The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Gary Childress]

A long list of calls to violence and sedition by the US Democrats/Liberal-Left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFA

What do you all believe is going to happen the next time Republicans/Conservative-Right takes power?? Will there be retaliation?



How many of these Democrats could be charged under a Conservative Department of Justice?

What is it that Trump and his supporters are "fighting" for? Are they fighting for better wages? Are they fighting for universal health care? Are they fighting against unfair discrimination? Are they fighting to stop potential ecological destruction? Are they fighting for something that "We the People" ought to be fighting for?

If we "drain the swamp", what is the "swamp" going to be filled with after Trump and his associates drain it, which won't need to be drained again?

Are "conservatives" fighting for progress or are "conservatives" fighting to hold onto the way things used to be? And at what point does "conservation" become "turning back the clock"?

Do we want to go back to be the America that took over this land from the indigenous natives? Do we want to go back to be the America that practiced segregation? Do we want to go back to the America that fought WW2 and ended up creating the atomic bomb which now threatens every living being on this planet? At what point has America been "great" that we need to do "again"?

Before "fighting", let's figure out what we are "fighting" for.

[Gary Childress]

Personally, I think one good thing about America is that we have made progress toward being better in this world for all. We have the freedom to make changes to our laws. Other nations do and have done that also. It's something that all nations have to change for themselves. We can't change other nations the way we want them to be. (And they can't do that for us.) We have to let them change themselves. That's freedom. The "free" don't set others "free" when they fight their battles on their behalf. They make those others indentured servants.

[promethean75]

The most tangible difference between america and others countries is that in america, if u aren't wealthy there are so many wealthy people with businesses providing jobs that u have to be a complete moron to not have one. Here's the thing. Even one of these American lower paying jobs provides more money and gives more spending power to the employee than the upper middle of the working classes in other countries.

All this is due to the industrial boom that america underwent after it's emancipation from the bloody king and his nefarious designs.

Basically the argument most used is this one: capitalism may have created immense wealth gaps but it also employed everyone who crossed the ocean or came on foot almost immediately, and has been doing so ever since.

So despite all the bad shit, capitalism pulled the modern western world into a vortex of mass production and employment that wasn't matched anywhere else in the wizzle.

[Immanuel Can]

Basically the argument most used is this one: capitalism may have created immense wealth gaps but it also employed everyone who crossed the ocean or came on foot almost immediately, and has been doing so ever since.

That's actually true. And you know who famously said it was true?

Antonio Gramsci, patron "saint" of the Wokies. He lamented that Marx got the whole story wrong; that far from creating horrible exploitation, capital had turned out to stabilize the working class and prevent revolution.

Alas, the workers were doing better!

But he wanted revolution, not stability...so he switched from classical Marxism to what's now called "Cultural Marxism," or "Identity Marxism." If the working class wouldn't revolt, and, in fact, was becoming ever more "deplorably" conservative, maybe the racial, sexual and such minorities could still be destabilized and induced to revolution.

Now, is it in the interest of the working class to have the society that's making them wealthier torn apart? Nope. But the Marxist elites don't care about the working class. They never did. They only cared about making them useful to "the revolution" that would increase the power and wealth of the Marxist elites themselves. So as far as today's Western Marxists are concerned, the Devil can take the working class, along with their world-topping prosperity and freedom, so long as the Marxist elites get what they want.

And that's why today it's the elites of politics, academics, business, banking and media who are pushing hardest for Marxism. And you'll note that none of them is getting poor doing it; nor are the "oppressed minorities" whose interests they claim to be championing doing particularly well. But the working classes, now they are really starting to suffer, while Bernie, Biden and buddies review plans for their next mansions.

[Gary Childress]

Basically the argument most used is this one: capitalism may have created immense wealth gaps but it also employed everyone who crossed the ocean or came on foot almost immediately, and has been doing so ever since.

That's actually true. And you know who famously said it was true?

Antonio Gramsci, patron "saint" of the Wokies. He lamented that Marx got the whole story wrong; that far from creating horrible exploitation, capital had turned out to stabilize the working class and prevent revolution.

Alas, the workers were doing better!

But he wanted revolution, not stability...so he switched from classical Marxism to what's now called "Cultural Marxism," or "Identity Marxism." If the working class wouldn't revolt, and, in fact, was becoming ever more "deplorably" conservative, maybe the racial, sexual and such minorities could still be destabilized and induced to revolution.

Now, is it in the interest of the working class to have the society that's making them wealthier torn apart? Nope. But the Marxist elites don't care about the working class. They never did. They only cared about making them useful to "the revolution" that would increase the power and wealth of the Marxist elites themselves. So as far as today's Western Marxists are concerned, the Devil can take the working class, along with their world-topping prosperity and freedom, so long as the Marxist elites get what they want.

And that's why today it's the elites of politics, academics, business, banking and media who are pushing hardest for Marxism. And you'll note that none of them is getting poor doing it; nor are the "oppressed minorities" whose interests they claim to be championing doing particularly well. But the working classes, now they are really starting to suffer, while Bernie, Biden and buddies review plans for their next mansions.

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Immanuel Can]

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

Well, Bernie says he's a Socialist. So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own, when the average American person can no longer even afford one? And how many should a globalist own, when Socialists globally don't even get to own one home?

Socialism's apparently a rather selective creed. It turns out to be very generous to its overlords...not so much to the peasantry.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

Well, Bernie says he's a Socialist. So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own, when the average American person can no longer even afford one? And how many should a globalist own, when Socialists globally don't even get to own one home?

Socialism's apparently a rather selective creed. It turns out to be very generous to its overlords...not so much to the peasantry.

I suppose you can have money but still give a shit about others?

[promethean75]

"So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own"

As many as the economic system u yourself endorse allows him to legally have?

Define irony.

That's so weird that your brain somehow makes u believe that a politician wouldn't or shouldn't own more than one house if he claimed to be leftist and socialist. That that somehow is a contradiction or act of hipocrisy.

Like it would be more effective to just give that money to the BLM movement or some other impotent organization identified with the left than buy yourself a house with it.

Would u feel better if all leftists and democrat politicians worked at burger king?

Bernie's good people man. I'ont care wutchu say.

[henry quirk]

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

Well, Bernie says he's a Socialist. So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own, when the average American person can no longer even afford one? And how many should a globalist own, when Socialists globally don't even get to own one home?

Socialism's apparently a rather selective creed. It turns out to be very generous to its overlords...not so much to the peasantry.

Home ownership under a socialist scheme would be like home ownership under a Homeowners' Association empowered to jail, hang, or shoot you cuz you insist on lawn gnomes. It's your home but they have all the say about it.

[Gary Childress]

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

Well, Bernie says he's a Socialist. So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own, when the average American person can no longer even afford one? And how many should a globalist own, when Socialists globally don't even get to own one home?

Socialism's apparently a rather selective creed. It turns out to be very generous to its overlords...not so much to the peasantry.

Home ownership under a socialist scheme would be like home ownership under a Homeowners' Association empowered to jail, hang, or shoot you cuz you insist on lawn gnomes. It's your home but they have all the say about it.

The community my mother and I live in has an HOA. Despite being a "socialist" enterprise, HOAs are pretty nice to have at times. They give neighbors a chance to participate more in the maintenance and organizing of the community. Our HOA is pretty active. People argue sometimes at meetings but it gets a person further than arguing with the city over issues. Local government allows people to get more involved in their own lives. Nothing wrong with that. Government is a necessary evil of civilization. If it's necessary, it's better to have a democratic one where people can participate than one which is untouchable. And the Republicans are just as corrupt as the Democrats in those terms:

Here's an email I got from a "liberal" organization that I once donated to. They still send me alerts for various things:

Dear MoveOn member,

Did you see our email earlier? While countless families struggle to make ends meet, some politicians are focusing on their own bank accounts. Republicans are just one floor vote away from giving themselves a pay raise as they shamefully continue to deny American families and children the financial relief they need and deserve.

Everyday families are facing impossible decisions between putting food on the table, paying medical bills, and keeping a roof over their heads—all while the politicians we elected are focused on giving themselves an $8,000 raise. Meanwhile, the GOP continues to block the American Family Act of 2023, which would give parents a $3,600 raise by bringing back the popular and effective Child Tax Credit. Our tax dollars should be invested back into our families, not used to line the pockets of greedy politicians.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Does Bernie Sanders have "mansions"? I read he has 3 homes, the most expensive of which is a "summer home" in Vermont that he apparently paid ~500,000 for in 2016. I mean, it's not exactly Mar-a-Lago.

Well, Bernie says he's a Socialist. So how many homes do you suppose a good "Socialist" usually should own, when the average American person can no longer even afford one? And how many should a globalist own, when Socialists globally don't even get to own one home?

Socialism's apparently a rather selective creed. It turns out to be very generous to its overlords...not so much to the peasantry.

Home ownership under a socialist scheme would be like home ownership under a Homeowners' Association empowered to jail, hang, or shoot you cuz you insist on lawn gnomes. It's your home but they have all the say about it.

That's weird, since you call anything that doesn't fit with your anarchist viewpoint as 'socialist', yet as far as I am aware there are very many homeowners here, in my 'socialist' country. How sad that you aren't allowed to put up a nuclear power plant in your backyard. Unfortunately there are other people to consider when you live in a SOCIETY. Home ownership has its limits. It's called 'consideration for others'.

[henry quirk]

The community my mother and I live in has an HOA.

Good on you both.

HOAs are pretty nice to have at times.

For those who want that kind of oversight:

Local government allows people to get more involved in their own lives.

Again, for those who want that kind of oversight:

Nothing wrong with that.

Absolutely not...if you want that.

Government is a necessary evil of civilization.

No, civilization comes from a general recognition of and respect for the exclusive moral claim one has to one's life, liberty, and property. Government is not required.

And the Republicans are just as corrupt as the Democrats in those terms

Absolutely. I'm not a Republican, by the way.

[henry quirk]

you call anything that doesn't fit with your anarchist viewpoint as 'socialist'

Actually, anything that doesn't fit with my anarchist viewpoint is slaver (socialist is just one flavor among many).

How sad that you aren't allowed to put up a nuclear power plant in your backyard.

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately there are other people to consider when you live in a SOCIETY.

As long as I'm not murdering, raping, slaving, or stealing from them, my atomic pile is not their business.

Home ownership has its limits. It's called 'consideration for others'.

As long as I'm not murdering, raping, slaving, or stealing from them, my house, and the land it sits on, is not their business.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What an inconsiderate little turd you are. Expect the same 'consideration' in return. Nice way to make everyone's lives as miserable as possible (including your own). Children are normally brought up to consider the feelings of others. If everyone is considerate of one another then society can function reasonably well.

[henry quirk]

What an inconsiderate little turd you are.

Why? How is my leaving other folks alone to live as they choose, and my expecting to be left alone to live as I choose, inconsiderate?

Expect the same 'consideration' in return.

I fully expect for others to recognize and respect my exclusive claim to my life, liberty, and property just as I recognize and respect their exclusive claims to their own lives, liberties, and properties.

Nice way to make everyone's lives as miserable as possible (including your own).

I truly can't see how folks recognizing and respecting each other's claims to their own lives, liberties, and properties can make anyone other than busybodies, murderers, rapists, thieves, and slavers miserable.