When it comes down to it, the policies inflicted on us by both parties are so similar that to vote for either is to succumb to a lie. There is so little that can actually be trusted that any politician says these days, a utterly corrupted information environment exists in which no informed, ethical decision can lead one to participate in the system. This leaves the country to those who created the mess and marginalizes the ethical and the thoughtful.
Given that the GOP started this crazed policy and given the undeniable fact that the Dems are in charge of corralling dissent and supporting said policies, if you participate in the electoral process in any way but to subvert the establishment entirely, you are likely and willingly self-deceiving.
Don’t think so? Then list the reasons you are thinking of supporting this party or that. Write them down. Now go over the list and scratch off all the ones that just no longer apply. What’s left? I’d love to know what you come up with in some comments attached to this diary. I could use a reconnection with ‘the system’ but, as many do, struggle to find a grip.
So these days it’s pick your poison: Lies that manipulate your heart, or lies that manipulate your wallet: Dems or GOP..
————————-
[An Aside] If the Dems run Hillary Clinton, they are choosing, quite literally, the one person in the whole world who cannot capitalize fully on the GOP’s recent death spiral.
Vichy Democrat Jane Harmon (but.. but.. doesn’t she stand up for us?) and 14 others sponsored the passed bill that kills free political speech:
From the definitions of terms in the recently passed
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, passed October 23, 2007:
IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.
Obviously they want to stop people who have an A-Z operational plan from acting, and that is good on the face of it. It seems to me, however, that above the language is plenty broad to co-opt it for suppression of what USED to be legal dissent or even normal individual and ‘think tank’ behavior.
The pentagon regularly draws up war plans for every possible future, including invading or defending against almost any nation on Earth. These plans include violent suppression of domestic insurgency or riot or revolt. “Just plans,” they always say.
It is now illegal if I were to do the same to the government as it has long done to it’s own citizenry: their suppression of democratic ‘people power’ is institutionalized as ‘National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence’, established by the above act.
There is no distinction here for ‘actionable’ or ‘academic purposes’ or ‘hypothetical’.
What about a plan to use defensive force against one’s own government when overtly intends to violate your civil rights? Isn’t the point of the Bill of Rights to allow the citizenry to protect itself against their own government? They are talking about planning alone being illegal – no threats, no acts, ‘Just Plans’.
I kinda feel like I am defending the KKK’s right to free speech, but I think that this is also a slipper slope that we’ve already taken a few too many steps down, don’t you think?
I mean think about it – wouldn’t a non-violent occupation of Capital Hill for the purpose of demanding an end to the War qualify as the use of ‘force’ for a political/social end? That’s no longer just a misdemeanor people…
simply put, what if no bills had been filibustered this year and all of them had been signed by the president?
Nuff said. Buck up.
Or, as I like to put it;
The Republicans are usually wrong, and the Democrats are often wrong.