"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

When NQ says politicians don't control the economy, he broadly speaking is correct. Although indirectly they have created the circumstances in which giant financial institutions have conglomerated like blocks of Lego and created the "too big to fail" impregnibility.

Politicians are also very beholden to their donors, and that tends to create a fenced off set of ideas of what is good policy and what is not. So the accusations of elites and vested interests is often one that has a lot of substance to it.

The problem is on the other hand, some bad ideas are just manifestly bad ideas and some people manifestly should never be in any position of authority. But because the rather closed off circle politics operates in, it strengthens the hands of these individuals and makes them more sympathetic and appealing to the public.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Charlatans and snake oil salesman like Trump exist and are given life blood by the existence of corporate sponsored career politicians like Hilary Clinton.

Frankly every single American politician should be ashamed of themselves about Trump, because they as much as book selling talk radio nuts are responsible for him having gotten this far.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes I do think they are terrified, print news has become extinct and the media networks are worried about going the same way.

In some ways it's a good thing, people are thinking for themselves more. On the other hand are they? They seem more interested in reading things online that confirm their own opinions rather than anything that expands their understanding.

You're talking about technological change, but there has been no accompanying change in the nature of the mainstream media. They are as bad as they ever were and in many ways worse. And this is the reason why more people are "thinking for themselves" (or more likely refusing to think approved thoughts), because the propaganda is now so extreme. Yes, it still captures the majority, but the extremism is shaking non-believers off the tree. Not that it matters because the establishment will do what it has always done when the masses stir - start a war. And watch the media hustle in the build up. Again, as if nothing happened the last time around. If they are afraid of being rumbled then they aren't being very covert. On the contrary, this election cycle has seen them metaphorically flounce out of the closet in wigs and lipstick. Some people are bound to notice.

[Letters]

When NQ says politicians don't control the economy, he broadly speaking is correct. Although indirectly they have created the circumstances in which giant financial institutions have conglomerated like blocks of Lego and created the "too big to fail" impregnibility.

Politicians are also very beholden to their donors, and that tends to create a fenced off set of ideas of what is good policy and what is not. So the accusations of elites and vested interests is often one that has a lot of substance to it.

The problem is on the other hand, some bad ideas are just manifestly bad ideas and some people manifestly should never be in any position of authority. But because the rather closed off circle politics operates in, it strengthens the hands of these individuals and makes them more sympathetic and appealing to the public.

I think Obama was doing things which he believed would make things better.
He's legalised gay marriage for example which is a step towards equality and Obamacare seems to be a progressive step. Both things Trump has said he will reverse.
Not saying there aren't bigger things going on which no president has control of but the personality and opinions of the next person in the white house will make a difference.

[Niall_Quinn]

When NQ says politicians don't control the economy, he broadly speaking is correct. Although indirectly they have created the circumstances in which giant financial institutions have conglomerated like blocks of Lego and created the "too big to fail" impregnibility.

Politicians are also very beholden to their donors, and that tends to create a fenced off set of ideas of what is good policy and what is not. So the accusations of elites and vested interests is often one that has a lot of substance to it.

The problem is on the other hand, some bad ideas are just manifestly bad ideas and some people manifestly should never be in any position of authority. But because the rather closed off circle politics operates in, it strengthens the hands of these individuals and makes them more sympathetic and appealing to the public.

There's more to it than that, as this latest election proves. When you put characters like Trump and Clinton in front of people and ask them to pick a leader from the two and people don't just collapse laughing and then get very angry you know there is something very, very wrong. In my opinion the vast majority of people today are mentally ill. And not always by choice. Many have been driven to the condition as a result of prolonged exposure to the extreme variance in what they conditioned to believe and what they can't help glimpsing out of the corner of their eye. I don't imagine the human mind is chuffed being fed on a diet of life, liberty and justice when the eyes keep sending a steady stream of death, disenfranchisement (in all its forms) and overt corruption. Again I go back to the young people to find some hope. The elder generations that have a living memory of a now airbrushed past will soon be gone. There was every danger the subsequent generations might be totally bereft thereafter, consumed in a permanent fantasy. All indicators point to that not being the case. Just as the environment adjusts, compensates, regenerates and revitalises so will human beings. I think. I hope. This dark age will pass as others have.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You're talking about technological change, but there has been no accompanying change in the nature of the mainstream media. They are as bad as they ever were and in many ways worse. And this is the reason why more people are "thinking for themselves" (or more likely refusing to think approved thoughts), because the propaganda is now so extreme. Yes, it still captures the majority, but the extremism is shaking non-believers off the tree. Not that it matters because the establishment will do what it has always done when the masses stir - start a war. And watch the media hustle in the build up. Again, as if nothing happened the last time around. If they are afraid of being rumbled then they aren't being very covert. On the contrary, this election cycle has seen them metaphorically flounce out of the closet in wigs and lipstick. Some people are bound to notice.

You have just agreed with me, but what I've said is that alternative media is often just as bad if not worse in terms of propaganda and outright lies.

The media (and to think of it as a homogenous grouping is pretty laughable) tends to focus on minutiae and distraction rather than propoganda. But it's less about trying to peddle a narrative of the dark puppet masters and more about personal enrichment.

And alternative media is no different, they basically pay their journalists (laughable term) based on how likely click bait the piece is going to be rather than the strength of the piece.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think Obama was doing things which he believed would make things better.
He's legalised gay marriage for example which is a step towards equality and Obamacare seems to be a progressive step. Both things Trump has said he will reverse.
Not saying there aren't bigger things going on which no president has control of but the personality and opinions of the next person in the white house will make a difference.

Things like legalising gay marriage is scenery though, Obamas campaign was sponsored by a lot of Wall Street institutions and his treasury secretaries Tim Geitner and Jacob Liew were both Wall Street insiders. And this has been the way of things for a while from Hank Paulsen who was a CEO at Goldman Sachs under Bush and Larry Summers (who served under Clinton).who was in the pocket of the financial sector who lectured at universities about the great self correcting power of the market place and was a proponent of the Glass-Stiegel bill which reversed every progressive regulation put in place by the US government after the 1929 crash and paved the way for giant corporate mergers.

I have no doubt Obama instinctively was far more for regulation and redistribution policies than he otherwise enacted, which was partly due to congressional blocking and partly because of who he was beholden to for winning office.

[Niall_Quinn]

You have just agreed with me, but what I've said is that alternative media is often just as bad if not worse in terms of propaganda and outright lies.

The media (and to think of it as a homogenous grouping is pretty laughable) tends to focus on minutiae and distraction rather than propoganda. But it's less about trying to peddle a narrative of the dark puppet masters and more about personal enrichment.

And alternative media is no different, they basically pay their journalists (laughable term) based on how likely click bait the piece is going to be rather than the strength of the piece.

Well then we should laugh because that's just what we are dealing with, a collection of seemingly diverse sources that, nevertheless, play within the tight bounds of an establishment narrative. Whether it's the New York Times or Joe the blogger, 99% of this "diverse" commentary is handicapped and therefore homogenised by the careful framing within which all opinion and debate is formed. For example, ask a "left wing" or "right wing" commentator about taxes and they'll give you the same answer but with a percentage sign modified up or down. The question is, should a collection of citizens assume additional rights for themselves and then abuse these rights to rob their fellow citizens? This question is then framed as, should we lower or raise taxes? The very essence of the issue has been lost in the reframing. A left winger will explain the virtues of expanded robbery without ever understanding the true implications of his opinion. A right winger will disagree vehemently, calling for smaller government as if such a desire carries automatic virtue. Again, the essence has evaporated. And when you point this out they will go out of their way to argue against their own laws in an attempt to justify their position. Yet when you ask them what should be done about crime they both assume a grave tone as they discuss suitable punishments. They literally hold two opinions simultaneously and then develop a passion for both. Little wonder they are insane.

[Niall_Quinn]

Things like legalising gay marriage is scenery though, Obamas campaign was sponsored by a lot of Wall Street institutions and his treasury secretaries Tim Geitner and Jacob Liew were both Wall Street insiders. And this has been the way of things for a while from Hank Paulsen who was a CEO at Goldman Sachs under Bush and Larry Summers (who served under Clinton).who was in the pocket of the financial sector who lectured at universities about the great self correcting power of the market place and was a proponent of the Glass-Stiegel bill which reversed every progressive regulation put in place by the US government after the 1929 crash and paved the way for giant corporate mergers.

I have no doubt Obama instinctively was far more for regulation and redistribution policies than he otherwise enacted, which was partly due to congressional blocking and partly because of who he was beholden to for winning office.

There's another example. Should the state criminalise or legalise gay marriage. The right says criminalise. The left says legalise. I say, what the fuck business does the state have trying to tell people how they may or may not live their own personal lives? I mean, what the fuck? The correct answer to that question is, yes, we should get rid of the state immediately.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

There's another example. Should the state criminalise or legalise gay marriage. The right says criminalise. The left says legalise. I say, what the fuck business does the state have trying to tell people how they may or may not live their own personal lives? I mean, what the fuck? The correct answer to that question is, yes, we should get rid of the state immediately.

Although it is only mentioned fleetingly by myself I tend to agree with that. If two people want to get married it's no ones business to approve or disapprove. If certain shop owners want to refuse to serve gay people, fair enough....you obviously care more about sexual behaviour than your livelihood and the customer you've turned away will be taken by someone else.