How Can the Richest 1 Percent Be Winning This Class War

[sandinista]

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

LOL - go ahead and tell us the "true" history that "they" don't want us to know...

haha, go and tell us the "true" history that "they" want us to know.

so, you agreed with me "But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events." but...you don't? You admit that the history that is taught is BS...but the history that isn't taught is also BS? WTF? You are make less sense as the days pass.

Much of what you post is BS.

Much of what you post is BS.

[Coito ergo sum]

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

LOL - go ahead and tell us the "true" history that "they" don't want us to know...

haha, go and tell us the "true" history that "they" want us to know.

so, you agreed with me "But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events." but...you don't? You admit that the history that is taught is BS...but the history that isn't taught is also BS? WTF? You are make less sense as the days pass.

Much of what you post is BS.

Much of what you post is BS.

Even assuming (without admitting) a generous amount of BS on my part, I can not compare to your masterful slinging of the bullshit. You are steeped in bullshit, such that it permeates every fiber of your being. I couldn't come close if I tried.

[sandinista]

Even assuming (without admitting) a generous amount of BS on my part, I can not compare to your masterful slinging of the bullshit. You are steeped in bullshit, such that it permeates every fiber of your being. I couldn't come close if I tried.

personal attack.

You actually not only compare, you far exceed when it comes to bullshit. You are so full of it I have come to believe you don't even believe your own crap. You just like to disagree, play devils advocate for the sake of argument. Some things you come up with are so out there it's either devils advocate or complete and total ignorance. Not sure which at this point, don't really care either, reading your utter bullshit is good for a laugh at times though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even assuming (without admitting) a generous amount of BS on my part, I can not compare to your masterful slinging of the bullshit. You are steeped in bullshit, such that it permeates every fiber of your being. I couldn't come close if I tried.

personal attack.

You actually not only compare, you far exceed when it comes to bullshit. You are so full of it I have come to believe you don't even believe your own crap. You just like to disagree, play devils advocate for the sake of argument. Some things you come up with are so out there it's either devils advocate or complete and total ignorance. Not sure which at this point, don't really care either, reading your utter bullshit is good for a laugh at times though.

LOL - I think you ought to review some of the crap you write. But, we can agree that we each think the other is full of shit.

[sandinista]

Even assuming (without admitting) a generous amount of BS on my part, I can not compare to your masterful slinging of the bullshit. You are steeped in bullshit, such that it permeates every fiber of your being. I couldn't come close if I tried.

personal attack.

You actually not only compare, you far exceed when it comes to bullshit. You are so full of it I have come to believe you don't even believe your own crap. You just like to disagree, play devils advocate for the sake of argument. Some things you come up with are so out there it's either devils advocate or complete and total ignorance. Not sure which at this point, don't really care either, reading your utter bullshit is good for a laugh at times though.

LOL - I think you ought to review some of the crap you write. But, we can agree that we each think the other is full of shit.

fair enough. Review...go nuts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even assuming (without admitting) a generous amount of BS on my part, I can not compare to your masterful slinging of the bullshit. You are steeped in bullshit, such that it permeates every fiber of your being. I couldn't come close if I tried.

personal attack.

You actually not only compare, you far exceed when it comes to bullshit. You are so full of it I have come to believe you don't even believe your own crap. You just like to disagree, play devils advocate for the sake of argument. Some things you come up with are so out there it's either devils advocate or complete and total ignorance. Not sure which at this point, don't really care either, reading your utter bullshit is good for a laugh at times though.

LOL - I think you ought to review some of the crap you write. But, we can agree that we each think the other is full of shit.

fair enough. Review...go nuts.

I already know you post a load of bollocks. You must think you type stuff other than what you actually type. That's why I recommend you go back and review it. I imagine you'd say to yourself, "Self....did I actually type that? I must've been drunk!" You are a Canuck, so....you're probably drunk all the time anyway...

[Ian]

(re-railing the discussion away from "who's more full of shit"...)

Maybe I should mention that "alternative history" (also known as the "What If" game) is one of my favorite subjects. I've got all three volumes of Robert Cowley's What If? series on my bookshelf.

A few (of many) examples of how huge events in history often turned on small details, or luck, or (ahem) one important person being involved as opposed to another:
-Roosevelt had been successfully assassinated in 1933 and been succeeded by John Nance Garner
-Beria had prevailed over Khruschev in the struggle for power after Stalin had died
-D-Day fails because of slightly poorer weather, or better German intelligence
-Kennedy survived assassination and we never had a President Johnson
-The Watergate break-in had not been discovered by Frank Wells, and Nixon was not brought down by the coverup
-Henry Wallace had still been Vice President in 1945 instead of Harry Truman
-Someone more aggressive than Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg presided over the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
-Too many crucial military battles which could've gone either way to list here

If one thinks that "nothing significant" is the difference between one version of these histories and another, one might want to step back and re-evaluate what one considers to be "significant"!

[Coito ergo sum]

(re-railing the discussion away from "who's more full of shit"...)

Maybe I should mention that "alternative history" (also known as the "What If" game) is one of my favorite subjects. I've got all three volumes of Robert Cowley's What If? series on my bookshelf.

A few (of many) examples of how huge events in history often turned on small details, or luck, or (ahem) one important person being involved as opposed to another:
-Roosevelt had been successfully assassinated in 1933 and been succeeded by John Nance Garner
-Beria had prevailed over Khruschev in the struggle for power after Stalin had died
-D-Day fails because of slightly poorer weather, or better German intelligence
-Kennedy survived assassination and we never had a President Johnson
-The Watergate break-in had not been discovered by Frank Wells, and Nixon was not brought down by the coverup
-Henry Wallace had still been Vice President in 1945 instead of Harry Truman
-Someone more aggressive than Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg presided over the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
-Too many crucial military battles which could've gone either way to list here

If one thinks that "nothing significant" is the difference between one version of these histories and another, one might want to step back and re-evaluate what one considers to be "significant"!

If Harold Godwinson remained King of England instead of William the Conqueror...the entire course of western civilization would have been utterly and completely different.

Had Julius Caesar not been assassinated .... might the Emperors never have been crowned?

What if Churchill was Prime Minister instead of Neville Chamberlain in 1938....

What if Hugo Chavez had a stroke and died? How great would that be for Venezuela?

[sandinista]

I already know you post a load of bollocks. You must think you type stuff other than what you actually type. That's why I recommend you go back and review it. I imagine you'd say to yourself, "Self....did I actually type that? I must've been drunk!" You are a Canuck, so....you're probably drunk all the time anyway...

Funny, you assume I am drunk, I always assumed you were just a simple moron judging from the rambling nonsense you come up with.

[Robert_S]

(re-railing the discussion away from "who's more full of shit"...)

Maybe I should mention that "alternative history" (also known as the "What If" game) is one of my favorite subjects. I've got all three volumes of Robert Cowley's What If? series on my bookshelf.

A few (of many) examples of how huge events in history often turned on small details, or luck, or (ahem) one important person being involved as opposed to another:
-Roosevelt had been successfully assassinated in 1933 and been succeeded by John Nance Garner
-Beria had prevailed over Khruschev in the struggle for power after Stalin had died
-D-Day fails because of slightly poorer weather, or better German intelligence
-Kennedy survived assassination and we never had a President Johnson
-The Watergate break-in had not been discovered by Frank Wells, and Nixon was not brought down by the coverup
-Henry Wallace had still been Vice President in 1945 instead of Harry Truman
-Someone more aggressive than Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg presided over the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
-Too many crucial military battles which could've gone either way to list here

If one thinks that "nothing significant" is the difference between one version of these histories and another, one might want to step back and re-evaluate what one considers to be "significant"!

:methis:, especially the bolded part!

There are things, including voting, as well as marching, shopping at the food coop, avoiding doing business with evil corporations whenever possible, supporting the local IMC or starting one up if there is not one in the community, riding a bike instead of driving, that can have a tangible difference in the real lives of real people (as well as other species). None of the other things on that list and the many other things that one can do socio-politically interfere with voting.

[sandinista]

(re-railing the discussion away from "who's more full of shit"...)

Maybe I should mention that "alternative history" (also known as the "What If" game) is one of my favorite subjects. I've got all three volumes of Robert Cowley's What If? series on my bookshelf.

A few (of many) examples of how huge events in history often turned on small details, or luck, or (ahem) one important person being involved as opposed to another:
-Roosevelt had been successfully assassinated in 1933 and been succeeded by John Nance Garner
-Beria had prevailed over Khruschev in the struggle for power after Stalin had died
-D-Day fails because of slightly poorer weather, or better German intelligence
-Kennedy survived assassination and we never had a President Johnson
-The Watergate break-in had not been discovered by Frank Wells, and Nixon was not brought down by the coverup
-Henry Wallace had still been Vice President in 1945 instead of Harry Truman
-Someone more aggressive than Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg presided over the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
-Too many crucial military battles which could've gone either way to list here

If one thinks that "nothing significant" is the difference between one version of these histories and another, one might want to step back and re-evaluate what one considers to be "significant"!

:methis:, especially the bolded part!

I agree, what one considers "significant" is of utmost importance here. One may want to step back and consider that question.

[Ian]

(re-railing the discussion away from "who's more full of shit"...)

Maybe I should mention that "alternative history" (also known as the "What If" game) is one of my favorite subjects. I've got all three volumes of Robert Cowley's What If? series on my bookshelf.

A few (of many) examples of how huge events in history often turned on small details, or luck, or (ahem) one important person being involved as opposed to another:
-Roosevelt had been successfully assassinated in 1933 and been succeeded by John Nance Garner
-Beria had prevailed over Khruschev in the struggle for power after Stalin had died
-D-Day fails because of slightly poorer weather, or better German intelligence
-Kennedy survived assassination and we never had a President Johnson
-The Watergate break-in had not been discovered by Frank Wells, and Nixon was not brought down by the coverup
-Henry Wallace had still been Vice President in 1945 instead of Harry Truman
-Someone more aggressive than Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg presided over the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
-Too many crucial military battles which could've gone either way to list here

If one thinks that "nothing significant" is the difference between one version of these histories and another, one might want to step back and re-evaluate what one considers to be "significant"!

, especially the bolded part!

I agree, what one considers "significant" is of utmost importance here. One may want to step back and consider that question.

Hey, I'm sure there are plenty more things of significance to be added there.
But the point is plain enough: little differences can end up becoming incredibly important in terms of history turning one way or another. Have a look through that list. Each of those relatively little differences wound up having massive consequences for the world. The possibility of a rapid end to the First World War, the New Deal, the course and political outcomes of the Second World War, the possible avoidance of a Cold War and a different postwar economy with a leftist US President (Wallace), the possibility of the Cold War going hot, the potential avoidance of Vietnam, the outcome of Watergate affecting US politics and elections for a generation, etc... they're all significant (potential) events and turning points in the history of the last century, any way you see them. If you don't think so, then there's no use griping about the details of what's happening around the world over the last few years - they're all of little to no significance.

And in a good many cases in history, small numbers of ordinary people had a big impact through mere voting. Flip 1% of votes in Illinois in 1960, and Nixon would've been in office. And had the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded as it had, the odds would've almost certainly have been higher of a Third World War breaking out. Hundreds of millions dead, quite possibly, and the world forever changed. Ultimately because one elected official was put into office over the other guy who had somewhat similar (but not identical!) politics and competency.

So if little differences, sometimes one person narrowly put into power in place of another, can obviously end up causing tremendous consequences one way or the other, then notions such as "voting is useless" and "it doesn't matter which one wins" are thus rendered unrealistic and incorrect. Not all the time, but often enough to matter. Examples of history prove such notions unrealistic and incorrect, far more than can be proved by any philosophical reasoning.

[JimC]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

Agreed, voting is not much power at all, but it is infinitely greater than the alternative.

Which is? What is the alternative to voting? Let me guess "doing nothing". Either vote or do nothing.

The alternative to a system where we can vote is a system where we can't vote. The former is infinitely preferable to the latter.

That does not preclude reforms to the whole process which could at least attempt to reduce the complete domination of money and political patronage on which candidates you are allowed to vote for...

[Coito ergo sum]

That does not preclude reforms to the whole process which could at least attempt to reduce the complete domination of money and political patronage on which candidates you are allowed to vote for...

What's interesting is that the "complete dominance" of monied interests (in the US) is largely a function of the voting habits of the American people. Every election, we don't just have 2 choices for President, there is always a slew of other candidates listed. They don't get the advertising, but Americans can still vote for them. If we would just vote for third party candidates in larger numbers, things would change.

Moreover - when people refer to the "domination of money" - in general I get the distinct feeling that what they mean is the domination of "conservative" money. Money from unions and left wing organizations are not considered in the same way. If we are going to remove the influence of "money" then one would also have to de-fang corporations like PETA and Moveon.org, and organizations like the AFL-CIO. Is that really what is desired?

[Pappa]

The notion of protesting an imperfect democracy by boycotting it is pathetic.

At various times in the past I've refrained from voting because I don't feel there is a candidate worthy of my vote, with policies I identify with. I sometimes vote tactically by voting for the one I dislike least, but then sometimes I find them all equally worthless. If I was in the US, I'd only have two options, Republican or Democrat. I'd vote Democrat to stop the Republicans getting in, but what if I found them equally repugnant? Even here, though we have more parties to choose from, in most constituencies, a vote for a party that's not one of the main two is an utterly wasted vote anyway (other than giving a smaller party a bit of a morale boost). I understand that if everyone who refrains from voting actually did vote then those smaller parties would suddenly be less small and worth voting for... but we don't live in a perfect world and those people will not vote. So, that leaves me in a situation where my vote really is useless. That situation isn't going to change, so although I do tend to vote, I don't really see the point in me doing so.