quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I reject the current trajectory of the GOP as it is too oligarchical seeking to remove certain citizens from equal participation.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I reject the current trajectory of the GOP as it is too oligarchical seeking to remove certain citizens from equal participation.

Isn’t the Democratic Party the party of oligarchs?

Not saying the GOP has none but……

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I reject the current trajectory of the GOP as it is too oligarchical seeking to remove certain citizens from equal participation.

Isn’t the Democratic Party the party of oligarchs?

Not saying the GOP has none but……

quote:

The current Dem Party is not trying to relitigate judicial and electoral loses to restrict folks from engaging in politics and the economy based on nation or origin, sex, religion, nor gender.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I reject the current trajectory of the GOP as it is too oligarchical seeking to remove certain citizens from equal participation.

Isn’t the Democratic Party the party of oligarchs?

Not saying the GOP has none but……

The current Dem Party is not trying to relitigate judicial and electoral loses to restrict folks from engaging in politics and the economy based on nation or origin, sex, religion, nor gender.

They can be oligarchs. I believe MLK Jr was one. He took affirmative action to break logical control.

In your own, limited way you are an oligarch. Your attempts to force your view of Christian religious teachings through the state is very oligarchical. I must oppose it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
But, I believe the Democratic Party way outnumbers the GOP here.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:


You are back to making assertions with no backing of factual evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
-- demonization and the baleful roar of a 18oz kitten.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Naki, Obama is a prime example of the old definition of oligarch.

He is a member of the small select group who have power in the US.

That he currently is not president and ruling the nation is besides the point. He’s in the select group of 5 people who have been (or are) chief executives of the US.

He doesn’t meet the current popular definition of being exceedingly wealthy, but I suspect he still gets security briefings and is certainly a leading voice in government (via the democrat party).

So is Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

Trump is something if an anomaly in that he’s still trying to regain the pinnacle. He also lost the security briefings by misbehavior if I recall correctly.

The last member of the group is Biden, the current POTUS, and really he’s the top of the heap. Then you have 100 senators and 435 members of congress, the various cabinet and statutory officials, then the various state, county, and municipal officials. If you want to become one, you can run for office and get elected.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

While not classically called an oligarchy, they do run things in this country and are in power until the next election… and usually have some residual influence afterwards, thus the generation of lobbyists out of them. Yes it’s currently defined as representative democracy, but between elections they really are an oligarchy.

The way you, Naki, elect to term oligarchy and oligarchs is the current popular view of extremely rich people with an inordinate amount of political influence. Who you want to define as one is very much in the eye of the person talking, but you can’t totally declare republicans as oligarchs and democrats as “leaders”. It’s hypocritical and incorrect.


Yes, I’m calling it as I see it with your drifting between definitions and their logical consistencies.

The truth is that there really is no such thing as a pure Greek style oligarchy anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No one had demonized Tara. I said I accept everything you say about him. I accept he was a good man. I am disinclined against the notion he was not an oligarch. I am especially disinclined when you compare the U.S. political system and the struggles we have had and continue to have (but for better sadly necessary) compared to India.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
"good man" is a back handed complement meant to minimise, dilute and ultimately dismiss.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again, Doc, trying to redefine.

GOP is an Oligarchic party with BIG corporate donors and the Democratic party is Liberal democratic with mostly small donors.

Bullcrap. The GOP held primary elections and abided by the results (much to my dismay...)

The democrats allowed their candidate to be selected by an elite group, the majority of whom are not elected by the voters.

What about that bit in the news yeaterday that Bill Gates gave the dems $50 M but it was "supposed to be a secret"?

Or how about that whole rigamarole years ago where Gore had a bunch of money given to a bunch of monks and they all gave it individually to the Democrat campaign? My point is not that the GOP is good on this, rather that the parties both play a lot of games.

Business Lobbies want Oligarchies and will try to influence all parties. That is their goal.

Lobbists don't give a damn about "oligarchy"... they are about getting money to influence power.

Oligarchs like the Kochs fine tuned this over the last 40 years by creating 2000 plus entities and calling them Think tanks, research groups, charities etc. They just cross refence each other and created this mountain for BS they call "Research" to push their narrow agenda. No peer review of critique published from outside their group.

You are losing all credibility by calling Rosa Parks an oligarch. She was a revolutionary figure. She did not even claim leadership aspirations to start with.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

Read it again. If you want to just consider power/political activity you could say they are. They are not.

You cannot make a Wrong int a right by just repeating it. Typical trump play book.

You are the one repeating it...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Naki, Obama is a prime example of the old definition of oligarch.

He is a member of the small select group who have power in the US.

That he currently is not president and ruling the nation is besides the point. He’s in the select group of 5 people who have been (or are) chief executives of the US.

He doesn’t meet the current popular definition of being exceedingly wealthy, but I suspect he still gets security briefings and is certainly a leading voice in government (via the democrat party).

So is Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

Trump is something if an anomaly in that he’s still trying to regain the pinnacle. He also lost the security briefings by misbehavior if I recall correctly.

The last member of the group is Biden, the current POTUS, and really he’s the top of the heap. Then you have 100 senators and 435 members of congress, the various cabinet and statutory officials, then the various state, county, and municipal officials. If you want to become one, you can run for office and get elected.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

While not classically called an oligarchy, they do run things in this country and are in power until the next election… and usually have some residual influence afterwards, thus the generation of lobbyists out of them. Yes it’s currently defined as representative democracy, but between elections they really are an oligarchy.

The way you, Naki, elect to term oligarchy and oligarchs is the current popular view of extremely rich people with an inordinate amount of political influence. Who you want to define as one is very much in the eye of the person talking, but you can’t totally declare republicans as oligarchs and democrats as “leaders”. It’s hypocritical and incorrect.


Yes, I’m calling it as I see it with your drifting between definitions and their logical consistencies.

The truth is that there really is no such thing as a pure Greek style oligarchy anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again, Doc, trying to redefine.

GOP is an Oligarchic party with BIG corporate donors and the Democratic party is Liberal democratic with mostly small donors.

Bullcrap. The GOP held primary elections and abided by the results (much to my dismay...)

The democrats allowed their candidate to be selected by an elite group, the majority of whom are not elected by the voters.

What about that bit in the news yeaterday that Bill Gates gave the dems $50 M but it was "supposed to be a secret"?

Or how about that whole rigamarole years ago where Gore had a bunch of money given to a bunch of monks and they all gave it individually to the Democrat campaign? My point is not that the GOP is good on this, rather that the parties both play a lot of games.

Business Lobbies want Oligarchies and will try to influence all parties. That is their goal.

Lobbists don't give a damn about "oligarchy"... they are about getting money to influence power.

Oligarchs like the Kochs fine tuned this over the last 40 years by creating 2000 plus entities and calling them Think tanks, research groups, charities etc. They just cross refence each other and created this mountain for BS they call "Research" to push their narrow agenda. No peer review of critique published from outside their group.

You are losing all credibility by calling Rosa Parks an oligarch. She was a revolutionary figure. She did not even claim leadership aspirations to start with.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

Read it again. If you want to just consider power/political activity you could say they are. They are not.

You cannot make a Wrong int a right by just repeating it. Typical trump play book.

You are the one repeating it...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Naki, Obama is a prime example of the old definition of oligarch.

He is a member of the small select group who have power in the US.

That he currently is not president and ruling the nation is besides the point. He’s in the select group of 5 people who have been (or are) chief executives of the US.

He doesn’t meet the current popular definition of being exceedingly wealthy, but I suspect he still gets security briefings and is certainly a leading voice in government (via the democrat party).

So is Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

Trump is something if an anomaly in that he’s still trying to regain the pinnacle. He also lost the security briefings by misbehavior if I recall correctly.

The last member of the group is Biden, the current POTUS, and really he’s the top of the heap. Then you have 100 senators and 435 members of congress, the various cabinet and statutory officials, then the various state, county, and municipal officials. If you want to become one, you can run for office and get elected.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

While not classically called an oligarchy, they do run things in this country and are in power until the next election… and usually have some residual influence afterwards, thus the generation of lobbyists out of them. Yes it’s currently defined as representative democracy, but between elections they really are an oligarchy.

The way you, Naki, elect to term oligarchy and oligarchs is the current popular view of extremely rich people with an inordinate amount of political influence. Who you want to define as one is very much in the eye of the person talking, but you can’t totally declare republicans as oligarchs and democrats as “leaders”. It’s hypocritical and incorrect.


Yes, I’m calling it as I see it with your drifting between definitions and their logical consistencies.

The truth is that there really is no such thing as a pure Greek style oligarchy anymore.

quote:

New on WSJ: Elon Musk has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022. At one point, Putin asked him to avoid activating his Starlink internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, said two people briefed on the request.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

Just because you say so, it isn't so.

The Democrats got rid of the Super Delegate system after the way Bernie was bypassed by Hillary. They are truly democratic. But the GOP dances to the Kock brothers and Project 2025.
Hardly. They have lots of delegates that are not elecetd at primary/precinct caucuses. (although to be fair, so do the repubs.)

Small donors versus corporate large donors is enough evidence to prove that Republicans are Oligarchs and Democrats are not. The odd large donor doesn't change things when the Democratic donor is not representing a dynasty.

Your claims about Obama have been BS for decades. You falsely accused him "milking' the racist hate he faced instead of unequivocally condemning the GOP racism against him and his family. Your cute and subtle dilution of GOP extremism is not missed.
Show me where I claimed he was milking racist hate. I've been not very negative about Barack Obama the man or the president. I have said that the attacks on his kids are inappropriate. I've said things against some of the more egregious claims. No, I don't support the man or vote for him, but that is not "racist".

You are avoiding the point that the lobbyists ARE part of the oligarchy. They represent the oligarchs. Democrats don't have lobbyists but have pressure groups. By definition, the two have different interests. Lobbyists represent commercial and financial interests while pressure groups tend to have more social interests.
One word. Bullshit.

You falsely accuse Obama of governing from behind the scene and represnting a small group. Democrats are not stupid or naive. The administration has to function, and it has to work transparently. There is no evidence or proof that Obama is orchestrating the party and government with a small group. You are just making it up like all the other BS.

Reportedly it was Obama calling Biden that got him to drop out.

You also haven't responded to the issue of the Egyptians bribing the Trump Campaign
Why should I? I know Trump is corrupt. BTW, look at your link. Its a part of the democrat party.

https://oversightdemocrats.hou...trump-doj-covered-10

There is also the Russian and middle East funding of Trump and the GOP, including the NRA.

The NRA I heard about and I have commented on how I dislike the leadership of the NRA and have been withholding further donations due to that.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again, Doc, trying to redefine.

GOP is an Oligarchic party with BIG corporate donors and the Democratic party is Liberal democratic with mostly small donors.

Bullcrap. The GOP held primary elections and abided by the results (much to my dismay...)

The democrats allowed their candidate to be selected by an elite group, the majority of whom are not elected by the voters.

What about that bit in the news yeaterday that Bill Gates gave the dems $50 M but it was "supposed to be a secret"?

Or how about that whole rigamarole years ago where Gore had a bunch of money given to a bunch of monks and they all gave it individually to the Democrat campaign? My point is not that the GOP is good on this, rather that the parties both play a lot of games.

Business Lobbies want Oligarchies and will try to influence all parties. That is their goal.

Lobbists don't give a damn about "oligarchy"... they are about getting money to influence power.

Oligarchs like the Kochs fine tuned this over the last 40 years by creating 2000 plus entities and calling them Think tanks, research groups, charities etc. They just cross refence each other and created this mountain for BS they call "Research" to push their narrow agenda. No peer review of critique published from outside their group.

You are losing all credibility by calling Rosa Parks an oligarch. She was a revolutionary figure. She did not even claim leadership aspirations to start with.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

Read it again. If you want to just consider power/political activity you could say they are. They are not.

You cannot make a Wrong int a right by just repeating it. Typical trump play book.

You are the one repeating it...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Naki, Obama is a prime example of the old definition of oligarch.

He is a member of the small select group who have power in the US.

That he currently is not president and ruling the nation is besides the point. He’s in the select group of 5 people who have been (or are) chief executives of the US.

He doesn’t meet the current popular definition of being exceedingly wealthy, but I suspect he still gets security briefings and is certainly a leading voice in government (via the democrat party).

So is Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

Trump is something if an anomaly in that he’s still trying to regain the pinnacle. He also lost the security briefings by misbehavior if I recall correctly.

The last member of the group is Biden, the current POTUS, and really he’s the top of the heap. Then you have 100 senators and 435 members of congress, the various cabinet and statutory officials, then the various state, county, and municipal officials. If you want to become one, you can run for office and get elected.

I suppose if you want to expand it to folks who are politically active it could be so, then folks like MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks (and Nathan Bedford Forrest) could be considered.

While not classically called an oligarchy, they do run things in this country and are in power until the next election… and usually have some residual influence afterwards, thus the generation of lobbyists out of them. Yes it’s currently defined as representative democracy, but between elections they really are an oligarchy.

The way you, Naki, elect to term oligarchy and oligarchs is the current popular view of extremely rich people with an inordinate amount of political influence. Who you want to define as one is very much in the eye of the person talking, but you can’t totally declare republicans as oligarchs and democrats as “leaders”. It’s hypocritical and incorrect.


Yes, I’m calling it as I see it with your drifting between definitions and their logical consistencies.

The truth is that there really is no such thing as a pure Greek style oligarchy anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

Your accusations of Obama are old hat from our debates going back a long time.

Glad you have changed your mind.

Again, just calling definitions of Lobbies as BS , doesn't make it so. Like you, I spent a long time in serious study. May be you should read up on serious Political Sociology rather than make up stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The best example of an oligarch that I can present is George Soros. The next best example would be Michael Bloomberg. Mark Cuban, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates are also oligarchs.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The best example of an oligarch that I can present is George Soros. The next best example would be Michael Bloomberg. Mark Cuban, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates are also oligarchs.

Yet you omit Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and the surviving Koch...

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/2...-kamala-harris-.html