Cui bono?

[Torus34]

Time and again on this and other political forums, a thread devolves into a series of unflattering images/cartoons of President Joseph Biden followed by the same of Mr. Donald Trump. Alternately, there may be back-to-back personal insults between two posters. There's no exploration of an issue nor a conclusion reached from the string of repetitive posts.

Which brings us to the question of who benefits. Who, in these instances, can refer to the individual posters, the readers of the posts or groups of people within the citizenry and the body politic. I doubt that people would engage in an activity in which there was absolutely nothing to be gained.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Evilroddy]

Cui Bono? The powers pulling the stops and adjusting the levers behind the curtain of modern American representative democracy are those that benefit. By inciting emotional and ideological division and by fostering fragmentation of the body politic by enmity in public discourse and derogatory public debate, factions and parties can effectively neutralise the electorate's capacity to choose their representatives, senators and executives. This process of political atomisation effectively disenfranchises grass-roots citizen movements from getting any political traction in order to challenge the two-part system and creates a "stable" political milieu through which a preferential status quo can be maintained to benefit the few at the expense of the many in American politics and policy formation. This atomisation of the voters and the simultaneously successful corralling of so many of them into mindless red and blue teams supporting two rival political parties regardless of platforms or performance allows power (influence and money) to replace the traditional vertical relationships of representative democracy with newer and more sub rosa horizontal relationships of oligarchy by political and economic elites. Tweedism protects the status quo too by vetting out any candidates who might offer real political or policy alternatives to the preferential status quo which channels public wealth to private hands and assures that real political change, which could threaten the status quo, can seldom happen. Who benefits? The few at the expense of the many.

Cheers and be politically irrelevant.
Evilroddy.

 

[Torus34]

Cui Bono? The powers pulling the stops and adjusting the levers behind the curtain of modern American representative democracy are those that benefit. By inciting emotional and ideological division and by fostering fragmentation of the body politic by enmity in public discourse and derogatory public debate, factions and parties can effectively neutralise the electorate's capacity to choose their representatives, senators and executives. This process of political atomisation effectively disenfranchises grass-roots citizen movements from getting any political traction in order to challenge the two-part system and creates a "stable" political milieu through which a preferential status quo can be maintained to benefit the few at the expense of the many in American politics and policy formation. This atomisation of the voters and the simultaneously successful corralling of so many of them into mindless red and blue teams supporting two rival political parties regardless of platforms or performance allows power (influence and money) to replace the traditional vertical relationships of representative democracy with newer and more sub rosa horizontal relationships of oligarchy by political and economic elites. Tweedism protects the status quo too by vetting out any candidates who might offer real political or policy alternatives to the preferential status quo which channels public wealth to private hands and assures that real political change, which could threaten the status quo, can seldom happen. Who benefits? The few at the expense of the many.

Cheers and be politically irrelevant.
Evilroddy.

Hi! And thank you for the response. I find nothing to quibble over in it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the goals of those who benefit are assisted by the ease with which we can post images and talking points on the 'net. When we're limited [Ed.: Torus purposefully limits himself here,] to expressing our own thoughts in our own words, a wee bit more thinking's involved.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Logical1]

There are a hand full of far leftist that seldom discuss the thread. Their schick is to always attack attack the poster if it doesnt follow the radical left lies that they insist everyone should believe.

 

[Evilroddy]

Torus34:

Torus, not Tours. I finally learned that now! And I am pretty sure that my word-salad above doesn't help things much either. But hey, what are ya going to do?

Why not let the self-editing slip a wee bit in terms of content, not public decorum, and let others more clearly suss out what you're thinking?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Torus34]

Torus34:

Torus, not Tours. I finally learned that now! And I am pretty sure that my word-salad above doesn't help things much either. But hey, what are ya going to do?

Why not let the self-editing slip a wee bit in terms of content, not public decorum, and let others more clearly suss out what you're thinking?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

A personal aside. 'Torus' is a little twist on my Sun sign and my enjoyment in recreational mathematics. As far as my rather pedantic and wordy style, I've adopted it as a defense against the Gotcha! Gang who are, it sometimes seems, waiting in the wings to pounce on any semi-ambiguous minor point. So there! ;-))

Best to you and yours!