The Real Extremism in the US

I’m just shocked how much of an extremist government we are fast becoming. Why do I say extremist and not communist or fasist? Because, in reality, they are so close to each other that the average person probably wouldn’t know the difference. In a communist government, press is state controlled, personal rights are severely limited in the interest of the state, companies are nationalized overtly or through coercion, pro-state propaganda is unchecked, anti-state rhetoric is censored and then criminalized, etc.

In a fascist government, press is state controlled, personal rights are severely limited in the interest of the state, companies are nationalized overtly or through coercion, pro-state propaganda is unchecked, anti-state rhetoric is censored and then criminalized, etc.

The biggest difference is the communist state it is for the people meaning the people with the reigns of power and the fascist government states it it for the country meaning for the people with the reigns of power (the rich yes men because if you are rich under either government and don’t goose step in unison with the government, you will be stripped of your wealth and in jail).

But to state a problem without offering a solution would be sad. The start of the solution would be these steps:

First, we need to codify the first 10 amendments so they can in no way be altered in the future. I’d include others, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll stick to the first 10.

Second, term limits. If the POTUS is restricted to two terms, there is no reason every politician shouldn’t be restricted to the same. They become far too out of touch with their constituents the longer they remain in office. Notice, I don’t say public office because they are in office for their own power and greed. In addition, elected officials will not be compensated beyond they wages during they term(s) in office. Furthermore, all lobbying will be scheduled and conducted in public. It will be recorded and available for the general population to ensure it serves the public interest.

Third, require the media to be unbiased except in editorial programs. The news should only present a full spectrum of facts with no editorial comments. Furthermore, the press should be required to provide the facts supporting their editorial comment and held liable for false or misleading information.

Break up Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, etc. They have exceeded the power of Ma Bell before it was dismantled by the US government. No independent organization should be able to state that since a government is not acting according to their liking, they feel impelled to do so in its stead. Nor should any private entity be able to restrict access to any information. To do so allows them to essentially create, disseminate, propagate, and reinforce ideas benefiting their own agendas.

I only include Apple because of the stranglehold they exercised through their app store to limit apps used to allow free speech.

Hold all public officials accountable for their actions while in office. Permit private citizen to bring forth suits against public officials if they do not represent the best interest of their voters. I dislike lawsuits, but public officials get a free pass for actions conducted in their own best interests with little regard to their constituents.

All voting should be completely transparent and voters need to be properly identified to ensure only mentally competent citizens vote. If any side contests a vote, then verification of the ballots and recount should be conducted with representatives from all parties present under military guard. Why, because it eliminates any questions regarding the voting process. Just in case people think I am just referring to this last election, I’m not. Personally, once the votes were tallied, the President should have conceded given he did nothing to secure the voting process.

There are a multitude of other steps that are required, but we need to have a starting point. and my feeling is these are just some of those steps to begin the process.

First, I’d like to see how we decide what consitutes “mentally competent”.

Second if you slap term limits on all federal offices, you better find a way to reverse Citizens United or else full time mebedded lobbyists will be running the country (well- they kind of do that now).

Some of the other stuff you propose isn’t horrible (well not sure we need the military involved in any way, shape or form with the election), but would require major amendments to the Constitution and federal and state laws.

In no way shape or form are these companies monopolies.

Verizon and ATT are closer to Ma Bell monopolies than Google and Apple

Google is very much like Ma Bell given that much of today’s information is gather through the web and Google can alter search algorithms pretty much at will. In fact, I would go so far as to say Ma Bell’s power is nothing compared to Googles because Ma Bell only controlled the telephone lines. Google, through the search engine algorithms can influence the populations far more. Also, Google, like ATT, operated in a near monopolistic fashion because their overwhelming presence in their respective business spaces all but eliminated competition relegating their few competitors to niche markets.

As for Verizon and ATT, they use the web dominated by Google. If you think about, do people use their phones more to call or to use the web? I’d contend they use the web far more than voice calls.

Apple is only in there because the prevalence of IOS devices means they can pretty much control the dissemination of information to IOS devices by banning apps through their app store in conjunction with other internet centric entities.

1 Like

Aren’t there plenty of alternate search engines to Google? Not a monopoly.

Plenty of alternatives to iOS. Not a monopoly.

I hated putting it in there but I’d say people who are unable to care for themselves due to mental impairment. Late stage dementia and Alzheimer would be two I would consider.

Have spoken to lobbyists at the state level and they hate term limits because they have to constantly recreate the rapport with the elected officials and likely higher costs. I should have included no lobbyists and no income beyond their wages.

I’m not a big fan of using military in this manner, but there are too many groups willing to watch over people all night long for days or weeks on end to make sure they stay civil.

"Justice Department lawyers accuse Google of harnessing its internet gatekeeper role to enrich the company’s vast business empire, stifling competitors and hurting consumers through exclusionary agreements, including deals such as the one it struck with Apple making Google the default search engine on the Safari browser on iPhones.

Justice Department officials said Google spending profits made from its powerful position to buy special treatment for its search engine on devices and Web browsers created a “self-reinforcing cycle” of monopoly power abuse."

DOJ Lawsuit: Google Abuses Its Monopoly Power Over Search : NPR

There’s more to it than: Are there other search engines?






They are. Vote.

As determined by whom. No.


Some of your want list is borderline fascism.

Completely agree. These are positions of power and the fact is power corrupts.

how would this break up happen?

would only certain people be allowed to use google and everyone else would be forced to use another search engine?

how about facebook? would only a set number of accounts be allowed and everyone else would be prevented fomr making an account?

would it be like ma bell and you would be forced to only use local search engines based on your zip or area code or your gps location?

i hear this call for breaking up this companies but no one can explain how it would work…

1 Like

THIS. Google displays many monopoly like behaviors. It’s much much more than search engines.

1 Like

Ah censorship.

Great idea. Not.


1 Like

…and yet, there is but you are totally oblivious to it.


The cancel culture run amok with rs in charge.


And that’s it right there. We are trying to shoehorn action into existing legislation and it is a poor fit. The internet and social media requires entirely new thinking

Libs who say, “Just use another search engine,” know this. It’s a disingenuous argument.

For every Google service/product there is an alternative non-google version out there. What’s disingenuous is claiming to care about Google’s business practices in regards to competition when really its all about wanting to hurt them under the belief that they are stifling conservative voices.

This attitude is why google dominates search engines.


Limit or eliminate the influence of money in the legislative and election processes, would reduce corruption. Undo Newt’s disastrous actions, when he abolished these 2 Congressional agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The former brought high-level scientific expertise to bear on legislative issues and the latter gave state and local governments an important voice in Congressional deliberations.

They were replaced by lobbyists. Why? To reduce spending.

He also wanted to abolish the GAO. Can’t have people checking Republican math.

I have issues with some of Google’s business practices, how they monetize and manipulate their users/customers, to gain more ad revenue. Similar to FB.

But the whole idea they are out to stifle/silence conservatives, is ridiculous.