It has been attributed to Churchill beginning in 1986. Before that it was attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. There are many attributes before that. I like George Bernard Shaw's version," If you don’t begin to be a revolutionist at the age of twenty then at fifty you will be an impossible old fossil. If you are a red revolutionary at the age of twenty you have some chance of being up to date when you are forty."
For more fun with quotes. “It's not what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that ain't true.” Mark Twain.
This "Jefferson quote" first appeared in 1986, slightly after Jefferson's death in, oh, 1826.
Here are some findings from a recent study by Gilens and Page
“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:
"Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
When the economic élites support a given policy change, it has about a one-in-two chance of being enacted. (The exact estimated probability is forty-five per cent.) When the élites oppose a given measure, its chances of becoming law are less than one in five. (The exact estimate is eighteen per cent.)
The study suggests that, on many issues, the rich exercise an effective veto. If they are against something, it is unlikely to happen.
They also acknowledge another possible objection to their conclusions:
Average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support… But we tend to doubt it.
So, according to those two political science scholars (Gilens and Page), unless you're one of / in the same camp as the 'insiders' / of the 'elite', the odds are that what you think to be best policy for our country and the majority of our population won't happen.
And of course, political science scholars are 'insiders' / of the 'elite'.
Seems like all we have working for us is luck then doesn't it ?
Like I wrote earlier, good luck to all of us as I think we need it.
I'm not trying to be mean... or horrible... but maybe this discussion has about run its course? I'd just like to get the industry back on its feet and moving the country forward!
If we take the New Hampshire Primary as a model and apply it to the upcoming election maybe we can see a few cannonballs approaching over the horizon.
Trump won the Republicans and Sanders won the Democrats.
If the mainstream / old school centrist Republicans don't really like / want Trump as a their candidate what will be done ? Will they pose opposition in the other states ? Will there be a split Republican party or some Independent end up running against Trump and Sanders ? If that were to happen I think Sanders would end up as POTUS.
First off, I read the MRF "User Policy" again just to see if bringing up heavy politics was a no no, and couldn't find anything against it, so I will throw my two cents worth in even though, I still believe it is the best way I know to screw up a good relationship and good flow of information.
IMO, Bernie/Hillary are real negatives for any and all Mineral Owners and for that matter for the US in general. Trump has done all of us a good service by cutting through much of this PC garbage we have been saddled with for the last thirty years; but, beyond that I will give him credit that he is a performer and a promoter and beyond that he is almost as scary as Sanders and personally don't believe or at least hope he won't survive. I'm still sticking and pulling with Cruz. I'm sure he isn't perfect; but, I can't think of anything that he says that he stands for that I don't like and I believe he will be the best Mineral Owner friend of anyone running with the exception of Bush and Bush is so embedded with the "old school Republican"base that he is as scary as Sanders. As has been said before, this is my personal two cents worth!
On to South Carolina where things can get very very nasty. Remember this greatest hits?
'The girl in question is Bridget. In 1991, when Cindy McCain was on a relief mission to Bangladesh, she was asked by one of Mother Teresa’s nuns to help a young orphan with a cleft palate. Flying her to the U.S. for surgery, Cindy realized she couldn’t give her up. At the Phoenix airport, she broke it to her husband, and they eventually adopted the child. But few people knew that story.'
On February 2, 2000, John McCain arrived in South Carolina red-hot, a 19-point-upset victor in New Hampshire over George Bush.
"the strategy called for an “underground campaign” by all the heavyweight groups of the Republican and Christian right, a campaign that would be modeled on Ralph Reed’s infamous, Atwater-like boast about his Christian Coalition work: “I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until Election Night.”
"I'm kinda concerned about Cruz and ties with Evangelicals myself.
I don't view those ties as a plus."
Your concern is well founded. Cruz is a Dominionist, of the Christian Reformation movement, and they have an agenda to break down the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. Oh, they're clever about how they're going about it, by using the terms "religious freedom" instead of "my way or the highway."
There are more issues of concern in my household than mineral interest, to be honest about it. While we have interest in the debate about it, we're not inclined to vote on this single issue alone.
The issue is that people don't want to understand a POV that is different from their own, most of the time. They think that they have the One and Only Solution and get angry if people don't agree with them. There's too often little attempts to discuss; more interest in arguing. Another poster, earlier, noted that there are two sides and very few in the middle. I see it as two *extremes* , these days, and very few in the sensible middle.
Domestic natural gas and oil development along with conversion on a grand scale (from disel and gasoline to natural gas) and the jobs it would bring are at the top of our list.
I am a land and mineral owner and I do like people and politicians that don't try to take advantage of us; but, how I feel about my mineral ownership and all the issues that comes with the territory has to take a back seat to many issues that totally overshadow mineral ownership. IMHO, the first sentence of your post says it all and the one that he is running against is even worse. It is time to take our country back!
The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers regarding the democratic philosophy. This is why they intentionally and wisely chose a Republic to govern America.
Karl Marx: "Democracy is indispensable to Socialism."
Vladimir Lenin: "The goal of Socialism is Communism."
Karl Marx: "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism."
BTW: Communism is an ideology that has failed every time, every where, in every country on this planet. And Socialism is no better.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that only a "Republican" form of government is provided to all.
Article IV - The States, Section 4"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...."
Anyone promoting any other form of government is violating this country's highest laws and sworn oath of office.
Obviously when trying to discuss politics nothing seems to make sense with everyone; but, I'll try to give my two cents worth without being truly definitive. I have no proof that "big oil" is behind Cruz; but, his background would give him a leg up on any of the other candidates. He is from Houston Texas and Houston seems to be the focal point for most oil activity in Texas as well as much of the World and is very closely aligned with Oklahoma. At some point in his life, his father was somehow involved in the oil business, so he understands the importance of oil to the US and more particular to Texas and Oklahoma.
I believe Oklahoma is considered to be the most conservative state in the United States and I just heard the Oklahoma Governor talking this morning and she expressed her concerns that Trump is really a conservative. Big oil backing or not, I believe many real conservatives are very skeptical of Trump and voted for Cruz hoping for the best.