America = Modern day Feudalism

[simsumre]

Neo-Feudalism:
(literally new feudalism – the terms are used interchangeably in the literature[1]) refers to a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy and public life[2] reminiscent of those present in many feudal societies, such as inequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility. It is related to some of the ideas of neo-medievalism.

The Age of Neo-feudalism: A Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Corporations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w...b_2566546.html

"The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country's equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20 percent of the population that holds 93 percent of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas." -- Journalist Lewis Lapham

"We now live in a two-tiered system of justice and governance. There are two sets of laws: one set for the government and the corporations, and another set for you and me."

"There is no voice for the working American in the halls of Congress, the American who was promised a life beyond taxes, debt, and unemployment. There is no voice for the peace-loving American, the American who understands that America's military might is meant for defense of the homeland, not looking for trouble in faraway lands. There is no voice for the American who expects his representatives to abide by the Constitution, who laments the way Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court work together to take away our rights piece by piece."

It doesn't matter which party you swear allegiance to. Right or left, Republican or Democrat. It's nothing more than 2 heads of the same monster that doesn't give a damn about the working class or the citizens of this nation. There's a reason you no longer own land in America, you rent it and pay a yearly fee. There's a reason the Amish and Cattle ranchers are being raided by police. There's a reason why lemonade stands run by children are being shut down. You do not hunt in the King's forest.

You are a slave. Born a slave. Bred a slave. Your vote means nothing and neither does which fictional party you represent.

Good morning mmo-champion.

[Khoranth]

Why don't you explain how, exactly, money decides elections? Wouldn't that be useful information for this post?

Could it be Americans are more interested in sports and morons from NJ and swamps, than what is going on around them? It is not money's fault that the average US citizen has no idea what is going on, and their vote can be easily swayed by idiotic commercials.

[simsumre]

Why don't you explain how, exactly, money decides elections? Wouldn't that be useful information for this post?

Could it be Americans are more interested in sports and morons from NJ and swamps, than what is going on around them? It is not money's fault that the average US citizen has no idea what is going on, and their vote can be easily swayed by idiotic commercials.

No, you're right. People don't care. But money does control politics, especially when it comes to lobbying. That's the very reason it's so damn hard to start a business now is that big business lobbied in Washington to set these stupid restrictions (half of which don't even make sense). Our politicians are literally bought and paid for. That's really the problem.

[Nobleshield]

Why don't you explain how, exactly, money decides elections? Wouldn't that be useful information for this post?

Could it be Americans are more interested in sports and morons from NJ and swamps, than what is going on around them? It is not money's fault that the average US citizen has no idea what is going on, and their vote can be easily swayed by idiotic commercials.

It's the fact that commercials and the like are bought and paid for, so the person who can spend the most money on the best-looking commercial tends to sway people. Yes, the problem is that people don't care to research or learn about a candidate before voting for them (or, worse, just vote based on party affiliation and nothing more), but votes have been linked to how much money you can spend for around 100 years or more now.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're right. People don't care. But money does control politics, especially when it comes to lobbying. That's the very reason it's so damn hard to start a business now is that big business lobbied in Washington to set these stupid restrictions (half of which don't even make sense). Our politicians are literally bought and paid for. That's really the problem.

Also this. Politicians used to be elected "by the people, for the people" but now they get elected by big business to help keep big business running and profiting off of everybody else.

[Khoranth]

It's the fact that commercials and the like are bought and paid for, so the person who can spend the most money on the best-looking commercial tends to sway people. Yes, the problem is that people don't care to research or learn about a candidate before voting for them (or, worse, just vote based on party affiliation and nothing more), but votes have been linked to how much money you can spend for around 100 years or more now.

- - - Updated - - -



Also this. Politicians used to be elected "by the people, for the people" but now they get elected by big business to help keep big business running and profiting off of everybody else.

Yes, this is because people allow this to happen. It would be very easy for people to spend 30 minutes a day paying attention to news & candidates and make an informed vote, but instead they refuse to break away from the hours and hours they spend watching sports, swamps and NJ idiots.

Money does not control the elections, people have a choice, and are allowing this to happen. Blaming money is idiotic, if you don't like the current situation, blame apathetic people.

[simsumre]

Yes, this is because people allow this to happen. It would be very easy for people to spend 30 minutes a day paying attention to news & candidates and make an informed vote, but instead they refuse to break away from the hours and hours they spend watching sports, swamps and NJ idiots.

Money does not control the elections, people have a choice, and are allowing this to happen. Blaming money is idiotic, if you don't like the current situation, blame apathetic people.

I honestly believe things are too far gone for votes to matter. Agree with the man or not, look at what was done to Ron Paul during both 08 and 12 elections. The media, both sides, rallied against him. Because they're complacent. The young vote has shifted, however, to a more Libertarian ideal. 2016 will be interested.

[Nobleshield]

Yes, this is because people allow this to happen. It would be very easy for people to spend 30 minutes a day paying attention to news & candidates and make an informed vote, but instead they refuse to break away from the hours and hours they spend watching sports, swamps and NJ idiots.

Money does not control the elections, people have a choice, and are allowing this to happen. Blaming money is idiotic, if you don't like the current situation, blame apathetic people.

I blame both. I campaigned for a candidate in the 2008 election and it was almost disheartening to see how many people had no idea about who they were voting for other than perhaps the guys' name or wether he was red/blue; it was ridiculous the number of people saying "X is a Republican, I'll never vote Republican" just because of party affiliation - people would rather elect a Republican who kicks puppies than a Democrat of any kind, just because of party. It's crazy.

That doesn't change the fact though that the people with more money get more exposure, therefore the average person who can't be bothered to research picks the name they see most often or the name the media is pushing at the moment.

[Kalis]

Also this. Politicians used to be elected "by the people, for the people" but now they get elected by big business to help keep big business running and profiting off of everybody else.

Politicians used to be elected by the people, for a select clique, and they still are.

The idea that there was some golden age where the majority of politicians were good, honest men fighting to better the lives of their countrymen is, to be frank, a load of bollocks. There has been the odd one or two who have done so, then again there still are, but they have always been few and far between.

Whether they were backed by corporations wanting to maintain/gain influence, or by farmers, or fishermen, or whatever, any political system that requires votes has been corrupt since ancient times.

Running for office has always been an expensive business - Julius Caesar borrowed heavily to ensure he had the support of the plebs - though the US has taken it to unheard of extremes. The only people who would be beyond corruption, at least theoretically, are those who have fabulous wealth...but they generally run to further their own interests.

Politicians will always throw the people a bone, or at least promise to, as they need the votes, however their main priority has always been the goals of the people that finance them...the only difference is what group does the financing

Plus ça change...

[Felya]

I honestly believe things are too far gone for votes to matter. Agree with the man or not, look at what was done to Ron Paul during both 08 and 12 elections. The media, both sides, rallied against him. Because they're complacent. The young vote has shifted, however, to a more Libertarian ideal. 2016 will be interested.

Ron Paul ran as libertarian in 1988. The Libertarian running in 2012 was Garry Johnson.

[mvaliz]

You believe all that... and YET vote for Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Ron Paul!?

Dude, their philosophies would completely eliminate government regulation... they would effectively hand COMPLETE control over to the Rich. The corporations would become your new government completely immune of any responsibilities or laws - one that you CANNOT vote out.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the fact that commercials and the like are bought and paid for, so the person who can spend the most money on the best-looking commercial tends to sway people. Yes, the problem is that people don't care to research or learn about a candidate before voting for them (or, worse, just vote based on party affiliation and nothing more), but votes have been linked to how much money you can spend for around 100 years or more now.

It's also a fact that we're having a rapidly growing generation who do not watch commercials, and instead watch everything via the internet commercial-free.

I know because during 2012 I never saw a single campaign commercial when everybody else of my generation was telling me they were massively rampant.

[Felya]

You believe all that... and YET vote for Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Ron Paul!?

Dude, their philosophies would completely eliminate government regulation... they would effectively hand COMPLETE control over to the Rich. The corporations would become your new government completely immune of any responsibilities or laws - one that you CANNOT vote out.

That's as bad as calling Obama communist. If Ron Paul won and even if he did try to go the extreme rout you envision, the president does not have the authority for such a change. As an example, the closest thing we got to what you are describing in recent history, is Citizens United. The president was not an extreme you are describing, but Obama.

The reason I leaped off the Ron Paul bandwagon, is because after reading nearly 30 years (that's as far as I could find) of his voting record, I felt a 'bait and switch'. I felt I was sucked in by foreign and even some social policy, only to be repulsed by everything else. The thing that broke the camel's back, as far as my admiration of Ron Paul, is contrasting his reaction between payroll tax cuts and Bush tax cuts. Right now, it feels like the best thing he has going for his political status, is the perceived shunning by the media.

[simsumre]

You believe all that... and YET vote for Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Ron Paul!?

Dude, their philosophies would completely eliminate government regulation... they would effectively hand COMPLETE control over to the Rich. The corporations would become your new government completely immune of any responsibilities or laws - one that you CANNOT vote out.

I believe in personal responsibly, not safety nets or Government welfare. I believe you sink or swim in this country and that you should have no one to blame but yourself for your own failure. neither are corrupt and both support the Constitution as the law of the land that it is. That's all that really matters to me.

[Chelly]

I believe in personal responsibly, not safety nets or Government welfare. I believe you sink or swim in this country and that you should have no one to blame but yourself for your own failure. neither are corrupt and both support the Constitution as the law of the land that it is. That's all that really matters to me.

You should be fine with the rich swimming and everyone else sinking then.

[simsumre]

You should be fine with the rich swimming and everyone else sinking then.

Not when there has been an unfair disadvantage placed on everyone else through lobbyists. This isn't a monopoly. I believe in a fair game here, which really should be the issue. Not about who we hand welfare out to. It should be about throwing the corrupt scum in prison and making the playing field level.

[Fexus]

I honestly believe things are too far gone for votes to matter.

Unless you believe that our elections are corrupt at the ballot counting level, votes matter as much as they ever have. People are more capable of being informed about a candidates policies now than at any point in history. The US government is insanely corrupt, but we have only ourselves to blame.

[simsumre]

Unless you believe that our elections are corrupt at the ballot counting level, votes matter as much as they ever have. People are more capable of being informed about a candidates policies now than at any point in history. The US government is insanely corrupt, but we have only ourselves to blame.

With electronic voting machines, it's more than possible that it's corrupt at the ballot level.

Capable and willing are two different things. Most people only give a damn about sports and their job.

[Felya]

I believe in personal responsibly, not safety nets or Government welfare. I believe you sink or swim in this country and that you should have no one to blame but yourself for your own failure. neither are corrupt and both support the Constitution as the law of the land that it is. That's all that really matters to me.

Personal responsibility is meaningless, if you have no way to enforce it. Social safety nets are not a mater of absolutes.

[Chelly]

Not when there has been an unfair disadvantage placed on everyone else through lobbyists. This isn't a monopoly. I believe in a fair game here, which really should be the issue. Not about who we hand welfare out to. It should be about throwing the corrupt scum in prison and making the playing field level.

Well...

and that you should have no one to blame but yourself for your own failure.

Tough luck I guess.

[Halicia]

I believe in personal responsibly, not safety nets or Government welfare.

That's like saying that we shouldn't need police, since its people's own fault for not being able to protect themselves from armed robbery.

Personal responsibility is meaningless when the power to protect yourself from financial enslavement has been stripped from you on birth.

Personal responsibility is meaningless, if you have no way to enforce it. Social safety nets are not a mater of absolutes.

akh. Jinx!

[simsumre]

Well...

Tough luck I guess.

The key word there was "should". I wouldn't have made this thread if I thought everything was fair.

- - - Updated - - -

That's like saying that we shouldn't need police, since its people's own fault for not being able to protect themselves from armed robbery.

akh. Jinx!

I agree with this statement, what's the problem? Learn how to shoot a gun and defend yourself.