Thursday, August 4, 2016

Two Party System reveals itself as the NFL

If the natural cycle of laissez faire capitalism revolves between risk and aversion
what should happen if both political parties pervert the process
to forestall short term economic pain to win an election?

"...this election has revealed the truth about the US two-party system.

There is only one party: pro-war and pro-technocratic (corporatist).

If the National Football League’s revenue
comes from television contracts, licensed paraphernalia, and ticket sales
and divided up between the teams in two conferences
and special interest and corporate contributions
are relatively divided up between two political parties 
depending on who currently holds more power
do most fans and constituents tend to cheer for their team 
even though the financial foundations of both systems
enrich both sides of the same businesses
who exclude all and/or most of the nonaffiliated from participation?

Isn't the R and D parties really the AFC and the NFC? 

The fundamental mythology of US politics is that the Democrats are socialist-oriented and Republicans believe in freedom and individual human rights.

But Hillary is corporatist, not socialist.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe
if the people tolerate the growth of private power
to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself

That, in essence, is fascism
ownership of government by an individual
by a group or by any other controlling power

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Meanwhile Trump, whose rhetoric sometimes adopts certain libertarian and free-market overtones, is pilloried by Republican leaders who increasingly state they will vote for Hillary.

Is it worth giving unlimited power to a few
to create perceived safety for many?

Is stability a legitimate reason to repress justified dissent?

...Doug Elmets, former Reagan spokesman is quoted as  saying, ‘‘I could live with four years of Hillary Clinton before I could ever live with one day of Donald Trump as president.’’

Why would those controlling information dissemination
want to promote political candidates proposing lower network media profitability?

Important Republicans call Trump’s stances “brutal, substantively incoherent, and authoritarian.”

Should plans designed to fix large, complex predicaments
rely on those who created and profited from the initial problems
who may not have wanted to identify and confront them
when they were small, relatively unknown and lucrative?

Strangely, Hillary’s actions and statements provide evidence of the very authoritarianism and brutality that Trump is being accused of.

If democracy is government by the people, plutocracy by the wealthy
oligarchy by a few, aristocracy by nobility, theocracy by clergy
corptocracy by business and autocracy by one 
who has what where, and who’s on who’s side and why?

...None of this seems to register with Republicans who are “crossing over.”

Why are there only two powerful American political parties?

...The reality of the US political system is nothing like the rhetoric surrounding it. And now this is being actively and graphically illustrated.

Has the two party system
reached an unsustainable level of incompetence?

Under both Trump and Hillary, the system has imploded. Its rhetorical pretenses have been shattered.

If political parties raise money for TV and print advertising,
political campaigns are indirectly paying the salaries of those relied on to report unbiased analysis

Conclusion: Whatever else takes place during this federal election, the disintegration of the credibility of the two-party system is perhaps the most important development of all."

If a few contribute
the majority of large campaign donations that many can’t afford to candidates in both parties, 
who works for whom
and what do the few expect in return that most probably won’t receive?

The majority protect the weak from the powerful

Current leadership dependent on the status quo is corrupt

The wants of a few who know outweigh the needs of many that don’t

Who writes most of the legislation regulating corporate America?

Special interest groups manipulate consumer behavior
by influencing government with campaign contributions

Corruption of the political, capitalist and information systems
negatively influenced economic performance and consumer behavior
through legislation, budget appropriation, regulation and taxation
to benefit a few at the expense of many

Was it justifiable for the D's and the R's to promise trillions worth of unfunded benefits
like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for future generations to pay for?

Why would both parties agree to covertly confiscate present wealth
while sacrificing future economic stability?