Conspiracy - Theory versus Reality

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, John Foote said:

Trump is an outlier, but a more typical Republican or Democrat, the difference is how they sell and image, not really globalism which is really is bi-partisistic (is that a word). Globalism is really more curry favor to big money and big business, which has no allegiance to country, and modern politicians need to chase money to get a chance to win an election. Voters haven't had influence in some time for much of the meaningful laws in some time. There is the so called elites, and mega money, and that's about it.

And of course there is the mantra, go local, where you can influence who runs, how it works, etc.. And on a micro basis, the US system still works.

On a Federal level, the last 40 years suggests what works is a divided government, don't allow one party to run up their brand of lunacy. Give one party everything, and they screw it up more. IMHO much of Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama's success was tied to a divided executive/congressional system. Hard to argue that Bush43 wasn't statistically the worst we've had since Nixon in terms of damage. Personally I think Bill Clinton was really a closet Republican, he certainly monetized public office like no one before him, talking liberal to get vote, and going back his Arkansas days, in truth a friend to businesses to make a Rockerfellor blush. The basic fiscal policy has been same since Carter put Volker in the Federal Reserve. The foreign policy machine, roughly the same for every president, different tone, but same policy. And yes, Trump is truly different, and I hope we never find a money trail demonstrating he's more than turbulence in this decisions. I suspect the trail is there, but in so many interests never to emerge and further shatter our faith. LBJ new Nixon committed treason, prolonging the Vietnam war intentionally, but felt keeping us sheep faithful to the system was better than stopping Nixon, who was quite competent at basic governance, though OMG the over-reach.

The attachment is a really dry, slightly famous Princeton study noticing what most of us vote and feel has very little to do what happens. Having lived in totalitarian states I know darn well life proceeds no matter the government, and the USA overall is pretty darn good.

Good governance is what I crave, more than the flavor, under-reach, or over-reach. The basic American ethos is a bit anti-government, and that plays against us doing to research to vote smart.

 

The basic American ethos is now what can my government do for me not "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". JFK  I enlisted in the army in 1962 partially because of JFK. He would not make it in the present Democratic Party. They stand for the opposite and so must be defeated. 

Edited January 12, 2019 by ronwagn

[John Foote + 1,135]

Pretty confident JFK wouldn't make it in the present Democratic party, and Reagan would be keel hauled by the Republican party.

If the basic American ethos was what my government could do for me, the Republican party would not be in the White House or ruling the senate with an increased, not decreased, majority. And have the majority of Governorships. 

I live in Texas, and I'm quite confident the state isn't down a socialist path in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 1/11/2019 at 6:06 AM, Red said:

Could the scenario play out (as distinct from being merely attempted)?  More likely than not given there is nothing - so far presented - apparently unlawful or unconstitutional in the president's actions.  Of course the other problem is that the citizenry would then need to fight a rearguard action, although on what grounds?  Every action undertaken was lawful and constitutional.  You might not like what happened but apart from the ballot box, what are your lawful rights to fight it?  Maybe put on a yellow vest and keep taking to the streets?

Red, 

I have been thinking about this one. And whilst I actually agree the scenario is realistic on paper I also it would never play out in reality. The reason being that whilst it migth work to influence the election what good is it to win if you cannot maintain office? American investigative journalism migth not be as respected as in the stays Woodward and Bernstein, but it is still alive & the American democratic institutions are not useless. Just look at the Mueller investigation. If something like this was pulled off then there would writings and lawsuits etc and I cannot see the likes @TXPower and likeminded accepting this - Trump would surely be impeached; if not for this, then something else

Edited January 18, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Red, 

I have been thinking about this one. And whilst I actually agree the scenario is realistic on paper I also it would never play out in reality. The reason being that whilst it migth work to influence the election what good is it to win if you cannot maintain office? American investigative journalism migth not be as respected as in the stays Woodward and Bernstein, but it is still alive & the American democratic institutions are not useless. Just look at the Mueller investigation. If something like this was pulled off then there would writings and lawsuits etc and I cannot see the likes @TXPower and likeminded accepting this - Trump would surely be impeached; if not for this, then something else

In principle I agree it is unlikely.

But the purpose was to show that not only was it possible, there is nothing making the actions carried out unlawful or unconstitutional.  The scenario makes a better storyline due to Trump, but a President more honest yet even less popular in the future can light this fuse.

Logically  the likes of TXP and others, who might want to act in violent protest once the fuse is lit, immediately put themselves outside of the law, despite their singular belief that the President's actions are improper.  What they need to personally resolve is if it "American" to act against a President who prima facie appears to be acting against the influence of a foreign power.  To me that smacks of treasonous behaviour. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Red said:

In principle I agree it is unlikely.

But the purpose was to show that not only was it possible, there is nothing making the actions carried out unlawful or unconstitutional.  The scenario makes a better storyline due to Trump, but a President more honest yet even less popular in the future can light this fuse.

Logically  the likes of TXP and others, who might want to act in violent protest once the fuse is lit, immediately put themselves outside of the law, despite their singular belief that the President's actions are improper.  What they need to personally resolve is if it "American" to act against a President who prima facie appears to be acting against the influence of a foreign power.  To me that smacks of treasonous behaviour. 

I didn't actually mean take to the streets in violent protests. I meant that if public opinion was overwhelmingly for it then there would bipartisan cooperation to find a way to impeach Trump.