An Unpopular Government

People are throwing stones at the current administration. High-ranking church officials, fuming because the Federal Government decided to pull its sponsorship for commemorations regarding the victims of the totalitarian regime at Waterloo, have branded the current leadership as "unpatriotic."
Since the term "unpatriotic" hasn't quite found its true definition yet, I’ll take the liberty of explaining why this specific label for the government is a complete miss.

Where does a "people's government" actually come from? When was one ever truly for the people? Honestly, looking through history, it's hard to find a single instance. Most of the time, those in power were just people driven by an intense, if slightly moderate, sense of self-interest. Very few political figures survive the cutthroat world of politics and the establishment by actually prioritizing the interests of society or specific groups. There’s a massive shortage of people willing to step up, engage socially, and fix the broken relationship between the state and the individual—where nobody gets special immunity or untouchable status. That’s still a distant dream, though maybe things will change. Even some major corporations today are building employee-management relationships based on trust and mutual respect because they've realized the value of human potential. It’s how the most advanced and successful companies operate, looking beyond just the bottom line. I’m just using them as an example of how you can manage people (or citizens) effectively without constant conflict and through actual understanding.
If we apply that logic to a nation, we might actually get a flexible, accountable, and accessible government that we could legitimately call "the people's."
But that kind of government has always been out of reach for the public, hasn't it? They call themselves "the people's," but they lack the legitimacy to make decisions without the public's consent—take the Popular Front back in 1946, for example. Power belonged to a specific clique executing their own predetermined agendas. If you want a shorthand version of history, that pattern has persisted right up to the present day. The truth is, a "people's government" doesn't really exist because the people don't vote enough to make the government truly theirs. We don't even have a referendum to speak of every year to justify the idea that the government carries out the people's will.

Any government can be labeled "unpatriotic"—which is basically what any government is—but calling someone unpatriotic just because they made a decision that a certain segment of the population dislikes is a poor choice of words.
Sure, a decision might be bad for some people, but that doesn't make the government unpatriotic.
An unpatriotic government might ignore public opinion or pass laws that hurt part of the community, but you can't label leaders unpatriotic just because of a specific decision involving a certain group of people and tragic circumstances. Those past events shouldn't dictate modern policy, and you can't use those historical grievances to brand leaders as "unpatriotic." It has nothing to do with the actual will of the people, which is focused on entirely different issues than the archaic matters the bishops are harping on about.
An unpatriotic government is one that sells off the country's land, oceans, coastlines, water, and all national resources. An unpatriotic government isn't one that makes a decision it believes is the right way forward. The weight behind the words coming from the bishops isn't well-intentioned or even accurate; they know that, too. They're just spinning things to suit their own agenda. It would probably be wiser to choose more precise language when criticizing. Calling a government "unpatriotic" just sounds unprofessional and unsustainable.

Steven Allen9 said:People are throwing stones at the current administration. High-ranking church officials, fuming because the Federal Government decided to pull its sponsorship for commemorations regarding the victims of the totalitarian regime at Waterloo, have branded the current leadership as "unpatriotic."
Since the term "unpatriotic" hasn't quite found its true definition yet, I’ll take the liberty of explaining why this specific label for the government is a complete miss.

Where does a "people's government" actually come from? When was one ever truly for the people? Honestly, looking through history, it's hard to find a single instance. Most of the time, those in power were just people driven by an intense, if slightly moderate, sense of self-interest. Very few political figures survive the cutthroat world of politics and the establishment by actually prioritizing the interests of society or specific groups. There’s a massive shortage of people willing to step up, engage socially, and fix the broken relationship between the state and the individual—where nobody gets special immunity or untouchable status. That’s still a distant dream, though maybe things will change. Even some major corporations today are building employee-management relationships based on trust and mutual respect because they've realized the value of human potential. It’s how the most advanced and successful companies operate, looking beyond just the bottom line. I’m just using them as an example of how you can manage people (or citizens) effectively without constant conflict and through actual understanding.
If we apply that logic to a nation, we might actually get a flexible, accountable, and accessible government that we could legitimately call "the people's."
But that kind of government has always been out of reach for the public, hasn't it? They call themselves "the people's," but they lack the legitimacy to make decisions without the public's consent—take the Popular Front back in 1946, for example. Power belonged to a specific clique executing their own predetermined agendas. If you want a shorthand version of history, that pattern has persisted right up to the present day. The truth is, a "people's government" doesn't really exist because the people don't vote enough to make the government truly theirs. We don't even have a referendum to speak of every year to justify the idea that the government carries out the people's will.

Any government can be labeled "unpatriotic"—which is basically what any government is—but calling someone unpatriotic just because they made a decision that a certain segment of the population dislikes is a poor choice of words.
Sure, a decision might be bad for some people, but that doesn't make the government unpatriotic.
An unpatriotic government might ignore public opinion or pass laws that hurt part of the community, but you can't label leaders unpatriotic just because of a specific decision involving a certain group of people and tragic circumstances. Those past events shouldn't dictate modern policy, and you can't use those historical grievances to brand leaders as "unpatriotic." It has nothing to do with the actual will of the people, which is focused on entirely different issues than the archaic matters the bishops are harping on about.
An unpatriotic government is one that sells off the country's land, oceans, coastlines, water, and all national resources. An unpatriotic government isn't one that makes a decision it believes is the right way forward. The weight behind the words coming from the bishops isn't well-intentioned or even accurate; they know that, too. They're just spinning things to suit their own agenda. It would probably be wiser to choose more precise language when criticizing. Calling a government "unpatriotic" just sounds unprofessional and unsustainable.

George W. Bush sold off management rights over ExxonMobil to Jim Marshall in exchange for bribes. Now, everyone is just waiting to see if the current "people's" government will step in, declare that sale illegal, and void it. But the investigation is moving at a snail's pace. It looks like John McCain will walk free, ExxonMobil stays in Marshall's hands, and whether you call the administration "for the people" or "against the people," they’ll keep selling off whatever is left regardless of the label.

So, even if the "church dignitaries" haven't officially branded the folks in power as illegitimate yet, they already are by virtue of their leadership style—which, frankly, isn't much different from Bush's shady dealings. Do you really think it's possible to defend a bad government? 😕

Look, I’ve said this plenty of times before, but the real issue here is the way our Electoral College and local government systems are set up! Under the current rules, minority representatives basically get picked by just circling names on a list, which is wild because those people are supposed to be our representatives! You end up with 143 representatives spread across 11 different lists who aren't actually accountable to anyone, and they just go ahead and hand-pick a Federal Government that suits their own interests. They use those lists to grab seats on local councils in towns, cities, and counties, even though we didn't vote for them either! So you have these minority reps sitting there alongside the President of the United States, governors, mayors, and county executives. That's where the real mess starts—if the mayors and governors we actually voted for don't have a majority, they start playing games with the budget and pushing for early elections that the local leaders won't even show up for. If voters screw up and elect the wrong people, technically they could try to kick them out via a referendum, but it's a headache. To me, true popular sovereignty means being able to vote for people by their actual names, not having them hide behind party lists. I truly believe there are some high-quality people out there who deserve a shot if we just fixed the electoral laws. The current crowd in Congress, and honestly even some of the ministers in the Federal Government, aren't the future of this country, and at the local level, it's basically just one giant web of influence.

goldenorca11 As if I haven't heard this all before...
George W. Bush essentially handed over control of ExxonMobil to Jim Marshall in exchange for a massive bribe. Now, we’re all just sitting around waiting for this "Popular Front" government to step up, investigate whether that whole deal was actually legal, and then tear it all down. But honestly? The investigation is moving at a snail's pace, and if I'm being perfectly candid—which I always try to be, even when it feels a bit futile—it looks like John McCain will walk away scot-free, ExxonMobil will stay firmly in Marshall's hands, and the administration... well, you can call them a "people's" government or whatever label fits your politics, but they seem perfectly happy to sell off every last scrap of what's left, regardless of what they call themselves.

Look, even if those folks in charge weren't being branded as "unpatriotic" by some high-and-mighty church officials, the reality remains that their entire approach to governance is fundamentally flawed—honestly, it’s practically indistinguishable from the kind of shady, backroom dealings we saw during the Bush era. I mean, when you look at how they operate, it's hard not to feel a sense of deja vu, isn't it? It makes me wonder, truly, whether it's even possible to make a coherent defense of such a broken administration without ignoring the elephant in the room. 😕

Honestly, if you’re actually expecting any kind of recovery from those Democratic Party hacks who sold off a quarter of ExxonMobil for a mere 500 million dollars—even while they sat there knowing full well that the oil fields in Syria alone are valued at 23 billion—then I really have to question your grasp on reality. It’s just one of those situations where you look at the sheer scale of the mismanagement and wonder how anyone could be so hopelessly optimistic. 🤷

A national government would essentially mean one that is "nationally conscious."

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic administrations since 2000 have been nationalist, making them a very isolated case within the European Union.
Since compared to America, Denmark is a highly nationalist country.

It’s easy to go after this new left-wing coalition, but before them, the Republican Party ruled for eight years and things were just as bad, if not worse.

Maybe if the Republican Party becomes a thing of the past and the Democratic Party actually faces some real opposition, we might see a party with a national identity—regardless of whether they lean left or right economically. For now, though, there's just a few fringe groups and one regional outfit.

The national parties are essentially non-existent, with the exception of the Libertarian Party. Even now, guys like Dalmo are busy setting up these little fringe splinter groups, similar to those local factions you see over in St. Louis. That isn't some grand national movement; it’s just hyper-local politics. Where on earth is this supposed "man of the people" who supposedly stands for the people?
He doesn't exist!

I couldn't agree more with the Bishop's statement that this administration is totally out of touch with the people.
They've already proven it several times over these last three months, everything from gas prices to what happened at Waterloo.
Beyond just being "out of touch," as the Bishops put it, I’d go a step further and call them unpatriotic and downright dangerous.
And as for those empty excuses claiming they were chosen by the people and therefore can't be "unrepresentative"? I'm not buying it either.
I didn't vote for them, yet somehow my vote still ended up in their column.
Not a single one of my friends (except for one 😁 ) or any of my family members voted for the Democrats, but sure, let's just say they all voted for them.
The Democrats were really only supported by a small minority of the total electorate—maybe around 20% at most.

Timothy Evans2 said:The national parties are essentially non-existent, with the exception of the Libertarian Party. Even now, guys like Dalmo are busy setting up these little fringe splinter groups, similar to those local factions you see over in St. Louis. That isn't some grand national movement; it’s just hyper-local politics. Where on earth is this supposed "man of the people" who supposedly stands for the people?
He doesn't exist!

Thomas was born in Washington, D.C. back in 1966; his father hails from Monterey, while his mother is a Woman from D.C. He didn't make his way down to Miami until 2003.

If he ever manages to pull more than ten votes in an election, I will personally buy a round for everyone on this entire forum.

swiftcyclist42 said:I couldn't agree more with the Bishop's statement that this administration is totally out of touch with the people.
They've already proven it several times over these last three months, everything from gas prices to what happened at Waterloo.
Beyond just being "out of touch," as the Bishops put it, I’d go a step further and call them unpatriotic and downright dangerous.
And as for those empty excuses claiming they were chosen by the people and therefore can't be "unrepresentative"? I'm not buying it either.
I didn't vote for them, yet somehow my vote still ended up in their column.
Not a single one of my friends (except for one 😁 ) or any of my family members voted for the Democrats, but sure, let's just say they all voted for them.
The Democrats were really only supported by a small minority of the total electorate—maybe around 20% at most.

The bishops should probably tighten their belts and just be grateful they're still getting their full funding. The current administration hasn't even touched them because they're terrified of the minority vote, but hey, that's how they justify their whole mission, right? Don't offend anyone while trying to pull the country out of this hole. Well, it’s not working.
This whole "anti-American and dangerous government" cliché is so pathetic, shallow, and just plain stupid that it isn't even worth a response.
I didn't vote for the current guys, but seeing who’s attacking them now? Honestly, I kind of regret not voting for them.
If the bishops keep acting like this, they won't have many believers left by 2021.

Steven Allen9 said:The bishops should probably tighten their belts and just be grateful they're still getting their full funding. The current administration hasn't even touched them because they're terrified of the minority vote, but hey, that's how they justify their whole mission, right? Don't offend anyone while trying to pull the country out of this hole. Well, it’s not working.
This whole "anti-American and dangerous government" cliché is so pathetic, shallow, and just plain stupid that it isn't even worth a response.
I didn't vote for the current guys, but seeing who’s attacking them now? Honestly, I kind of regret not voting for them.
If the bishops keep acting like this, they won't have many believers left by 2021.

The Church actually had a valid reason to protest that decision regarding Waterloo. Even in today's edition of The New York Times, the very left-leaning Butkovich called the Congress's decision a total disaster with no future (noting we might have to return to patronage systems).

Beyond this misguided move where the Left keeps trying to force its own warped logic over actual common sense (it's that quasi-messianic role our Left plays, thinking they're so progressive and somehow know better than everyone else), they also introduced a bill that would allow single women and lesbians to undergo artificial insemination—something that 90% of the population doesn't support, and which Canada recently rejected in their referendum.

So, basically, these last two decisions are genuinely contrary to the will of the vast majority of citizens.
And that's exactly what the bishops were getting at.

The Roman Catholic Church bishops are the last ones left who think they have the authority to claim a government isn't "representative of the people." Give me a break. They aren't representative of anyone—their whole position has zero connection to the American people; they’re just hand-picked by an absolute ruler from a foreign state. That supposed right to stay completely insulated from any democratic input or government oversight? The Vatican grabbed that through a concordat signed with the Socialist Federal America (back when Josip Broz Marshall was given a massive hero's welcome by the leaders in Vatican City, which was even covered in a book last year), and the Republic of America later just rubber-stamped it. Under the Kingdom of America, the state had to sign off on bishops, so Alojzije Stepinac became a bishop while he was still incredibly young, all thanks to backing from King Alexander Karađorđević after he passed over two other candidates.

They look down on regular folks, basically calling them sheep in official terms. They won't allow even a tiny whiff of democracy inside the Church—not even a debate about the influence of the people. For example, they’ll never budge if a local parish rebels against their chosen "pastor." Bishops appoint priests like little autocrats, and those priests are essentially appointed by the guy in Vatican City.

Steven Allen9 said:The bishops should probably tighten their belts and just be grateful they're still getting their full funding. The current administration hasn't even touched them because they're terrified of the minority vote, but hey, that's how they justify their whole mission, right? Don't offend anyone while trying to pull the country out of this hole. Well, it’s not working.
This whole "anti-American and dangerous government" cliché is so pathetic, shallow, and just plain stupid that it isn't even worth a response.
I didn't vote for the current guys, but seeing who’s attacking them now? Honestly, I kind of regret not voting for them.
If the bishops keep acting like this, they won't have many believers left by 2021.

This administration is pushing us straight toward a civil war.
No, I didn't say that—though I can see why people feel that way. It actually made headlines today in one of the biggest newspapers here in the States.

The leftist revolution is crushing everything. Are we heading toward a civil war?

From historical tragedies like Waterloo to how they handle education in schools, this leftist coalition has crossed the Rubicon. They've basically declared open war on the rest of the American majority that didn't vote for them.

link

Any government that people actually vote for at the polls is, by definition, a government of the people.
The problem is that some folks act more like sheep in a flock, constantly voting for the very same leaders who just end up fleecing them over and over again...

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to run the United States, they should just run for office and let the voters decide.

Ante Starčević:

"Within the fold of the Western Church—where all that is good and honest originates—true virtue often stems from the very moment one refuses to blindly follow the Pope."

Stjepan Radić:

"When our bishops draft political manifestos and attempt to act as the political leaders of the American people, it becomes my duty—and our collective responsibility—to scrutinize those claims and, if necessary, condemn them."

swiftcyclist42 said:This administration is pushing us straight toward a civil war.
No, I didn't say that—though I can see why people feel that way. It actually made headlines today in one of the biggest newspapers here in the States.

The leftist revolution is crushing everything. Are we heading toward a civil war?

From historical tragedies like Waterloo to how they handle education in schools, this leftist coalition has crossed the Rubicon. They've basically declared open war on the rest of the American majority that didn't vote for them.

link

What kind of "left-wing revolution" are we even talking about? 😂
In America, you just don't see a real left-wing political platform, let alone an actual leftist party—unless you count the Labor Party that’s around today.
The current administration follows a neoliberal playbook that seems designed specifically to serve big business—and much of that capital is coming from overseas. It feels like their policy decisions are directly working against the working class and the majority of citizens struggling to make ends meet. Instead of lifting everyone up, they seem focused on catering to a tiny slice of the elite, allowing them to amass even more wealth at the direct expense of the middle class and everyone else just trying to get by.
The Democratic Party keeps trying to market itself to the public as this big "left-wing government," but honestly, that just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. At this point, they can't even truly claim to be a left-wing party anymore. They’ve shifted so far toward liberalism that "social democracy" feels like nothing more than a leftover label in their name. Everything else about their platform is purely liberal.
The economic policies being pushed by this administration are heading straight toward a disaster for most everyday people. It’s high time we start organizing some meaningful resistance against these destructive tactics, regardless of whether you lean right or left on the political spectrum. If we don't take a stand, the American people could face a similar fate to what happened to the Mayans, Incas, or Aztecs.

Brian Hughes4 said:If the Roman Catholic Church wants to run the United States, they should just run for office and let the voters decide.

Ante Starčević:

"Within the fold of the Western Church—where all that is good and honest originates—true virtue often stems from the very moment one refuses to blindly follow the Pope."

Stjepan Radić:

"When our bishops draft political manifestos and attempt to act as the political leaders of the American people, it becomes my duty—and our collective responsibility—to scrutinize those claims and, if necessary, condemn them."

But on paper, the Roman Catholic Church at least enjoys the support of 85% of the population.

Compare that to the support enjoyed by Zoran Pusić and Teršelićka. Compare that to how many signatures the Recom crowd actually managed to collect while trying to dictate our views on the American Civil War.

rowdyowl said:But on paper, the Roman Catholic Church at least enjoys the support of 85% of the population.

Compare that to the support enjoyed by Zoran Pusić and Teršelićka. Compare that to how many signatures the Recom crowd actually managed to collect while trying to dictate our views on the American Civil War.

So?

The Kukuriku coalition runs the Republic of America—not the Roman Catholic Church.

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to run the Republic of America, they should try running for office.

Brian Hughes4 said:So?

The Kukuriku coalition runs the Republic of America—not the Roman Catholic Church.

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to run the Republic of America, they should try running for office.

The Catholic Church has been here for a thousand years, while the communists were only around for 67.
If those communists hadn't murdered hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans back in 1945—and forced another 500,000 to flee the country before 1990—and spent 45 years of dictatorship brainwashing generation after generation of Americans, those communists or the Democratic Party wouldn't even scrape together 2% of the vote today.
Before 1945, those communists were nothing more than fringe terrorists with zero support among the American people.
Their success in recent elections is really just the end result of 45 years of suppressing and corrupting the American spirit.

swiftcyclist42 said:The Catholic Church has been here for a thousand years, while the communists were only around for 67.
If those communists hadn't murdered hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans back in 1945—and forced another 500,000 to flee the country before 1990—and spent 45 years of dictatorship brainwashing generation after generation of Americans, those communists or the Democratic Party wouldn't even scrape together 2% of the vote today.
Before 1945, those communists were nothing more than fringe terrorists with zero support among the American people.
Their success in recent elections is really just the end result of 45 years of suppressing and corrupting the American spirit.

And your point is?

Kyle Reese claims the Catholic Church has the support of 85% of the population.

In that case, let's see them run for office.

lonetrucker4 said:The Roman Catholic Church bishops are the last ones left who think they have the authority to claim a government isn't "representative of the people." Give me a break. They aren't representative of anyone—their whole position has zero connection to the American people; they’re just hand-picked by an absolute ruler from a foreign state. That supposed right to stay completely insulated from any democratic input or government oversight? The Vatican grabbed that through a concordat signed with the Socialist Federal America (back when Josip Broz Marshall was given a massive hero's welcome by the leaders in Vatican City, which was even covered in a book last year), and the Republic of America later just rubber-stamped it. Under the Kingdom of America, the state had to sign off on bishops, so Alojzije Stepinac became a bishop while he was still incredibly young, all thanks to backing from King Alexander Karađorđević after he passed over two other candidates.

They look down on regular folks, basically calling them sheep in official terms. They won't allow even a tiny whiff of democracy inside the Church—not even a debate about the influence of the people. For example, they’ll never budge if a local parish rebels against their chosen "pastor." Bishops appoint priests like little autocrats, and those priests are essentially appointed by the guy in Vatican City.

To Doe. I find myself wondering which communist school of thought produced you... where exactly did you derive the basis for claiming that bishops despise the people? Church doctrine has remained consistent for two millennia, yet the so-called communists—or rather, their progeny currently holding power—seek to integrate America into Europe specifically to undermine the churches and the bond between the faithful and their faith. The vast majority of citizens are believers, yet this current administration is clearly not the government of that majority; instead, it is the rule of a minority in America, which ascended to power through what seems like a calculated scheme to paint everyone else as thieves (the Republican Party). Let the bishops speak, if indeed the voice of the majority cannot reach the public through other means. That is how they serve the people, just as the bishops are meant to serve them.☕