> Graham Motzing Wrote:
> yeah the older i've gotten and the more i understand the political
> history of the US, my viewpoint on the two party system has changed a
> lot... not so much my hatred of it, but more understanding how the
> predominant power brokers have leveraged different ideologies to
> manipulate people into these two perfectly balanced damn near 50/50
> As it pertains to Ross Perot, as a third party candidate, what i'm
> saying is that abortion and the host of other issues i mentioned have no
> basis in conservative political ideology, as some people leave the party
> over one issue (say conservative republicans leaving due to a new york
> tax-and-spend liberal democrat- Trump- conning his way into a republican
> nomination) - other people (such as democrat white nationalists) get
> brought into the fold and become republicans, but the 50/50 is
> maintained by adding or shifting on these hot button issues.
> The rich and powerful minority are always leveraging the votes of a
> poorer majority by manipulating the party messaging. What is
> interesting - in a very Orwellian sense- is how at different times in
> history this messaging has shifted... some really good ones to pay
> attention to is Abraham Lincoln, McKinley/Roosevelt, and
> Kennedy/Johnson. In all these cases the traditional power brokers got
> bucked either due to overwhelming popularism and/or an assassination...
> essentially the guys trying to hold the reigns on democracy got bucked
> off for a minute. If you watch the way the parties and the messaging
> changed during these periods to maintain the 50/50 balance, it teaches
> you a lot about how our government works.
> I think the Trump thing is going to go down as another one of these
> major seismic shifts, its interesting to be experiencing it in real
> time. Watching the conventional powers trying to maintain their 50/50
> balance and control political institutions while popularists on the left
> push for a Sanders nomination, and popularists on the far right
> consolidate around a nationalist message.
> What is interesting about the bicameral system in America is that it
> doesn't align to the conventional socialist vs. nationalist platforms
> that most other countries have naturally settled on. The Trump thing
> is- in my opinion- a transition back to a more organic political
> narrative dividing people into 'Nationalists/ Fascists' and
> 'Socialist/communists.' The wealthy and powerful, trying to maintain
> the power structure, will obviously message this to continue to maintain
> 50/50 voting balance to keep politics stable. You cant go out and say
> 'we are the party for the top 5%' and 'we are the party for the bottom
> 95%' without it being a pretty conclusive landslide of voting, so you
> have to split up these hot-button albeit entirely inconsequential issues
> to keep the voting split even and maintain upper crust protectionisim
> within both parties.
> does that all make sense?
No. You're WAY over-thinking it...………...the people just got tired of the giveaway of the country's wealth to illegal immigrants. THAT's why Trump was elected.
Simple! The wall!