This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Isn't It Time We Turned American Democracy Over To The Experts?
Even before the big loss for the Democrats, we had all lost. The money pouring into politics from Super PACs and shady political “nonprofit” organizations was stealing Democracy from you and me. Financial contributions from individual voters is being eclipsed by the big bucks pouring in from far fewer big-money sources.
"Isn't it time to hand democracy over to the experts? Send the voters packing!!"
»
- 12893 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Democracy is a farce just to keep people in check.
Unfortunately, this seems more like reality than comedy.
But we're not a democracy, we're a republic. There is a difference.
And the 'Experts' have left us with this:
UN Arms Trade Treaty
Effective 12/24/2014.
Isn't it time to turn the act of running a person's life over to the person actually living it?
Other people are not your property.
They are in Edmonton, Canada. 5 year old is guilty for the high crime of being related to his uncle! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1b8YZXqqRs
Sortition is the answer to this problem! Because a bunch of randomly picked people could do better.
Scientists have found a mystery virus in 44% of the population tested. The algae virus, never before observed in healthy people, was found to affect cognitive functions including visual processing and spatial awareness.
-The virus - called chlorovirus ATCV-1 - was only known to appear in algae
-Researchers in U.S. have not established how it comes to infect humans
-It hasn't infected just swimmers, which rules out direct link to algae itself
-Instead humans could've been carrying virus but was not known to doctors
-Research suggests it alters genes in brain including memory and emotion
-Scientists found 44 per cent of patients tested had virus in their throats
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/virus-that-makes-humans-more-s...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827518/Found-viral-infection-ma...
Wouldn't go that far, but I do think only taxpayers and/or veterans should be allowed to vote.
In other words, you've learned nothing.
“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” - John Adams
Democracy is, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A Republic is the well armed sheep disputing the outcome of the vote.
The craving of sheeple for a "good" king to think for them dooms all democracies. They want to be lead and cared for. The ignorant, who trust not themselves to make major decisions, believe they can intelligently choose their master. Trust in others is their opiate.
Well stated.
The word trust is something thrown around as if its candy lately, a word that is supposed to elicit a positive emotional response favorable to the targeted audience. So far so good for the deciever. But there is a price to pay for breaking trust, the vow, an oath, a promise, because the trust was asked for (and given) and was done with the expectation of...if its violated...there will be a penalty to be paid.
Now, why is the penalty thought of as a negative emotional response is what I always ask. Its not, in my view negative, its the cost of breaking the solemn trust.
And the penalty should be as massive as what was stolen that can never be replaced, as now its broken.
/raises glass to Reaper
Anyone who is not drinking, isn't paying attention.
Actually, pretty sure I know quite a bit. Maybe you can explain why people who sit in the metaphorical cart, while others are breaking their ass to pull it, should be allowed to vote?
Meanwhile, the loafers sitting in the cart babble on and on about their rights and entitlements. Sounds fair to me. [/s]
Because the one's "breaking their ass to pull it" have allowed this shitstorm to manifest in the first place and have demonstrated their incompetence...or worse.
Most of the people "breaking their ass", the ones with the cash, have made that cash from FINANCIALIZATION rather than from that of actual production.
In fact their schemes have shut down the means for production and employment so that they profit from the misery of the unemployed.
H. Ross Perot was correct. There was that giant sucking sound as the entire Middle Class was hollowed out. Entire industries were gutted and sold off. The jobs went with them.
If the exportation of production were not offshored then these people "in the cart", which you whine about, would be fucking working.
Yes. You, and your ilk, first allow this shitstorm to manifest in the first place. Then you place the blame upon the unemployed.
Then you have the audacity, the chutzpah, to claim that you should take over the reins so that you can continually oppress them through your FINANCIALIZATION?
I am happy that Nitric Acid is still available and cheap.
If what the FINANCIALIST did was INCOMPETENT and NOT INTENTIONAL then why do you deserve to have the right to make decisions on another's behalf?
On the other hand if what the FINANCIALIST did was INTENTIONAL and NOT DUE TO INCOMPETENCE then why do you deserve to have the right to live?
Yes. I am happy that Nitric Acid is still available and cheap.
I agree with part of what you're saying. Concur that we have idiotically off-shored jobs for no good reason and this has hurt the middle class. During the Cold War, it was done to ensure the economic prosperity of allies, such as Japan. Not defending it, but at least that made some monocrum of sense. After the Cold War, we shipped tons of jobs to Mexico and China. In the case of Mexico, we may have been using that as a bulkward against illegal immigration--if so it didn't work. The fact that we practically made China a superpower with American $$ ranks as a national crime of the first order.
But to imply that everyone pulling the cart is a "FINANCIALIST" (whatever the fuck that means) is just plain naive and wrong. While many good jobs are gone forever, there are still many of out there who bust hump every day who have nothing to do with the Financial industry. Unless you consider anyone with who owns stock in their 401K a "FINANCIALIST". In that's the case, you're not going to win any arguments.
I have no problem with people who worked hard most of their lives and are suddenly down on their luck through no fault of hteir own. But there are plenty of people in this couuntry who are defacto wards of the state who never worked a day in their life. I see them at Walmart all the time. They're the ones with the EBT cards, wearing t-shirts they got out of the lost & found, screaming profanities at the poor cashiers. On top of that, there are the illegals who stroll into this country and get benefits without having done jack squat. I'm certain some of them vote.
And, FYI, your repeated nitric acid reference is more than a little creepy. People like you are why I own lots of guns and ammo.
Let's see...
What chance do you have with guns and ammo when they have APCs, Tanks, drones, poison gases, mortars, and long range missiles...not to mention Jet Aircraft?
And do you really think that your guns are of any real tactical value?
It is kind of like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
LMAO
Besides if it is not your Government that takes you out then it will be that the hungry masses will overwhelm you.
I hope that your guns are fully automatic with Cooling Jackets.
They are only good for short range. How many can you fire at once?
Yeah, maybe. But what's an average citizen supposed to own for self defense?
I'd hate to bring nitric acid to a gunfight.
I agree with you TT but what IS up with the NA references?
Read my reply to him.
I've heard this stated before. Taxpayers should be allowed to vote, but not non-taxpayers. It makes sense, but somehow you have to separate out the money. We're missing some big pieces here. I think every person should be able to vote, but people who sit on their ass and contribute nothing should not be permitted to vote what to do with other people's money. Somehow you have to stop that. It may be with separate sets of laws. One for money and allocation of such, one for how laws and social interaction are formed to treat all people. I can't get behind taking away votes from anyone, but would agree the system is broken, and that something has to change with how politicians buy votes from do-nothings and feed them with money they don't earn from the people that do work. That is in fact, a conflict of interest. I'd like to hear some ideas on this from ZH readers. How can it be fixed?
[quote]
...people who sit on their ass and contribute nothing should not be permitted to vote what to do with other people's money.
[/quote]
Sounds like you're NOT in favor of Congress!
Recognize the government as a corporation and then there are several logical consequences.
There is a place for voting within corporations - by shareholders. Corporations and people interact in the broader society under some social norms that apply to all, such as those that come with people's natural rights - e.g. no aggression is permissible, association can only be voluntary. Therefore a person who has not voluntarily acted in a way that associates him with an organization (e.g. signed a binding contract with a government, funded a government in some way, etc.) should not be expected to:
In other words, government is entirely "their thing" and we can choose whether we want to have anything to do with it or not. Of course, the good and logical thing to do is not to have anything to do with it. If a well recognized social norm is violated against an organization, e.g. you find yourself guilty of accidentally damaging property that is owned or controlled by a government you have to right that wrong according to the natural rights (which are higher than government legislation) of the victim (it's a separate issue whether any government actually has any rights left that they have not waived by committing so many crimes since their inception). If, on the other hand, a government claims (e.g. through legislation, court order) that you should pay for something without you actually having deserved such a debt in any way, then you don't have to pay and governments better recognize this, or else there may be a conflict.
Yes but Articles of Association are supposed to bind Corporations.
It is simply that Americans are ignorant and lazy and have lost control of Corporations and Government. It will end with Americans reaping the whirlwind in the next big war
It is not too late to learn, recognize one's mistakes, stop participating (e.g. withdrawing all forms of support for governments) and start redeeming oneself by appropriate actions (e.g. compensating those who have been harmed).
Predicated on obedience ?
It's an interesting read: vague and pliable for a reason. That's a hallmark of modern documents and laws: poorly written, and open to endless argument and interpretation, done of course purposely to wear down the other side (generally the side of freedom and liberty). Notice the language actually applies to make it seem it's the intention of the weapons themselves to commit crime, not the people which the document should be addressing. They attempt to criminalize guns, in effect stating something like 'guns cause such and such" which we know it total BS, because guns don't cause anything, people do. So it just gives them a reason to 'handcuff those bad guns'. Thanks for the post.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
No, we are not a republic, THEY are a Plutocracy.
K Street is the Governing body, 20,000 lobbyshits write the laws, make the bribery payments, and the puppets that are the face of men and women unseen, invisible are the rulers, except for shit/fuck/crap like, Gay "Marriage", killing babies, and making certain no one gets hurt on the playground in dodge ball.
No, the governing body is the Federal Reserve and the organizations of international bankers. They rule with unlimited amounts of imaginary money.
They work in concert to shear the masses. It is both.
The Legislative branch and Executive branch just serve to legalize the fruad.
The Judicial branch just rubber stamps the decisions.
The financialists reap the loot.
And American wealth is hollowed out from the inside.
Some of the Upper Middle Classes are paid off to comply with it with cushy Government Jobs.
Most suffer from it.
A republic requires the protection of individual rights that cannot be voted away. If they are, then the so-called republic has degenerated into a democracy, i.e., mob rule that is but the plaything of the tiny few who actually run things.
For example . . .
http://avivamientointernacional.org/sitio/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ame...
Fucking Progressive Democrats like FDR (and Obama), always taking away our individual rights and liberties.
Oh, and necons don't?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/12/andrew-p-napolitano/how-congress-has-...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/bush-i-ve-abandoned-free-market-pr...
Face it, partisan politics is the smokescreen behind which the ruling elite goes about its business, which is to prey upon the people in every way, shape, and form, the more so that the people are conditioned welcome their enslavement:
http://vimeo.com/85948693
Divide et imperia
The Patriot Act was defensible when passed. That asshole Progressive mother-fucker from the upper midwest was the only Senator voting against it, with 98 voting for it, and the House passed it 357-66. Those are huge margins. Now, the unaccountable, unelected, vast, and radically Progressive fed'l gov't bureaucracy has learned to bypass the protections built in the Patriot Act. These are the same mother-fuckers behind the Fast and Furious, VA, IRS, etc scandals. They are institutionally authoritarian, these gov't bureaucrats. They feel unconstrained, much like EU Brussels bureaucrats, and lesbian feminists who spew gallons of PJ per second in their lust to control the culture.
Bush belonged to the Progressive wing of the Republican Party.
Loss of liberty is NEVER defensible, unless you wish to be a slave.
May you carry your own whip to the whipping post.
Libertarians perceive no limits on individual liberty, which is an illogical and, ultimately, an indefensible position. Conservatives grant that there are instances when our individual rights may be curtailed to bolster our collective rights, as long as the gov't constitutionally protects our rights; ie, that the entirely legal system be omnipresent in determining whether or not the application of those laws meets strict criteria to safeguard individual liberties/
Enter Progressive bureaucrats. Progressivism is authoritarianism. Progressives believe that they are The Law, because their credo is that they should be The Law, and that whatever they do is automatically OK. They believe it is impossible for them to fuck up.
If we kneecap the power of the vast, unelected, unaccountable, and Progressive bureaucracy, our rights are protected.
Your political philsophy re individual rights needs maturity, and a few more layers of substance.
How so, Skippy?
From the article "How I view libertarianism", how I view Libertarianism:
In any case: since aggression is unjust, it follows that the state itself is inherently unjust. Thus, all consistent libertarians should be anarchists, or anarcho-libertarians; and, in our view, the only real anarchist is a libertarian, despite caterwauling by syndicalist- and other types of socialist anarchists to the contrary when this is pointed out.
What this all means is that, in the eyes of libertarians, anyone who argues for the state is arguing for aggression and, therefore, for injustice. One can favor the state, but he cannot justify it.
From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (insert image of livefreediefree spontaneously spewing copious amounts of jizz here) "Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?" article:
The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.
The above 2 quotes, while not definitive, nevertheless highlight a logical conundrum of Libertarianism: Libertarianism, being anti-authoritarian in the extreme, tends towards anarchy, the philosophy which is as extreme from authoritarian as possible.
As a conservative, I support the military, and the military before Obama started attriting it. Why? Because a large military can use the threat of violence to reduce the actual incidence of violence. Libertarians find it tough if not impossible to square their "non-agresssion principle" with this POV.
As corollaries, I supported (and still support) the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Pax America. I doubt Libertarians do.
No matter. Rather than argue the military, I wanted to highlight a specific difference to frame my prime objection to Libertarianism: Like Obama's Progressivism, Libertarians live in a cerebrally-constructed fantasy utopia instead of reality. Sure, it would be nice if one's political philosophy is as logically derived and taut as possible, where everything is reduced to simplicities such that all answers are easily derived. However, it is impossible for any political philosophy to be logically consistent. Reality is (partly or mainly) irrational. imo, conservatism embraces this irrationality, but libertarianism doesn't.
Then, it appears at least some Libertarians have made accommodation with Obama, that they view their goals and Obama's goals to be the same. If you're a Libertarian and don't absolutely denounce Obama, fuck you.
Of course, this argument could be expanded, but hopefully you get the general drift.
I agree with you.
Just to let you know...Christ carried his own Cross.
He died for freedom. Freedom from sin in His case.
What are you willing to sacrifice for Liberty?
What, exactly is your point? How does this all work in your mind?
Is liberty, in your mind, only achieved through the blood of others? If so, is that just liberty for you, and slavery for others?
Again. Please elaborate?
Christ spilled His Blood for Liberty.
I will spill my own blood if necessary....for others.
It is not about me.
What are you willing to sacrifice for Liberty?
Pretty much everything, but not my faith in Christ.
Nothin's better than freedom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opnYsZ8WPGc
Double post.
It was probably for their own safety too. It was a different country back then. After Pearl Harbor, many Japanese Americans would have been lynched and few would have batten an eye.
I was under the impression that this treaty only regulated the international arms trade. Does it interfere with domestic gun ownership and rights to bear arms as well?
Eventually. Baby steps.....just baby steps. If the treaty is not fought tooth and nail, like Obolacare, it becomes so pernicious it becomes difficult to repeal it.
A UN treaty may difficult to repeal but it is piss simple to ignore. Everyone who is anyone has the UN written on their dick.
Double post due to connection reset deleted.
It happens.
You figure these pols who Pledged every day of their public school years and before every session would realize they're pledging allegiance to the Republic.
"But we're not a democracy, we're a republic. There is a difference."
I heard you have a constitution that's completely ignored too, so really it makes no difference.
The election was the best news possible. We may yet be able to throw the rascals out and root out the deadly cancer of corruption. But we need a Liberty Alliance to challenge the Republicrats feeding at the trough while taking us over the cliff. That's a tough one. First we have to reduce the Democrats to insignifigance, then take out the Republicans. The Tea Party is not just Taxed Enough Already, it's the Second American Revolution.
Listen Farmboy.
"Democracy is a farce just to keep people in check."
I believe it's a tool used by your central bankers to keep you running on the hamster wheel.
Faster and faster, faster and faster, faster and faster you do want the American Dream don't you?
Don't you? Is there something wrong with you? OMG, you better try some Prozac and add a little Abilify.
I like running on the hamster wheel.
Can you hang an Obolaphone just out of reach in front of me while Obola applies the ebola stick from behind?
Listen.
Anything for you my friend. Just ask.
You people have Adult-ADD? How many frikkin times to I have to tell you...
"DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR THE DUMB, LAZY, SCARED, UNINFORMED OR DISORGANIZED."
Your masters -- Predators and Sociopaths -- are Smart, Dilligent, Bold, Informed and Organized. Until the Unwashed Masses acquire these traits, their fate is a foregone conclusion. All that's left is their bleating, shearing and slaughter. Same as it ever was.
That's why I concur with the Georgia Guidestones, as only about 500 Million People are worth preserving on this planet. The rest are just a waste of space, and horrific thieves who take room and resources from more interesting species.
Trying to teach the unwashed masses is like talking to a wall.
They have a false sense of security in their guns and ammo.
They do not realize that the predators are the Financialists which are the Banksters, Wall Street and their elected Government Officials.
They do not understand the reasons behind the endless wars that target themselves so that the elite fatten off of the fallen soldiers' and civilians' blood.
Many of the unwashed masses along with the Banksters and Government are parasitical upon the misery of others.
Shearing and slaughter is that which awaits for many in the final culling.
It is sad that so many cannot even identify those whom are the most destructive.
They suffer from a Stockholm Syndrome and will fight to the death for those whom oppress them.
There is no hope and it is the same as it ever was.
Why place any faith or confidence in that?
What democracy? That is as imaginary as unicorns and honest politicians in the land of the free. If we got any more fascist, the government would be spying on you 24/7, adding fluoride to you water to sap your intelligence and will (first added to water by Hitler to keep prisoners from escaping) and the police would legally liberate you from your cash. Luckily, that will never happen in the land of the free.
Democracy in the land of the free is more chimerical than the American Dream. It only happens when you are hallucinating.
to keep people in crack. fixed it for ya
Here's an idea: why not elect the president by a group of electors selected by the states. They might call it the electoral college.
Oh wait...
Fantastic idea! We could also let state govenments select senators so that they would have representation in DC instead of money and the media. We could also take the restrictions of size off of the House of Reps. We could also take the power of unlimited taxation and borrowing away from the Federal government.
The day is approaching when the only function of democratic government will be do dole out various governmental functions to various corporations.
Monsanto will head the agriculture department, Haliburton will take care of defence, Goldman will be in charge of Treasury, the Health Department run by some pharmaceutical company, and so on.
This is not far fetched as these corporations already benefit from and have tremendous influence over these functions of government.
"The day is approaching when the only function of democratic government will be do dole out various governmental functions to various corporations.
Monsanto will head the agriculture department, Haliburton will take care of defence, Goldman will be in charge of Treasury, the Health Department run by some pharmaceutical company, and so on."
All that will be left for true private enterprise and small firms is the guillotine business.
An American, not US subject.
"I am in the guillotine business. And let me tell you, business is cutting."
Yes. We are marching toward Idiocracy.
Try some Brawndo. It has electrolytes and is good for you.
they are persons after all, are they not..?
One day? I thought it was like that already...
The losers in .gov are simply recycled goldmanites, ex-monsanto, etc, and when they lose an election they'll go back to Goldman, etc, until it's their turn to win again.
The ones in .gov make less taxable income, but make up for it in bribes, while the ones out of government make more, but have to pay the bribes.
Haven't the 'experts' already fucked things up enough?
Expert: A Contract Liar
They've certainly fucked up the DOJ, which says it relies on experts in exonerating the TBTF banks. Problem is, we don't know the experts' names. Yet.
"Eric Holder's Legacy: the Divine Right of Criminals"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkQQoGUj6VY
Bring back the Republic!
Replace Washington D.C. with open source software!
Guillotine v. 1.0
Open source "Yardware." Anyone can build one in their backyard.
An American, not US subject.
Backyard chemistry is better
Wasn't Former Pres. Carter quoted as saying that we didn't have a functioning democracy? He should know.
Vote for the Libertarian Party.
The American country is a republic.
The DC US is a democracy and criminal occupier of the American country.
In a republic people turn to government for contract enforcement and justice where someone's Life, Liberty, and/or Property, there's a victim, have been violated.
In a democracy, government imposes themselves upon, and criminally usurps, the people. and is characterized by recognizing numerous crimes that have only the government as the victim.
America lives. The DC US kills.
An American, not US subject.
In a republic people turn to government for contract enforcement and justice where someone's Life, Liberty, and/or Property, there's a victim, have been violated.
In a democracy, government imposes themselves upon, and criminally usurps, the people. and is characterized by recognizing numerous crimes that have only the government as the victim.
Best description ever. Love it, will use it.
Keep your backyard busy!
kchrisc
Fuckin right on, man
Anyone who believes this is a recent phenomenon is a fool. Who actually knows when the first election was rigged, but I suspect it was long before any of us were born. The 1960 election was fixed by the mob and Mayor Daley {I'm sorry, they were one of the same}. 2000 election goes without saying. I doubt they even have to worry about "the count" nowadays, since it doesn't really matter which of the two candidates gets elected. Either way, their boy {or soon to be girl] gets in.
Demand that the Constitution be adhered to and election fraud goes away, and much of the rest of their criminality.
Demand that election fraud end, and the criminals just continue on with their criminality.
An American, not US subject.
"Next time a gun and badge thug pulls you over do: 1) Remind him of his oath. 2) Ask him of what parts of the Constitution he is violating. 3) Inform him of the text of Article 3, Section 3. And 4) remind him that Nuremberg Principle IV puts forth that "following orders" is not a defense, and neither is "it's the law."
5) see the working end of a gun aka police defending itself...
Yes and no.
These two took on some of the thugs and lived to tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQyiIizgU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKUOiZqUD-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgZ5_tMzvOM
An American, not US subject.
goy
this stuff is complicated
stick with your sports and your kadashians.
leave the messy confusing stuff to the folks that understand finanacial extractions.
so you can drink beer and masterbate
donte swet it
donte think
leave it to the jewisher
he knows whats best
Since we're playing "semantics" games today, I thought I'd chime in and state that this nation is a "restricted meritocracy." There. I feel better now. Yeah, get rid of those pesky voters. My idea: bring in electronic voting machines because we know that we can trust them to be unimpeachable sources of the voters wishes.
>>>My idea: bring in electronic voting machines because we know that we can trust them to be unimpeachable sources of the voters wishes.
Better yet, I propose "computer modelled voting". Given recent advances in computer sciences, such as those that enable Climate Scientists to calculate the earth's average temperature hundreds of years into the future, each US citizen's "modelled vote" can be assigned on the basis of how he would have voted had he been born in an optimum family, gone to the very best schools, and regularly read the most reliable news sources.
In just a few short years, all of America's national anxieties would be things of the past.
I was just wondering when the Packers/Bear game starts.
Da Bears!
If voting mattered, they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain
This is off topic, but read Twain's short story "The McWilliamses And The Burglar Alarm".
Free on http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/359
There is just a short line about painters and alcohol in there guaranteed to make one laugh if one knows anything about painters.
Samuel Clemens was a genuis.
Democracy is a total waste of time. Elite bankers own the system here, and have been in the process of removing pesky commoners like us from deciding anything of importance for generations.
There is however, a way you can vote for a better change and a better world.....just not at your local polling booth.
http://thewealthwatchman.com/how-the-watchman-voted-on-election-day/
I don't know why the attempted distinction between republic and democracy. They're not mutually exclusive. You have a democratically elected representative in a republic. You can have a theocratically appointed republic. You can have an oligarchic republic like in Venice in the 13th century.
Yes. This is a democratic republic. This is as good as it gets. A politician plays to the least common denominator's fears and tries to exploit them. Boobus in return votes either against some hobgoblin or thinks they're voting more goodies their way. Most people don't bother voting knowing that nothing will change.
Every once in awhile someone who thinks they're brilliant will say something like "term limits". Which is nothing more than a shot clock for the current politicians to give away as much as possible while in office to their friends who have consultant or lobbyist jobs waiting for them.
When the people of a Republic stop participating then that republic stops working.
The U.S Republic was intended to represent the people and the states in a national government. All abled bodied were required to serve in their state militia's. The states could attempt to stop tyranny of the national government by voting in the senate and if all else failed the state militia's consisting of We the People had the Constitutional authority to set things straight. "A well regulated militia being NECESSARY to a FREE state.... (The only place where the founders used the word, necessary, in the entire constitution.)
The uncivil war created the beginnings of our present day standing army which changed these states United pluralty to singularity THE UNITED STATES. It also changed a "voluntary" union to a "forced" union.
In the early 1900,s the state militia's were reformed into a national guard under the control of the standing army and the national government. In 1913 the power of the senate was taken from the states by the 17th amendment thereby eliminating any trouble from them and ending their sovereignity. With the militia disbanded the national government had no worries of state controlled militia's and was free to continue its tyrannical ways.
The 16th amendment eliminated the need for the national government to go to the states for funding and the passage of the Federal Reserve ensured unlimited financing at the citizens cost through monetary debasement and outright fraud while the 16th enabled theft of their production through taxes.
And so here we are today wondering "What happened". Well, what happened was we let them (the founders) down. They spilled their blood and we let them down... simple as that. With the education system ensuring complete ignorance and the economic system ensuring complete poverty any future reset is highly unlikely.
An emphatic +1
I would only add, that without an engaged knowledgable populace, no Republic can long survive and will become a teeming mass of thieves in short order. In other words, a democracy, that only the brutality of an authortarian can put to order and personally benefit from.
And we're one inch away.
I still don't get it
So at the point people realized that the constitution was a fatal conceit, then it ceased being a republic?
This thing was always bullshit. It was never about serving the people. It was about bringing 13 different governments under control of one and then usurping any agreement that was made to limit the power of the supra-government. And those sacred "founders" were in on it. My source: the anti-federalist papers.
For chrissakes, don't be part of an extended family! The Feral god of Canada has spoken! Now deal with it, plebe!
It is easy to argue that money is speech, and those with money can not be made silent by political campaign laws that defy the constitution. After all, it is not yet a crime to have more money than one really knows what to do with. So spending one's wealth to campaign for or against candidates can be argued to be the highest form of freedom and deomcracy. The richest man gets only one vote, the homless, unemployed, drunken, ex-con, food stamp client and over all disgrace to society has the same vote as the highest man in the land.
What I do find funny is not that people are allowed to spend unlimited money in secret on politics, what I find funny is the Voter, him or herself. They decide, at the end of the day only they can pull the levers to deliver Republican into congress, or Obama into the White House. What I find funny is the simple fact that, in almost every case, the candidate who has the highest number of dollars spent on his campaign and on attack ads on his rival, HE is almost always the winner. The voter will like a herd of zebras chase the lead zebra. More money spent mean voters more willing to vote for them.
So who can complain. All power rests with the voters, and they have spoken thus: " I want to be represented in this democracy by the candidate with the most money spent on his campaign." "I will not stand for any underfunded candidate for office, I will have the highest spender, period!"
There you have it, the logic of the American voter. Can he/she really blame anyone for the cess pool that is congress? That slime pit is constantly re-elected on the basis of "who spend the msot cash". With that as his criteria, the American voter is one strange excuse for a free man and responsible citizen. The rabble only needs a few TV adds and he will swing his vote like a cheap whore at a stip joint lap dancing the guys with the most cash being waved". Fitting enough for America 2014!
What I find funny is the simple fact that, in almost every case, the candidate who has the highest number of dollars spent on his campaign and on attack ads on his rival, HE is almost always the winner.
Prove it with facts; eg, this election.
A theoretical question: Which candidate attracts the most money, the better or lessor one? Could it be that the money spent on each candidate is simply a harbinger of the electorate's voting decision; ie, the voters have already decided, and the money follows?
Ban money, and Democrats have an enormous advantage. The culture is Progressive, and Democratic. Colleges, the MSM, and the entertainment industry favor Democrats 10:1 or 20:1. If we regulate money in politics, we shoulda oughta regulate them, too.
Damn. For some reason, Google doesn't have a definition for "slippery slope"
For Sale
Washington DC. One White House, Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. Employees, Air Force 1, Golf Course for the Commander in Chief, used teleprompter, Federal Reserve with balance sheet, NSA. CIA. DEA all included,
Imagine, you can own your own government which will tell you what to do, tax and regulate you till you can't take anymore. Lies are included at no charge.
Due to Polar Vortex, will discount accordingly
All offers considered. Warning, have to take at your own risk, they can be nasty when things don't go their own way.
Citizens of USA will accept payment in gold.
Also - never expose it to bright light (especially sunlight, which will kill it); never get it wet; and, most importantly: no matter how much it cries or begs, never, ever feed it after midnight.
End the 16th and 17th amendments, intitute Fair tax and end the Fed.
I know, I know ... there will be jet packs run on unicorn farts before that happens.
Isn't it time we turn democracy over to the people. Direct Democracy is the only pure form of democracy.
What we have now is the result of it being turned over to the people.
Cut out the middleman
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/10/smart-money.html
This is a bankocracy. The problem begins with fiat money.
There is no reason for a corporation to give money to any political group, campaign, or canidate....unless of course they expect something in return.
1. Ban any and all corporations or businesses from giving money or services to any political party, political orginization, or candidate.
2. Contributions can only be made by individuals and are limited to a total maximum for all contributions to $500 per calendar year.
It's time money comes out of politics...it only fuels the corruption and the reckless spending.
There is no reason for a corporation to give money to any political group, campaign, or canidate....unless of course they expect something in return.
There is no reason for an individual to give money to any political group, campaign, or canidate....unless of course they expect something in return.
how about only a registered voter can donate to a campaign. and only to a campaign for an election in which they get to vote.
dont come to my county/state/congressional district to spend money--locals only!
i think this is a concept that could make it onto ballots for state referendums/constitutions....congressmen wont vote their money away....individuals have to do it directly onto their state laws.
How about everybody pay absolute fealty to "Dear Leader!!!" And follow all the laws that "Dear Leader!!!" proclaims.
The problem with campaign finance laws of any kind, including yours, is that they're enacted by politicians, and policed by the vast, unaccountable, unelected, and unionized Progressive bureaucracy.
As a result, politicians end up controlling the political process, the worst of all possible worlds.
Free speech is precious, Money is speech.
Well, to all those libertarians who say voting doesn't count, good. Therefore, the rest of us now realize that it makes no difference whether or not we vote for a libertarian.
However, here's the problem: If you say it does make a difference voting for a libertarian, then you've just affirmed my POV that it does make a difference if you vote for a conservative.
When something doesnt work it might be a good idea to go back to the beginning and start over.
This guy votes. Girl gets hit by subway train. Her phone ends up on platform. He sidles over. Covers phone with foot. Scoops it and heads off.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/11/dead_wro...
A government by the people really needs better people. It doesn't work with the idiots produced by the "village."
A virus that infects human brains and makes us more stupid has been discovered,
It's called the EU. Led by technocrats selected by Rothschild's.
you are correct, the EU is full of technocracy, i.e. of "government by the experts" principles
though this has a root: the EU countries themselves run strongly on indirect democracy (based on republican principles) and... technocrats
- example: judges are usually careeer judges, in the EU. voting directly for a judge is seen as... lunatic, in Europe
meanwhile, judges are way less powerful, in Europe, because statutory laws prevent most of the tribunal's "lawmaking" (through precendent). An unforeseen precedent setting tribunal case is often seen as a failure in lawmaking, and leads often in parliament restating a law
- further example: typically, european countries elect directly members of a parliament. and this body appoints... "experts", aka ministers. as such, they are already somewhat in the "technocrats" category. as such, all our executives (aka government, here, or cabinets) are somewhat technocratic and "unelected"
take Prime Minister Cameron of the UK, for example. how many people do you think voted directly for him? He get's to form government because he is the internal leader of his party, and he has to find votes in the British Parliament, for example by finding partners in coalition, up to the point he has a majority there, and so govern
take Prime Minister Renzi of Italy. nobody ever elected him, except as leader of his party, an internal party vote. but he has a majority of the Italian Parliament behind him, and that's the reason why he is allowed to head the government... until parliament kicks him out
my point is that european political systems are not only based in part on technocratic principles, they can afford to do that because of the centrality of elected parliaments, something many of our American Cousins don't seem to grasp because they have a completely different constitutional setup. At the end, everything is in the hands of parliament, in our setups
but the video does not point at technocracy as such. the video points at lobbyism and the excesses of money in elections, and Super-Pacs
how about only a registered voter can donate to a campaign. and only to a campaign for an election in which they get to vote.
dont come to my county/state/congressional district to spend money--locals only!
i think this is a concept that could make it onto ballots for state referendums/constitutions....congressmen wont vote their money away....individuals have to do it directly onto their state laws.
Very funny to see people blame others for their own fault.
Most started believing that election = democracy. Thats where the problem starts.
Go to other countries. The best example is India. The elected legislative member cannot return to his village if he cannot get anything done to imporve their lives. And he cannot stay in the Capital city as the village wll travel to find him and beat him up.
In India the best way to buy votes is not the media but simply negotiating with each village and pay for social development. They accept cash too.
China is a better example of good elected leadership system. Yes. !!
In china the villages send their best candidate to next level of selection board. They challege each other and the best among them are selected to move up to the next next level of coordinating council.
And finally the best of the best are selected to lead the country. When someone like Ziang ze min is elected and changes his character with western money, he is easily replaced by a more nationalistic team. Leaders at any level are removed and often even excuted against corruption. Even the richest man was jailed when he was suspected of creating loses for China. They are serious in their attempt to keep the role of Government clean and sacred. And all this comes from their election system, which does not need huge money for advertisement or buying support.
My American friends often laugh off when I mention election system in China or Russia. We should some humility and accept that we can learn a few things from others.
Start taking action at ground level. Go see your representatives. wherever they are hding.
Both the French First Republic and Second Republic ended with Emperors named Napoleon.
Are you sure the USA is not today an Imperial Presidency ruling by Executive Order and the power of Commander in Chief ?
The large number of government programs that have failed to carry out their duties and the dim view many Americans have towards Washington may be starting to take its toll on those who think big government is the answer. The Democratic Party has long been thought of as the party of "big government" filled with believers that government can solve and is the answer to curing many of our woes.
Sadly cost and reality are quickly beginning to show the flaws in this theory, government is far better at providing access of citizens and good at passing popular laws, but the private sector tends to be more efficient and better at controlling costs. More on the flaw in the concept of big government in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/11/flaws-in-big-government-concept.html
We should just eliminate voting, and the whole election process.
A national lottery, where all citizens of age go into a pool, to be randomly chosen. Your name comes up? It's your turn to serve. Your job (if you have one) would be 'held' for you, to return to after your term.
You can only get out of serving if you have some REAL issue...Simply not liking government isn't a valid excuse. (If you hate it so much, use your term to fix things.)
You get a small salary, and all your necessary expenses are covered for your term. When your term is over, you LEAVE. You do NOT stick around for a second term. In fact, you are barred from serving again.
All legislative activity is to be streamed, live, and transmitted on a dedicated channel, so your people can watch you at work and see exactly what you are doing.
Oh, almost forgot. All schools would teach CIVICS, so that no citizen would graduate from school without demonstrating at least a basic knowledge of our Constitution, and how government is supposed to work. Without that, all the rest would be pointless.
For many years this country had a draft. It was considered one's duty to serve in the military...Why not apply that theory to politics? It is arguably less demanding to be sent to Washington than to be sent to some battlefield a half-world away.
No career politicians!