs put on a terror watch list! I donтАЩt know, maybe that tweaked her perspective a bit.
To me Synnema is just a moderate with principles, a Blue Dog Democrat. I donтАЩt always agree with her, but IтАЩve always thought she has integrity.
Kennedy and the Kennedys are more complicated. Read Maureen CallaghanтАЩs recent book тАЬAsk NotтАЭ about how the Kennedys treat women, and it makes you sick. He has a point about our terrible diet, but his vaccine theories seem pretty ungrounded to me. Like most lawyers, they are better at arguing than understanding science, finance, energy, etc.
I agree. The way Gabbard was hounded by the Dems was disgraceful, and she was rightfully angry, but now she's supporting people who are doing the same thing to other dissenters. I hoping she'll snap out if it. I thought she had a lot to offer.
Sinema, I don't see her that way, but maybe you're right.
On Kennedy, I'm with you all the way. It's a shame that all the things he's saying about the American diet and the harmful food additives we allow are being ignored because he's the one saying them.