The Cellar - Does it Matter?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Does it Matter? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=31705)

In the grand scheme of politics, does it really matter whom is elected president? I really truly feel the election process is becoming a farce. The true power is with the super pacs that fund politicians across party lines. In my humble opinion, the US is controlled by the military industrial complex and petro dollars.

Tell me if my head is up my ass. At this point, I can't support anyone for president.

I'm really stepping into this deep when I formally ask tw to comment.

The way I see it, speaking as a complete outsider looking in, the president has very little power to make change that flies against the wishes of corporate players, but some power to act if what they hope to achieve is aligned with corporate wishes. Overall, I get the distinct impression that the office of the president is powerless to do much good, but fully able to cause an almighty fuck-up on the world stage.

At best a president may seek to achieve,or may achieve, some amelioration of the worst effects of the corporate stranglehold on american life, and at worst may deepen that hold and/or further mire the country in expensive and damaging conflicts.

I see your point Dana and it is a good observation.

With a Congress divided so clearly and viciously along partisan lines, the President's veto power becomes a potent ability. The Congress of recent decades couldn't get a 2/3 majority on practically any subject, no matter how genteel, out of spite for each other. If a Republican had been in place these last four years, we would not have had healthcare reform of any kind. Congressmen sympathetic to the idea wouldn't have even attempted it, because they'd know it would all be vetoed.

When we vote for President, we are effectively voting for what TYPE of laws will get to come out of Congress, and what type of Supreme Court justices will get nominated, both of which do have quite an impact.

Isn't that kind of how it is supposed to 'work'. The President, or any branch doesn't have ultimate power, they all just lurch along in a general direction influenced by the feeling of the populace.

It would be nice if Congress spent a bit less time just trying to tear the other side down and did some proper work

The POTUS is essentially a spokesperson, a mouthpiece.

Whoever wins this next election, it will be a tragedy for the country.

A tragedy, I tell ya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge (Post 953919)

...does it really matter whom is elected president?...

Not this time 'round.

Campaign finance along with the revolving door of gov job to corp job are the two main areas I see where the influence is pernicious. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders were/are the only two to recognize it as a problem. Unfortunately we'd need to boot the corporate boot-lickers from Congress for the next couple cycles to get anything done. It is a difficult play in a country that has lost its belief in democratic process and has two completely corrupted parties. We do need to try.

Rand Paul, early in his last campaign, was following his fathers line pretty closely. Then he was called to Washington for a private meeting on K street. When he returned to the campaign he changed his priorities and his war chest swelled considerably. Sounds like he's now speaking from experience. :eyebrow:

if you don't vote, you lose the ability to bitch about the outcome.

~

oh wait, no you don't, you are free to bitch about whatever you like in this god-forsaken world. holy crap all these people worried about fascism are claiming the loss of some sort of right to bitch. how does it work? last time i checked there was no restriction at all. i didn't vote, comments sections are still available to me and people take me the exact same amount of serious.

It's just as effective too. If you elect a fascist, turns out, the complaints become currency! Oh no they don't, it turns out bitching does absolutely nothing. Oh well it was very important that we retained that right!

~

Remember,

"the good person" is the person YOU wanted to win

"the bad person" is the person YOU didn't want

and by definition in a close election where voting would actually matter, half the people are able to find the "bad" in one and the "good" in the other

and which one it is, is actually rather arbitrary and is largely a condition of your psychology, whom you were born to, whom you have spent time with, what happened in your lifetime, and how effective the colors in the logo and lawn signs are

and you've spent half your lifetime living under "bad" people's time in office and you are still here and still have, miraculously, the right to bitch

~

If you want a candidate to win it is a MUCH better use of your time to put up lawn signs, than it is to vote. In fact, if the BAD person wins, and you didn't put up lawn signs, I'm not sure where you are. You could have prevented fascism but all you did was fucking vote. The amount of influence you chose to have resulted in failure. I don't where how you have earned the right to bitch if you didn't put up lawn signs.

Are lawn signs better than Facebook posts?

Absolutely. You know who sees lawn signs. Only 20% of the people you think see your FB posts, actually see your FB posts; and those are the people you've already influenced, or been influenced by.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge (Post 953919)

In my humble opinion, the US is controlled by the military industrial complex and petro dollars.

And they, and the rest of the world are controlled by the Bilderberg group
bold mine

Quote:

Activities and goals

The group's original goal of promoting Atlanticism, of strengthening US-European relations and preventing another world war has grown; the Bilderberg Group's theme is to "bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe", according to Andrew Kakabadse.[3] In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and, a steering committee member for 30 years, said: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."[8]

Quote:

Participants

Main article: List of Bilderberg participants
About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.[3][27] Historically, attendee lists have been weighted toward bankers, politicians, directors of large businesses[28] and board members from large publicly traded corporations, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.[13] Heads of state, including former King Juan Carlos I of Spain and former queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, have attended meetings,[13][29] A source connected to the group told The Daily Telegraph in 2013 that other individuals, whose names are not publicly issued, sometimes turn up "just for the day" at the group's meetings.[30]

ahem.
Bilderberg 2015: Full Attendee List & Agenda

Quote:

Proponents of Bilderberg conspiracy theories in the United States include individuals and groups such as the John Birch Society, political activist Phyllis Schlafly, writer Jim Tucker, political activist Lyndon LaRouche, radio host Alex Jones, politician Jesse Ventura, and commentator footfootfoot.

This article was really long, and I started just skimming it after a while, but it spoke to me.

Basically it said that Trump will win the GOP nomination and will beat Hillary but will have a harder time against Sanders.

Trump's tactic is to avoid talking about substance, because he has none. Instead, he says outrageous things that the media will report. He hits below the belt and will make personal attacks that may not be true but that resonate. Hillary has a long list of things that he can use as fodder. And while she patiently takes the time to explain the nuances of why each one isn't true, he scoffs, rolls his eyes, and nails her with the next barb.

Quote:

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 954207)

Writing a comment on your keyboard ain't bitching, it's commenting, and don't mean shit.
Bitching is verbal, to real people, in a real world, that can respond in your face.