Modern Kingmakers....The Most Powerful People

[Revoltingest]

Reposted from another thread.....

We also saw the incredible power of the whistleblower, ie, Wikileaks.
I believe that with out them, the result would've been hugely reversed.
And here's the ironic thing....the released emails have not been even
challenged for accuracy, so the effect was based upon facts...albeit
well timed facts.
The most powerful people of our age might be Julian Assange & Matt Drudge.

So, fellow posters...who do you think wield the greatest power in the US or the world?

 

[Lighthouse]

Reposted from another thread.....

We also saw the incredible power of the whistleblower, ie, Wikileaks.
I believe that with out them, the result would've been hugely reversed.
And here's the ironic thing....the released emails have not been even
challenged for accuracy, so the effect was based upon facts...albeit
well timed facts.
The most powerful people of our age might be Julian Assange & Matt Drudge.

So, fellow posters...who do you think wield the greatest power in the US or the world?

I think that we will see government(s) beef up their security and security protocols.
I still believe that the only way this information was received was from someone(s) on the inside or a stupid mistake like the alleged Podesta gmail password change.

So, the anonymous insiders play a huge role along with the outsiders that publish the information.

Going forward, I think that whistleblowers are starting to create a foundation and more will be listened to on many varying things, not just politics. Wikileaks have already exposed all sorts of things ranging from politics, to vaccinations, etc. They are starting to open up more and more minds, growing in fan club. People's growing suspicions are gradually becoming more and more reality. There will always be the opposition to them too.

We've also had many internal whistleblowers come out on various things only to be smeared and defamed or mysteriously die or get locked up. Brave and courageous folks in my opinion.

To me, the truth is always the most powerful even if it's against common perception, long held beliefs, etc. The truth is still painful for many also, but I think more are starting to get over their fears.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that we will see government(s) beef up their security and security protocols.
I still believe that the only way this information was received was from someone(s) on the inside or a stupid mistake like the alleged Podesta gmail password change.

So, the anonymous insiders play a huge role along with the outsiders that publish the information.

Going forward, I think that whistleblowers are starting to create a foundation and more will be listened to on many varying things, not just politics. Wikileaks have already exposed all sorts of things ranging from politics, to vaccinations, etc. They are starting to open up more and more minds, growing in fan club. People's growing suspicions are gradually becoming more and more reality. There will always be the opposition to them too.

We've also had many internal whistleblowers come out on various things only to be smeared and defamed or mysteriously die or get locked up. Brave and courageous folks in my opinion.

To me, the truth is always the most powerful even if it's against common perception, long held beliefs, etc. The truth is still painful for many also, but I think more are starting to get over their fears.

They'll beef up their security, but there will always be countermeasures.
At least now there is no media monopoly, ie, the info can get published where all can see.

 

[Notanumber]

So far, Donald hasn’t said anymore about sending HRC to prison, but under the circumstances do you think he will set Julian Assange free.

 

[Revoltingest]

So far, Donald hasn’t said anymore about sending HRC to prison, but under the circumstances do you think he will set Julian Assange free.

Good question.....he could pardon Assange.
As for Hillary, I expect the justice system or IRS to take some renewed interest in the Clinton Foundation.

 

[JakofHearts]

The American people.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The Golden Rule still applies; always has, always will: They that have the Gold, make the rules.

Assange and Wikileaks is useful, so long as it diverts attention away from the richest individuals and groups, who play a long game, far longer than election cycles and mere politics. They can work with whoever wins, and they can outlast times when political populism or progressivism seems to move against their interests.

Democracy and capitalism have been useful to the wealthy, since they don't have to get trapped into playing monarchs and royalty and actually BEING the government anymore. They can play the field, play governments off each other, play parties off each other, and manipulate from behind, from the shadows.

 

[Valjean]

The American people.

Did you miss the Princeton study?http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

Neither congress or the supreme court seems to pay much attention to The People. We're ruled by a class of aristocrats, pursuing their own interests, with little consideration of 'the general welfare'.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Golden Rule still applies; always has, always will: They that have the Gold, make the rules.

In this election, Hillary greatly outspent Trump.
While he's quite wealthy, he took the cheap route by simply interest the media in covering him as news.
I'm inclined to alter the old saying, "I'd rather be lucky than smart.", as.....
"I'd rather be smart than rich.....but being rich doesn't hurt."

Assange and Wikileaks is useful, so long as it diverts attention away from the richest individuals and groups, who play a long game, far longer than election cycles and mere politics. They can work with whoever wins, and they can outlast times when political populism or progressivism seems to move against their interests.

Democracy and capitalism have been useful to the wealthy, since they don't have to get trapped into playing monarchs and royalty and actually BEING the government anymore. They can play the field, play governments off each other, play parties off each other, and manipulate from behind, from the shadows.

The poor also wield great power by their vast numbers of voters.
It's why Dems promise subsidized health care & free college.
There are many competing interests, none of whom get their way entirely.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In this election, Hillary greatly outspent Trump.
While he's quite wealthy, he took the cheap route by simply interest the media in covering him as news.
I'm inclined to alter the old saying, "I'd rather be lucky than smart.", as.....
"I'd rather be smart than rich.....but being rich doesn't hurt."

The poor also wield great power by their vast numbers of voters.
It's why Dems promise subsidized health care & free college.
There are many competing interests, none of whom get their way entirely.

spending on the election is irrelevant to the oligarchs. Some do contribute, some don't, but either way, the results are of little concern, especially of one office that has little actual power.

The poor may hold some electoral power now, but didn't always, and it's chump-change to the wealthy to toss a few coins their way now and again. Irrelevant to the long game.

And sure there are competing interests: but the fact that almost all of history has been the story of different groups of the wealthy class trying to defeat other groups of the wealthy class. The less-wealthy, the middle class, and the poor are useful as tools in such long-term games, but theirs are not the interests that concern the oligarchs.

 

[Valjean]

Hillary may have outspent Trump in dollars, but Trump certainly trumped her in airtime.
"The trump show" was a popular hit, and brought in a lot of ad dollars for the "news" networks.

 

[Revoltingest]

spending on the election is irrelevant to the oligarchs. Some do contribute, some don't, but either way, the results are of little concern, especially of one office that has little actual power.

You don't name the oligarchs, so I'll assume they're the ones who wield the power, ie, the pols.
If money didn't matter then, they wouldn't work so hard to amass & spend it.
Hillary, the ultimate insider who would be more expert than your or I, did exactly this.

The poor may hold some electoral power now, but didn't always, and it's chump-change to the wealthy to toss a few coins their way now and again. Irrelevant to the long game.

They vote, & they get.
Social spending is the largest budget item.
This demonstrates the buying of their votes.

And sure there are competing interests: but the fact that almost all of history has been the story of different groups of the wealthy class trying to defeat other groups of the wealthy class. The less-wealthy, the middle class, and the poor are useful as tools in such long-term games, but theirs are not the interests that concern the oligarchs.

Everyone wants their piece of the pie.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You don't name the oligarchs, so I'll assume they're the ones who wield the power, ie, the pols.
If money didn't matter then, they wouldn't work so hard to amass & spend it.
Hillary, the ultimate insider who would be more expert than your or I, did exactly this.

They vote, & they get.
Social spending is the largest budget item.
This demonstrates the buying of their votes.

Everyone wants their piece of the pie.

I've been quite clear about who "they" are. The very wealthy, especially the hereditary wealthy. They are almost never politicians but they work to use politicians.

On rare occasions across history, the poor and middle class have risen up to overthrow the wealthy...only to install another group to control the wealth (In the Soviet Union, it was Stalin and the Politboro, for example). The American revolution was one of SOME of the wealthy of the colonies revolting against the motherland, and managing to do so successfully. But make no mistake, they didn't do it so ALL adults 240 years hence would be citizens and have the opportunity to vote for President, etc.; they did it so they could control their own affairs and create/keep more wealth for themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been quite clear about who "they" are. The very wealthy, especially the hereditary wealthy. They are almost never politicians but they work to use politicians.

I lose track of all the viewpoints here at times.
The pols still run the show.
Consider....
Invading Iraq was the biggest event in recent history.
Only the pols had the power to do that.

On rare occasions across history, the poor and middle class have risen up to overthrow the wealthy...only to install another group to control the wealth (In the Soviet Union, it was Stalin and the Politboro, for example). The American revolution was one of SOME of the wealthy of the colonies revolting against the motherland, and managing to do so successfully. But make no mistake, they didn't do it so ALL adults 240 years hence would be citizens and have the opportunity to vote for President, etc.; they did it so they could control their own affairs and create/keep more wealth for themselves.

If the wealthy have so much power, they sure don't use it to their advantage as much as they should.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I lose track of all the viewpoints here at times.
The pols still run the show.
Consider....
Invading Iraq was the biggest event in recent history.
Only the pols had the power to do that.

If the wealthy have so much power, they sure don't use it to their advantage as much as they should.

I don't know what viewpoints are confusing you. My critique is quite straightforward.

Most of what goes on in politics is beneath the interests of the very wealthy, most of the time. Unless someone is depriving them of property without due process of law--and sometimes not even then--are they greatly concerned. But essentially, until America, being amongst the most wealthy meant you were also responsible for running the government. America has changed that, by creating a middle class who gladly engages in the contact sport of politics, allowing the very wealthy to concentrate on protecting their wealth, and to a lesser degree, creating more.

The aristocracy of France learned that they should have paid attention more to the middle class, who started a revolt among the poor, and lost control of it...yet, within a couple of generations, hereditary wealth was again a major feature of French culture. It still is.

America's wealthy, and many in the rest of the world as well, have learned that it is better to buy large numbers of politicians, quietly, while letting the rabble play at government. When something is important to them, they will make sure that first, they and their wealth is protected, and then see whether they need to intervene.

Sure, sometimes things go awry--Hitler, for example--that that didn't become apparent to most Germans until the British fired back...and even then, the German aristocracy mostly survived the war, as did the Japanese...

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what viewpoints are confusing you. My critique is quite straightforward.

I didn't know I was confused.
I hate it when that happens!

Most of what goes on in politics is beneath the interests of the very wealthy, most of the time. Unless someone is depriving them of property without due process of law--and sometimes not even then--are they greatly concerned. But essentially, until America, being amongst the most wealthy meant you were also responsible for running the government. America has changed that, by creating a middle class who gladly engages in the contact sport of politics, allowing the very wealthy to concentrate on protecting their wealth, and to a lesser degree, creating more.

The aristocracy of France learned that they should have paid attention more to the middle class, who started a revolt among the poor, and lost control of it...yet, within a couple of generations, hereditary wealth was again a major feature of French culture. It still is.

America's wealthy, and many in the rest of the world as well, have learned that it is better to buy large numbers of politicians, quietly, while letting the rabble play at government. When something is important to them, they will make sure that first, they and their wealth is protected, and then see whether they need to intervene.

Sure, sometimes things go awry--Hitler, for example--that that didn't become apparent to most Germans until the British fired back...and even then, the German aristocracy mostly survived the war, as did the Japanese...

If you have a specific example of some oligarch controlling government, I can address that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I didn't know I was confused.
I hate it when that happens!

If you have a specific example of some oligarch controlling government, I can address that.

you said:

I lose track of all the viewpoints here at times.

although on further review, you might be speaking generally about RF rather than in this specific thread...

As to the rest, it will have to wait until another time. It may not be late in the day for you, but it is for me...

 

[Revoltingest]

you said:

although on further review, you might be speaking generally about RF rather than in this specific thread...

As to the rest, it will have to wait until another time. It may not be late in the day for you, but it is for me...

Okey dokey.
It's getting late here too, & I still plan to do some work outside.
(New work lights on the back of Mr Van.)

 

[Acim]

So, fellow posters...who do you think wield the greatest power in the US or the world?

Political power? If yes, I'd say the super rich, combined with lobbyist types who are well connected to established political types (think long term congressional personnel).

Outside of politics, I'd have another response, but seeing that we're in the politics area, I see no reason to go there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Political power? If yes, I'd say the super rich, combined with lobbyist types who are well connected to established political types (think long term congressional personnel).

Outside of politics, I'd have another response, but seeing that we're in the politics area, I see no reason to go there.

The Koch Bros & George Soros have some influence, but in this election Julian Assange's Wikileaks reigned supreme in defeating Hillary.