Last edited Sat Aug 20, 2016, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Jimmy Carter: U.S. Is an 'Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery'

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731

but hey YOU know so much more than former President Carter, of course.

We not be a fully entrenched oligarchy as of yet, but we are well on the way.

My dad warned of it starting in the late 70's and throughout the 90s. He was a very successful inventor and manufacturer. His academic background was in history and anthropology. He was kind of obsessed by what he saw as the coming oligarchy

Hell what would people like that know?

and I do not give a flying fig who was your maternal uncle.. anymore than you would give a fig who my Uncle was..

I like Jimmy Carter as much as the next person.. but the leadership of the Democratic party are not Oligarchs.. and I am up to my eyebrows with the damn claims..

who knew what what was and is going on. you? Apparently not. TiSA is a good example of the burgeoning ogliarchal era we're entering. CU. There is ample evidence. You're response reminds me of climate change denial.

To authority-Jimmy Carter. You got nothing. We are run by congress and the White House and the judiciary and state and local governments. Nthatvis not a small number of people

In the pursuit of further knowledge.

And I said zip about the leadership of the dem party being oligarchs.

Divide and Conquer....they hope!

Who's missing from that pic? Why, the biggest divider of 'em all--The Con-ald!!!!!

Makes ya wonder who is funding Common Dreams....

lol~ looks like the green shirts loves loves loves it.

Divide and conquer indeed. Just when I thought we were pulling together.

Coming out of the woodwork all over the place.

We sprung a leak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stay away from here, no matter how badly they decry this place on certain other websites...

He has no seat in any government.

POLITICAL PARTIES in the USA.

Your comment that he is not in politics is absolutely laughable. I'm astounded you even attempted to float that justification.

Bush and Cheney "aren't in politics" either and haven't been for eight years--but they're up there.

He's not on that illustration because the people shopping that shit don't want it to be about him.


Good grief--some things are just obvious, and that's one of 'em.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. They understand that down in Green Land.

Ralph Nader can tell you ALL about that shit.

smDh.

Common dreams became a RW source a long time ago. Sad I use to like them.

... representatives tended to vote on issues that were more in alignment with the views of wealthy Americans compared to the middle class and poor.

However, Republicans were much worse in that regard.

I haven't been able to find that study again through Google, but it was conducted at a prestigious school. Maybe Princeton or Stanford?

Cooks the world over sing his praises even if they don't know his name.

I think you'd do well to just delete your post.

The OP is talking about the Democratic PARTY, not the US government. They're different entities, though related in some regards.

No need to throw shade at the OP, either--just disagree without the "Hey YOU know so much more..." stuff.

And yes, I think my father was quite prescient. Over and over he'd say that the biggest problem facing this country was the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the decline of the middle class and concentration of wealth. This was decades ago.

The trend has been clear for years. And enlightened self-interest is now considered quaint.

I did delete that info.

It's a lame construct; lazy.

That it originated at "Common Dreams" doesn't surprise me though--they're more interested in flogging the absurd candidacy of the fringe Lexington suburbanite than appreciating that GOP appointments to the Supreme Court could actually--as in "no shit" -- endanger our Republic.

But it is not immune to the effects of such.

objected to the stupid Common Dreams assertions about oligarchy. Now, Carter may not have been talking about the party, but the OP was. So either your Carter source is not apropos to the discussion, or it's being used to refute the OP.

That right wing picture accompanying the original article in another thread is real precious, too. I won't put it up here, but I did find it offensive. I sometimes wonder if Common Dreams gets a grant from the RNC....

Someone sent me the link.

I don't need their shit on DI

http://www.discussionist.com/1015969496

Someone kindly alerted me.

If you "consider the source" you understand all.

Like Flotus says, when they go low....

We go high.


Da cave Da cave!

Hugs~

Yikes!

Read what I just posted to you.

You did, yup you did.

Never again.

JPR taught you well.

It ain't to Common Dreams, it's to some radical anarchists at Princeton.

I'm kinda shocked by the number of people who are unaware, since it has been posted here and elsewhere multiple times.

Sorry if it doesn't work for you though.

also the Republicans and the financial sector.

Really. Read the article and notice this quote:

The Common Dreams article was a piece of divisive propaganda. The picture, alone, is offensive in the extreme.

I don't have to put up with that kind of garbage without saying something about it, and what I have to say is that Green humping stuff like that CD article is as good as a Trump ad. It's garbage, as is the shitty illustration for it.

the form of campaign contributions and Super PAC you can expect quid pro quo's and easy access to the politican. If you are a politician who doesn't play ball with Donors then they run someone against you. Not all sell out, but most do.

We need to demand Publically Funded Elections, end the revolving door, and end legal insider trading for politicians.

DUer who has knowledge of government and history, cali. You do not get to ride over the opinions of others here. Nor do your relatives, no matter who they were, lend your opinions credibility. The United States, imperfect as it is, is not an oligarchy. My House representative, for example, was a school teacher when first elected to office. I know her, and know that she is part of no oligarchy.

She is one of just 435 members of the House. There are many others like her.

I do not believe that you are qualified to lecture other DUers about this nation and its politics.

I suggest you work to elect the best possible people to govern, from those available, not work against them. That is how we will prevent this country from becoming what you claim it is already. That's my suggestion. You will, of course, do as you please.

Excellent post.

best available candidates at every election, we would be in far, far better shape as a nation. Not voting is not a viable option in any election. A choice will be made by those who vote. It's always better to part of the process of choosing than to skip the opportunity. I never have been able to understand anyone who doesn't vote.

You? You are going to lecture people on telling others how to speak/feel/act? The poster who constantly advises us? Did you not just post an explanation of how we should more positively express our, "support" for Hillary? You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that her point is not true, Which is why you did not try, other than a "my representative is more pure than yours" defense and made no attempt to demonstrate how that made a hoots worth of difference to her larger point.

I have an idea....

Make an argument that she is wrong. I realize that is in the "hard" pile, but this is a discussion forum after all.

Airline Deregulation Act, and is one of the reasons why labor refused to re-elect him against Reagan.

Of course, Reagan was far worse, but between airline deregulation, and President Carter telling us after TMI that nuclear was the future.

Was President Carter part of that so-called oligarchy?

Carter was no liberal per se. That's why Ted Kennedy ran against him in 1980. Carter was a pacifist however which is perhaps why many on the left admire him today.

there is absolute proof that there is no oligarchy in this country.

People blame the bogeyman whether it's the Neo-Nazis blaming Jews running the government, John Birchers blaming Bildebergers, or some other conspiracy nut blaming the Illuminati running the government, it all comes down to one basic thing shared by all these conspiracy theory woo spreaders.

When the CT nuts cannot convince people their positions are correct, they blame it on some small group actually having control of the government.

If not, It's one of the over-used, not to mention incorrectly used words this election cycle.

Medicare on one thread, talking about polls in swing states on another, and then claiming the nation is run by oligarchs on yet another is...well, amazing is a polite word for it.

Some of these people are actually collecting Social Security and unemployment checks. What on earth do they think would happen to those if this were an oligarchy of a few very wealthy families?

Exposure to a certain "milieu" should give at least one person a clieu.

Really, please educate yourself and stop depending on wacky web sites like Common Dreams (The World Net Daily of the Left).

Of course, our oligarchy can't be much of one since we have elections so close they end up in the Supreme Court.

It could be better and Democrats work to make that happen, so there goes the bullshit "oligarchy" argument right out the fucking window.

Your point is absolutely right Moh

Both parties have a core group of insiders who determine the rules, decide who gets party help, and decide what the party platform will be.

Given that approximately 95% plus of incumbents are re-elected each election year, there is no doubt that a small group of politicians and donors exercise huge influence over both parties.

And look at the revolving door of business types who go from business to regulatory agency to lobbying firm and back to elective office.

I wouldn't want to be in government, unless the benefits were 100x better, but then people like you and I would whine 100x louder. We FORCE mostly rich people to be the only one's who would want to run for office. Then I have to beg rich people to get reelected every 2-4-6 years? Forget that shite. It's the worst job on the planet.

If all campaigns were government funded, with no political contributions allowed, this would remove some of the influence of the oligarchs.

You point out a major part of the solution, but it's a Catch-22 situation for those who've already figured out how to survive in the existing system, even though they might want to do what's best for the country in theory.

The new Tea Party folks who started in January 2011 were not an improvement over the folks they replaced vis-a-vis big money influence. Having new folks vs replacing the old folks isn't a panacea for any kind of money in politics issue.

It was stupid and foolish to make such a divisive post. (Again, not the OP of this thread.)

It is how the debate is conducted.

DU has changed a lot.

It used to be that opinions and debates were tolerated -- even welcomed.

But if someone wants to use ad hominem attacks to "win" his/her position...then THAT is what is divisive.

Intelligent discourse. Solid documented debate.

Oh how I long for those days!

When we get the maximum Democrats elected in November, then debate the future of the party. Now is not the time.

There will be plenty of elegant discourse starting November 9.

Weather it is ill feelings from the primaries or a longer held grudge they just want wholesale change.

Never a good thing as that brings in lack of experience and leads to bigger problems.

Same old shit stirrers trying to cause problems, an divide the board.

I see people get terms like 'neo-liberal' and 'oligarchy' wrong all the time.

I'm so sick and tired of the overuse of that damn word.

Anybody know what state that's in?

I grew up in a certain Milieu
It gave me a bird's eye view
The oligarchy's burgeoning!
The future's discouraging!
I like blaming Democrats, do you?

I love Ireland.

or anybody else.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002*, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

(*my bold. Given the time frame of the data, this is not a new thing)

The money quote from the study?

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf