User Answers

2012 (S)ELECTION RETROSPECTIVE: THE NUMBERS THEY DON’T TALK ...

Rarely do I blog about my personal feelings, or reactions, on this site, but a number of circumstances prompt me to share them. Within days of the last (s)election, two friends, each from one of the two political parties, asked me how I voted. Now, for one thing, I've made my sentiments and opinions of these "two" corrupt party machines well known: NO CONFIDENCE. But rather than trying to explain that to my friends, and that it is really a POSITIVE exercise of the vote, I was treated to the same old saw: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

I had to remind my friends that the Bill of Rights recognizes that the rights of man are from God, they are not given by governments, nor can they be retracted by governments, nor can they be abrogated when individuals, such as myself, view the system as so corrupted that to participate in it is to contribute to the corruption.We had a "choice" between a candidate so weak anyone could have beat him, and a candidate too weak to beat anyone. This is what 150 years of Republithuggery and Dummycrookery have come to: an agreed upon detente of rot and corruption.

But in a way, I cannot blame my friends, for consider the extension of the American "standardized computerized tests," with their pre-selected answers, to the current ballot: we have pre-selected "answers," (candidates), from a narrow range of elite-approved answers (parties), and no option to explain our views in an essay in response to a question. We have been conditioned to such responses even by the polls. I remember, years ago, responding to a telephone political survey of the same nature: I was presented a preselected set of choices, none of which I could agree to.

This year, there are some interesting numbers, and these are the numbers they don't want to talk about:

2012 US Elections - The People Have Spoken: No Confidence

Now, I am far from assuming that the non-voting population - those eligible to vote, but who did not, for whatever reason - did not vote en masse out of the desire to send a no confidence vote to the likes of Lanny Davis, Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morrison. But I'll wager that some of them did, and that it was a significant number.Moreover, I'll bet that of those disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters who did not hold their nose and vote for Barmitt Obromneyack (of either brand name), or for the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, that a significant number stayed home. Others, like a friend of mine, decided upon his own version of the no confidence vote, by voting for candidates or issues that he could in good conscience, and leaving the presidential "choice" (Barmitt Obromneyack, just to remind you), blank(a fitting irony in that perhaps, since that is what they were and are: blanks).

Which raises the question: why don't the talking babbling buffoons on the left and the right in this country, who defend their respective brand names with a religious fervor (and corresponding blindness), or why don't the Frank Luntz focus groups, ever talk about, much less to, that group of people? Do they even know they exist?(probably not) And if they do know they exist, why do they never ask the disenfranchised Democrat (I know a few, my late parents among them), or Republican(I am one), why we will never darken your party doorsteps again? The answers you learn just may save your party bacon the next time around.  Continue to do as you have been doing, however, and the vote of no confidence will only continue to grow, for right now, as one talking head has already begun his  hyperbolic "countdown" of mutually recognized Great Americans to the next election (which will be, incidentally, just like the last one, the most important election in our lifetimes), others continue to point out the abysmal track records of these "two" political parties, and their long list of broken promises, and will continue to say "No Confidence!"  One day, hopefully, you'll hold another "two party election," and the turnout will be so small you'll both be exposed for the unprincipled frauds you really are. And take heart, you're already trending in that direction.

See you on the flip side

42 thoughts on “ 2012 (S)ELECTION RETROSPECTIVE: THE NUMBERS THEY DON’T TALK ...”

  1. Discussions that mix religion with politics are always interesting, and usually end up with lots of people upset.

    The bottom line on a document’s “legality” is in the authority granting that legality. Legality is the stamp of approval of a government – whether it be a tribal council or a republic. To dismiss the Declaration of Independence as being an “illegal” document and hence of no legal value is to ignore reality, and not understand the meaning of the word “legal.”

    It is the official document that our Founders used to fully state their intentions and the beliefs upon which their course of actions was based. It contains the founding principles of our country, formally stated. Of course the Crown did not consider it a “legal” document under Crown law – but our Founders were announcing the renunciation of that law as having power over the Colonies any longer.

    One can argue the nitpicky details of legal systems endlessly – that is one bad side effect of having lawyers – endless need for them to talk and write.

    One cannot ignore the fact that the Declaration began a process that has brought us to the point we are at today, and in that respect, it matters not what label one puts on it. Its power in history is real and tangible.

    The Bible is also not a “legal” document. However that has not stopped it from having a massive influence on history, for good or bad.

    To equate freedom of religion with the freedom to believe in only certain kinds of religion, i.e. ones that use the word “god,” is incorrect. I have argued with atheists about the fact that atheism is a “religion” in that it is a statement of a religious belief – the belief that the creative power in the Universe is Random Chance.

    The idea that the Universe was created by Random Chance is a “religious” belief in that it is a belief in Random Chance as a Higher Power or organizing principle. If atheists truly believed in no organizing principles, then they could not believe in science, which seeks to discover such principles.

    The idea that a Universe could just suddenly pop into existence without any organizing principles is magical thinking – which would make it primitive superstition.

    Taoists (like myself) do not hold to an embodiment of the organizing principle of the Universe as a living being – i.e. a “god.” We hold that the organizing principle is so far beyond human comprehension as to preclude even trying to talk about it except in very obscure terms, so as to avoid objectifying it and develop incorrect ideas about it.

    To say that because one does not accept a being named “God” means one does not have the right to live in the U.S. shows a lack of understanding of the word “religion.” And, given the extent to which the Founders were very well aware of “occult” influences such as Freemasonry, one would have to conclude they were including such practices as those schools as well.

    I agree that the national vote is a dog and pony show, and has been for some time. However, local and state elections (at least where I live – we still have paper ballots), offer more possibility for real input, although that is waning.

    I used to boycott voting and got the same “don’t vote, don’t complain” BS, but I pointed out that I still pay taxes, and THAT is what gives me the right to complain. Remember, the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, regardless of their voting (or tax paying) status.

    I have been using my Presidential vote as a protest, voting for Cynthia McKinney, one of the few Congresspeople who stands up to the “machine.” I don’t expect her to win, but I have made my feelings known. I have even gotten static for voting like that, since I am “throwing away” my vote on a candidate who can’t win.

    I suggest that instead of not voting, people write in “No Confidence” for any candidacy they find it appropriate. If we don’t have a “No Confidence” clause built into our system, it is up to us to create it.

    Ultimately, all governments derive their power from the people they rule. That is why change must be cultural not political. That is also why the elites put so much time and money into psyops to control the culture. They understand that politics follows culture, it does not lead it.

    1. just so you know ….ra legions as in men of RA knowing were scientist who understood the light, sound, magnetism, energy in all forms, like the bible says, men of re known…politicians…well lets figure that one out … they fit the satanic definition of being murderers, liars and thiefs from a purely observational viewpoint….no special voodoo god required, just satanists enjoying worldly pleasures.

      The people that rule us…abuse us beyond any moral code.

    2. Jon–

      Bull. The US Constitution is the basis of the law in the US period, no one said any thing about the the Declaration of Independence being illegal; it’s simply not the basis of the law, there’s a huge difference.

      Also no one here claimed that the universe was created randomly. Creation may very well follow laws that seem random to those who don’t know them (something lost on defenders of Darwin–not defenders of evolution–and also lost on quantum physics types), that does not imply the existence of a Creator.

    3. Cynthia McKinny, one of the extremly few who:
      talk the talk, …AND walk the walk.

      The Declaration of Independendence is The Document.

      The U.S. Constitution was corrupted; in that its end “product”, was tailored to an elistist “fit”.

  2. Tor says:

    “What’s more, I would argue that even though the constitution does not mention “God”, an atheist has absolutely no right to live in the U.S. The constitution grants the right of the freedom to choose one’s own religion. Not the freedom to deny the existence of God. To deny the existence of God is to deny the very foundation that grants one his freedom in the first place.”

    That is very dangerous thinking Tor. For an atheist to have the right to live in the US they must therefore choose a religion to follow? Is that freedom of choice? Is that freedom at all?

    1. In my opinion there is nothing more dangerous than a nation that believes that it is God’s chosen. That it lives by God’s laws. That it enforces God’s will. And that those who choose not to believe in God have no right to exist within its borders.
      Is that the thinking of a “free republic” or a “fundamentalist theocracy”?

    2. ok lets observe…….humans of a mere speck in time discount a creator ….and concern themselves with laws that have enslaved them through deception, cause them to kill one another, and steal from one another.

      ….taking on infinity and immorality from a mortal perspective …wow..

  3. The absence of law is the rule of the bully King. The rule of thuggery, and bully force. Why does the king have the right to rule you? Because he says so, and because he will smash your face in, if you disagree with him. The mobster? Same thing. The mobsters took over Chicago. They broke the law. They murdered people. They took over the Federal Government too. Now they murder people. That’s what mobsters, criminals, and bully thugs do. I’ll stick with the Constitution. It’s the law. I’ll stick with the legal Declaration of Independence. It’s the founding law. The King broke the law. The mobster broke the law. You’re in trouble mobster! You’re in trouble you would be King! Your treason is on record, and my freedom was given to me by God!

    1. The problem is that after claiming the argument is over below, above you continue the argument above.

      You’ve advocated for a bully King capacity built upon the idea of you throwing up your own flag on a plot and declaring yourself the law.

      Much of the same point can be made for those who claim to read god into the laws of the USA.

  4. You must be a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. to run for President:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. U.S. Const, Article 2, Clause 5

    Who is a Natural born citizen:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const, Amendment 14.

    Congress has the power to create laws regarding “Natural Born Citizens”:

    “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States” U.S. Const Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    The U.S. Code defines a natural born citizen, see 8 USC 1401

  5. After reading thru the posts here, I agree with Dr. Farrell.

    The question I pose to anyone posting here is this: “Does anyone here disagree with this notion, “Something Big Is Coming?”

    1. Yaj says: November 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm
      No, you’ve made a very large mistake, repeatedly made by those in the “christian” right–claiming that god is in the US constitution.

      Correct!!!

      The Declaration of Independence, which uses “creator” is not a legal document. The US Constitution does not have any reference to god, and the US Constitution is a legal document–

      The question I pose to anyone posting here is this: “Does anyone here disagree with this notion, “Something Big Is Coming?”

    2. Something big was coming with the emergence of the industrial revolution and applied ideas of the Enlightenment–this would be about 1928CE.

      Starting in the 1860s the US Army pushed for the exacting standardization of parts (something that had been neglected until then) a project that lasted for decades and without which things like computer chip manufacturing would never have come to pass: This is was even bigger thing than the industrial revolution. However the fruition of the big thing was still far in the future.

      In the late 1800s: the existence of the ether was starting to be well demonstrated, and this had clear implications for industry and the emerging science of electricity and magnetism and cell biology. That big thing was shut down and/or had its further development hidden (outside of very advanced math which is another term for hidden.). Perhaps now that big thing will finally be released publicly instead of hidden in the dust of the World Trade Towers or entangled in a month too late minor East Coast hurricane’s massive storm surge and metal tower crane twisting winds.

      So something big is often coming, but when is unclear and sometimes man’s pathology makes a very real effort to divert attention from it. And as is the case with parts standardization a massive government project was needed.

      1. Corrected date in first paragraph above: “Something big was coming with the emergence of the industrial revolution and applied ideas of the Enlightenment–this would be about 1820CE.”

  6. my entire family/freinds in the US as well as all my American friends here in Germany still believe the electoral process in the US is completely honest and that a manipulation of the casted votes in the US would not be possible- I’m ready to tear my hair out-

    “it’s not who votes that counts but who counts the votes”- attributed to Stalin

    If one has not yet heard Bill Hicks’ take on POTUS elections it’s definitely worth the 1 minute of time- I think Hicks and Carlin will go down in history as sages-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ

    peace to all-

    Larry

  7. Here in Australia voting is compulsary, however you can obviously vote “informal”, in other words don’t tick any of the boxes.

    What surprised me was the TV coverage of the dog and pony show here in Oz, it has never had this amount of exposure.

    Gobombanation has been re-elected and thats that, so the next four years will be interesting.

    Further more as Dr Farrell has stated, change has to be “cultural” not political.

    1. I stand semi-corrected, you are correct of course… however, I believe some would argue that the Bill of Rights is simply a recognition of that statement from the Declaration, a part of that tradition, and this was what I was thinking when I wrote. Given my time pressures and daily blogs and writing, I don’t always express things properly, so thank you Yaj.

      1. No, you’ve made a very large mistake, repeatedly made by those in the “christian” right–claiming that god is in the US constitution.

        The Declaration of Independence, which uses “creator” is not a legal document.

        The US Constitution does not have any reference to god, and the US Constitution is a legal document–the Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution.

        1. The Constitution is not all it’s cracked up to be.
          For all goverenments are governments of men, who write and interpret the laws, and more or less adhere to some, and often violate others, trim and shade still others; as the self-serving circumstances of the moment seem to dictate, and often boldly lie about, more or less subtly, misrepresenting what they are doing.
          The bottom line of the government of the United States of America, in the 21st Century, is that a better system of government, adapted to the purpose of lobyist, could not be devised.

          1. The govt, they lie, they steal and they murder in a conspiracy.

            Moses and Arron, whose father slew a man once, 2 brothers divided, fill a dolphin with freedom, strap a bomb to his back and watch flipper go in a cracked bell of liberty that doesnt ring in truth.

      2. Interesting argument. “The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document” If the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, then neither is the Constitution. Neither is any U.S. or State law. I would argue that it most certainly must be a legal document, and not only is it a legal document, but it is the actual basis of all legal documents in American law. It was adopted by the Second Continental Congress, as the founding legal act. It established the United States as an independent sovereign nation, and the Declaration is also placed at the beginning of the U.S. Code, entitled “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” On the other hand, Lincoln argued against secession. Well, if it is illegal for the Southern States to secede, then it’s illegal for the U.S. to secede from England. The British however, deposed King James II in their own “Revolution of 1688.” This precedent however, is not the basis for the Declaration of Independence, but it certainly adds weight to the legality of the Declaration, and secession being a legitimate legal precedent. However, the argument in the Declaration for secession is an argument of “Natural Law.”

        “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

        So in other words, the Declaration of Independence is claiming to be the founding legal document, not because it is based on the legal principle of “Stare Decisis,” but its legality comes from a higher source, Namely “God” or “Natural Law”. All subsequent law is only legal, because it is based on the founding document’s “Declaration of Independence” being a legal declaration, expressing natural law, and such law trumps the legal principle of “Stare Decisis.” Even if it didn’t, so what? If our secession is illegal, then so is the secession of the British in 1688. Bottom line though, is that if the “Declaration of Independence” is not a legal document, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights itself, is simply a treasonous document, and the British have every right to take back their country. On the other hand, it certainly is an interesting subject to ponder in light of the secessionist movement. Also, the legality of “Sovereign Citizens.” It would seem to me, that not only do states have every right to secede, and if they don’t, then neither did the U.S., but I have every right to buy a plot of land and put up my own flag, declare my independence, and put up a sign that says, “any incursion onto my property will be considered an act of war.”

        The Declaration IS a legal document, and its legality derives from the law of God manifesting in the form of “Self Evident Truth.” I would argue that Dr. Farrell is exactly right, and has absolutely no need whatsoever to revise his statement. What’s more, I would argue that even though the constitution does not mention “God”, an atheist has absolutely no right to live in the U.S. The constitution grants the right of the freedom to choose one’s own religion. Not the freedom to deny the existence of God. To deny the existence of God is to deny the very foundation that grants one his freedom in the first place. Why revise your statement Dr. Farrell? You were absolutely correct!

        1. Well that’s why I said I stand :”semi-corrected” because there are lengthy legal arguments, but I was taking Yaj’s comments in the strictest sense and he’s right in that sense. But I was thinking, like you, in the wider context.

          1. Neither of you would get very far citing the Declaration of Independence in court.

            It is not basis of US law, while the US Constitution is–this is well established.

            No constitutional convention passed this declaration as law or even principle. This is one of the reasons you are not legally allowed to pursue happiness to the detriment of everyone else (ibankers excepted).

            All sorts of abuses have been argued for under the BS term “natural law” (a term not in the Declaration of Independence), eg slavery, or “Of course I can rape my wife whenever I want, that’s what a wife is for,” and “It’s my right as man to beat any member of my family to death or near death.” (Yes, many US states had laws allowing those last two on the books into the 1970s, and there are other examples.)

            So stop trying to foist deity and “natural law” into a system where it isn’t, those who do so and then spend efforts blogging about failures of the American educational system needs look in the mirror.

          2. Tor:

            Quoting you: “The constitution grants the right of the freedom to choose one’s own religion. Not the freedom to deny the existence of God.”

            This is a grossly insulting and grossly wrong. You, I, or anyone is very much allowed to say that god does not exist. It’s called freedom of speech and it’s part of the Bill of Rights, a separate part from the freedom of religion. And no god does not exist, and most who claim that god does have a need for this overarching power, which they’d like to have for their own, or have confused historical accounts of beings more powerful than today’s man with a perfected and good god contained in one being.

            Sorry the Revolutionary war was on by the time the Declaration of Independence got thrown together by TJ. Winning that war is the legal basis for succeeding from the British Empire.

            Nope you can’t through up a flag and succeed on your plot of land. You have to stop imaging that the US Constitution allows freedom of action; it doesn’t. Same basic problem for states and succession. Look up article 3 of the constitution.

          3. The mistake people are making when they say that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, is they do not understand the difference between citing a source that is “persuasive” and citing a source that is, “binding.” An instrument is binding, when it contains the force of law. If I cite case law to a Judge, I’m telling the judge that this citation is binding law and he must obey it. I can cite persuasive sources too. For example, I can cite a legal dictionary. It’s not binding law, but legal definitions are cited all the time, and rarely are they ignored by the judge. The Declaration of Independence is not considered to be binding law. Elements of the Constitution are not binding law either. For example, the preamble of the Constitution is not binding. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). Also untrue, are the many claims that people make, that U.S. law begins with the Constitution, and not the Declaration of Independence. The Common Law is binding if it has not been overturned by a court. The preamble of the Constitution is not binding, because it was not intended to establish any type of governing law. Neither was the Declaration of Independence. Currently, I could not take up arms against the government, and when I get arrested, go to court and cite the Declaration of Independence, telling a judge, “you sir, are bound by law to set me free, because you must follow the Declaration of Independence. However, I most certainly could cite it as persuasive. I could also argue, that although the Declaration, is currently not considered binding, I disagree. These arguments are important, and nobody should stop arguing anything that they feel strongly about. It’s a great aspect of our system of government, that people should have the right to say, “This is wrong”, and not be dismissed or blown off, because it offends someone else’s beliefs.

          4. Yaj, I understand your arguments. I don’t agree, and you can feel free to be as grossly insulted as you want. Arguing on a blog is okay, when people have extra free time. Also, evidence that people have some serious disagreements about how we should do things here in the U.S. Looks to me like this ride will go where it goes. For me this matter is closed.

  8. Don’t blame me, I voted for Putin.

    It looks like the Obamma gambit is in play– The Fox news zombies are buzzing about the Obamma government’s ammo purchases and believe he and has black hoards are coming to kill them all. Here’s an email forward I received the other day:

    “I am pretty sure you are aware of the huge hollow point ammo buy by several government agencies just a little while ago. These are agencies of which we don’t even associate the need to carry arms. It’s more than enough ammo to kill more than every man, woman, and child in America. I started thinking of what Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground were discussing many years ago about the coming need to kill 25 million American citizens. That led me to think a bit more of Barack Obama’s past relationship with Bill Ayers and other radicals and I didn’t like what I came up with.”

    This red state crowd, the conservative white middle and working class, is now being urged to seriously consider secession even by some FOX news pundits, so I hear.

    On the other side of the coin, the Obamma reactionary guard is clammering about the secessionists and their need to be put in FEMA camps. No trouble getting this rabble to turn to violence as they will do so at something so trivial as the loss of their favorite sport team. Equally of no trouble is getting the self-righteous authoritarian loving liberal elites of this crowd to condone this violent crackdown and round up as well. And with the secessionist petitions we even have names to be handed out to Obamma’s reactionary guard, or so the “secessionist conservatives” will later be lead to believe.

    In summation, the banksters have opted for the race war means to social upheaval and based on Obamma’s election victory and signals such as the recently released Lincoln movie, they will use the Obamma gambit– removing him from office to trigger the civil war. I don’t believe it will be a Lincoln style removal but I wouldn’t rule it out. My guess is he will be removed on the birth certificate issue. This will precipitate a Constitutional amendment which will alter the need for a President to be native born and ultimately pave the way for President Netanyahu, or President Zarksoy or President Anti-Christ.

    Behind the scenes, the nefarious machinations of the zionist neo-cons will be rumored about just like their alleged culpability in 9-11. Both sides of the civil war will whisper this among themselves and on the internet. “The neo-cons triggered the civil war to get Obamma out of office so the next President could start the attack on Iran.” This rumor will build to a crescendo and eventually unite the warring factions as a new culprit for the world’s woes will be rolled out for public consumption– the international jew.

    And the bankster’s will laugh all the way to the bank. War and social upheaval are the Bankster’ s harvest.

      1. Yaj,

        Glad you could finally get your face out of Cass Sunstein’s lap and come join us. So you mean to tell me the President does not need to born in the United States or is this some talmudic hair splitting of the word “native?”

        1. F in C:

          Neither George Romney nor John McCain were born in the USA.

          In other words, no there is no requirement that the US president be born within the USA.

          The term is not “native born”.

          If someone’s parent–note singular–is a citizen of the US, then that someone can be president if he or she is over 35.

    1. Years ago, around the late 1980’s, a hollywood screenwriter, of some repute, & I had an agruement: I said the globe was going to be split into 3 economic blocks. He said there was going to be a race war. I laughed.
      But, as time goes on, “they” may be orchestrating just that, and I’am not even chuckling now.

      As far as “they” go, I wouldn’t put anything past them. In their neighborhoods’, the only thing “safe” will be a bullett…

    2. “… alter the need for a President to be native born and ultimately pave the way for President Netanyahu, or President Zarksoy or President Anti-Christ.”

      or President Schwarzenegger 😉

  9. Best thing that could happen to the Republicans is that they go the way of the dinosaur. They could end this pretense that they love the almighty and give a rat’s rear end about aborted babies. All the evidence suggests to me that they care about Christian Zionism, and bowing down to Yahweh’s chosen . seems to be where the smart money is. Their pretense of caring about aborted babies is negated by the fact that they hate people. Especially poor people! Why not merge with the Democrats, and the Democrats could quit pretending too? They could quit their theatrics, and just come out of the closet and let the bombs fall where they may. They would make it clear to the world that the bombs would fall on the enemies of Israel, and there is absolutely nothing in their intensions even remotely resembling being in the best interests of the U.S., much less anyone else in the world.

    1. I should edit the above, and replace “poor people” with “working poor people.” Those who have for years, rolled out of bed at 4:30 am, and built and created everything with the toil and sweat of their own hands, only to be given the thanks of having everything they own stolen from them. To Mr. Romney, I’m one of those who thinks he is “entitled to a handout” because when I get old and can no longer work, I would like my Social Security, THAT I PAID FOR! On the other hand, the Republicrats seem to love illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and street gangs, and feel that they should be armed to the teeth.

  10. ” their long list of broken promises”

    I have always been amazed at how this is allowed by everyone (by EITHER party) who “votes.”

    We need a law that says that ANY politician, once elected, must voluntarily remove him or herself from office AS SOON AS IT IS REALIZED THAT ANY CAMPAIGN PROMISE (NO MATTER HOW SMALL!!!) IS GOING TO BE BROKEN.

    If someone ELSE points out that a campaign promise has ACTUALLY, ALREADY BEEN BROKEN, AND THE POLITICIAN HAS NOT ALREADY LEFT OFFICE, then the penalty needs to be: DEATH (withOUT trial, by the way). No way to talk your way out of it.

    This is the ONLY way that our politicians will ever be held accountable. Nothing less severe would ever suffice.

    Without that single rule, it is a PHYSICAL FACT that our entire political process (“democracy”) is a joke.

  11. I find people get it exactly backwards when they say “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.” If you vote, and help one of these corrupt bastards into office and he naturally messes everything up, you have no right to complain since you are responsible for the mess. If you don’t vote and don’t help put one of these politicians in office, you have every right to complain about the mess others created.
    I have never voted and in all likelihood never will, since to me it is so obvious that there is no point to it at all. Never have I noticed any meaningful change going on after a new guy/party gets into power. Policies stay the same. Ofcourse they do, as if the course of a nation is not decided by historical momentum and unfathomably complex dynamics going on inside a society.
    Nobody could ever change anything whatsoever and the state of society is exactly what it should be, given the state of the people in it.

Comments are closed.