US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

[ninja'd - hold on]

Hey, I should clarify a bit of hyperbole I've indulged in recently.  The Democratic party is a sad, sad piece of crap, and I wouldn't really destroy the Republican party if I could snap my fingers and do it that easily.  It is the nature of the universe that without opposition, the Democratic party almost instantly becomes The Man, corrupt, horrible, coercive/oppressive and even more appallingly incompetent.  I'm from an area solidly Democratic before Reagan, and I know.

I just want to shame and undermine the Bigots and Tyrants, and push that hateful un-American bullcrap completely out of the mainstream conversation, in actual purpose.

The goal shouldn't be to shame and undermine the bigots and tyrants, but to shame and undermine the aspects of the system that cause corrupt, horrible, and oppressive groups to so easily take power.

And shame and subvert the tens of millions of foolish dupes they've tricked into supporting issues against their own self-interest.  That part's super-key; I could never talk Cheney, Murdock or the Kochs into anything, but money isn't real power if you can't buy supporters with it.

Response to the previous post pending...

[Buster's Uncle]

Many of the positions not interfering are pretty extreme. 

Not interfering with what?

Gates is an overt monopolist, the most central defining characteristic of a Robber Baron when they could manage a monopoly

I don't think so; as I see it, the most central defining characteristic of a robber baron was the lack of morals and corrupt behavior, not the monopolisticness per se.

-That's good communications theory about reviving Robber Baron; words only mean what we think they mean.  For that matter, were I a celebrity with widespread influence, or at least mass media access, just trying to append a "fascist-leaning" connotation to "The 1%", almost a contemporary equivalent of Robber Baron, would have promise.

But "the 1%" really isn't a contemporary equivalent of "Robber Baron", since by its origin it is clearly based only on how wealthy someone is and not how ethical they are in the pursuit and usage of such wealth.  Once you use mathematical terminology, there isn't much room for connotation and spin.

I think that visceral element is crucial, though, to a nobody trying to start something on stupid internet social media and failing to even get any cooperation from liberal friends - one Libertarian so far, and that's it.

I think the visceral element is crucial, but does not have to come directly from your terminology.

-How about dropping the Fascist part and thinking of a something that means Bigots and Tyrants in one instantly-recognizable word?  It would leave the nationalism out, but otherwise cover it...

It really wouldn't, since the big problem with Cheney and co isn't that they're tyrants (they're pretty low-key as far as tyrants go) or that they're bigots (they're probably just playing to bigots, and even that not all that hard), but that they're crooks and subverting the political system.  That's why "robber barons" is so good; it pretty much explicitly says "crooks", and it references the last group to subvert the political system that way.

Multiquoting is great for clarity, but also means instant eye-glazing wall of text, and a lot of extra work on this software.  I'll try to at least respond in order.

You'd agree, wouldn't you, that Gates' business practices conform to your definition even so?  Windows cruft, for example, man; I don't think it's entirely an accident that your system gets slower and crappier with time - like, they surely know about it, and probably could have fixed, but why bother when it coerces me to upgrade to their latest I-pay public beta OS?

1% was just a random thought; you and I like Robber Baron a lot better, but 1% has contemporary cache and most people aren't as well-educated in history, frankly.  I dunno.

But the visceral element has to come from SOMEwhere...

Strongly disagree that the big problem isn't tyranny - I keep mentioning coercion and undermining democracy.  Also disagree about low-key as tyrants go; I said entry-level fascism because no uniforms and the racism isn't front-and center, but Jose Padillo and the Patriot Act.  It's not exactly all-police state, all the time, and the forms of democracy are still mostly being observed, but that they were sweeping up citizens and detaining them indefinitely without council or civil trial before a jury of their peers?  ANY citizens at all, ever?  (Foreign 'enemy combatants' is another matter; immoral, un-American and a bad idea for which we will pay around the world for generations to come, especially the torture, but not actually against our basic rules.)  Sir, that there's unpardonable moderate-level tyranny and a foot on the road to an armored gestapo-in-all-but-name policeman on every corner.  Perhaps that idea may concern you, given the givens.

I do agree that Cheney appears to hate/hold in naked contempt the great unwashed, but not necessarily not by ethnicity or anything -I sorta doubt he even hates Arabs/Muslims unless they're poor- and only lets bigotry work for him.  I have suspicions about Murdock and especially the Kochs, but don't know nearly enough about them as people to rudely speculate.  (I wanna launch a few bombs in their direction, this being War, but one of my basic problems with those jokers is the coarsening of the public discourse they employ.  Slogans and evocative labels, sure, but let's try to keep a little dignity and civility - there's a line somewhere there I want to stay above, lest I become the very dragon I wrestle.)

[Rusty Edge]

Here's some brain drizzle-

State-sponsored Profiteers

Lobbyist Overlords

Profipuppeteers

Corporate Co-conspirators

Corruptorate Tycoons

[Buster's Uncle]

Definitely on the right track...

I've tended over the years to think of the Cheney Bund/Murdock/Koch stuff as "Corporate Fascism", but I think this is the first time I ever communicated the term to anyone.  It's... got the f-word in it, which misleads and godwins, and not pithy enough, I think, but I've been calling it that to myself for over a decade.

Thoughts?

[Rusty Edge]

Or how about .....



Capitolist$  ?

[Green1]

The deal, though, with elections is they are often like the old elections in high school. You did not have to be BFFs the guy or gal running for class president. The one who has the most name recognition wins unless someone has some glaring issues. Most of the student body are very simple creatures. They do not care much for platforms unless it agrees with or contradicts gut one-word conditioning. Most folks do not read and culture is limited to sports, TV, or internet memes.

All of us read. But we are forumites of various forums which requires reading even if you lurk. Most people are going to go by who sounds best in sound bites and does not go against some heresy among their respective groups. Just like school elections.

Plus, consider. ALL the contenders are not like us. They are all incredibly wealthy and are out of touch usually with the common man. Even the ones you "like" just because they have not uttered heresies or say some stuff they "say" they are going to do but will have no power really to do. Just like a class president.

[Buster's Uncle]

Dang, Green; that's exactly right.  I figured it out and got a girl I liked elected student body president in the ninth grade; she wasn't 'popular' or anything, exactly, but no real negatives and a pudgy boy who liked her spending quite a few hours making magic-marker typing paper posters and plastering her name all. over. the. building.

It's really as simple as that, on any level of politics, given a decent candidate to sell and accounting for the magnitude more trees obscuring the forest out in the real word on the national level.  The one with the most friends sporting their button is gonna win.

-Nothing ever came of liking the girl, though...

[Buster's Uncle]

Hey - someone in a comment thread on a very liberal blog I follow said something about - eh, just quote:

The thing is, we still have checks on the Federal government (the legislative and judicial branches, regular and mostly open elections). As such, we are, as a nation, in a position to fix the situation in a way that we wouldn’t were this a fascist state. Am I optimistic about this? Not really. But if I say the current situation is tantamount to fascism then I’m altogether discounting the possibility of civic action, which would get me off the hook from doing anything short of fomenting revolution. -

See more at: http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/09/superman-on-trial/#comment-197901

And given the tear I'm on ATM, you can imagine what I said about sloganeering and webs memes as a political tool, mostly about the search for a term  for the Robber Baron Authoritarians.  (HU comment threads are a room so erudite I feel shy about speaking up, which is not something I'm used to.)

Someone else suggested “plutocracy” or “oligarchy” - even worse than Robber Baron for reaching inside the working-class statists I want to influence and squeezing, but I think terms that should be in the vocabulary of the discussion.

[vonbach]

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2015/09/11/nearly-a-third-of-americans-could-imagine-supporting-the-military-overthrowing-the-federal-govt/

Nearly A Third Of Americans Could Imagine Supporting The Military Overthrowing The Federal Gov’t

For many Americans, a coup in which the military seizes control of the federal government is starting to seem like a refreshing alternative to the existing administration, according to a new poll.

You know its bad when a military coup starts looking good. Remember that backlash I was talking about? 
Oh and [Sleezebag] is scoring 25% of the black vote.

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, Tucker Carlson and Jonah Bennett don't have their own pages on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, so dubious objectivity, but more-or-less legit source, IMAO.

Military'd have to come shoot me; I ain't playing along with that crap.

[vonbach]

The military wouldn't have to. What do you think you'd be able to do about it?
Besides just because a third of the population would support a coup doesn't mean the military
would. At least the higher command. Anyone at General or so is essentially a politician in any case.
The rank and file is another story. I do know there is a limited amount of crap the military will put up with.

[Buster's Uncle]

They would have to shoot me.  I wouldn't stay home for that.

[Rusty Edge]

[quote auClintonthor=vonbach link=topic=16649.msg81724#msg81724 date=1442191659]

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2015/09/11/nearly-a-third-of-americans-could-imagine-supporting-the-military-overthrowing-the-federal-govt/

Nearly A Third Of Americans Could Imagine Supporting The Military Overthrowing The Federal Gov’t

For many Americans, a coup in which the military seizes control of the federal government is starting to seem like a refreshing alternative to the existing administration, according to a new poll.

You know its bad when a military coup starts looking good. Remember that backlash I was talking about? 
Oh and [Sleezebag] is scoring 25% of the black vote.
[/quote]
That's amazing.   
My wife is leaning towards Carson. She's finding the Sanders/Clinton/[Sleezebag] spectrum intolerable as an imagined presidency.

[Buster's Uncle]

[Buster's Uncle]

Bernie Sanders
16 hrs ·

I came here today because I believe that it is important for those with different views in our country to engage in civil discourse. It is harder, but not less important, to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us and see where, if possible, we can find common ground.

Correct.  Classy.  Has the guts to speak at Liberty University.  Your wife is wrong to include him in her crap list, Rusty.