Party loyalty and partisanship is anarchy

Lets start out with who controls (or should control) our country.
Sure we are technically a republic, but we still boast our ideals in democracy. So who holds power in a democracy?

Definition of democracy plural democracies 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majorityb : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Webster[/url

The people are the power, the people are the employers, the people is who holds the elected accountable (ideally).
what is anarchy?

Definition of anarchy 1 a : absence of government : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy]Webster


We the people are essentially government. We are employers and bosses. We need to set the tone of what is to be expected and achieved. Any attempt by small entities is anarchy to the government.

So here we are with the two party system, apparently this huge divide or rift in our society where somehow all unique individuals are cast into two very definable groups. The irony is most people have the same goals to what they want with our country, the same civic duty to love one another, help one another, look out for one another as if they were our blood. When out of political context it is obvious the bond of the nation. It would be ignorant to say that there isn't an inherent urge for individuals to think and act for the pact. Only with the manufactured divide do we find ourselves scared to put out signs for our candidates or bumper stickers on our car for fear of retaliation.

Lets take a look at our last few presidents and their promised agenda and what was actually accomplished.
I'm sure my timeline ultimately starts before this but I want to begin with George W. Bush.

Here are his top donors.

Morgan Stanley $604,280
Merrill Lynch $558,804
PricewaterhouseCoopers $508,500
UBS AG $442,325
Goldman Sachs $396,350
Lehman Brothers $355,525
US Government $334,611
Citigroup Inc $317,375
MBNA Corp $313,600
Ernst & Young $304,340
Bear Stearns $302,850
Deloitte LLP $293,050
Credit Suisse Group $279,590
Wachovia Corp $273,760
Bank of America $258,361
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,005
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
US Dept of State $220,280
Ameriquest Capital $208,130
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $199,075

Open Secrets

Now lets look at Obama (08)

University of California $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
Harvard University $900,909
Microsoft Corp $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Google Inc $817,855
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Time Warner $617,844
Sidley Austin LLP $606,260
Stanford University $603,866
National Amusements Inc $579,098
Columbia University $570,839
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
WilmerHale Llp $554,373
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182

Open Secrets

But then something amazing happened, in the midst of a tightly contested fight between the bipartisan system we found a loophole. The Supreme Court made a ruling that made Super PACs possible.

Super PACs Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

Open Secrets

So apparently corporations have the same liberties as people, and entitled to the same rights as us who have to sacrifice as living organisms to survive.
The irony of this whole situation is that Bush represents one of the recent "conservative" presidents whereas Obama would be the recent "liberal".
Lets examine each president.
Bush first.

President Bush signed into law Friday a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry.

Sounds like corporate welfare. How in capitalism are consumer minded companies to flourish if companies are taking hand outs and aren't competitive?
Also we had
"Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton has profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers. While Halliburton has been engaging in massive overcharging and wasteful practices under this no-bid contract, Dick Cheney has continued to receive compensation from his former company."

Definitely not an example of competitive capitalism.
But surely Obama would do different.
That was then; this is now. Last week, the Army revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through next year. This deal was announced only hours after the Obama Justice Department informed the public that it was joining a suit filed by whistleblowers who allege KBR used kickbacks to get foreign contracts.

That doesn’t mean Obama is perpetuating the Bush Presidency and agenda though. Its not like he completely went against his campaign promises of peace and bombed more countries than Bush.

Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. As we fact-checked Lizza’s statement, we found little reason to challenge the nations he named. If anything, he shortchanged both presidents.

Alright, that was all coincidence and Obama was just stuck with what he had.
Hillary's top donors 2016.

University of California $1,943,113 $1,943,113 $0
Alphabet Inc $1,576,242 $1,576,242 $0
EMILY's List $1,362,696 $1,348,776 $13,920
JPMorgan Chase & Co $1,172,825 $1,169,825 $3,000
Citigroup Inc $1,052,604 $1,044,604 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $1,049,821 $1,039,821 $10,000
Microsoft Corp $1,043,614 $1,040,114 $3,500
DLA Piper $1,027,670 $1,000,670 $27,000
Morgan Stanley $1,014,631 $1,009,631 $5,000
Time Warner $963,438 $938,438 $25,000
Harvard University $949,874 $949,874 $0
US Government $850,539 $850,539 $0
Skadden, Arps et al $842,393 $837,893 $4,500
Stanford University $775,885 $775,885 $0
US Dept of State $769,866 $769,866 $0
Columbia University $750,400 $750,400 $0
New York University $714,532 $714,532 $0
Kirkland & Ellis $706,244 $689,244 $17,000
Apple Inc $701,932 $701,932 $0
Comcast Corp $690,510 $680,510 $10,000

Open Secrets

Funny how banks, technology and media rule the same donors across the isle.
I will not pretend I am eloquent and intelligent enough to bring all these strings together. But I do know that most people who have been on ATS for a while know that there are bigger players than the candidates, and bigger agendas than partisan.
So I find it funny most (including me) get caught falling into the partisan trap. In the end the differences between the two parties are not what is needed, but the path to follow to get what is needed. In the end it is us the citizens who should benefit from anything but now we are the most underrepresented. It is funny how people used to be proud of their political affiliation and now it is taboo. How have we come to the point where we are divided between friends and family for something that used to be acceptable? How is it we pride ourselves of diversity when we are more divided than we used to be?
Before I close I would like to say I did not take as much time as I should have on this, there is no way I alone could get this message across. I am not articulate or eloquent enough to piece this together for everyone so I encourage anyone to criticize and take whatever you want to build this into your own perception.
And if you’ve followed this far, here is a treat.



Edit: This isn't as neat as I'd like it, but in the interest of time I must leave it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Oh no, as the fundamentalist idiots will tell you, America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic which forces democracy on OTHER countries, but insists upon none for itself. It invalidates its internal structure, by forcing one it does not resemble on other states and regions, but expects none of the laudable qualities of democracy itself.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Come on now, my whole post agrees with what you said except we all want similar things. You are dead on but remember this isn't the mudpit, no need to start argument.

Let's start discussion. Hence the reason I picked a different forum than most

Great post S&F. One thing I would disagree with.

The irony is most people have the same goals to what they want with our country,

When I was much younger I too thought that... Age and experience has taught me differently.

a reply to: 727Sky

What does age have to do with wanting to pay the least amount of taxes as possible?.

Conservative = military spending.

Liberal = entitlements.

How about invest in our country? I didn't say give, I said invest. Imagine if we were in the top ten in the world for education again. I know, it's like it would be worth the excess money we spend over countries who do better.

Imagine an economy people didn't laugh at.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

My apologies.

I just believe that while I agree with every last thing about what you said, even the punctuation, the problem is not that people do not understand how democracy works. The problem is that they do not believe in it. And the evidence is right there in your OP(s).

The existence of SuperPacs, the existence of Citizens United, which made corporate bodies equal to citizens in terms of their legal status and so on, DESTROYED the elements of the United States government structure, which were fundamentally democratic in nature. If donations mean success, and businesses can donate freely by any method, as opposed to staying out of the damned argument entirely (which they ought to) then you do not have a democracy. You have a corporatism, or an oligarchy, but you do not have a democracy if money buys success.

To be clear, I was not starting an argument. What I was doing in posting what I did, was making it CLEAR in concise terms, that the attitude which destroys democracy, comes from those who do not believe it has a place in their society. If the death of democracy in the US was a concern to the majority of its citizens, would we not be seeing more than protest, but actual revolution? Would we not have seen the mob begin to force the government to behave in a manner which stayed rigidly in accordance with the wishes of the electorate?

While money can by influence and power, all democracy is a lie. Unless one vote carries the same weight no matter who casts it, unless elections measure the number of votes not the number of regions, unless the poor have the precise same power as the rich, but greater numbers and therefore are always the victors, there is no democracy, there is no for the people, by the people. There is a lie, told by rich men and women to fool the rest into believing they chose their terrible fate for themselves, as opposed to having it foisted upon them.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I appreciated your input and still had a similar sentiment as you earlier.

In my opinion I live in a country of self absorbed apathetic people. Surely democracy is not possible in that environment.

That's what I used to believe. With "reality" TV and "media" I had no hope. Then came Ron Paul, an anomaly in a two party system that rules all. Then all of a sudden we got two anti establishment candidates representing both sides.

I'll agree that may have been set up in some form, but considering the trash state of today's generations (I'm a part of), I'm glad to see some progress.

Thankfully the callus I've formed over my heart and ideology will not leave. Should my optimism be wrong, I will be just as cynically blissful.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think the problem that your country has right now is that anti-establishment covers too wide a range of different candidate options. The idea that a multi-billionaire who has exploited every major and minor loophole, to justify the amoral manner in which he has made his money, could be included in the description is laughable, since it is clear that he benefits from that establishment being as deliberately obtuse and foolish as possible. And many of his policies seek to re-establish the power of the establishment. I speak, of course, of Trump.

Now, Ron Paul, during the period when he last ran for President, should have garnered FAR more support than he did, because he was the only man running in the race he last ran, who talked the REMOTEST bit of sense. I did not agree with everything he said, but it was clear that he knew that there was a problem, and where it really lay. He knew it was a systemic problem, rooted in the structure of American economics, knew how to solve it, knew that it needed doing. Bernie Sanders also knew that business was too powerful, that people were being left by the wayside in favour of tax breaks for the wealthy and for businesses, knew that too many people felt that the system was not designed for them, for the greater whole or the greater good, was NOT a system designed to free, but to enslave, and sought to be given the mandate to tear down the least noble of its aspects, in favour of installing noble things into it once more.

Neither of these candidates, despite being the only genuine, informed, respectable persons to run in their various campaign periods, got the recognition they deserved, and it would be easy to blame the media, but in a nation which was crying out for something real, the media should have been irrelevant, because people should have known that the media was not to be trusted. These men should have received overwhelming support regardless of, in spite of the media, but did not. They did not because people did not care enough to research for themselves, to abandon the media and actually look into the history of these men, see them for the standard bearers for real politics that they are.

And look what happened instead. A pro-Reagan era establishment lackey, with a reality TV show of his own, no cohesive policy, no respect for the poor, no respect for the hardest working people in the country, no intention of making things better for the down at heel, no intention of taking war off the table, no intention of correcting the imbalance in the economy what so ever, is the nations pick. The man should have been thrown off at the primary stage, but for some reason, people thought this bottom feeding, lowest common denominator fluffing fraudster would be ideal!? Really? That does not seem like democracy to me. That seems like a lie. I hope that callous is as thick as you say, because things are shaping up really quite badly already!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Imagine if we were in the top ten in the world for education again. I know, it's like it would be worth the excess money we spend over countries who do better.

With our present get a trophy for showing up socialist unruly/ no respect school system where administrators make six figure incomes while the actual teachers are lucky to make 40+ that will be hard to accomplish IMO...America was 29th..Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea,Tiawan.... Japan is #4 in the world the last time I checked and their school system is tough.. Many stories and even youtube videos on how they do things.Maybe some good but maybe not for western ideology. youtu.be...


I used to hate learning via computer where you had to complete with 85% before you could advance to the next system module.. However that type learning darn sure worked for no one wanted to take a randomly selected 100 question test over again much less redo a module..Very few made less than 95%.
youtu.be...


The country I live in seems to only want the majority smart enough to do what they are told and certainly not do to much independent thinking for themselves... Thus the upper class sends their kids to private schools overseas in many cases.. They come back and take over in parent sponsored government positions and companies to maintain the status quo..

Now nothing you have said do I disagree with.. It is not the destination bu..t the road map to get there that I question.... If throwing money at a problem would fix stuff we would have the best medical care and school system in the world already... IMO

a reply to: TrueBrit

While I agree with you whole heartedly, I've come to lighten up.

I would have voted Bernie. He's super left but I trust him. That is so rare in politics and I know his record and he is consistent. Paul on the other hand I just love, I don't blame anyone who doesn't share that sentiment but wow, what an incredible man.

That being said, the push for divide is so successful people are stressed and just trying to get by. Who wants to separate themselves from those they love? Who wants to "be belligerent" by questioning everything they've been taught?

I am empathetic and as angered by apathy as you. Quite a precarious situation.

a reply to: 727Sky

We spend more on education than most, we just pepper in indoctrination.

As for health care, it doesn't help that our food is glorified science experiments aloud by the FDA while natural remedies are not recognized.

I'd implore you to watch the short video in the OP.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It is.

It is no overstatement to say that the fate of the world, not just any one country, but the whole world, rests on the ability of people in the countries upon its face, to make good choices about how they are to move forward, and who can best make that happen in a manner which promotes freedom, liberty, equality and reliance on truth. The world, therefore, is in mortal danger, because those choices are being made badly, with either lies or old information, with little conscious thought, by people who have been programmed away from reason, toward blind obedience. This does not make for a hopeful future. Dystopia seems inevitable.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Truer words I've never heard. The way we conceive the future is based off the past. Here we are though, we could compare it to the past but its apples and hand grenades.

While Germany had strict surveillance protocol, western nations not only used it as a template but created the new benchmark.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Completely agreed!!!!. A piss poor definition of anarchy aswell.