Replies

Then they were truly idiots.

You saw how the Vietnam war was handled?

They certainly trusted Nixon more than they trusted McGovern and the Democrats, and getting rid of Nixon would have opened the door for the Democrats and defense cuts.

They wouldn't have gotten McGovern. Who they got was Gerald Ford. But again, people make decisions based on what they think will happen, and this crowd probably manages their skullduggery about as well as they managed Vietnam.

Military spending was bound to go down after Vietnam, but nobody seriously thought that Nixon would slash new weapons budgets or gut the military industrial complex.

I'm sure there was more than one factor here. I used to read in "American Spectator" how much the liberals detested Nixon because of his prosecution of Alger Hiss, who was one of their darlings back in the 1950s.

The bureaucratic structure of Washington DC has long been in the leftist camp, and it does not seem unreasonable to me that they hated Nixon just as much as they hate Trump right now.

If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Well, see there? I believe I have proven it to the degree necessary for a reasonable man to give it credibility.

I've already shown you that the Southern states accounted for 72% of the total US export value for the nation in 1860, and then i've also shown you that all the money came back into the country through New York, Boston, and Washington DC. I have also learned that Southern products sent to the Northern states were valued at about 500 million dollars, and so we looking at the greater part of a billion dollars production from the Southern states in a total 4 billion economy of a nation.

But with this massive amount of money at stake (and not even counting the financial losses which would occur from European products flooding the domestic market) we are expected to believe the primary driving force for war was concern about slaves?

Pardon me if I don't believe the "milk of human kindness" explanation for war when there is a great big pile of money reason for doing it.

Before 1933 New York had a lot of power. A lot of money ended up in New York and the private sector concentrated in New York did make a lot of decisions. It's only since then (or since 1913 if you like) that Washington DC has been getting substantially more power.

The collusion creature created in the past simply grew and evolved. It's still the same corrupt crony capitalist collusion creature. It's just metastasized.

The really big money only started to flow into DC in the 1960s and 1970s.

"Big" is relative. 750 million was a lot in 1860, but not so much in 1960. And yes, the 24th amendment unlocked a lot of government taxing and spending in it's aftermath. There were a lot of areas of exploitation in the government's "war on poverty" scheme.

In other words, for most of our history people didn't go to Washington to make really big money.

When you own the congressmen and the bureaucrats, you don't have to live next to them. You can live in your fine Mansion in Boston or New York and still control your servants in DC.

Thirties to the Nineties the Democrats controlled Congress.

But back then they were less insane, more honest, and emerging from states all over the nation instead of just the concentrations of liberal power. Of course there were exceptions like Huey Long.

With more factories being built, the South and West began to have more power economically than they had before, as well as more political influence. So rather than simply doing the bidding of some Northeastern elite, the federal government did much to weaken that region.

By this era, the "elite" didn't particularly care about the peasants in their region. What they care about is *THEIR* power and wealth. While the relative overall economic activity in New York and the Northeast declined, it was still the same powerful families making money and controlling Washington DC.

And where is all the "vaccine" money going?