IF it came down to Clinton vs Trump and the deciding position was to break up the big banks, who do you think is more likely to agree with breaking up the big banks and, more importantly, who do you think is more likely to ACTUALLY break up the big banks? OR, do you think this is finally the year of the long-awaited 3rd Party candidate?
Are we to have our own 2016 version of the Bull and Moose Party? Past President & Colonel Roosevelt lost this particular election, but the theme of contention to note then in 1912 is something that seems to mirror 2016 today: In 1912, the Progressive Party called for an end of business interests that controlled both the Republican and Democratic parties. “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
After the Panic of 1907
, debt from WWI, real estate and housing bubble burst in 1920s, Stock Market crash in 1929 fueling the Great Depression through to 1941, finally a period of prosperity after WWII until the early 70s when the Bretton-Woods system collapsed and the 1973 oil crisis, then the 1979 energy crisis tied to the on-going wars in specific “oil-rich” nations, then we had a period under Reaganomics which helped grow real GDP and the stock market but simultaneously tripled the national debt
...an effect which arguably was realized once the dot-com bubble burst, followed by a plethora of corporate scandals
which directly affected the fall of the US market, the housing market bubble burst, and the current Great Recession that we now have today--with both old and young feeling the burden because the old are now supposed to retire but a lot of what they have has become devalued, and the young are trying to build a future for themselves and America on negative debt with increasing student loans and complicated access to healthcare.
So voting for people who will just repeat history over and over is not going to do anything for us. If we want to see how it will turn out, we just need to look back.
the realization is, who do you blame? Who can
Which group do you use as a scapegoat, and how can you distract history by pointing the finger?
Except, what we have today that we didn’t have then is the power of social media and the Internet.
We, the masses, have the power of communication and learning the ability to internationally collectivize if we are stopped from doing so physically. How many times are we going to re-watch History repeat itself over and over in different ways until we get the courage to realize that we have more choices than just the standard Two Party candidates marketed to us.
Everything is marketing.
At the end of the day, those two remaining candidates marketed to us are just trying to please us enough until they can get elected, and then it’s making secret deals with whoever else wants to control us in order to get their names in the History textbooks for whatever reason. There are checks and balances to ensure that no one person goes “too” far, and there are family relations that go back generations, so are we really to believe that two candidates could be that different at the core of who they are and what they are willing to compromise on to get what they want?
Whether you were groomed to be a politician or you were groomed to be a big businessman/woman, you play the same game with the same people from the same families.
It’s a game of chicken fight, or a game of Go-Stop
, and each person is using the public perception to test out which marketed image is more effective...only that TRULY works when the public is convinced that they only have two options: the red pill or the blue pill.
We are only marketed the red pill or the blue pill, but if we can remember that there are over 300 million pills to chose from, it makes having a choice of 2 out of 300 million statistically silly.
So who knows if 2016 will finally be the year of the 3rd Party Candidate, or the year that we all wake up
and realize we are falling for marketed choices over and over again, but one thing is certain--future generations will be looking back on us and asking how blind we could be just as we
look back on all of the past’s
socio and economic missteps and ask them
the same thing.
Perhaps the better question in all elections moving forward is not how confident you are in the candidates presented to you, but how courageous are you yourself?
|"You know, I think many people have the mistaken impression that Congress regulates Wall Street. In truth, that's not the case. The real truth is that Wall Street regulates Congress." --Sen. Bernie Sanders|
Proud to say I voted for:
Senator Bernie Sanders
What goes down in history for the rest of the world and the future generations to see--I want to be part of the movement on the correct side of history. On the side not swayed by glitzy marketing, coverups, fraud, corruption, or being guilted into voting a certain way because I'm "supposed" to. I want the world to see that there are Americans who recognize and understand what's actually going on around us. How many times have people looked back on their vote and been disappointed? Can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who was sued for fraud & then seemingly purchased their way out? Can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who is currently being investigated by the DOJ for criminal behavior? When I look back on my vote 10, 15, 20 years from now (if I am so blessed to do so), I will still be proud of my candidate of choice because his message is not mobilizing his campaign to attack another person but instead reflected back at the breaking system which put us here.
Not saying that I am #BernieOrBust, but this video nicely summarizes why the movement exists to begin with: