What's The "End Game" Then?

[Emperor]

But if they are playing long game that would not matter. Think how far the pendulum has swung since LBJ (never mind JFK who would be considered a racist conservative by today's standards). What is another 50 years? Nothing in the grand scheme.

No, I think the real problem with #1, #2 and #3 is who exactly would benefit from this. These imply a grand plan which requires a grand organization with good leadership ability to keep the plan on track to reap the promised rewards. I see no evidence of such grand leadership and or organization. I see chaos where one would expect control.

So that brings me back to #4 as more probable.

Again I not saying it is the answer, only that the probability of it being right is better than #1, #2 and #3.

In that sense of historical time, I think you are right. Hard for people to fathom that just 70 years ago 70 million people world wide perished in WW2. And today it's mostly forgotten; and hardly ever talked about. Moreover look at just the last 5 1/2 years.

Even despite the obvious failures of modern day liberalism and its policies; there are some very educated thinkers in that camp. And I am not talking about college academicians. Many of them are lost in that radical leftist horseshit from the 60's and 70's. I am talking about technological geniuses, and just great minds that can deduce cause and effect brilliantly. What don't they see (as extremely educated humans), that keeps them clinging to these failures along with these dummies. It makes no sense.

 

[rattler]

I would argue that these liberals we speak of are elitists first and foremost. Their true goal is to cement themselves, their families, and their businesses into a new aristocracy that will always be on top and fear no competition from the masses. Liberalism is just a path to their goal.

 

[Emperor]

I would argue that these liberals we speak of are elitists first and foremost. Their true goal is to cement themselves, their families, and their businesses into a new aristocracy that will always be on top and fear no competition from the masses. Liberalism is just a path to their goal.

If that were that realistic, then what about the zombies hordes that are educated, have good jobs and decent security, kids in school, little houses with white picket fences, etc.? They can't possibly believe that voting for these elitists will ultimately put them in a Beverly Hills mansion?

Remember, not every democrat and every PL is a leech with a desire for free ****. Yet they continue to support this madness! Why?

 

[tim9lives]

Yea...the end game is something very similar to what has become of the British Empire. The Royal Family still holds power. The Queen still runs the Monarchy.

But...the Empire is dead. Its really nothing more than a high finance game today. Industry is almost non-existent in England other than Rolls Royce engines and their percentage of the Aircraft industry.

That's the end game I see. Eventually....our military will be drastically downsized. With 18% going to the military spending...thats the biggest chunk of the pie which will be on the chopping block IMO.

Without Superpower status....we will eventually lose the reserve currency status of the dollar. That is when all hell breaks loose.

10 years...?
50 years...who knows?

 

[oleheat]

Why?

Mental disorder. You have to be mentally defective to willingly play around with the country's well-being in order feel good about yourself.

 

[tim9lives]

FWIW..look at interests costs of the budget. Image an environment of rising rates on our budget. That is what will really hurt the dollars reserve status.
Most empires were taken down because of their currencies.

 

[velociraptor]

That's the end game I see. Eventually....our military will be drastically downsized. With 18% going to the military spending...thats the biggest chunk of the pie which will be on the chopping block IMO.

Without Superpower status....we will eventually lose the reserve currency status of the dollar. That is when all hell breaks loose.

10 years...?
50 years...who knows?

Interesting. I do not disagree that may be an outcome.

But how does that benefit the PL group or leaders. I agree it is a possible outcome but why would that be the desired outcome is IMO the real question.

In my world there is an old axiom, when something does not make sense, follow the money and the end recipient of the money will generally provide the why.

I do not see where the money goes in this case.

Although my preferred explanation #4 violates the follow the money rule too. So who knows.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Yea...the end game is something very similar to what has become of the British Empire. The Royal Family still holds power. The Queen still runs the Monarchy.

But...the Empire is dead. Its really nothing more than a high finance game today. Industry is almost non-existent in England other than Rolls Royce engines and their percentage of the Aircraft industry.

That's the end game I see. Eventually....our military will be drastically downsized. With 18% going to the military spending...thats the biggest chunk of the pie which will be on the chopping block IMO.

Without Superpower status....we will eventually lose the reserve currency status of the dollar. That is when all hell breaks loose.

10 years...?
50 years...who knows?

What power does the Royal Family hold? Other than being the Titular Head of State what actual powers to legislate or rule do they have?

 

[Matchgrade]

One world government and total power over the populace?

 

[MadJax]

I realize now I might have misunderstood the question.
In my last post I pointed out the effects of a welfare state but you were asking why such things are supported.

That is much simpler it's all politics, welfare and free immigration buy voters by the thousands.
As for liberalism permeating everything from movies to TV to the news that's an attempt to change culture.
While non and swing voters are important to winning elections culture is perhaps the most important.

A country's people won't choose something fundamentally different from there culture fact they'll resist it.
so unless you want to force people it than becomes a matter of changing there culture, change what they think is acceptable and unacceptable, change there sensibilities.
take weed and cigarettes for example.
There was a time when weed was acceptable than a group tied to a policy maker whose interests were opposed to hemp at the time launched a propaganda campaign and criminalized it but over the years you start to see a cultural shift in how weed is viewed, from a dangerous drug to a harmless one that despite being illegal most people hold it as such today. Policy is starting to catch up to people and reflect this.
The difference between when it was perceived dangerous and when it wasn't was how it was shown in the media.
it want from Reefer madness to cheach and Chong.

With cigarettes lobbyist and interest groups got them perceived as something positive but than it was found to be dangerous and the government launched a smear campaign yet again and won't even allow tobacco companies to advertise.
the result smoke free zones and an almost criminalization of tobacco in general.

weed and cigarettes aren't the only examples prohibition is another one.
my point is that many think movies, TV, news any kind of media doesn't play a part in politics when in reality it plays the biggest, these are the things that shape our culture and culture shapes a country.
As of right now there appears to be a effort to criminalize gun ownership what with gun owners address being made public as if they were sex offenders.
The majority of people are sheep eager to follow others this isn't cynicism it's psychology.

As for why I'm gonna agree with what someone already posted.
for control.

 

[Emperor]

What power does the Royal Family hold? Other than being the Titular Head of State what actual powers to legislate or rule do they have?

None! But they are viewed by the British citizenry as necessary. The last poll I saw (William/Kate BS), was like 80% of Britons think the monarchy is beneficial to the country. And they are the biggest leeches over there, though it is said they bring in more money then they receive. That I don't know. Was I a British citizen, I would want someone to prove that to me.

They sure live lavishly, though! While many Brits are **** pot poor.

 

[Emperor]

I realize now I might have misunderstood the question.
In my last post I pointed out the effects of a welfare state but you were asking why such things are supported.

That is much simpler it's all politics, welfare and free immigration buy voters by the thousands.
As for liberalism permeating everything from movies to TV to the news that's an attempt to change culture.
While non and swing voters are important to winning elections culture is perhaps the most important.

A country's people won't choose something fundamentally different from there culture fact they'll resist it.
so unless you want to force people it than becomes a matter of changing there culture, change what they think is acceptable and unacceptable, change there sensibilities.
take weed and cigarettes for example.
There was a time when weed was acceptable than a group tied to a policy maker whose interests were opposed to hemp at the time launched a propaganda campaign and criminalized it but over the years you start to see a cultural shift in how weed is viewed, from a dangerous drug to a harmless one that despite being illegal most people hold it as such today. Policy is starting to catch up to people and reflect this.
The difference between when it was perceived dangerous and when it wasn't was how it was shown in the media.
it want from Reefer madness to cheach and Chong.

With cigarettes lobbyist and interest groups got them perceived as something positive but than it was found to be dangerous and the government launched a smear campaign yet again and won't even allow tobacco companies to advertise.
the result smoke free zones and an almost criminalization of tobacco in general.

weed and cigarettes aren't the only examples prohibition is another one.
my point is that many think movies, TV, news any kind of media doesn't play a part in politics is an idiot, these are the things that shape are culture and culture shapes a country.
As of right now there appears to be a effort to criminalize gun ownership what with gun owners address being made public as if they were sex offenders.
As for why I'm gonna agree with what someone already posted.
for control.

You had it right before! I was asking what the end game is when they have transformed the culture. When everyone is high or doesn't have ambition? When nobody works for their own private enhancement? When there is no more money?

 

[velociraptor]

None! But they are viewed by the British citizenry as necessary. The last poll I saw (William/Kate BS), was like 80% of Britons think the monarchy is beneficial to the country. And they are the biggest leeches over there, though it is said they bring in more money then they receive. That I don't know. Was I a British citizen, I would want someone to prove that to me.

They sure live lavishly, though! While many Brits are **** pot poor.

I am not a royalist that said QE II and family are less costly to maintain and travel less on the public dime than the current POTUS. Even the Queens Flight is mainly chartered aircraft and even when they use the single remaining BAE 146 it is a whole lot cheaper to operate than the fleet of Air Force One 747, 757 and G-V used by his highness the POTUS.

Again no fan of royalty but I do think QE II is cheaper than our POTUS.

Several of the Royal homes are maintained out of the Queen's personal purse. If HRH POTUS reaches into his pocket it is to put something he pilfered into his pocket.

 

[Emperor]

One world government and total power over the populace?

Psychotic radical muslims are proof positive the world's one government supreme leader would have to be Allah. So that option may not float. And they ain't accepting anything less then their total elimination to give up their seats.

 

[Emperor]

I am not a royalist that said QE II and family are less costly to maintain and travel less on the public dime than the current POTUS. Even the Queens Flight is mainly chartered aircraft and even when they use the single remaining BAE 146 it is a whole lot cheaper to operate than the fleet of Air Force One 747, 757 and G-V used by his highness the POTUS.

Again no fan of royalty but I do think QE II is cheaper than our POTUS.

Several of the Royal homes are maintained out of the Queen's personal purse. If HRH POTUS reaches into his pocket it is to put something he pilfered into his pocket.

Exactly! So the journey to be a democratic president here is for the 8 year free vacations? There is no way this numbskull is going to be part of the final curtain call in this country except being remembered for his service to expedite the end. Again, if anyone believes that these sacks of **** sincerely care about the people that voted for them, and their personal welfare, you are fooling yourselves. They may only be beholden, albeit for the time being in office, to those that paid for their campaigns.

 

[velociraptor]

if anyone believes that these sacks of **** sincerely care about the people that voted for them, and their personal welfare, you are fooling yourselves.

I don't.

Which BTW is the other flaw in my possibility #4. It assumes they mean well but are too stupid to understand.


That still does not bring us back to a decent answer for your question of "Why?"

 

[Creoleman]

Strongly disagree. They don't have to make gun ownership illegal. 90+ percent of the people on this forum would NEVER resist. Regardless the provocation. Even fewer of the general population would. Just take their soma and behave.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. I don't believe that we Americans are like the Frog
in the slowly boiling water. And (at the risk of mixing metaphors) everything has its tipping point.

 

[tim9lives]

What power does the Royal Family hold? Other than being the Titular Head of State what actual powers to legislate or rule do they have?

More power than I thought they have. And FWIW...the Monarchy includes 15 countries of the "Empire"
Including Canada and Australia.
========
from wiki:

The fourteen British Overseas Territories are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They do not, however, form part of it.[1] Instead, they are those parts of the former British Empire that have not acquired independence, or, unlike the Commonwealth realms, have voted to remain British territories. While each has its own internal leadership, most being self-governing, they share the British monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) as head of state.

Constitutional role

In the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom, the Monarch (otherwise referred to as the Sovereign or "His/Her Majesty", abbreviated H.M.) is the Head of State. Oaths of allegiance are made to the Queen and her lawful successors.[1] God Save the Queen (or God Save the King) is the British national anthem,[2] and the monarch appears on postage stamps, coins and banknotes.[3]

The Monarch takes little direct part in Government. The decisions to exercise sovereign powers are delegated from the Monarch, either by statute or by convention, to Ministers or officers of the Crown, or other public bodies, exclusive of the Monarch personally. Thus the acts of state done in the name of the Crown, such as Crown Appointments,[4] even if personally performed by the Monarch, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made elsewhere:
Legislative power is exercised by the Queen-in-Parliament, by and with the advice and consent of Parliament, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty's Government, which comprises Ministers, primarily the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, which is technically a committee of the Privy Council. They have the direction of the Armed Forces of the Crown, the Civil Service and other Crown Servants such as the Diplomatic and Secret Services (the Queen receives certain foreign intelligence reports before the Prime Minister does[5]).
Judicial power is vested in the Judiciary, who by constitution and statute[6] have judicial independence of the Government.
The Church of England, of which the Monarch is the head, has its own legislative, judicial and executive structures.
Powers independent of government are legally granted to other public bodies by statute or statutory instrument such as an Order in Council, Royal Commission or otherwise.
The Sovereign's role as a constitutional monarch is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours. This role has been recognised since the 19th century; the constitutional writer Walter Bagehot identified the monarchy in 1867 as the "dignified part" rather than the "efficient part" of government.[7]

Royal Prerogative

Main article: Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom
Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign and is known as the royal prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, exercising prerogative only on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through the Prime Minister or Privy Council.[13] In practice, prerogative powers are exercised only on the Prime Minister's advice—the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, has control. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. No records of these audiences are taken and the proceedings remain fully confidential.[14] The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (providing they command the support of the House). In Bagehot's words: "the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."[15]
Although the Royal Prerogative is extensive and parliamentary approval is not formally required for its exercise, it is limited. Many Crown prerogatives have fallen out of use or have been permanently transferred to Parliament. For example, the monarch cannot impose and collect new taxes; such an action requires the authorisation of an Act of Parliament. According to a parliamentary report, "The Crown cannot invent new prerogative powers", and Parliament can override any prerogative power by passing legislation.[16]

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states
Appointment of the Prime Minister[edit]
Whenever necessary, the Monarch is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister (who by convention appoints and may dismiss every other Minister of the Crown, and thereby constitutes and controls the government). In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, the Sovereign must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and after "kissing hands" that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument.[8]
In a hung parliament where no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command the most support, though it would usually be the leader of the largest party.[9][10] Since 1945, there have only been two hung parliaments. The first followed the February 1974 general election when Harold Wilson was appointed Prime Minister after Edward Heath resigned following his failure to form a coalition. Although Wilson's Labour Party did not have a majority, they were the largest party. The second followed the May 2010 general election, in which the Conservatives (the largest party) and Liberal Democrats (the third largest party) agreed to form the first coalition government since World War II.

 

[Leonidas]

Respectfully, I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. I don't believe that we Americans are like the Frog
in the slowly boiling water. And (at the risk of mixing metaphors) everything has its tipping point.

Really? Search for the myriad of threads here about open carry and see what is said. People who seek to retain permission vs those who claim their RIGHT.

No intent meant to be snarky, just emphatic.

 

[tim9lives]

Interesting. I do not disagree that may be an outcome.

But how does that benefit the PL group or leaders. I agree it is a possible outcome but why would that be the desired outcome is IMO the real question.

In my world there is an old axiom, when something does not make sense, follow the money and the end recipient of the money will generally provide the why.

I do not see where the money goes in this case.

Although my preferred explanation #4 violates the follow the money rule too. So who knows.

I don't think many of this country's leaders really give a **** about America. Way too many are self serving. Just look at their net worth. NO ONE retires from Congress poor.

Greed and legislature for personal gain are rampant. We sold out America's manufacturing base. Look at the auto industry. While most industries are concerned with industrial espionage.....we sent our engineers to China to build their auto industry.

We literally gave away 100 years of industrial expertise in auto manufacturing all for the almighty dollar.

That is capitalism at its worst.

On the other side of the card.....the Democratic Party is oblivious to finances. No one in this current administration has ever really worked for themselves or run a business in their lives.

They spent their entire career in government. Free money for the taking...all to the best grant writer.

The bottom line is that America was built during our economic boom of the 50s and 60s. All of those great manufacturing jobs have a huge affect on the economy and on the US budget. A big part of the budget problem is that we don't really produce enough in America anymore.

There are ways to attract those jobs back to America. Tax credits to US companies for every newly created job ONSHORE is one idea which comes to mind.
We already have tons of nat gas for industry.