So Who Keeps Electing These People?
I think that future historians will look at the record and point to our current era and say, "This is where the Great Experiment in government failed".
I pray that I'm wrong.
I pray that I'm wrong.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Those are the people who keep re-electing them.
I agree with this, esp wrt the Ben Franklin quote.
I wish there were a way to fix the system so that it did not depend on smart people heading important warnings, in other words so it could tolerate a flawed people failing to head warnings.
Oh. That's right. That's what we have. I guess it's possible to screw up anything if the people who are running things are allowed to completely ignore the constitution and do whatever they want.
Eliminating this one flaw won't necessarily make the problem go away. I don't have the answer on how to stop it.
In most elections, this means voting for so-called "conservatives", who are even worse.
Who is that? Almost all mainstream candidates accept the bipartisan consensus that gov't will stay large and intrusive.
Q.E.D. Don't continue making the same mistakes again and again.
BTW, I recognize the circular nature of my argument: "if enough people throw away their vote / donation dollars, then those people won't have thrown away their vote / donation dollars."
As I said, the other mainstream choice is so-called "conservatives" who are more socialistic. Boycotting them at this point is the answer, for me. Most of them, regardless of party, are good people who will respond to lobbying. It's an uphill battle, though, because there is much more incentive to lobby for a slice of the gov't pie than to lobby to reduce the size of the pie.
We made voting a right for everyone not a privilege for the shareholders (Land Owners).
We made presidents get elected by popular vote rather than governor appointees to the electoral college.
We made Senators get elected by vote rather than appointed by the legislature.
We went from the President Answering to the Electorial College and indirectly the governors and thereby representing there needs. The Senate be appointed by the state legislators and thereby being interested in preserving the powers of the state. The House of Representatives being the democratic limb of the government that represented the people.
If to get a law through you had to meet the demands of the people, the restrictions of state legislators and the governors most of what has destroyed america would never have happened.
We had it, but we changed it to a Representative democracy in whole and as a result the whims of the "Useful Idiots" now rule.
The people who head the DemRep party control who the candidates are for national office, and the congress-critters in that party have passed laws that prevent any third party (imo it's actually second party) success. Since the people can't select the candidates, and the 2 candidates that run are 2 peas in a politically modified pod, the people are not responsible for who wins. The only real choice is to reject the system completely, and so far the sheep are still willing to allow the wolves to control their lives.
Voting is not and never has been the answer. Perhaps if all ballots contained "none of the above, start over", along with an item to vote "Continue, or Dissolve" this (or any) government, real rational human beings might have a fighting chance. We know that could never happen, tho! Sob!
George Washington once said that, "Where public spirit prevails, liberty is secure. Sadly, we've long since thrown away that particular baby with the bath water.
Edit: SP
"The Great Experiment" aka "The American Dream" will crash and burn.
But maybe it has already.
Hence the title, "So Who Keeps Electing These People"
(I was itching to replace that last word with Retards. Then I decided not to insult retards).
Try [bas]tards. Fits.
All the more reason to oppose them, strongly and loudly.
Why are we humans so incapable of resisting the evil which we have been plunged into repeatedly over the last eighty centuries.?
- Ayn Rand
Thorner: Jeb Bush embraces New World Order; Common Core provides global education - Illinois Review http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illino...
(Thank you, again, for that one, UncommonSense.)
Brilliant: 6.5 Million Social Security Numbers Exist for People Over the Age of 112 ObjectiveAnalyst
I did not follow the audit link to validate this, but the headline is probably not far off the mark.
Cumulatively, along with the welfare programs, indoctrination through the education system, not just the public system, and other incremental brain washing schemes…
‘HOW’ these people keep getting elected is weighted against us.
With sites like Galt’s Gultch we hope to shift that weight.
1. Supreme Court: Not elected here in the Empire, which is no loss either way.
2. President: Bought by the special interests with the most money (Soros, Big Businesses (all allowed to pay for play by our appointed kommisars in the Supreme Court))
3. Congress: Repeat number 2, add in the huge amount of voter fraud (which can be added to number 2), rigged elections (remember the voting machine video that always came up Democrat, even when Republican selected?).
The most important part in the story:
"Just 1 in 10 independents expressed a lot of confidence in the presidency in 2014."
Those are the only people left who should be allowed to vote.
do multiple actions, "leak" inferred actions that you know you can`t do, just to inflame the average American - and remove attention from what you are doing.
Create an atmosphere of one crisis rapidly following the last to justify quick ( unread) fixes.
Introduce the narrative that the other side are extremists, then buttress with class warfare using the union organization, along with Sharpton & company to silence any opposition by squealing "racist!"
It works because the opposing party reveres their power over their character.
It works because a lot of folks get overwhelmed and just stay home. (2012)
Term limits solves the problem.
Until we demand our elected representatives write and pass solid legislation to limit their stay, it either will not change, or it will go real bad, real fast.
We have allowed the premise of who is in charge to be flipped, until we can flip it back, by simply refusing to let it slide, by not asking, but insisting term limit legislation be introduced, we`ll get nowhere.
A simple demand of " Follow the law" backed up with a list of lawless acts they have refused to be accountable for, along with a list of flat out lies from the admin. that can be handed out to media may get the ball rolling.
You must also target local media outlets, they are the the real problem - they live and die on advertising dollars, go after the advertisers.
It won`t happen quickly, but to avoid a very bad ending, it must happen.
the States. Look at slavery and segregation. I
think that the power to run his own life should be
explicitly reserved to the individual.(And NOT the
state government). As to who keeps electing these
people, it's pretty obvious that it is voters who
have no regard for individual rights, who are
basically no better than street thugs, who think
it is right to commit armed robbery on one's
neighbor so long as it is done by proxy and the
robbery is legalized. But John Galt in "At-
las Shrugged" said, "I saw that the enemy was
an inverted morality...." (that is, altruism).
I vote "No Confidence."
"So who keeps electing these people?" The truly greedy... those who covet the property of others and enjoy the government redistribution.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I quite agree on who has the power of force and that these things could not happen without it, but the question that was posed, was, who elects these people?... I also agree that what the government does is out and out theft.
Carpe diem,
O.A.
Carpe diem, as I understand it, is usually interpreted as "seize the day." I like your warning, but my intention is to inspire and fortify one to do what they can for the cause they believe in.
Regards,
O.A.
Of course... it is the politburo that choose the candidates from which we may choose. Some choice! :(
Much of the arguments around "errors" or "defects" in the founding documents revolves around the complaint that they were not clear enough. Another example is the removal of a sentence specifically laying out the Equal Footing Doctrine. That is where any new States admitted into the Union are on an Equal Footing with the original thirteen in all respects. They thought this was redundant and was already plenty evident in the structure and other clauses of the Constitution. Which it is. I think what they didn't expect was that there would be a general dumbing down process over the centuries. That would be probably be the most bewildering thing for them today.
I am really beginning to clearly see Leonard Peikoffs Ominous Parallels. The Demoblicans in Congress are on par with Hindenburg handing Hitler the Chancellorship. Next is a Reichstag Fire and then a Night of the Long Knives. And we'll have a bonafide dictator.
http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-the...
However, in general they capture the broad sentiment of what has happened overtime by deviating from the founding documents.
The one point that I find intriguing and worthy of further contemplation is that of having defined no means for a State to secede or a means by which the governed can replace the government when it has become destructive of those very purposes of good government. One could perhaps look at the intent of the Second Amendment, but like you say that was an add-on to the 1787 document by the States. I suspect the answer - and there will be those that don't like it - will be in the fact that they did not provide any means for the Congress or the States to control an Article V Convention once convened.
As to the other, I've written many articles which perhaps you'll appreciate my sentiment more once you get the picture. It's quite impossible to me to even imagine a libertarian/objectivist being rationally able to accept being Ruled!
If it comes to be, it will be most likely like all the other "tinkering" going on repeatedly, and worse because the collectivist-progressive herd has come to be in total control of this government of force. Worse, 98% in vote 2012 went for "more of the same.
Bottom line, we would still be "governed", but more-so.
Thus the last-gasp for mankind will be the inevitable global Great Collapse. This will put the Rulers out of business. No more fiat dollars, and nobody to pay out the dole.
Then we'll have some version of Galt's Gulch. What happens then will be up to the survivors, and that's a big sweat!
Your second point raises quite an interesting point of discussion. I am thoroughly familiar with the point of view of absolute freedom through anarchy (a poor choice of word application). Where is the balance point of accepting to live under a rational Rule of Law that is consistently applied (unlike today's chaos), and retaining the sovereign man principle and the right to pull out altogether? A tough one to evaluate, but worthy of attention. Probably worthy of a whole new post.
So our Rulers provide that we shall worship the "rule of law" (theirs!) and other gods, and rant about "patriotism", oh my! Yet these Rulers are the very same human beings as ourselves, but who are somehow allowed the powers of Force which are prohibited to the "subjects".
Yet truth and rationality are not required -- go figger!
has become a national pastime! -- j
firms, and ..... -- j
p.s. as a thousandaire, I can only vote.
I wrote this some time ago. I think its sorely needed more now than ever.
http://humanevents.com/2006/06/20/a-real...
blarman's list of "greed, lust for power, and elitism" are just the 'weaknesses' of the 'strengths' of "enlightened self interest, independence, and self esteem". These qualities, both the positive values and their corresponding negatives, have nothing to do with democracy or the US Constitution or any other form of government per se, but are attributes of the human condition. What is relevant is that the designers of the Constitution took these tendencies into account and tried to design a system that could control them.
We have Gamed the system.
Jan
Load more comments...