> > > > Twice.
> > > > It's our system.
> > > > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
> >
> > > our system was never intended for fascism.
> > Then why are you cheerin it on?
> i am not,
Why are you citing winger dinger Rasmussen to indulge your fantasy that tRUMP is more popular than 35%?
<CIA>
> what i am doing is
indulging in fantasy.
That's all you ever do besides dodgin' 'n dodgin'
. . .
> > Being a reactionary against fascism = more fascism, in your case, fascism on steroids.
> no,
Being a reactionary does not bring any new ideas to the table.
True progressives like Sanders would have nothing to do with your derangement syndrome any more than they'll have anything to do with tRUMP.
When was the last time you played patty cake with the Green Party?
<CIA>
> "Integrity is telling myself the truth.
Which explains why you dodge issues like a looneytarian:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/JZZJ4TpndT4
<CIA>
> And honesty is telling the truth to other people": Spencer Johnson
You need to stop lying to yourself first.
> > Finally, the system, the constitution was intended to be amended as times change to preserve the sovereignty of the people _against_ fascism.
> billy over turned that ability to preserve our sovereignty.
And you want to keep that ebil system?
<CIA>
> on top of that,
>
> As Mussolini pointed out fascism is defined by an economic system where the policies chosen by government are indistinguishable from those desired by corporations.
And you want to emulate Mussolini?
<CIA>
> we already went fascist in the 1990's.
And you want to keep the fascist system?
<CIA>
Incredible!
> > > a fascist con artist won,
> > Because the people could not vote directly on economic policy. It is easy to buy off politicians and Big Pharma has plenty of dough.
> then amend the constitution. it should be so easy for you to do that.
Not with the New York Times issuing fatwas against anyone who even breaths the word "idea."
That why so many voters are as ideaphobic as you.
You've been brainwashed by the legacy media and don't know it.
> > What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
> >
> > <CIA>
<CAP>
crickets as perdicted.
> FDR had his faults, just like truman. but in the end, there policy positives, out weighed there policy negatives.
As you pointed out it's a different time. They can buy off politicians faster than they can get a container from Shanghai to LA.
> bill clinton took a wrecking ball to americas civil society, and well over half the population has been raped into poverty.
And you want to keep that system?
<CIA>
> i see no positives with him at all.
Even more you have no _solutions_ whatsoever except whining.
The reason you are ideaphobic is because, as Henry George pointed out, "the rich control thought."
FDR believed George was the greatest American.
> > > that can happen in any system.
> > It doesn't happen in California, at least not for long:
> then amend the constitution.
You are quite the outspoken advocate of amendments that are totally useless in a full cash society like_Citizens United._
Why is our outspoken populist less than enthused about an amendment that will put the fear of God into the shills & shill media?
<CIA>
> till then, i have to work
What work?
Dodging issues?
<CIA>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/JZZJ4TpndT4
> inside the system we have.
You are not even in smallparty anymore and you pretend to work within a system?
Regressive taxation = fascism?
<CIA>
> because of prop 13, you have for decades been chopping off one limb after another, besides pricing out of the housing market, a huge portion of your citizens.
That'll eventually get put on a ballot initiative.
The hold up there is the same as the hold up on other fronts:
The legacy media are paid to keep it out of the debate.
> > Do you know the history of the California constitution?>
> > <CIA>
<CAP>
crickets as perdicted
> but its not the constitution of the u.s.a.
Who said it was?
<CIA>
You dodged the issue:
The issue is the states are laboratories of democracy.
One state figgered out how to solve the ebil incarnate politician getting bought off by big bidness problem.
Why not do that nationally so everyone can benefit from California's example?
<CIA>
> if you want to amend the constitution,
If you _don't_ want to amend the constitution why are you trying the same system over and over while expecting different results?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
. . .
> > In California they had a problem with ebil incarnate politicians about 100 years ago. Eber time they went to Sacramento Southern Pacific would buy 'em off.
> > It was just like today with Big Pharma buying off Bob $chieffer and their shill politicians in DC.
> > Many Californians back then were like you. They flailed out at ebil incarnate politicians. They wack a moled. They scraped scum off ponds. They mowed mushrooms.
> > But the majority of Californians were smarter than you. They didn't want to waste all their time wack a moling, scraping scum and mowing mushrooms.
> > So they amended the Constitution of California.
> > Today if anyone here tries to become Eastern liberal establishment elitist route fanny becomes enormously exposed.
> > Out comes the 9' loaded whip called the ballot initiative and huge bloody chunks of shill fanny goes soaring end over end over end.
> > So they rarely try it in the first place.
> > The single payer fiasco will most certainly be an outlier, a rare chance for you to see Big Pharma shill fanny popped next year with ballot initiative next. That may not even be necessary as even national Dems are talking the talk of single payer. Yea, sure they'll flip flop for awhile but that how humans conduct human progress.
> > But generally, the shills in California never even try it in the first place.
> then get busy and amend the constitution.
The legacy media will issue fatwas if anyone mentions referenda on Art. I, Sec. 8 issues.
Give it a try and see what happens. (Just don't mention my name.)
> i have repeatedly said that to you, whats the hold up?
I have repeatedly told you the New York Times will issue fatwas.
Why do you keep dodging that point?
<CIA>
Sure you can stick your head into the sand like you always do and pretend the NY Times doesn't exist but most know what happen if you discuss popular control of economic policy:
The New York Times will write an editorial saying, "He's worse than Hitler . . ."
That's the only thing keeping the Bern out of power:
The Bern is afraid of the NY Times.
> > > > 1. change the system, or,
> > > >
> > > > 2. move to N. Korea
> > > then you accept that trumps win was legit?
> > You should be bright enough to figger it out fer yourself. Or maybe not but give it a try:
> > You think anyone wants to move to N. Korea?
> > <CIA>
<CAP>
crickets as perdicted
> then its our system correct:)
> > Obviously if there are only 2 choices and no one wants to move to N. Korea, the the only other choice is to change the system.
> get going.
It's going much faster than anticipated.
You have scant little time to get the ebil incarnate Billy.
That's why you are so feverish, isn't it?
You wasted decades flailing out power powerlessly at ebil Billy.
Yet Billy won.
Twice.
Against 3 opponents.
Twice.
NAFTA Billy stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points.
Twice.
As they say, you win some and lose some in politics.
Unless you suffer from politician derangement syndrome.
Then you always lose.
> > The slaver state EC is not really all that important. NAFTA Billy would have stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points and GHW Bush by double digits and become president in _any_ system, runoffs, EC whatever, and you would have still gotten kicked in the face by Billy.
<crickets>
> > You would _still_ have gotten stomped.
<crickets>
> > (For some reason you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' that point so the more you dodge it the more you'll git reminded of it.)
<crickets>
> > Anyway there's not much reason to change the EC.
> > There is every reason to _discuss_ amending the constitution to vote directly on Art. I, Sec. 8 issues.
> > The discussion _alone_ is enough to scare the elitists straight and will bring about immediate relief to the economy. Sure the NY Times will scream bloody murder but you claim they are "kaput" so that shouldn't be an issue.
> > An amendment to bring the U. S. up to date like California will make it permanent.
> > No more shilldom.
> > No more fascism at least not for a very long time when they eventually figger out some other end run.
> > Shills ain't very creative so it always takes them a long time to come up with an end run.
> whats taking you so long?
The legacy media have astro turfed top down into many people's minds.
For example, it took you several _years_ for you to abandon top down.
Are you suggesting most others are brighter and faster than you?
<CIA>
> besides, trump is just a politician.
Actually his shtick / appeal to the ignorant is that he is _not_ a politician.
> according to some, they do not matter.
Without an amendment for popular control of economic policy, the next guy will become dictator if tRUMP doesn't pull it off.
You want to keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results.
> > > > But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
> > > > Or rather being uneducable.
> > > > <CIA>
> > > it worked well for FDR and truman.
> > You yourself have claimed times have changed with technology. "Free" trade is now on steroids. The container ships are larger, cheaper. It costs more to get a container from Long Beach to Sandy Eggo than from Shanghai to Long Beach. Technology makes it duck soup easy to build plants over seas.
> technology makes murder easier also,
And as new technology appears the _system_ is changed to reduce this risk.
You want to dicker with the tariffs, trade agreements, etc. because "trade and job outsourcing is on steroids." OK, fine enough, but don't claim that's not changing the system.
What you do _not_ understand is you'll _never_ be able to change the economic system w/o changing the political system first. The reason is politicians are so easy to buy off.
For some reason that additional step is like the Great Wall of China to you.
Most others have figured it out.
> but that does not mean we should accept it.
That's the point.
As times change the founders intended for us to change the system.
Not flail out powerlessly because everyone isn't as pure as the driven snow.
> > You don't think anything has changed in politics?
> > They _all_ take bribes today. It's what politicians do.
> > Why do you want to fight human nature?
> its been that way forever, and always will.
It's only been that way since big bidness introduced big money.
Lincoln, even Jefferson commented on that danger.
> its why trump does not matter, who cares what he does.
He may play some minor role in speeding up the destruction of the GOP. But yes, social media is taking down the oligarchy. tRUMP is merely the ugly face of it.
> > What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
> > <CIA>
> what part of treason do you not understand?
The part where a BJ is treason.
<CIA>
The part where colluding with the Russians is _not_ treason.
<CIA>
You stepped right into that one.
If Billy committed treason with his trade deals, why wasn't he impeached for that?
<CIA>
If Billy committed treason with his trade deals, why didn't you spend 5 cents for a single copy of a single letter you wrote about this treason?
<CIA>
Obviously you never thought it was very important.
"Donald Trump, champion and avatar of the shallow state, has won power because his supporters are threatened by what they don't understand, and what they don't understand is almost everything.
(Even worse they dodge issues like looneytarians.)
"Indeed, from evolution to data about our economy to the science of vaccines to the threats we face in the world, they reject vast subjects rooted in fact in order to have reality conform to their worldviews."
"They don't dig for truth; they skim the media for anything that makes them feel better about themselves. To many of them, knowledge is not a useful tool but a cunning barrier elites have created to keep power from the average man and woman."
-- David Rothkopf