Well it’s the implications: Politicians have said we need to get rid of politics but that’s euphemism for bipartisanship. It’s not literal. Opposition party broadens it from “Republican vs Democrat” into “The single party” vs “the opposition to that single party”. Change in dynamics.
That said, is Bannon the overlord? No. He’s no [advisor to Putin whose name I forgot]. I don’t see Bannon as a political mastermind at all. I’m sure he loves the picture painted of him as evil but is he evil? I don’t think so. I think he’s winging it doing the standard “appear strong” bit.
Well, there’s Opposition Party vs Governing Party. So it’s a standard set of phrases really.
Still, even some of his remarks today about dismantling independent (not under direct executive control) federal institutions is, if nothing else, weird.
Its not even revolutionary per se. Just weird.
I’m ultimately depending on checks and balances to work but they go beyond the three branches. We the people, the media, various other institutions, the states – they’re all part of it. If you’re in the US, you’re a part of it. What role do you play? What role do I play? That’s how I look at it.
I’d say the new form of apathy would be the supporters of “new for the sake of new”. At one time it was “who cares?” but I think now “any change is something at least” might be the more dangerous form of apathy.
Milo’s a dead meme now. Rest in Spaghetti
He was famous in his circles. I’ve heard his name for about three years ago ’til I got tired of seeing it. But I never expected him to pop up in regular news for regular views.
It’s common elsewhere but hearing it in the US rather than “Democrat / Republican / Libertarian / Progressive / etc” is odd. We’re not those other countries.
We don’t have multiple parties occupying percentages of power in quite the same way. We generally split up into Republican (or republican sympathetic) and Democrat (or democrat sympathetic) – even among Independents (although that’s been improving).
So “Opposition Party” in the USA has a slightly more ominous vibe to it. After all they already have a name – many names – whoever the opposition party is at the time. But to just refer to an Opposition Party leaves things wide open because now you can’t point to a particular leadership or party but it instead becomes this amorphous ‘force’ that must be pushed back at all costs.
For example, are the Democrats the opposition party? Maybe it’s mid-line Republicans? Perhaps it’s Progressives. Or, as we’ve been hearing lately, “the Media” is the Opposition Party.
Perhaps it’s SJWs. Or Libtards. Maybe it’s Universities.
I keep watch out for signalling and other word games these days. It’s always been a part of politics but the audience for the signalling is a little different now.
Some of those in the upper circles of power (not Trump but a few others) would love nothing more than a civil war in the USA. So for that reason alone I wouldn’t go your route At the same time, they have to be watched.
I expect most of the action to take place in the protesting. The battle at Standing Rock was doomed from the start: the Pipeline was nearly completed but they *did* succeed in getting a native voice out to the planet in the meanwhile.
So the US govt’s domestic actions are being watched not just by US citizens but even *in* 3rd world countries.
THIS is what I’m hoping to avoid. I like their generational theories generally : as an academic interest. But they make a terrible guidebook for revolution.
Law enforcement always protected corporate interests in the USA. The very American Revolution was partially in defense of business interests.
I suspect the civil war might also be considered an economic power play as well, although I never researched much into that.
We’ve had WW1 and WW2. We’ve had the Civil War. I don’t want Civil War II.
There’s avenues to pursue still. But consider that there’s a multi-pronged opposition at present.
Some people are filing lawsuits. Some are contacting their representatives. Some are non-violently protesting. A few have escalated their protest into violence.
I look at this once in a while. I see what protests are happening.
Indeed. I don’t recommend it for that reason. Violence is met with violence. Who wins? Last man standing? Or those fighting in non-violent ways?