Kakistocracy

[Indus]

A system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.

Ever wonder why people hate the government?

 

[Moonbeam]

We hate ourselves and in a democracy we are the government, or imagine we are. Democracy is actually dead.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Too bad we can't drop him off on Patmos and tell them to keep him.

 

[trenchfoot]

Personally, I think the folks that corrupted our gov't into what it is and where it's going is much more vile and fetid than the politicians they've managed to turn.

But yeah, if it's a kleptocracy we have, then it's what we deserve to have because we the citizens haven't been brought to the point where a thorough house cleaning is unanimously agreed upon by those that have had their supposed representatives represent the interests of the few than the majority who put them in office once too often.

Imagine that. All it takes is for the vast majority of the people who are the working class to unite and take back what the few but very powerful aristocrat families have managed to take from them.

And what irony it is that we the people have given them this power and influence they've managed to gather unto themselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a good word.

 

[Thebobo]

Personally, I think the folks that corrupted our gov't into what it is and where it's going is much more vile and fetid than the politicians they've managed to turn.

But yeah, if it's a kleptocracy we have, then it's what we deserve to have because we the citizens haven't been brought to the point where a thorough house cleaning is unanimously agreed upon by those that have had their supposed representatives represent the interests of the few than the majority who put them in office once too often.

Imagine that. All it takes is for the vast majority of the people who are the working class to unite and take back what the few but very powerful aristocrat families have managed to take from them.

And what irony it is that we the people have given them this power and influence they've managed to gather unto themselves.

Yea but people elected trump as our housekeeper.

 

[cytg111]

We hate ourselves and in a democracy we are the government, or imagine we are. Democracy is actually dead.

If you give up it is.

 

[bshole]

Personally, I think the folks that corrupted our gov't into what it is and where it's going is much more vile and fetid than the politicians they've managed to turn.

But yeah, if it's a kleptocracy we have, then it's what we deserve to have because we the citizens haven't been brought to the point where a thorough house cleaning is unanimously agreed upon by those that have had their supposed representatives represent the interests of the few than the majority who put them in office once too often.

Imagine that. All it takes is for the vast majority of the people who are the working class to unite and take back what the few but very powerful aristocrat families have managed to take from them.

And what irony it is that we the people have given them this power and influence they've managed to gather unto themselves.

The rich have successfully divided the working class into identity groups around race/ethnicity.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you give up it is.

Read what @bshole said. I am unimportant whether I give up or not. All I'm saying is that nothing will change without a revolution.

 

[Indus]

The rich have successfully divided the working class into identity groups around race/ethnicity.

That's an old trick: DIVIDE & RULE.

I forgot to add.. that thing has worked so well that countries did NOT survive the aftermath and I think a similar fate awaits America.

 

[boomerang]

Read what @bshole said. I am unimportant whether I give up or not. All I'm saying is that nothing will change without a revolution.

Before or after the guns are taken away? I ask, because it could be an important factor.

 

[Moonbeam]

Before or after the guns are taken away? I ask, because it could be an important factor.

I think the notion that guns are an important deterrent to dictatorship in America is a fantasy and for two reasons. A takeover of the government will require military backing and if the government has the military on its side guns will be as effective in stopping them as chocolate cake. Secondly, the current threat of dictatorship and the destruction of the rule of law is coming from El Trumpo, the Thug Lord, and his merry band of supporters, which of course means that all the guns will be pointed the wrong way to prevent dictatorship.

 

[Paratus]

I think the notion that guns are an important deterrent to dictatorship in America is a fantasy and for two reasons. A takeover of the government will require military backing and if the government has the military on its side guns will be as effective in stopping them as chocolate cake. Secondly, the current threat of dictatorship and the destruction of the rule of law is coming from El Trumpo, the Thug Lord, and his merry band of supporters, which of course means that all the guns will be pointed the wrong way to prevent dictatorship.

Yes the lion share of ammosexuals will not be the ones preventing fascist rule. They will be the ones grabbing their guns and brown shirts to protect it.

I expect if impeachment proceedings ever occur there will be threats of violence couched as protecting the government from these people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes the lion share of ammosexuals will not be the ones preventing fascist rule. They will be the ones grabbing their guns and brown shirts to protect it.

I expect if impeachment proceedings ever occur there will be threats of violence couched as protecting the government from these people.

It's just so fascinating for me to watch how many ways there are to describe the absurd.

 

[boomerang]

I think the notion that guns are an important deterrent to dictatorship in America is a fantasy and for two reasons. A takeover of the government will require military backing and if the government has the military on its side guns will be as effective in stopping them as chocolate cake. Secondly, the current threat of dictatorship and the destruction of the rule of law is coming from El Trumpo, the Thug Lord, and his merry band of supporters, which of course means that all the guns will be pointed the wrong way to prevent dictatorship.

Excellent! Pull the string on your neck and talking points aplenty disgorge from your mouth. You are a good little soldier yourself. Give yourself another pat on the back.

You guys are always good for a laugh. That is when you're not overcome with emotion and decide to self-immolate. Some poor soul has got clean that up.

 

[cytg111]

Excellent! Pull the string on your neck and talking points aplenty disgorge from your mouth. You are a good little soldier yourself. Give yourself another pat on the back.

You guys are always good for a laugh. That is when you're not overcome with emotion and decide to self-immolate. Some poor soul has got clean that up.

How many animals did you torture as a kid.. in rough numbers?

 

[pmv]

Read what @bshole said. I am unimportant whether I give up or not. All I'm saying is that nothing will change without a revolution.

There was a time when violent revolution was a plausible idea as to how poltiics could change in Western countries (19th century or earlier, for sure, maybe even the early part of the 20th) but the idea now seems unimaginable. The level of loss and chaos involved would surely mean nothing good would emerge.

Historically the problem with violent change always seems to be that the only people with the strength and atittude needed to overthrow those with power, are the very people you would never want to see taking over afterwards. The thoughtful, humane people are crap at overthrowing regimes, cf the Mensheviks or the intellectual classes in Iran, for example.

(And I'm not sure there's truly any such thing as a peaceful revolution - what happened in Eastern Europe, for example, was just the old regime giving up becuase its external backing had been taken away...and even there it doesn't seem to necessarily have turned out that well in the longer term)

 

[Moonbeam]

There was a time when violent revolution was a plausible idea as to how poltiics could change in Western countries (19th century or earlier, for sure, maybe even the early part of the 20th) but the idea now seems unimaginable. The level of loss and chaos involved would surely mean nothing good would emerge.

Historically the problem with violent change always seems to be that the only people with the strength and atittude needed to overthrow those with power, are the very people you would never want to see taking over afterwards. The thoughtful, humane people are crap at overthrowing regimes, cf the Mensheviks or the intellectual classes in Iran, for example.

(And I'm not sure there's truly any such thing as a peaceful revolution - what happened in Eastern Europe, for example, was just the old regime giving up because its external backing had been taken away...and even there it doesn't seem to necessarily have turned out that well in the longer term)

The only revolution that I see as reasonable in a society in which democracy is dead, if for people to figure out among themselves what it is that has stolen their vote and take it back again. There is no democracy for people who are brainwashed and led like cattle with nose rings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Excellent! Pull the string on your neck and talking points aplenty disgorge from your mouth. You are a good little soldier yourself. Give yourself another pat on the back.

You guys are always good for a laugh. That is when you're not overcome with emotion and decide to self-immolate. Some poor soul has got clean that up.

How so? You made the point that the effectiveness of a revolution might depend on whether or not guns had been taken from the people or, and I replied with my two points which I think cast doubt on your claim. I even suggested that you and not me was the person living in fantasy land and supported that claim for the two reasons I provided. Now you have called rebuttal of your opinion some form of puppet response. I would have thought that to do what I did, you would have to have provided your own opinions as to why guns predominately owned by conservatives would be successful at preventing a takeover by the government, first off when the government in power is conservative, and then why the army in their command would be coming after gun owning conservatives who would logically support them.

I mean, just look at the difference in the level of argument I made in comparison to the level you made and tell me who somebody looking on wouldn't think you are the one who's the puppet soldier?

 

[nickqt]

Excellent! Pull the string on your neck and talking points aplenty disgorge from your mouth. You are a good little soldier yourself. Give yourself another pat on the back.

You guys are always good for a laugh. That is when you're not overcome with emotion and decide to self-immolate. Some poor soul has got clean that up.

Says the useful idiot cheering on a Strongman who threatened to jail his political opponent during the campaign.

If conservatives had integrity, holy shit would they be ashamed of themselves. Luckily for conservatives, they have zero integrity.

Keep on keepin' on, clown.

 

[zinfamous]

Excellent! Pull the string on your neck and talking points aplenty disgorge from your mouth. You are a good little soldier yourself. Give yourself another pat on the back.

You guys are always good for a laugh. That is when you're not overcome with emotion and decide to self-immolate. Some poor soul has got clean that up.

remind yourself that your talking points come from a guy like Hannity: a man revealed to be unethically using his public platform to shield his council during criminal investigation. If you choose to swallow the shit from people that willfully abandon the ethics of their supposed profession, then what standing do you think you maintain when criticizing others for slights that you perceive to be grounded in ethical and moral turpitude?

 

[Jaskalas]

I think the notion that guns are an important deterrent to dictatorship in America is a fantasy and for two reasons. A takeover of the government will require military backing and if the government has the military on its side guns will be as effective in stopping them as chocolate cake. Secondly, the current threat of dictatorship and the destruction of the rule of law is coming from El Trumpo, the Thug Lord, and his merry band of supporters, which of course means that all the guns will be pointed the wrong way to prevent dictatorship.

Counter point... Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States military can kill people by the thousands, but the populace still pushes us out through attrition. Their capacity to be armed and dangerous forces us to eventually surrender whatever control we had, and those countries return to ruling themselves. Eventually the lives lost and the infinite campaign to secure those locations becomes too costly. When you understand how that cost was extracted, you'll appreciate the value others see in an armed society. That, if pushed too far, the people can push back.

And yes, there's great irony in comparing our homeland to war torn wastelands, and imagining someone views that as a win.

Anyways, point is they'd be much more effective VS the military than chocolate cake. Especially on the home front where technology and logistics can be directly targeted. Dictatorship in America would befall a fate similar to that of Syria before Russia stepped in. We feel high and mighty because we have not killed ourselves since the 1860s, but the greatest enemy will always remain ourselves. Never underestimate the damage we can do to ourselves.

 

[pmv]

Counter point... Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States military can kill people by the thousands, but the populace still pushes us out through attrition. Their capacity to be armed and dangerous forces us to eventually surrender whatever control we had, and those countries return to ruling themselves. Eventually the lives lost and the infinite campaign to secure those locations becomes too costly. When you understand how that cost was extracted, you'll appreciate the value others see in an armed society. That, if pushed too far, the people can push back.

And yes, there's great irony in comparing our homeland to war torn wastelands, and imagining someone views that as a win.

Anyways, point is they'd be much more effective VS the military than chocolate cake. Especially on the home front where technology and logistics can be directly targeted. Dictatorship in America would befall a fate similar to that of Syria before Russia stepped in. We feel high and mighty because we have not killed ourselves since the 1860s, but the greatest enemy will always remain ourselves. Never underestimate the damage we can do to ourselves.

But that's not the same situation at all, is it? Iraq and Afghanistan involve _invading someone else's country_. Not the same thing as a conflict in your own country at all. And, crucially, the US simply doesn't have the motivation to stay and fight in those countries, still less to rebuild them entirely. A conflict with a powerful faction _who share your country and have nowhere else to go_ is not going to be the same. Who wins in a conflict depends not just on firepower, but also on whether you have any option but to fight on indefinitely.

I mean, Iraqis had guns under Saddam. One of the sources of conflict in the US occupation was the attempt to go round confiscating them.