bearister said:
The Party of JFK?
I suspect why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?
Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.
This is not to say all Democrats are actively, consciously traitorous Red Communists. But the far leftists, including actual socialists, actual Communists, and actual anarchists, have made a cancerous niche for themselves under the veil of liberal Democrats within the party. So the AOCs and others of the far Left play ball and cooperate, for now, with the majority of the Democrats, while, in the meantime preparing the battlefield for the Red revolution. We need the balance of liberalism, but we do not need nihilistic, anti-American agent provocateurs being unchecked and unchallenged within a long-standing and respected party, such as the Democratic Party.
It all comes down to how much government we want in our lives. Yes, we want a government that will protect us from enemies without, but within as well. Every time we ask for a government hand out, ask the government to do something, ask the government to fix something, we must give up something in return. And it's like feeding a tiger, you can't stop once you start, lest the tiger should be forced to decide you are the meal. JFK tried to stop feeding the tiger and the tiger turned on him.
There's no free lunch.
The Democratic Party is worth saving. My wife and her entire family were and are Democrats, but she and they recognize some of the hard left shifts ongoing in the Party. She might vote for Kamala Harris, but not until she answers to her track record, here, in California and finally tells us, as a Presidential candidate, all that she stands for. Harris' father is a professor emeritus at Furd (Stanford…Go Bears!) and his Marxist influences seem to show in her. I get that Democrats want their party to prevail, but how? I know the vast majority of the unelected bureaucracy are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of media members are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of college faculty vote Democrat. Is the Democratic Party being, unwittingly, used by powerful, dominant forces to create a single party system, here, in the USA? Do ordinary Democrats strive to become a single party of a single party system?
Opportunistically, the vast majority of corporate oligarchs support both sides, not for valid convictions, but to buy favor with whomever is in power. Where are our anti-trust laws? The corporate oligarchs are international and skirt our laws, so, now, as a result of their machinations, about 3 mega, multinational corporations own nearly all corporations. To be clear, most career politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. Do we pretend not to notice that politicians somehow become rich on the relatively meager salaries they are granted in their office? Follow the money.
The Central Banks gladly print more money as our government hands them ever increasing ownership over the peasantry- that would be us. The Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy love war, because war, strife, problems to solve, give them more money and power, but they sell it to us as Patriotic duty, a benefit to get our economy going (even though it's on borrowed money). So, all three, the Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy systemically, maybe not even consciously, drive us to events that benefit them as entities more than the people they are meant to serve.
Do we just raise up our hands in a Cobra Surrender posture and say that's how things are? Do we continue an endless cycle of preventable, tragic, anti-human events, such as man-made viruses, crippling government debt, endless wars, and bitter internal conflict? I may add internal conflict so toxic and unwholesome as to make otherwise decent humans lament the failed assassination of another human of the opposing party. Do you not hear how we are in the early stages of an Orwellian dystopia?
Yes, the "Blue" party, but I like to remember it as the party of JFK's Camelot. The party of JFK, who wanted to create a currency separate from and meant to make the Central Bank obsolete. The party of JFK that recognized the corruption of three-letter agencies, such as the FBI and CIA, and wanted to smash them into tiny pieces. Now, remind me, what happened to him? Are we really so naive as to think Oswald acted alone? What do you see in Kamal Harris, her track record, her rhetoric, her stances that remind you of JFK? Of Camelot? What will the "Blue" Party do to see and challenge these systemic issues that JFK recognized and took on so many years ago? What happened to the Blue Party that wanted to strive for a USA free and less burdened?
Now, I imagine that instead of answering the call, the rhetoric will focus on the intolerability of Republicans. They don't care about the poor and middle class. They are anti-intellectual and of questionable intelligence. They are the party of the rich. All things that may have been true at various points in history and in debateable degrees, but the mere name-calling has been a favored tactic, I will agree, lamentably, by both sides. So, do we simple see which side shouts the loudest? Or do we strive to recognize our common problems and address them, lest we all perish? What would "Blue" voters agree upon as minor premises that challenge us all? If we continue sophomoric fighting, I fear for our future as a nation conquered by enmity and blindness.
Where is the Party of JFK?
A party that could be, without shame, be designated by any color, without evoking an accusation of treason.
We need you.
#MakeOrwellFictionAgain
"Just win, baby."
