POTUS Biden Fully Pardons His Son

[ProfD]

No surprise that POTUS PJB fully pardoned his son Hunter Biden:

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

 

Of course, POTUS PJB intially claimed he wasn't going to pardon his son. Surely, most of us knew that was a lie.

 

I'm curious to know how many Black folks POTUS PJB plans to pardon who were sentenced under his 1994 Crime Bill.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD the answer to your question is zero

 

but this act explains the true problem. Donald Schrumpf claims that the majority of elected officials are corrupt and two faced in the worst way and that truth always reveals itself. thus making schrumft correct about his elected coleagues in majority. 

[aka Contrarian]

 Biden has realized that, when the convicted felon who is now the president-elect with plans to weaponize the presidency, goes "low," you cannot go "high" if you want to survive. Trump appointees were set to crucify Hunter Biden when they took office. Father rescues son. Trump has made it OK for Presidents to be corrupt.

That's what he does. He enables the worst in people.

And instead of trying to bring the country together, his only focus is getting even with his enemies.

 

I despise him.

 

 

[ProfD]

15 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD the answer to your question is zero

 

but this act explains the true problem. Donald Schrumpf claims that the majority of elected officials are corrupt and two faced in the worst way and that truth always reveals itself. thus making schrumft correct about his elected coleagues in majority. 

Right.  The American public likes to believe politicians are upstanding citizens.  Money, greed and corruption runs the show.

 

6 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

 Trump has made it OK for Presidents to be corrupt.

That's what he does. He enables the worst in people.

 

POTUS OJ couldn't bring out anything in the Biden's that was already there. 

 

Those shady dealings in Ukraine would have eventually caught up with the Biden's. 

 

That's why the pardon covers an 11 year period from 2013 through 2024.

 

These people are ALL corrupt in one way or another.  Just different paymasters and streams of revenue.

 

One of the stool pigeons in the lie is Karine Jean-Pierre.  She repeatedly stood on the podium and recited the lies courtesy of POTUS PJB. 

 

I have  no idea of what KJP's next job will be after January 19th but I hope she takes a nice vacation between gigs.

[Pioneer1]

I don't blame Biden for pardoning his own son.
I would have done the same thing.

Family and blood is thicker than politics and political games.
 

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

Right.  The American public likes to believe politicians are upstanding citizens.  Money, greed and corruption runs the show.

yes, while you are correct I have to add the why? 

 

The why is what maintains persistence.

 

For the pre 1960s immigration act white populace it is the mythology said white populace in the usa started with. The founding father's mythos started at the time of washington was meant to be an idolatry. It was meant to make the original founders o the usa government, the post they held, mythologically good, and for many years as treated sacrosanct. I argue it was post war between the states, when you first start to see whites pull away from that idea, but when you look at the kennedy's , ala camelot in media, the mythos of government in the white populace in the usa is very strong, very very strong so said white populace emits that throughout all media. historically. 

 

Then you have the pre 1960s immigration act blacks. Well.. before the war between the states most blacks were completely enslaved so their relationship to teh usa, to whites i the usa is completely negative. Frederick Douglass side others who gained freedom before the ar between the states were a very small populace of black people in the usa. and this matters cause when the war between the states ends, what I will call in our dialog, the battle for black identity in the usa begins. 

 

At the end of the war between the stats you had three black groups. 

• The free blacks , smallest but most educated, most financially opportune through white patronage. 
• The ex soldiers, second largest, but a small percentage still, guns taken away but they have fought and a number of them would fight through many hurdles and start business become elected officials. 
• The enslaved, by a long distance a much larger populace, but no money/no education/some very bad experiences in life and many of them going to be abused by whites who took advantage of their ignorance plus impotence to keep them enslaved in various conditions not legally considered slavery, ala jails/sharecropping/ or just keeping them enslaved in country places to remote to reach for most who might help them.

So the black populace is an open canvas and you had the following three overall movements

• the leave usa folk, which is the oldest free black tradition in the usa, always individually possible but the best group after the war between the states being the garveyites
• The exodusters who wanted a black state in the union, the black cowboyheritage parallels the exoduster movement really. These were not blacks wanting to leave the usa or integrate with whites in the usa but who accepted segregation in the usa.  
• or the integrationists, who wanted to live aside whites as usa folk as fellow citizens, in various ways...booker t washington and the HBCU's who were financed by whites usually wanted integration but strictly financial or wanted to be part of a religious union with white people. Dubois wanted a labor integration , and for the blacks oat the highest labor status to be a sort of lifter. Douglass wanted integrated individualism , he didn't want any strict black collectives as much as blacks working aside whites in the usa  institutions. 

And so the fight began. The leave usa folk had the strongest internal momentum as most blacks in the late 1800s in the usa despised whites. , feared but despised. So the idea of leaving was great, but had little to no white financial support. Whites either wanted blacks to rebuild the south through the prisons or strengthen their religious groups through colleges or universities or strengthen their parties of governance through membership. Whites could not agree on how to approach the blacks but they had one thing in common, or in overwhelming majority, don't let them leave. 

 

The exodusters is probably the saddest tale in that, they had a middle ground idea but one that went away from what most blacks really wanted, ala leave the usa. or what most whites wanted, blacks to support white groups. The exodusters wanted schools but not ones financed by whites. wanted black empwerment or nationalism but not outside the usa. And between the manifest destiny charge of whites which slaughtered the first peoples and any allies they had militaristically, while empowering white terrorism to not get blacks to leave the east , south or north , the blacks out westbecame a story of murder and diminishment. So much so if you look at a demographic map, you can see the western line of the usa based on where the black populace cuts off westward. that is what happened to the exodusters, whites who helped other blacks start schools or become elected officials in the south or north east wouldn't help them and whites who wanted the west killed them if they came west, 

 

Laslty the integrationists, who had the most white support. won the day as modernity proves. But to the issue of how blacks view elected officials. The early integrationists sought to embrace the usa, and the whites in it , which meant they pushed the idea of the usa or the whites in it being good. To this day , how many black people were raised in homes where Harvard/Yale/Colombia university/The Senate/ The congres/ the army or navy were spoken of in positive glaring terms? many  , and that comes from the black integrationists basically campaigning home to home for the institutiosn of the usa as not white ones but human ones, ones welcoming to all and thus that idealism supports a narrative of inherent goodness. Remember in the 1960s , what many black people don't admit to is black churches, the black wealthy, black elected officials were not about the panthers or these anti white anti usa movements, and most black people were not publicly. That is the effect of black integrationists in the past

 

Finally, you have the post 1960s immigration act populaces, all phenotypes. 

Most of these are people who came from all over the world for one thing, financial betterment, and sometimes a cultural friction as a secondary. But most also came from countries where government hasn't recovered from the age of white european imperialism, which includes the usa + japan + russia , not just western eruopean states .

So what is the point? said immigrants came to the usa to make money as individuals but they mostly fear the conditions of the governments they came from. YEs they want money but they also dislike the governments of the countries they came from and that lends to a glorification of the usa. On the one hand, to stay, be accepted, they show love , but on the other hand out of spite to the country they came from, they want the usa to be a better other. 

 

So this is the why the populace in the usa in majority view the government in the usa as it does? @ProfD 

I am not educating you and you plus many others know this BUT my point is for any who may not know or for those who may be in doubt,  or for those who simply want it stated somewhere which it usually isnt' and that is another problem. 

Too many people say, what you said prof d, which is the truth but by not explaining the why , allow for the idea that all one needs to do is snap a finger and that isn't the truth. Individuals can have epiphanies, moments to break out of  mindset but I find groups never work that way and definitely not millions of people. Because humans are human, not all humans will come to the same conclusions no matter what anyone thinks or does. 

@Pioneer1

49 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I don't blame Biden for pardoning his own son.
I would have done the same thing.

Family and blood is thicker than politics and political games.

yeah, to each their own, But I think the issue you present has value. 

The idea of individualism says what, you are free to do what you want. 

But many people in the usa have this idea of merit. Which means what, whatever you get should be merited, whether positive or negative. It is a position on merit that oppose individualism. It is a collective view on merit, and that in my view, is where the discourse reside. 

I have heard various blacks plus non blacks say they will not treat clan members, those of their bloodline,  in a protective way. And more to the governmental point, a populace of people support the idea that an elected official shouldn't help members of their clan. Schrumpft himself, helped many in his clan in his first term. For the second term he is helping those who show more fealty, loyalty , not clan members but either whether by clan/blood or fealty/loyalty neither is by merit of action to a collective. clan is by no action at all, while loyalty is by action to an individual, in this case schrumft.  

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

One of the reasons so many people like Trump is because he appeals to their lower and basic instincts.
He PROUDLY reaches for and enjoys the low hanging fruit.

-Nepotism
-Rewarding your supporters with good jobs
-Calling out your enemies and threatening them

....these are things MOST people admire and wish THEY could freely engage in without being looked upon as an "asshole" by the rest of society.

Many people respect and desire this, especially in a world that promotes hypocrisy and fake ethical standards like being "humble".

Most loving parents would do ANYTHING with in their power to protect their children.
This is a natural basic instinct that most parents can relate to.

If Joe Biden DIDN'T use his power to help his own flesh and blood son out, best believe there'd be a lot more people criticizing him and calling him all kinds of,
"Cold blooded SOB's who wouldn't even help his own son out when he had the power to so you know what he thinks of the rest of America"

Now, ofcourse it depends on the circumstances.....

It's one thing to use your power to make your stupid son or dumb daughter president of a multi billion dollar firm that you founded from the ground up, passing over much more qualified people for that position.
THAT type of nepotism is a foolish decision that would cause a lot of damage and could destroy the company you built.

But using your power to get one of your little bad ass kids out of jail, or using your clout as a judge or mayor to get your kid a much needed kidney transplant or operation to save his life.....that's understandable.
 

[ProfD]

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I don't blame Biden for pardoning his own son.
I would have done the same thing.

Right. We knew he was going to pardon his son. He didn't have to lie about it.

 

4 hours ago, richardmurray said:

So this is the why the populace in the usa in majority view the government in the usa as it does? 

 

Too many people say, what you said prof d, which is the truth but by not explaining the why , allow for the idea that all one needs to do is snap a finger and that isn't the truth. 

Thanks for providing context.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

One of the reasons so many people like Trump is because he appeals to their lower and basic instincts.
He PROUDLY reaches for and enjoys the low hanging fruit.

-Nepotism
-Rewarding your supporters with good jobs
-Calling out your enemies and threatening them

....these are things MOST people admire and wish THEY could freely engage in without being looked upon as an "asshole" by the rest of society.

Many people respect and desire this, especially in a world that promotes hypocrisy and fake ethical standards like being "humble".

like scrumpft? I am not certain people like scrumpft.

Do the immigrants who support Schrumpft ,who says he will make a better wall against the immigrants to be, like him or like his stance that most in the usa never publicly support as anti american?

Do the non blacks who support schrumpft, who continues his fathers negative phenotypical bias toward blacks, like him or that stance which most whites in highly visible positions never make public if they have it?

Do the laborers who support Schrumpft, who talks of tariffs and fiscal blockades not heard of since before franklin deleanor roosevelt, like him or that stance which hasn't been around since the early 1900s?

Maybe people like Schrumpft, I don't know. But I would gamble sharing or liking a post that people support schrumpft because his agenda fits their needs. As it should be in government officials. 

 

One of the consequences of the global era of white european imperialism, which includes usa/japan/russia imperial activities not just western europe is that most populaces in humanity went from a complete white european control to a overseer control supported by distant white power. So most governments in humanity are locally  controlled by the overseers who aided in the domination of their own people and thus, Nepotism/helping your clan... rewarding fealty/loyalty regardless of your quality... threats of violence cowering resistance  all come from said  global white european imperial era and just shifted into the future with local handlers, overseers. 

 

And that means the immigrants into the usa, ala the immigration act of 1964 or 1965 allowed millions of people who are used to nepotism/fealty/bullying as a standard a common practice to enter the usa, so what would become more desired than said three styles. But the immigrants didn't force the usa to open its borders, the nonblack fiscal aristocrats did it. So many misread the immigration act of 1964 , clearly with some dysfunctional idealism 

here is lyndon b johnson's speech as the proof

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2785&type=status

 

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

Without a doubt, it is unquestionable that CERTAIN people definitely like Trump.
Infact, some people LOVE him!
....for various reasons.

When he was President before and even before...when he was campaigning back in 2014 and 2015 I said that he was often like a blank canvas that people would paint their own picture on as to why he was "their guy".
Part of it is his charisma.
Another part is his being COACHED on how to be bold and appeal to people's base desires and EMOTIONS rather than their intellect.

Kind of like a "good" pimp....lol.
"Good" as in...good at what he does.

 

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1 

ok, I still feel that the presidential success comes from voters agendas matching his talking points, not liking. I am not suggesting no one likes Scrumpft but I don't think the majority of voters or his support in general comes from liking. 

[ProfD]

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

ok, I still feel that the presidential success comes from voters agendas matching his talking points, not liking. I am not suggesting no one likes Scrumpft but I don't think the majority of voters or his support in general comes from liking. 

Considering that POTUS OJ's talking points don't truly reflect *policies*, he actually wins based on patriarchy and/or personality.  Those millions of folks who showed up at his rallies wearing those goofy azz hats, t-shirts and waving flags actually do *like* him too.

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

Actually ProfD beat me to it by mentioning how so many people showed up at his rallies acting a straight FOOL.
Most of his supporters really DO like him.

Now this is the thing.....

Trump gets his support from 2 sources:

1. The Republican party
2. Non-Republicans who just LOVE his ass 

I don't have to explain #2; however I would agree that many if not MOST rank-n-file Republicans...especially Republican politicians, office holders, and those who generally hold a more traditional and conservative point of view -do NOT like him.
They only support him because it's their DUTY to support a fellow Republican.
And his policies....in their opinion....would be better than Kamala's, so they look at is more as choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

However Trump...with his populism and fondness for public antics....is definitely not the ideal choice of a TRUE Conservative.
 

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

don't truly reflect *policies*,

really, i think they do. 

The border wall/ the tariff on china/ the forcing of european countries to pay in north atlantic treaty organization/the reduction of government spending on non governmental organizations/the support of abortion as a states right issue... no I see policy, is schrumpft good art articulating policies... no, no but he ahs policy 

[ProfD]

47 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD

really, i think they do. 

The border wall/ the tariff on china/ the forcing of european countries to pay in north atlantic treaty organization/the reduction of government spending on non governmental organizations/the support of abortion as a states right issue... no I see policy, is schrumpft good art articulating policies... no, no but he ahs policy 

OK. POTUS OJ has half-baked ideas masquerading as policies.

[Pioneer1]

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

no I see policy, is schrumpft good art articulating policies... no, no but he ahs policy 

This is because the policies are ALREADY SET before him or any other President takes office.

The President is just the figurehead, they don't make or enforce the policies of this nation.

Trump....like most Presidents...was SELECTED before being ELECTED, based on their charisma and ability to garner support from the masses and keep most of society moving in the same direction which provides a measure of stability to the nation.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

13 hours ago, ProfD said:

OK. POTUS OJ has half-baked ideas masquerading as policies.

half exactly, i didn't say well thought out, it is a myth that policies have to be well thought out. was the north american free trade agreement? was welfare to work? was the war on terror? A long list of policies that in hindsight were clearly half baked ideas initially became... policies

It isn't a mask, it is the truth. 

@Pioneer1

As roman emperors were sometimes decided by the pretorian guard,or khalif's sometimes dictated who the sultan was,  i am 100% certain powerful/influential/violent folk have a level of determination in who becomes president of the united states of america or what presidents of the united states of america  do.   BUT, policies are free to be made by all presidents and they do and that is that. 

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, richardmurray said:

half exactly, i didn't say well thought out, it is a myth that policies have to be well thought out...

 

A long list of policies that in hindsight were clearly half baked ideas initially became... policies

Sure.  A whole team of people are policy-makers based on POTUS agenda.  POTUS main job is figure-head and spokesperson.

[richardmurray]

If anyone reads my comment, comprehend the Office of the presidency has a subdivision called the office of management and budget, or something like that. Their job is to do the financial and legal research and implement the structure of the bills based on the agenda of presidents. 

The usa is an empire , like any empire, it has a government bureaucracy that is too big for one person to manage alone. But the policies the act to the people are of the president of the usa, whomever they are. No president is a figure head, or king, or lone operator in the usa government. 

[ProfD]

7 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

The usa is an empire , like any empire, it has a government bureaucracy that is too big for one person to manage alone. But the policies the act to the people are of the president of the usa, whomever they are. No president is a figure head, or king, or lone operator in the usa government. 

Many of us understand how the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of the US government works from top to bottom.

[Pioneer1]

14 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 BUT, policies are free to be made by all presidents and they do and that is that. 

Well, presidents may not be THE power behind the scenes....but they aren't stupid either.
They wouldn't have made it as far as they did if they were, or couldn't be trusted to tow-the-line.

Neither Trump, nor Harris, nor the previous presidents and nominees BEFORE them were stupid enough to believe they could get into the Whitehouse and "wing it" and just go buck wild doing whatever the hell they WANTED to do with no accountability to their "handlers" who actually put them in those positions.

They may have SOME power to do a few things, but the policies are pretty much set and their job is to represent those policies with a smile on their face.

The fate of John F. Kennedy (and a couple others before him) serve as an example as to what could happen to them if they decided to stop dancing with the man who BROUGHT them to the party.

 

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They may have SOME power to do a few things, but the policies are pretty much set and their job is to represent those policies with a smile on their face.

The fate of John F. Kennedy (and a couple others before him) serve as an example as to what could happen to them if they decided to stop dancing with the man who BROUGHT them to the party.

In terms of presidents , from washington you are correct. Washington even though many others wanted to crown him, he would not had been an all powerful king. The other, founding fathers were not without power, but from Washington you see a simple truth, white power in the usa isn't one, it has factions, and presidents tend to be part of one but not part of all and opposing factions sometimes utilize murder if need be.

 

Lincoln/Harrison/FDR/Kennedy deaths all show an opposing factions interest. Lincoln had an opposing faction in the confederate slavers whom we will never know if lincoln was going to pardon, but his vice president did. But the confederate slavers weren't the only rich in the usa. The northern churches who at the time of lincoln were very rich or powerful i think wanted an expansion of reconstruction , not to help blacks but to gain religious membersand expand their influence against the southern churches. And Lincoln's vice president while a republican by his prose in the war was another camp. Lincoln himself had to pick his vice president as lincoln was an unknown, he didn't have the influence to pick a yes man as his vice president. 

 

Harrison snubbed Conklin who was a very powerful man, and he was murdered. I can see Conklin's influence in Harrison's murder but the wealthy people outside the north east supported harrison who trie dto pull away hard from conklin. 

 

FDR conveniently got ill and died before his fourth term but the military and various wealthy people didn't like his prominence and freedom as a president in afourth term so I can see their influence in his death. But, certain banks/industries had more to gain with his arrival, especially in the northeast. I argue the northeastern wealthy was the faction defeated by the southern and western who were fearful fdr, former govenror of nyc, would litter the government in peacetime with so many midatlantic folk that the government would seem extended from the midatlantic and new england. 

 

Kennedy again, his position with war, with proof I learned recently, was against the military expansion the military wanted, the arms dealers and three letter organizations wanted. But kennedy had support again from new england/midatlantic, the colleges, the catholic church who is very powerful. 

 

Do you see my point? White power isn't a cohesive comprehensive human collective, it is a internally warring body of factions that wage war in all ways and sometimes use violence and succeed with violence. 

 

When you look at Carter/Bush jr / Obama factions had a role to play in events in their presidency. 

Iran held cia operatives until the presidency ended. The faction supporting Reagan clearly was behind that. But Carter had wealthy support. To this day no president has implemented more advanced tech than carter. Industrialist in the usa liked him, that faction supported him but the military faction hated carter, he was looking to build houses not destroy homes, so they worked hard to get him out and get the war monger reagan in who also supported weaking domestic industry in the usa, which aided the banks. 

 

Bush had those in government who told him not to save the banks. But Bush did it. Other factions of white ower were hoping the banking industry collapsed but Bush made a huge policy choice that has shaped the usa ever since. By saving the banks and not demanding they change comprehensively, his choice has created the modern financial landmines in humanity really. 

 

Obama again, i argue betrayed his own faction as i learned he was opposed to signing the affordable care act and it had other detractors in his government but he made a policy choice, a huge one, that to be blunt ,manipulated the life of everyone in the usa. 

 

My point is presidents of the usa from washington to the last, are members or align with factions of power. But the power at the top isn't a peaceful congruent set of factions, it is a set of warring factions, that sometimes commit murder. And in the war between the factions presidents policy as bush jr/obama/kennedy prove in their implementation or absence can have huge, huge ramifications, not little things, as some suggest. 

 

To rephrase, Kennedy wasn't dancing with the man, he was dancing with a man but a man he wasn't dancing with killed him. 

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

 

 

Iran held cia operatives until the presidency ended. The faction supporting Reagan clearly was behind that. But Carter had wealthy support. To this day no president has implemented more advanced tech than carter. Industrialist in the usa liked him, that faction supported him but the military faction hated carter, he was looking to build houses not destroy homes, so they worked hard to get him out and get the war monger reagan in who also supported weaking domestic industry in the usa, which aided the banks. 

 

That being said, why didn't the Carter Administration investigate WHY the hostages weren't being released and then aggressively pursue and prosecute Reagan and the boys for their treachery?

Even when he was no longer in office and Reagan was president, the Democrats in Congress and in power around the nation could have done something....and they didn't.

 

 

 

Obama again, i argue betrayed his own faction as i learned he was opposed to signing the affordable care act and it had other detractors in his government but he made a policy choice, a huge one, that to be blunt ,manipulated the life of everyone in the usa. 

 

Ofcourse,
Obamacare is actually a REPUBLICAN health care program that Mitt Romney instituted in Mass. years earlier.
It's a give-a-way to the healthcare insurance agencies which pretty much FORCES you to sign up and do business with them.

 

Most of Obama's supporters wanted UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE or atleast hold out for the "public option", and he didn't.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1

because immediately after carter lost the 1980 election to ronald reagan iran freed them. So what you are asking is why didn't the democrats publicly accuse the republicans of a form of treason. Well that accusation has to be proven in a court of law and with reagan as president, meaning head of the armed forces which include the fbi + cia who all had a role in iran, i doubt reagan was going to allow such a thing. under national security and as the head of the executive branch or armed forces, reagan could stop any inquest. 

And remember as well, in 1980 the republicans won all the congress, house + senate , so...your not only asking why the donkeys didn't accuse the elephants of cheating under a reagan administration, that the military loved, that police loved. But also being in minority in the house or senate. 

Yes , the congress isn't impotent but one of the results of the war between the states circa 1965 is the presidency from lincoln onward is more powerful than the congress. That is what destroyed the Whigs party which became the Republicans. The whigs believed the presidency/executive branch  shouldn't be too powerful but the power of the presidency catapulted in that war and has only gotten stronger. Empires tend to be this way, as they grow in power the positions of singular power grow. 

By the time of reagan, it is too powerful to be attacked in such a way from the legislative branch.

 

Mitt Romney signed it but the massachusetts affordable care act had to happen. the state of massachusetts before romney had set up laws that made massachusetts have drastic changes starting in the 1980s. so something had to be done. The funny thing about healthcare in the usa, is it has always been a for profit enterprise , as an industry stemming from the days of enslavement. so, thus both affordable care acts. MAssachusetts + USA is because people in the usa want healthcare bu the industry is settled and very powerful. Obama didn't wait for it, but the reality is, pelosi was in congress and like in massachusetts, which is supposed to be liberal, many elected officials oppose universal healthcare even though the general populace say they want it and it goes down to how universal healthcare by default will force hospitals/doctors/insurers to change their financial models extremely. 

 

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The funny thing about healthcare in the usa, is it has always been a for profit enterprise...many elected officials oppose universal healthcare even though the general populace say they want it... 

Right. The downside of a Capitalistic system is that everything is driven by money and greed.

 

Politicians are paid by lobbyists to maintain status quo and push legislation allowing  industries to thrive. They also insure federal funds are provided to their states for various contracts. 

 

That's why public servant Rep. Nancy Pelosi is worth $230 milliion.

 

In fact, many folks in Congress are millionaires. Watch their hands. Follow the money.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD of course and with the end of earmarks it made lobbying even more powerful

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 of course and with the end of earmarks it made lobbying even more powerful

Correct.  Beyond voting in elections, I don't believe most Americans have a clue about how politics really work especially when it comes to special and permanent interests.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD your correct to the lack of knowledge to the details of the usa government, but  I will defend the usa populace. 

First, the usa had many movements of engaged populaces in its past and those movements were always stymied in such a way, the government didn't change the way the people wanted or needed and after the failure, people lost the desire to keep trying and needed significant time to get the desire. 

Second, the usa had civics courses in public school for that reason but civics courses were and are no longer funded by the government itself. 

Third, while many in the usa like to say the usa demands people be engaged more than the parties of governance I have always found that argument dysfunctional and say the parties of governance , who spend million in advertising every year, never seem willing on spending their money to inform so...

I argue the modern condition you refer too was inevitable in the usa.