No Matter Who Wins the White House...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...the New Boss Will Be the Same as the Old Boss.

by John W. Whitehead

....The American people remain eager to be persuaded that a new president in the White House can solve the problems that plague us. Yet no matter who wins this next presidential election, you can rest assured that the new boss will be the same as the old boss, and we—the permanent underclass in America—will continue to be forced to march in lockstep with the police state in all matters, public and private.

Indeed, as I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it really doesn’t matter what you call them—the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that no matter which party occupies the White House in 2017, the unelected bureaucracy that actually calls the shots will continue to do so.

Consider the following a much-needed reality check, an antidote if you will, against an overdose of overhyped campaign announcements, lofty electoral promises and meaningless patriotic sentiments that land us right back in the same prison cell.

FACT: For the first time in history, Congress is dominated by a majority of millionaires who are, on average, fourteen times wealthier than the average American. According to a scientific study by Princeton researchers, the United States of America is not the democracy that it purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.”....

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/no_matter_who_wins_the_white_house_the_new_boss_will_be_the_same_as_the_old

[hardcover]

1. Nope nope nope. if Bernie Sanders wins everything will change.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Then I hope he does...

...and I hope you're right.

[leftofcool]

3. What do you think will change?

If Congress is still controlled by Republicans, what do you think Bernie Sanders can do?

[hardcover]

5. Any Democratic President would be in that same boat.

Congress could shift in the next election or the next. That's when things start to change. Wouldn't you want a guy like this in the drivers seat then?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/14/bernie-sanders-drops-bomb-greedy-corporations-bill-pay-fair-share.html
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) drops a bomb on corporations who are dodging taxes by hiding money overseas by introducing new legislation that will force tax dodgers to pay their fair share.

[yeoman6987]

4. He needs 60 Democratic Senators and a huge Democratic House

Because that is the way to ensue his agenda goes through or it will be VETO for 8 years or until he gets the Congress.

[hardcover]

6. That can be done if we work at it.

[Cal33]

20. This is quite likely to happen in 2018 (if not in 2016), if Eliz. Warren should run.

[INdemo]

12. Ever wonder why previous poosible candidates

years past just didn't take the plunge? Pressure from those that control the money?
I agree with this article 150% but in order for Bernie to win we the main street society (the 99%)would have to dig real deep to make that happen. You might contribute more than usual and I might contribute more but what about the average Democrat out there that are much less politically informed than what we are,would they?
Those are the voters that would have to anti up too and that would be the problem.
Otherwise the Wall Streeter gets to choose their candidate.Then we can listen to those campaign speeches that favor the liberals but after the election we wonder why key cabinet positions are filedl by those in line with guess who or what? Wall Street.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. http://www.cristinagrajalesinc.com/images/upload/pieces_229_1_2.jpg

[delrem]

8. What a sad reflection on the USA.

Other democracies work to change things for the better, through elections.
That's the whole purpose of elections.

When did that change into the syllogism "you can't win an election if you don't have the money, only the oligarchs have the money, so only the oligarchs can win elections"?

[yeoman6987]

9. Our system is designed to make change hard

Otherwise we would have a ton of right wing stuff and liberal bills passed every time a new party President is sworn in. It would be whiplash every time. The system is not perfect but some alternatives would be worse.

[delrem]

10. The issue is democracy itself,

whether democracy can exist if the population as a whole believes in some story that only big money can win elections, if the population "pre-emptively caves" and in effect takes democracy off the table, to use an expression from Tom Tomorrow.

ymmv

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. I think the conclusion that...

...important elections in the US are almost exclusively won by big corporate money, rather than any genuine grassroots populist candidates can quite objectively be reached by way of inductive reasoning (repeated observation)--no syllogism required.

Am I wrong about that?

[delrem]

15. You are right about that.

The syllogism is a different thing. It's a "spin" argument that works backward from the existing facts, the citizens united decision, the facts about corporate spending, to suggest that there's no other choice, no alternative, esp. in this incredibly extended and outrageously funded US primary season. It's a spin argument that I read everyday on DU, and recently made by the site owner - it's that ubiquitous. In fact, it seems to be the only substantial argument being made by those who seek to benefit from the situation. (edited to add: of course those making this spin argument don't express it so bluntly, and the accurate term 'oligarch' is avoided like the plague)

Hope that's clearer. If not, I'll just let the matter go. There are plenty of others who explain these things much more simply and clearly than I can.

I'll repeat my first response:
Other democracies work to change things for the better, through elections.
That's the whole purpose of elections.
When did that change into the syllogism "you can't win an election if you don't have the money, only the oligarchs have the money, so only the oligarchs can win elections"?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. I may have mistakenly taken your first...

...response to be more a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer to
when/if the syllogistic argument you posit has come into popular use.

I do know there seem to be more citizens than ever before who no longer have confidence in the fairness/veracity of the US electoral process.

This is a very serious problem.

[bvf]

11. So relax everybody. Just sit this one out, OK?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. If that was the takeaway for you...

...after reading the editorial linked in the OP, I'd say you may have missed the author's point.

[bvf]

19. No, I got the point.

My comment was intended as snark. The editorial dedicates 98% of the piece to detailing how fucked we are, with the final 2% essentially saying, "Let's do something about it."

[INdemo]

13. We had our chances

and a chance at attaining that great society that LBJ hoped for. All of that changed though with the crooks that were elected and even then I wonder if the all votes were counted. Hubert Humphrey would have been a great President and put us on a course that would have clearly maintained a true Democracy and wow how the course of history would have changed.
Then in 1980 Democrats pushed their candidate aside for a smooth talking crook and all we heard about for 8 years was "those Reagan Democrats" That folks is when it all changed. The trickle down economy that didn't trickle and the great society of Reagan was born, the 1%

[LiberalElite]

22. That's it-

I still recall the physical pain in my chest when I found out Reagan had won.

[geek tragedy]

18. Lol, John "FEMA camps" Whitehead.

FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented. But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fema+site:rutherford.org

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FEMA_concentration_camps

He's a long-winded version of Ron Paul.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22ron+paul%22+site:rutherford.org

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

21. Thanks for your input Geek Tragedy.