Who is the King of the U.S.A.?

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps. I doubt I'd mind myself voting libertarian, but there have certainly been instances when we might have found ourselves in agreement a candidate.

Now & then, major issues might align in a candidate.....ending some wars, judicial reform, prison reform, police accountability, strategic green energy agenda.....it could happen.

 

[dust1n]

Now & then, major issues might align in a candidate.....ending some wars, judicial reform, prison reform, police accountability, strategic green energy agenda.....it could happen.

I wouldn't think it impossible at all. It's a shame such platforms are so woefully missing.

 

[Greatest I am]

Poor people get to vote, and their vote counts as much as anyone else's, so it is certainly a representative Democracy. Unless you can provide objective proof that this statement is false, your assessment is wrong. And, the mere fact that 1% of the population has most of the wealth does not in any way show our government to be an oligarchy. This would be a "stretching of the term" to fit your claim.

We get to vote but it is a meaningless vote.

Regards
DL

 

[leibowde84]

We get to vote but it is a meaningless vote.

Regards
DL

I'm not sure that Rachel Madow is a great source for anything. She is pretty seperated from reality. But, why do YOU (not her) think it is a meaningless vote? Do you think they aren't counting them, or is your reasoning more complicated.

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure that Rachel Madow is a great source for anything. She is pretty seperated from reality. But, why do YOU (not her) think it is a meaningless vote? Do you think they aren't counting them, or is your reasoning more complicated.

Speaking about the newscaster is not like speaking about the news.

I am not sure about your system but there was a lot of noise when Bush (won) his second term.

Strange how quickly that noise disappeared.

What I meant was that the talking heads are under someone else's control and regardless of the issues, the head will represent his other owners interest before any of ours.

Talking heads do not bite the hand that feeds them.

Regards
DL

 

[leibowde84]

Speaking about the newscaster is not like speaking about the news.

I am not sure about your system but there was a lot of noise when Bush (won) his second term.

Strange how quickly that noise disappeared.

What I meant was that the talking heads are under someone else's control and regardless of the issues, the head will represent his other owners interest before any of ours.

Talking heads do not bite the hand that feeds them.

Regards
DL

Nor should they. News organizations are businesses. Their primary concern is making money, just as it is with every business. So, it's kind of hard to knock them.

If citizens of this country want honest news, they should listen to more publicly funded news sources (NPR or the BBC for example).

 

[Revoltingest]

Nor should they. News organizations are businesses. Their primary concern is making money, just as it is with every business. So, it's kind of hard to knock them.
If citizens of this country want honest news, they should listen to more publicly funded news sources (NPR or the BBC for example).

Of course, NPR works for those who fund them too.
I say get rid of the expectation of "honesty".
All have some bias, so a mix of competing sources can help one see a broader picture within the spin.

 

[Greatest I am]

Nor should they. News organizations are businesses. Their primary concern is making money, just as it is with every business. So, it's kind of hard to knock them.

If citizens of this country want honest news, they should listen to more publicly funded news sources (NPR or the BBC for example).

In a world run by special interests groups and oligarchs, it may not matter which slant you get because it will be an orchestrated position.

That is the problem with a system that is not transparent and open. You cannot trust anything you hear.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Of course, NPR works for those who fund them too.
I say get rid of the expectation of "honesty".
All have some bias, so a mix of competing sources can help one see a broader picture within the spin.

I basically agree but even that bias might be phony.

Regards
DL

 

[Revoltingest]

I basically agree but even that bias might be phony.

Regards
DL

Well, I did say that it only "can help".
One's own bias will color things too.

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, I did say that it only "can help".
One's own bias will color things too.

Yes and in a system controlled by those who wish to guide our thinking, all biases might be their manipulation of information.

We cannot be sure of anything in a system where there is even a bit of unknown manipulation of information.

That is why I do not like oligarchies even if the oligarchs think themselves to be or are really moral.

Regards
DL

 

[leibowde84]

Yes and in a system controlled by those who wish to guide our thinking, all biases might be their manipulation of information.

We cannot be sure of anything in a system where there is even a bit of unknown manipulation of information.

That is why I do not like oligarchies even if the oligarchs think themselves to be or are really moral.

Regards
DL

What Oligarchs are you referring to specifically? Can you name a few of them? Do they identify as such?

At best, you might be able to show similarities to an oligarchy, but without complete disenfranchisement (meaning NO ONE IS ALOUD TO VOTE), you are incorrect in your classification of the US as such.

 

[Greatest I am]

What Oligarchs are you referring to specifically? Can you name a few of them? Do they identify as such?

At best, you might be able to show similarities to an oligarchy, but without complete disenfranchisement (meaning NO ONE IS ALOUD TO VOTE), you are incorrect in your classification of the US as such.

I do not name names but recognize that when politicians and the media are owned by the same oligarchs, then a vote is not worth anything at all.

Would you say that those spoken of in this link are completely disenfranchised?

Regards
DL

 

[leibowde84]

I do not name names but recognize that when politicians and the media are owned by the same oligarchs, then a vote is not worth anything at all.

Would you say that those spoken of in this link are completely disenfranchised?

Regards
DL

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't create an oligarchy if they were. The entire population of the US would have to be disenfranchised for the term "oligarchy" to be appropriate. This is merely an example of extremely bad governing. But, those governing were still elected by the voters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes and in a system controlled by those who wish to guide our thinking, all biases might be their manipulation of information.
We cannot be sure of anything in a system where there is even a bit of unknown manipulation of information.
That is why I do not like oligarchies even if the oligarchs think themselves to be or are really moral.
Regards
DL

To see multiple biases is still better than to see only one.
Personal experience can also serve to orient one.
But even if we had no oligarchs, there would still be bias....it's unavoidable.
The only real solution is to be aware of it in others & oneself.

 

[Greatest I am]

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't create an oligarchy if they were. The entire population of the US would have to be disenfranchised for the term "oligarchy" to be appropriate. This is merely an example of extremely bad governing. But, those governing were still elected by the voters.

Sure, the deception will not end till we decide to end it.

Those voters were manipulated by an oligarchy owned media so we were voting on bogus information and lies.

All we truly get to vote on is which liar we prefer.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

To see multiple biases is still better than to see only one.
Personal experience can also serve to orient one.
But even if we had no oligarchs, there would still be bias....it's unavoidable.
The only real solution is to be aware of it in others & oneself.

I can agree with this.

Unfortunately, in an oligarchic system that is deceiving us, we could never be sure if we were seeing a real bias or one that was made for us to ponder.

Regards
DL

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, the deception will not end till we decide to end it.

Those voters were manipulated by an oligarchy owned media so we were voting on bogus information and lies.

All we truly get to vote on is which liar we prefer.

Regards
DL

How do you know it's an oligarchy without knowing who the oligarchs are? How can you be so sure? It seems that there is quite a bit of speculation going on here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can agree with this.

Unfortunately, in an oligarchic system that is deceiving us, we could never be sure if we were seeing a real bias or one that was made for us to ponder.

I think it's worse than deception (which is by definition intentional)...they all generally believe what they say.

 

[Greatest I am]

How do you know it's an oligarchy without knowing who the oligarchs are? How can you be so sure? It seems that there is quite a bit of speculation going on here.

I gave my main reasons in the O.P. but if you want to think you live in anything other than an oligarchy then by all means continue to do so.

Regards
DL