The main point being missed in the senate filibuster discussion is the distinction between refusing to yield the floor and a majority vote.
Majority vote is being morphed into the word “Filibuster”. The motive is to undermine majority rule disguised as a conversation about the merits of ‘unlimited speech’, aka: the filibuster.
The rationale to preserve the filibuster is characterized as protecting those defeated in the vote, some say. So those with less votes win. Let that sink in. We have a winner take all system where we let the losers of the vote prevail. Then we wonder why we can’t get things done.
On one hand, the narrative implies that we need a 60 vote majority to avoid an unending debate. “Oh no, we better concede” senators say, and legislation is defeated.
On the other hand, they are protecting that same extended speech, they say, pretending that means we must sacrifice majority rule.
The current filibuster is a double shot of deception. The truth is debates always end and the majority vote prevails, by law, is the intention.
Very few pundits seem to clarify the difference and use the word filibuster to describe a procedure that is incompatible with majority vote, when it’s not. Losing one means losing the other, is implied, which is not true. The filibuster is compatible with the majority vote.
The filibuster is a sequence of “what-ifs?” that if actually occurred, still wouldn’t prevent a majority vote. That’s why it never gets explained properly by the pros because what is implied cannot even happen. The filibuster, if actually executed, would not prevent a majority vote.
Rule 22 allows a “cloture” vote to end debate, with 60 votes. You can’t get to a cloture vote to end debate unless you first have that debate, and you never do. Because if you did, the filibusters would eventually end and the senators would proceed to a vote where the majority would prevail, as the rules intend.
Majority vote would prevail, filibustered or not, if the senate debates. If the senate doesn’t debate, there’s no path to cloture, so there’s no 60 vote threshold to consider as a parliamentary maneuver. It takes sixty votes to close debate, so have the debate, or you lose.
Them’s the rules.
The filibuster is being misused to require that 60% of members agree to begin debate. It’s a senate rule that violates the majority rule intention of the constitution.
The super-minority in the senate led by the minority turtle are threatening a scorched-earth strategy to obstruct the majority. If the majority removes the filibuster the minority turtle is gonna pull out some rules, he says, like you have never seen.
He’s going to further utilize the power of the rules to obstruct democracy. He knows some rules that you can’t even imagine. The implied ‘scorched-earth’ threat though, is real. The minority will claim veto authority, unless..
VP Harris should take the chair and dictate her interpretation of the rules to the senators. Her legal advisors say that she’s in charge. They believe she has the authority to control the chamber, as the presiding officer, and execute the rules to a more favorable interpretation, if necessary, to get things done.
New Rule – Interpret the rules correctly.
Legislation passes by majority vote and it takes 3/5th’s to obstruct proceeding to anything. That’s how it’s done. That’s what it says in the rules and the rules should be declared as enacted and enforced as necessary, from now on.
Joe should order up some extra presidential signing pens.
Resistance to the ‘For the People’ agenda should be reason enough for expulsion from the senate. Kamala should be securing the votes and applying pressure as necessary for a majority vote
A new voting rights act is so important right now, for the public. Failure could be horrifying. Failure would be unforgivable, imo, but almost predictable. I’ve been doing that here for a long time.
My fear is that success for voting rights will disguise the fine print failure. Like for profit health insurance, it’s not a good idea but we do it.
If history is any guide, and it is, democracy is one of those things you don’t get back after you lose it. It’s like big money buying the only left-wing talk-radio station in town, you know it ain’t coming back.
The filibuster has been a scam perpetrated against the public for decades. It’s time to declare it for what it is. It’s a political crime.
I just a did a review of the Wikipedia page. This is how they explain majority vote being changed from 50% to 60%. This is what it says;
“The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item.”
As if that is an adequate explanation?
How does threatening a filibuster change the majority from 51 to 60 votes? It doesn’t. And notice how that sentence ends, confusing the cloture vote with the vote to pass legislation. The words end debate should not be in that sentence because a filibuster threat prevents the debate from ever starting.
Sixty votes to end a debate makes sense, otherwise a simple majority could prevent the debate. The senate, by current interpretation of the rules, allows any senator to prevent the debate by objecting to it.
Requiring sixty votes to pass legislation is a violation of the constitution, and the senate rules. The misinterpretation that makes it possible is implausible, and antidemocratic.
The filibuster theory is a scam. It is based on the fraudulent belief that a senate debate can theoretically have no end without even beginning.
The logic is unsustainable. It’s like saying, “You have to pay me time and a half or I’m gonna work overtime.” Makes sense, right?
It’s an empty threat that dictates our democratic failure. Our leaders bow down on bended knee and concede to the empty threat of a filibuster.
To summarize the big lie, our government is intentionally dysfunctional for the public because it is controlled by special interests.
From the right-wing to the left, the professionals rationalize for you that the lack of their legislative success is by rule and government design, not them. It’s not their fault. It’s not their special interests, or their employers, or their investments that are to blame for your stuggle. They say this is how the framers designed our system, for our own good.
Wrong! The design was for majority rule.
Turns out our democratic failure is a bipartisan conspiracy by special interests to prevent democratic reforms from being passed, for the public. The public loses even when the democrats win.
Fail by Misinterpretation
The filibuster equals minority rule. That’s what it is. It allows the few to overrule the many. The constitution mandates majority rule so the filibuster, as practiced, is unconstitutional.
That’s the big lie, or at least one of them. The government is an antidemocratic conspiracy preventing political solutions for the public by misinterpreting the law for special interests.
Those who say Trump won the election don’t care about democracy or the minimum wage, or the truth. They are a cult of self-serving bias. As far as I can tell their motive is supremacy with the freedom to exploit others. Of course they will claim victory and call fraud. Their blatant disregard for reality is a military tactic, imo, they are using against you, to disorient you from the truth, in their assault on our democracy.
What’s being called the big lie is itself a lie. They always lie so their claims of election fraud are just more lies on a long list of lies, that we all knew were lies and have since been proven to be lies.
Democracy and lying are ethically incompatible. So is voter suppression. The political opposition is openly legislating voter suppression and lying about their motives.
We need a secure citizens network to measure public consensus to tanscend this nonsense. Instead, the government has delegated censorship to the social media companies, who can now decide what is true, for the government, as well as filter what is false, from us.
Claims of election fraud are a perfect invitation to upgrade our democracy, technologically, for credibility and verifiability, as is necessary. But we won’t. The invitation will remain unopened while the democrats work overtime thanking each other for their efforts.
The video starts out with Maddow contradicting the constitution, followed by Joe Biden explaining the purpose of the Vice President is to serve the President. Which is also wrong. That might be how they do it in party town but the constitution says the Vice President is the president of the senate, which means the vp is the presiding officer of the senate, which means the vp controls the senate and the parliamentarian procedures, including debate, as well as the tie-breaking authority.
The intention of the constitution is to check the power of the president with separate and distinct interests as reflected by the distinct ballots cast by the state electors, for the vice-president, as is mandated in the constitution. I’ve noticed we don’t do that.
It’s the partisan party paradigm that forces Joe to preach his submissive assistant theory. He argues that his logic is opposed to the unitary executive theory, while it actually supports exactly that, by relegating the vp to the executive, exclusively.
Intentionally or not, the law is misinterpreted to prevent popular legislation from being passed that would benefit the public. Everybody’s in on it, whether they know it or not, and whether they admit it or not, the results have been the same for decades. It’s what we do.
The Public Loses
The republicans represent business. They rarely and barely pretend to represent the public. The democrats do, that’s the problem. They pretend that they represent the public, but they don’t.
The election fraud conspiracy theory that triggered the insurrection is being referred to by democrats as the big lie. Which it is, but there’s a lot of lying going on now days. What’s true?
Our democracy is dysfunctional in many ways, but to believe that there was an organized conspiracy amongst the hyper-partisan states to miscount the votes for Joe, is a conspiracy too far. That’s Q-crazy. If that big lie was true, something or someone credible would come forward with evidence to expose it and prove an assertion of some kind that they could call true. But they don’t which is proof enough to say shut up and sit down. Call out their scam for what it is.
The Big Lie
The big lie though is not the vote count, as antiquated as it obviously is. The big lie reference is more appropriately prescribed, imo, to the actual representation the democrats arguably provide to the public when they do get elected.
That’s the big lie. It’s a constrained and betrayed constituency. So, even though the vote count was valid, the representation is not. The results don’t reflect the expectations of public. That’s because we don’t elect public servants we elect corporate shills. Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but the political results are in. The democrats serve large corporations first, not the public.
Do the math on the coming stimulus. Taxpayers will get back only a small fraction of the money that has been extracted from them through public debt schemes and inflation scams. The public will borrow the money from the future to spend it on corporate products now, which will fuel investors and speculative bubbles, that will require taxpayer bailouts and more public debt.
Reconciling the extraction scam is done by increasing inequality and decreasing public revenue, which inevitably forces the public to borrow more money from the future, again.
Rinse and repeat.
Just a few months ago candidate Biden was insisting Court Packing was a question of distraction, preferring to focus on the negatives of his opponent rather than consider longshot solutions for the public. Now that the democrats control the entire government and political solutions for the public are actually possible, that question, like many others will be forgotten, by the democrats, or quickly defeated, as usual.
HR What?
Democratic failure is intentional. An example is the senate parliamentarian chosen to decide if the minimum wage can be included within a reconciliation bill. It’s a perfect example of the democrats intentionally sabotaging their own campaign promises in service to the establishment, the republicans, and themselves.
False promises are election fraud.
The decision to include a minimum wage hike in the Save our Ass Relief bill being delegated to a parliamentarian is a strategy to keep the stain of democratic betrayal off of the VP’s shiny new shoes.
Cue up the scapegoat.
As if the scapegoat is in charge. The VP should dictate to the senate democrats and threaten their dissent with political retaliation, like republicans do. But, no. They know their failure will be forgiven because their constituents have no where to go.
The result of the senate filibuster rule is another good example of legislative self-sabotage by democrats. The sixty vote threshold is a violation of the constitutionally-mandated majority vote. The deviation from that legal intention allows a minority to prevail against the majority, as a rule. It’s an absurdity being reported as normal, when it’s not.
The constitution declares the president of the senate to be the tie-breaking vote. Any senate rule that deprives the vice president of that tie-breaking authority is a violation of the constitution. The intent is self-evident, even if the language isn’t explicit. The intention is.
The entire fiasco of the parliamentarian deciding anything is predicated on the senate rules that have deviated from majority vote, and from constitutional compliance.
The filibuster and the reconciliation process are both byproducts of allowing a senate rule that is unconstitutional.
If the senate respected the majority vote intent, the mutated filibuster theory and the need for a reconciliation process following the “Byrd Rules” would no longer even be relevant.
All of this procedural nonsense is based on ignoring the constitutional intention that law is made by majority vote. Imagine if the government started requiring more than majority votes to defeat incumbents in elections. It would be the same principle except with candidates instead of law. It’s outrageous, either way.
Violation of intention.
Why would you require more than a majority vote to pass a law? I’ll tell you why. It’s because those that write the law like things just the way they are, or serve people that do, so they “misinterpret” the law. And that is an antidemocratic conspiracy, whatever the motive.
The constitution supersedes codes and rules.
Again, there can only be a tie in the senate if the votes are 50 to 50. Every state has two senators so a tie is always possible. The idea the senate can set the count differently for certain votes, by rule, is a conspiracy of misinterpretation that violates the constitution and enables the twisted filibuster argument. In reality, the filibuster, as practiced, is an unconstitutional theory that changes the majority of 100 senators from 51 to 60, which aside from being indefensible, it removes the vice-presidents constitutional powers of tie-breaking.
Which is unconstitutional.
If they wanted, the senate could restore their rules to constitutional compliance by changing them back to the way they were, by removing the revisions to their previous rules, such as, restoring the move to previous question rule, which would allow senators to end debate with a simple majority, all valid filibusters aside. It’s the right thing to do. The democrats are a few votes shy of doing the right thing, as usual, so the faulty theory will likely be sustained.
The senators can’t declare their rules to supersede the constitution, or pretend they don’t when they do. Yet, that’s what they’re doing. They intentionally misinterpret their rules as compliant, when they’re not. Which is the same as violating them, for all practical purposes. The rule changes are unconstitutional and the reporters should be embarrassed to report otherwise. This intentionally dysfunctional and unconstitutional process should be ended.
And another thought about the minimum wage. Money is representation. Voting against the minimum wage is a vote against representation. It’s a vote for increasing inequality. The minimum wage is another inadequate bandaid law that distracts from the fundamental democratic reforms that are necessary to remedy the root problems preventing a civilized economy and society, for everybody.
The government needs to step in and provide jobs to anybody who wants one and establish a minimum baseline of compensation and security for everybody, or the public will pay an eternal price for the dysfunctional byproducts of the conflict-based economy.
Economic security needs to be a human right.
The Health based-economy as could be legislated by a representative government would change our society for the better for everybody. It is what the public needs now and into the future to prevent the conflict and social chaos from getting worse.
I hope to get much deeper into all that, time allowing. To visualize the destination for alternative comparisons.
And a quick heads up to Lawrence for the narration and the expertise. Some topics can be difficult, like the filibuster. Even though I assume we disagree on some interpretations, his expertise has been appreciated, by me, for many years.
They would say they don’t have the votes, but the democrats can fail because the public doesn’t have an adequate seat at the table to complain, except for the next election when they get to choose another big money campaign slogan.
So it turns out YouTube has censored my video. They will not allow false claims of election fraud, they say, even though that’s not what this is. Censoring political speech is a violation of free speech. That’s what they’re doing. Their actions demonstrate the fallacy of our current ‘system’ that allows for private companies to dictate what is acceptable and permittable political speech.
I’ve been forced to find an alternative hosting site for the Trump Insurrection video. The deep state wants to consolidate unconventional thought to a honeypot website, I guess. Whatever. Their ability to censor political opinions is due to the government neglecting to provide an equivalent service to citizens for political debate and consensus.
Youtube is a byproduct of our anti-government government.
Even though Youtube accused me of promoting the big lie and removed my video, I am innocent of the charge, as anybody who watches the video would understand. The video criticizes the big lie. It doesn’t promote it. The truth filters just aren’t sophisticated enough to tell the difference, because they’re robots, or political hacks, just doing their jobs. Either way, at least I can still post video. I look forward to critiquing the behemoths in an upcoming post. They are key characters in the ongoing narrative of our descent into the national demise.
The Trump Insurrection
The verdict in the senate trial against the ex-president for inciting the violence at the capital has just been rendered.
And the verdict is, Not Guilty.
Our overly-rogue and obviously guilty ex-president who co-conspired the premeditated assault on our capital has walked away from any legal accountability, thanks to partisan loyalty and antiquated law.
What a system. Best there is, they say.
There’s no political censure for inciting your supporters into a lawless rampage against the government now, apparently. As long as it’s cool with the republican senators. You can find most of them hiding behind a straw-man argument based on a misinterpreted law.
The minority turtle admitted the ex-president was guilty but still voted to acquit. His duplicity shows just how militant the partisan allegiance has become. Only victory matters now, to them.
Party over truth. Party over justice.
With this vote, the republicans have politically detached themselves from reality, and from any concern for the truth, ideology, or purpose, other than victory. Their only obstacle to victory is democracy.
This insurrection will predictably provoke more violence.
Most of us have an instinctive desire for justice, which can be exploited strategically for profits. The mercenaries who attacked our capital want violence. They expect retaliation and they will succeed. We will retaliate with publicly funded violence to profit investors, instead of having the hearings necessary to combat the antidemocratic movement.
The insurrection on the capital will be the plot point where the violence begins to turn inward toward the public, to profit the establishment. The domestic conflict will be normalized moving forward, as a necessary evil, and it will grow in service to itself, as all institutions do.
In the video you’ll see the FBI guy calling out the different groups as if being in a group is a crime. Wrong! The crime is what defines the crime, not the group. That’s how he can lump the thought crimes in with the violent acts of extremism and pretend they’re the same. The lack of electoral faith is not a crime, yet. Some act like it is.
McCabe should be explaining the failed response from his agency to protect and defend the congress. Notice in the video as he lists the different groups that they’re really all the same group and then he adds Qanon, to give license to investigating thought crimes, so authorities can police what you believe, for our safety.
Persecution of thought crimes causes violent extremism. It’s a self-serving authoritarian strategy of enemy creation to justify the funding of institutional supremacy, for themselves.
The opposing sides in the coming conflict are those that want the conflict and those that don’t. Those that want it will impose it on those that don’t, as usual.
This fight is democracy versus supremacy and those that occupy our government are divided, and lean towards supremacy, I suspect.
It’s hard to resist when provoked into violence, but that is the correct response. The conflict-based economy needs conflict. Try not to fight back if you are provoked. They want you to fight.
The confederates have attacked the capital.
Those that planned the assault on the capital knew that they could not overturn the election. That cover story is crazy talk. The mission was to validate the escalation of institutional conflict, under the guise of securing our safety and security. The Trump insurrection was a marketing strategy for miltarism and supremacy.
Those that served the intellectual architects of this diabolical plot, are naturally loyalists to our security state economy. Our economy currently favors them, yet they always need another raise for inflation. Such is our intentionally flawed economic design.
Quick Lesson: Inflation and taxation are offset for investors. The uninvested dollar devalues from inflation, proving the “system” is designed to overcompensate those who “invest” in it, comparatively.
Supremacy as ideology.
When people can confess to being so stupid as to believe the “theories” promoted by Qanon, and be moved to vigilante justice to right some fictional wrong, we have a problem. We need to prevent that kind of dangerous stupidity for our collective safety. Society is responsible.
Funding education is the answer, not censorship.
The big question as the senate trial starts is; Is a senate trial of an ex-president constitutional? Yes, of course it is. The law limits the penalty, that’s it. I’m not going to get into that and they shouldn’t have either.
First of all, the senate can do anything it needs. They certainly could have subpoenaed Trump and forced him to testify, or make him plead the fifth. They could have put him in an oversized dog cage with a torture queen and a waterboard and let the lawyers sort it out later. Like republicans do when they want answers. But we don’t, because we already know the score.
No testimony is necessary.
Both sides declare victory. As the leader of the anti-government movement, Trump, wears his impeachment as a badge of honor, so do those that impeached him, ironically. Everybody wins.
But the conspirator walks on partisan loyalty. Sad.
If prosecutors were serious, Trump would be forced to ask Biden for a pardon, and wouldn’t that be awkward? We’ll just let him walk away without further fuss, the senators say. I can predict what’s next.
Joe Biden is in the White House and his cabinet members are being confirmed. That’s the good news, I guess. Biden has been hammering out executive orders like hotcakes to right the wrongs of the recently defeated right wing wanker. He won’t be missed at my house.
Hooray for Joe!
Even though I have plenty of criticism to share about executive orders and cabinet picks, I’ll save all that for later. I am thrilled that Trump was a one-termer. For now, that’s good enough for me. I wish the democrats luck. Most of the world is counting on them, so they had better measure twice and cut once it they want to get this right.
Divide and Conquer
The bad news is Biden’s calls for unity will fail. The intention of team Trump has always been division. The new confederates, led by ex-president golden-hair, would overturn the results of the civil war if they could. They would legalize slavery in a heartbeat given half the chance. So they must be resisted. The distinction must be understood.
Confederates maximize inequality by design, as a rule. The problem is there are a lot of confederates in the Union. They have been working behind the scenes to achieve total control of our government.
Confederates control the government to maximize their profits and minimize their taxes. The Union prefers democracy and prosperity with peace. Joe Biden is walking the tightrope of unity between the opposing forces, as leaders must often do. The stakes are so high. The expectations are low. All things considered, Joe is doing a good job balancing the act, imo, so far. These are delicate times.
A nation so divided, that the transition of power becomes a violent spectacle, is a nation with a failed democracy. The logical political remedy is to reduce division by legislating towards unity. But that will be difficult. Some people are for unity and others are against it. Those who are against unity support domination and supremacy, even if they don’t understand how, the result is the same.
The success or failure of democracy is measured in increasing or decreasing inequality. Increasing inequality is an indicator of democratic failure. Equality is a measure of its success. That’s how democracy works. Those who are against democracy see it the other way, winning is what matters, to them.
Those who invaded the capital are not protesting division or inequality. They are protesting unity. They are protesting against democracy and the possibility that the government might provide equality to others, for a change, diminishing their rightful supremacy, or perception of it.
Unity is communism, they say.
Protesting unity is a strategy by those that sow division. They are the political opposition. They support supremacy. They would rather fund the conflict than be defunded by the results of an honest democracy.
Public Voter is an honest democracy advocate.
The establishment is antidemocratic by nature. The right wing insurrectionists are also antidemocratic, making them strange bedfellows, allied against democracy. Neither should be trusted and both should be corrected, democratically.
It is being suggested that this fight is primarily white supremacy against black lives matter. We just need to change our attitudes not fix our democracy. If we could just believe we’re all in this together there’d be no problem, they’ll say. The economy is working fine.
Supremacy vs Democracy.
There is a conspiracy against our democracy by an undemocratic cabal of special interest groups, believe it or not. Their goal is not to protect and defend democracy, it is to protect and defend the scam from democracy. Legal or not, that’s a conspiracy, and like it or not, it will lead to violence.
The coming conflict is an orchestrated campaign of mercenaries, contracted to recruit an opposition, to justify increasing domestic terror budgets, for institutional prosperity. The inevitable result is increasing inequality and conflict. The alternative is a democratic upgrade.
The racial division and disparity is institutional and systemic to be sure, but the political solutions necessary to remedy our social dysfunctions should not be confined to race. Political solutions should be universal and considered holistically to end poverty and reduce inequality, imo.
Storming the Capital
To put the Jan 6th insurrection into perspective keep in mind this entire narrative has been scripted, more or less, for years, or may as well have been. It’s a predictable plot line that will be easily regurgitated on cable news shows and in our history books as caused by bad decisions and honest mistakes, when in reality it was all by design.
The cover story goes something like this;
Violence erupted when antigovernment forces loyal to the defeated president attacked the capital with little resistance. Thousands of angry protestors fueled by unsubstantiated conspiracy theories of election fraud, tried to prevent the transition of power.
What they won’t get into so much, is the complicity of all the authorities that would have been necessary to pull this off. Intelligence failed to connect with enforcement, who mostly stood down as protestors violated the capital. Those who ignored the warnings must testify Immediately. Hearings about all of that and more are still necessary, sooner than later.
Put it on the docket.
The irony of Trump invoking the insurrection act last summer against protestors, but not invoking it for an attack on the capital, by militants, is duly noted. It proves he is a divider and a privateer. He is not a public servant.
The capital hill invasion reveals that our government is undeniably divided. Part of our government has attacked the other and they want you to know. Consider it a warning, like the first attack on the trade tower.
We ignore antidemocratic division at our own peril.
The anti-government rhetoric preached by the hypocrites in government, has manifest into a violent attack against our capital. It was an attack against our democracy, under the banner of saving it, for Trump. Which is ridiculous.
The division is a self-evident conspiracy.
The collusion between the authorities and the invaders is inescapable as seen by the VIP treatment given to the Shaman and his delegation of fanatical q-balls. There was a prayer to capitalism from the podium staged for strategic informational operations, as noted by the adult supervision in the room, who was trying to be respectful, for public relations, as he said, as seen in the video. Check it out.
This Insurrection was a conspiracy without doubt. The prayer from the senate chair was rehearsed and performed without resistance and after the performers concluded their prayer session they were quietly escorted to safety, to revel in the success of their mission.
Then the Shaman speculates his access was divinity. Hello! That’s not divinity. That’s a conspiracy. The capital siege is starting to look like a stand-down betrayal on the scale of a domestic Benghazi, but much bigger.
Censor Conspiracy
I can imagine the tightrope being walked by authorities to avoid a premeditated conspiracy scenario involving themselves, despite this being exactly that. The authorities will deny this was a conspiracy involving themselves or their political superiors. They’ll allege this event was perpetrated by a few bad actors who spontaneously ignited the other protestors into a lawless mob. Who could have seen this coming? As if the instigators weren’t paid assets.
Anti-conspiracy rhetoric is a conspiracy, imo. Our electoral system is clearly flawed and that’s a conspiracy of self-interest failure by design, at the least.
A lot of people think that this election was rigged. True or not, the results should be verifiable. Fifty million or more by some reporting still believe Trump was robbed and that this election was plagued with fraud. It was rigged, they say.
What is the response to their grievance?
Censorship. Rather than fix our democracy for the future, the establishment has instead decided to define the belief in election fraud as a conspiracy, like white supremacy and that’s a crime.
You can be targeted now and professionally persecuted like a radical extremist for your dangerous beliefs if you theorize election fraud as a conspiracy, so don’t, is the message.
Domestic spying as a jobs program.
People are losing faith in our fraudulent democracy. That could be a problem for the establishment. Unless of course those same people also believe that the establishment is full of devil worshipping cannibals who ceremoniously sacrifice children.
Nobody really believes that but it gives the establishment justification to dismiss any other belief by association. If you think the election was a fraud then you must be crazy or stupid like those Qanon people. Anything they believe is wrong, and they will believe anything, so everything they believe can be dismissed, in bulk.
See how that works? It is demonization by association.
Qanon is a deep state strategy to justify domestic conflict. It could be that the entire Q-Trump movement was a honeypot op to lure the loonies out of their angry holes, for persecution, to profit the conflict-based economy for generations to come.
The Art of the Deal was betrayal.
Even if the movement wasn’t a conspiracy with duplicitous intent, the result is the same because that’s what happened. Except for the loyal informants, all of those angry patriots can now be targeted by authorities in the coming conflict against domestic extremism. They’re likely coming for you.
Put that in your Q-pipe and smoke it.
To counter allegations of election fraud the establishment has decided to play the censorship card. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do, as usual. We need an educational campaign for the public to establish truth and reconciliation to prevent further conflict.
Censorship is dangerous.
The harmony amongst the professional punditry demonizing and homogenizing conspiracy, is definitely a conspiracy. Some will call it group think or lack of imagination, but it is a simplistic bias trying to normalize the abnormal. We live in such an obvious and ongoing conspiracy, reported as normal, despite the indicators to the contrary. Denial of it is complicit in it, conspiracy that is.
The cognitive dissonance is self-evident.
Increasing inequality legislatively is a conspiracy. It is the definition of conspiracy. Just because the victims of the scam don’t understand the scam doesn’t mean it’s not a scam. A legal scam is still a conspiracy.
Check the debt clock for unfunded liabilities. The conclusion is self-evident, for all to see. It shows the results of our ongoing conspiracy, economically, is unreconcilable.
History is a chronology of conspiracy. People conspire against others all the time. It’s what they do. It’s who they are and why we have government, to help prevent conspiracies, yet our government legislates conspiracy into law.
Our economy is so blatantly rigged for some and against others it is itself a conspiracy. Many don’t mention because they’re too busy making so much money from it. Most people can’t even afford to be in it. Investors think the system of intergenerational monopolization of profit extraction from others, is normal. They’re just harvesting economic growth from the future, they’ll say. They’re not picking fruits and vegetables though, they’re picking your pockets. It’s a scam that will fail, for most people.
Our economy is a conspiracy.
The cultural campaign against conspiracy theories has begun. We don’t want to find the truth or change our economy for the better, to be more inclusive for everybody. We instead supposedly prefer to outlaw an undefined dissent for persecution by an institutional authority.
The real conspiracies will remain normalized as the establishment gears up to do battle with those that doubt them.
A better democracy is actively being resisted by a conspiracy. That conspiracy needs to be recognized and acknowledged as an antidemocratic adversary to be defeated with legislative correction. That’s not a theory. That’s a political strategy.
Advocating for a better democracy is not hate speech, nor is the non-violent presentation of political grievances, to state the obvious.
An organized democratic obstruction is undeniable.
The foundation of all political theory and advocation is the truth. The truth is the essential building block on which all philosophy is built. The truth is required for credible beliefs and opinions. When somebody discounts the truth, or obstructs it for some reason, it’s because they are most likely lying. We are past the benefit of the doubt.
Demonization via Association.
All crimes are conspiracy theories. If you believe anything in the big bag of homogenized conspiracy you will be targeted now as dangerous, is the message, thanks to the crazies in Qanon, and that’s a crime.
The truth is conspiracy theorists are truth seekers. When they are labeled dangerous by the establishment it’s because the truth is dangerous to the establishment.
That’s where Q comes in, to discredit the truth.
There is a demonization by association campaign occurring that attempts to identify all conspiracy theory as a problem. Outrageous conspiracy theories are dangerous and contagious like white supremacy and racism, they’ll say, and need to be stopped.
All of your favorite pundits agree. Anti-government beliefs are conspiracy theories that are unfounded and dangerous, but yet our hyper-partisan government is dividing, militarily now, as demonstrated in the conspiracy to storm the capital building.
We see now the purpose of Qanon was not only a plot to discredit the truth, these loyalists were nurtured with conspiratorial beliefs so repugnant as to justify the censorship of all conspiracy.
You crazy conspiracy theorists have gone too far this time, with your Qanon invasion of the capital, they’ll say. It’s now an umbrella term that covers any and all unsanctioned beliefs.
Qanon has put themselves on the map as an opposition with a name. They are the new target. They have landed into a battlefield. They and their contracted brethren will rationalize, for all of us, militarizing the homeland to do battle against them, or us, or whatever. That’s what they want. Who’s on whose side? it almost doesn’t matter. It’s the battle that matters. That’s what they want and they’re ready to fight for it.
And that’s a conspiracy.
I’ve been listening to the pundits pontificate and nobody seems to notice or mention the obvious, that an invasion of our capital is a declaration of war, on us, by us. That’s what this insurrection is, at the least. This was the opening salvo in an undeclared war. It is an act of war but it was also a public relations notification from the enemy that we are at war now, like it or not.
The war has been started. The hidden flag has been planted and it will continue to wave now, to some extent, in the back of our minds, at least, between attacks, as the war is slowly escalated and normalized.
Battle for hearts and minds.
The attack on our capital was a symbolic declaration by a secret but organized effort determined to subvert our democracy. It was also an appeal for allegiance to recruit those who recognize our democracy has failed to represent them, which are many.
They hope you don’t notice that it was them that made our government fail in the first place. They continue to make it fail and their mission is to ensure that it continues to fail, for the public.
Private interests succeed when public interests fail.
The government wants you to believe that there is an organic uprising against them. They will claim the movement is racist and idealistic and must be suppressed. Empty promises of “order” by those secretly behind the chaos will be applauded. Is usually how it goes.
This is the conflict-based economy.
The goal is political and economic domination, by and for those who have successfully mined the future for money. They will militarize our geography for conflict, ostensibly to keep us safe, while fomenting more conflict for money.
That’s how the economy “works”.
This recent invasion on our capital represents the start of the second civil war, imo. The South is rising again. This time the confederates are global and they have their fangs deeply embedded into our economy and society. They are on the offensive and the Union is in trouble.
Our economic system breathes in and out in crude but predictable spasmodic cycles, like a giant hyperventilating monster inhaling wealth from the public and exhaling prosperity into private interests around the world.
We are all in this together now, united in service to the scam, for better or worse we are a giant machine. Benefactors and victims alike, we have mutated with the monster. We are indistinguishable from it, so it’s difficult to see.
Global corporations control our government. Our government provides excess profits to them for campaign contributions. It is a quid pro quo that is unethical and undemocratic. It is the definition of corruption and should be illegal.
Corporations have no good reason to protest. Those who stormed the capital were not protesting the monster, or corporate rule of our government, or shareholder welfare or anything like that.
Protesting for Supremacy
The irony of those storming the capital claiming to have a grievance with globalism or communism, or the like, is beyond ridiculous. They serve the monster, whether they know it or not. Their allegiance is bought and paid for by those who are against democracy, or they would protest for democracy.
As the front door of the capital building is about to be breached, you’ll notice a protestor there with a sign that says, “Communism is the real enemy”. It’s the only sign seen near the front line at the time. Ironically the protestor is defining for history the underlying conflict of our time. It is the struggle that never ends.
Capitalism vs. Democracy
It is capitalism itself that just stormed the capital and violated our democracy. War has come to us in the form of the ex-presidents chameleon-like minions and the authority hidden in the ranks of our security state, that pull his puppet strings. This is a war by capitalism and its allies to prevent a more democratic economy, and they’re just getting warmed up.
The markets surged on the violence and chaos.
The protestor at the door with the anti-communism sign is actually protesting democracy. He just won’t admit it, or doesn’t know better, which is a typical strategy of their entire deceptive movement that is emerging against democracy. They call democracy communism.
The political solution the public seeks is democracy. It’s not a new person, it’s a new system. Those who stormed the capital are against that new system. They’ll say their ideology is anything and everything that might recruit others to their cause, but their actual purpose is to protect and defend the conflict-based economy, as personified by their current cult leader, Donald Trump..
Trump called the media fake news while they broadcast hours of uncensored and uninterrupted coverage of him and his lies. He was the main fakery of the fake news. If by fake we mean lying.
There is no valid cause cited by him or his mob. They don’t want a minimum wage or a health-care system, or even fair elections. They want Trump to be their president, that’s it. And now that he has lost, apparently, it makes them so angry they’re going to travel to DC, eat dinner at the Olive Garden, and spend the night at a Holiday Inn.
After a good nights sleep, they’ll have breakfast and get ready to be incited into violating the capital building to “stop the steal” as planned by their leaders, the co-conspirators of the insurrection. They believed they could save our democracy by overturning our election results.
That’s what we get for undervaluing an educated electorate.
Trump can call election fraud all he wants but if he doesn’t offer any viable solutions for democracy he is undoubtedly being disingenuous. His efforts, thus far, promoting voter suppression, should not be mistaken for democratic advocation. His intention is clear.
He spent nearly an hour complaining about the rigged elections to his fans but cited no solutions. He doesn’t want to fix our electoral system, he just wants it to confirm that he won. Trump is against an honest democracy. So are his followers.
The only way to preserve the conflict-based economy is to prevent an honest democracy. That is the intention of this insurrection and the conspirators that conspired to storm the capital. They intend to control the violence and chaos, professionally, for profit. They will saturate the economy with violence paid for with public debt for institutional self-preservation and perpetual relevance.
Military rule is democratic failure.
The result of occupying ourselves for self-defense will be horribly undemocratic at best. It’s a terrible decision in a long sequence of bad decisions so undemocratic and blatantly incorrect they should be considered suspect for ulterior motives and corrected accordingly.
I heard the pentagon called the insurrection a first amendment protest and that they resisted requests for back-up when the capital hill police were overrun. They are still on Trump’s side as far as anyone knows, at least “idealistically” if not professionally. It’s a very dangerous and volatile situation for the public if loyalty to the chain of command fractures and commanders are betrayed by the “opposition” within the ranks.
There have been reports of sensitivity training for misguided ideologues in the military. They will try to root out right wing extremism and pray their hate away, or something like that. Good luck.
Censorship is democratic failure.
Turns out the Qanon conspiracy was not only a premeditated plot concocted to rationalize and justify censorship, it also serves as justification for institutional retaliation supported with your taxes.
As previously mentioned, the Qanon narrative is being used to associate right wing extremism and violent racism with truth-seeking and conspiracy “theorists”. That could be anybody and sooner or later it will be everybody. It is an economic strategy for supremacy based on conflict and debt.
It’s against the law for the government to censor speech so they let the monster do it for them. They privatized the technology to let the first amendment be ignored. Instead of protecting speech and providing a forum to establish the truth, the government will provide liability waivers to social media companies who will legally censor speech, for the government. Oh, that’s not a conspiracy.
It doesn’t matter how bad things get, censorship is never the better political solution. Who made that decision? Our cultural royalty as determined by the so-called free-market now gets to decide who can speak and what is the truth?
And that’s not a conspiracy?
Internet companies can now supposedly ban the president of the United States from speaking on their platforms? And that’s not a problem for you? As if that precedent isn’t undemocratic and totally un-American. I’m not a fan of those who are banned, but that is just wrong.
Censorship violates the first amendment which is proof that large communication companies are incompatible with the law and deserve to be dismantled and regulated, or totally nationalized. That would be the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the government prevents a citizen’s network for the public because they are controlled by private interests who profit from investing in your utility bills and the like. The people in government could decide to make the government more democratic with an awesome electoral infrastructure for voters, but they don’t.
That’s where Public Voter comes in.
If there was a concrete plan to organize our society to benefit everybody more democratically, along with the appropriate amount of political pressure, then maybe the government would, eventually, start funding the citizens network for a better consensus system.
I’ll get back to that later.
Anyway, insurrection day seemed scripted to me. It started with an objection to the ceremonial counting of state electors. As if a delay tactic would somehow overturn the election and the mob would be vindicated and joyous as Biden conceded defeat.
If only Pence would have been evil enough to object to the states electors, they thought, he could have legally nullified the election and stopped the transition. Really? Seems kinda far-fetched to me. How stupid are these people?
Note in the video, Pence cites the law that makes what they’re doing legal. The problem is the code he cites is not compatible with the constitution. Nobody cares to notice, so I won’t bother elaborating. It’s in the video.
Electors are Cronies
Why don’t we have an elector audit and see how many electors actually profit from the government? That’s the real scandal. The government contracts itself out, pretending to be small, and grants its political allies a fortune for allegiance with all kinds of profit, adjusted for inflation. And then they vote for each other.
Electors are party loyalists for a reason.
The problem with those in government is they can have a tendency to misinterpret the law to the detriment of the public. The problem with those in the media is they don’t report those misinterpretations to the public in context.
Federal objections to state electors is one example of the law being incompatible with the constitution. The pardon power of an impeached president is another, or the ability to filibuster by secret agreement. The misinterpretations are intentional because violation is such a strong word. But that’s what’s happening.
After Trump tweeted to go home, the protestors went home. The congress went back into session and finished their business and we all lived happily ever after, except of course for those who didn’t, unfortunately, my condolences to them.
It looks like a new enemy has been born to fuel the conflict-based economy for generations to come. This time it is domestic, thanks to the Trump Insurrection.
The FBI must be salivating at their newfound mission. They are ramping up like the stock market, as predicted, to combat the enemy, their political opposition, under the banner of keeping us safe. Their extremist informants will be busy recruiting. Keep that in mind when they ask you to sign up.
It’s the beginning of December and I’m slowly getting my company put back together after the move. And it looks like the Biden’s are getting ready to move into the White House.
We’re all waiting breathlessly for the place to be vacated.
For a guy who never really wanted to be president, Trump sure has been dragging his feet in conceding defeat.
The news I’ve been able to watch has all been patronizing the normalcy that is sure to follow a Biden victory. Let’s make America Obama again. This is gonna be great!
I can already see the rightward leaning of the leftist party that is being assembled is intended to assure the right wing party that, we’re all in this together.
That is the duopoly, right there.
From the left wing democrats to the right wing republicans, the constrained political spectrum of the establishment works to prevent an honest democracy for the public and it appears the next in line to prove it will be, Joe Biden.
The democratic presidents always want to work with their opposition, those who violate the constitution and suppress democracy, while branding the unrepresented masses as radicals.
Economic security for all is not a radical idea. It is the least the government should do when spending public money.
Aside from facilitating democracy, public money should be spent first on providing food and shelter for everyone who needs it, with an opportunity to be safe and prosperous and an obligation to be educated and productive, or hospitalized.
No hunger, no homeless. No corporate welfare.
I pointed out in a previous post that the rationalizations for the establishment to deprive the public of a democracy would be coming soon. Here’s a good example of that, imo, written by Richard Kreitner.
American democracy was never supposed to work, he writes.
His title implies the constitution is intentionally flawed, which it is, but I’m guessing he won’t say how. We’ll see.
The intention of the constitution is to prevent democracy, he says, which on its face I find absurd. It’s true we have never really had an honest democracy, for many reasons, but that doesn’t mean the constitution was not a noble attempt, for its time, to provide a logical process towards a more civilized society and a more representative government for the public.
Despite what I will assume are Richard’s noble intentions, his first paragraph implies expediency should be the measure used to determine if we are actually a democracy, or not.
He has just lost the benefit of the doubt.
Truth seekers, philosophers, and democratic debaters everywhere will admit promoting the general welfare is necessary for a civilized society. The pursuit of happiness requires things, like peace and justice, democracy and the common good. The constitution is a roadmap towards that civility from a time when people could legally own other people until eventually, they could not.
Now the constitution enshrines that update of understanding as the law.
They recognized then, as we do now, that change is inevitable and needs to be facilitated without violence, if possible. The intention of the constitution is an appeal to the law instead of using violence.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.
The law is a tool. Elected representatives determine how it’s used and to whom it serves, and whether or not it “works”.
The constitution allows the government to tax or to borrow or both. It’s a political choice. The policy result of that choice is the measure of democratic success, or fail. If democracy doesn’t work, don’t blame the constitution, blame those we have elected.
Richard concludes his first paragraph suggesting Biden’s agenda is something that needs to be crafted. As if build back better is different than change you can believe in, or make America great again for that matter. So far I’m not convinced this article isn’t anti-democratic propaganda, but we’re just getting started.
Up next, paragraph two..
First of all. Paragraph two implies the framers were united in their intentions, citing Madisons opinion as proof. Sorry Richard, that’s not nearly enough to support the claim of antidemocratic intention in your title. The constitution is a clear outline for democracy, not the prevention of it. Let’s continue.
First sentence of paragraph three needs to be refuted as well. There are so many premises predicated on falsehoods in that paragraph its hard to begin, but I’ll check a few, like;
Without specifying which provisions in the constitution are anti-democratic he proclaims them to be working as intended, for a globalized investment scam that didn’t even exist back then.
He then goes on to cite the modern day scammers as being of the Madison mind, who think their scam is fine, but good policy would be a scam, to them. So that opinion is valid, supposedly, to the author of this article. Let’s continue.
It really doesn’t matter who was against democracy.
The fact that a democratic process is outlined in the constitution and can be amended to achieve a better democracy is enough to validate the noble intentions of its authors, to me. As flawed as they themselves and their era might have been, their work continues to stand the test of time, at least in theory.
The next paragraph alleges the senate was designed to prevent democracy and the economic equality that would inevitably result from a more representative government. It’s a cynical theory and probably true to some extent but probably not the primary motive.
It should be recognized that the bicameral design of the congress is intended to consider our economic divide, to avoid conflict.
Representatives are elected to represent the public. Senators were originally elected to represent the state and the establishment but they are now directly elected by the public. That doesn’t mean that the senate was an antidemocratic idea. It just means the system was designed to recognize the conflicting interests of the establishment and the public, in order to represent them both, for stability and balance of political power, to promote the general welfare.
In 1913, the 17th Amendment gave people the right to vote for their senators instead of their state legislatures.
The senate was upgraded in 1913 to be more democratic, to be chosen by voters statewide. It’s the house that needs that upgrade now. Congressional representatives should be elected statewide, like senators are. Gerrymandering should be ended, completely.
The constitution the framers designed was federalism. It was a brilliant peice of socioeconomic design for its time, but vaguely defined and rarely considered. Each state was to have autonomy from the other states, was the intent. It was not to prevent states with large populations from having equal representation, as Richard writes. States were called colonies back then and there was only thirteen of them. Census was spotty at best. Now we have national political parties that transcend state borders which violates the intention of federalism, right there.
Things are different now. If the majority of voters in a state want to vote for senators that suppress voting rights, the problem is with those voters, not constitutional theory, or design.
We need to educate antidemocratic voters to prevent antidemocratic senators from being elected in the first place. If we legislate an adequate electoral infrastructure, commensurate to our needs and ability, that could happen.
The author ignores the litany of violations committed by those who swear to protect and defend the constitution. So far he’s blaming the constitution and not those that violate it. To me, that is antidemocratic propaganda. That’s what he’s doing, imo.
It is not antidemocratic intent to design the electoral college and the senate the way they did, when put into context of the era in which the constitution was written, so long ago.
The intention of the electoral college is to prevent the government from voting for itself to prevent corruption and cronyism. The establishment subverts the intention of the law by calling themselves “parties”. We’re not the government, they say, we just work here. As if the parties and their electors don’t profit “under the United States government”.
Most electors would be disqualified if the constitution was interpreted correctly and enforced as necessary.
We’ll revisit that in a later post.
So far I’m still a fan of the document and claims of antidemocratic intent by its authors are far from convincing, to me. Let’s read on.
The next paragraph mistakenly claims what he calls “paralysis” to be only a decade old. It’s been much longer. I’m just saying. And Richard assumes a government controlled by the Democratic Party might have pursued court packing and statehood strategies, and the like, even though they never did in the past.
His next paragraph claims political solutions require a constitutional amendment, when they don’t.
We just need to upgrade our ability to achieve a more honest democratic consensus with an apportionment act that reflects the economic diversity of the public. That would do it.
When representatives are more representative of those who elect them, economically, the government will begin to function as intended, economically.
A successful constitutional convention is an impossible pipe dream for democratic reforms and we all know it. Advocating that tactic is an act of futility and should be recognized as a distraction from other more sincere political solutions that could actually work, like the aforementioned.
So in conclusion, the antidemocratic intentions by the framers alleged by Richard in his article are not true. What he calls antidemocratic intentions are actually reasonable and arguably prudent safeguards for civility, imo, that cannot be changed anyway, without a super-majority.
The constitution doesn’t work because it is being violated. And it doesn’t work because money is representation.
If you think about it.
It is devaluing an educated electorate that diminishes our democracy. The constitution doesn’t do that, we do.
When it comes to discussing court packing you really have to be a wonk to care. So, I’m forgoing the artistic flourish in this video. I’m short on time and it would just be a distraction to the point. Which is when the Supreme Court picks the president for political reasons, it is not only a violation of the constitution, it will likely lead to disastrous consequences, like it did before.
I’ll try to find time to revise and extend my remarks. For now, I’ll just quickly note again the irony of Joe being afraid that court packing will become the issue, when it is the issue. He ignores the question and then tells us to go out and vote. As if that is somehow going to solve the problem. That’s a red flag.
Joe says, “The question is, the question is..” and then never says.
He never says what the question is which was very disappointing.
Court packing is the political solution to remedy intentional constitutional misinterpretations by organizations, as mentioned in the previous post, Succession.
If an organization can control the courts, they can control the law. If they control the law, they can control the people, for better or worse. They can extract the people’s wealth for institutional profits and have the practice rubber-stamped as legal, like kings and queens have done throughout history.
That’s not a democracy
We have an organization that legislates public debt for private profits. It has been stacking our courts with partisan shills for a long time, to legalize and normalize the extraction scam and to turn a blind eye whenever necessary.
This organization, that sprung from the corrupted seeds of the duopoly and is now attempting to transcend its creators, is personified in this narrative as Frankenstein’s monster. The monster has been packing our courts for a long time, to control justice and prevent democracy.
Expanding the court is absolutely the correction necessary for the partisan court packing campaign that’s gone on for decades.
Joe Biden not answering the court packing question speaks volumes. Of course he wouldn’t support the idea because it’s the right thing to do, for the public and democracy.
If the democrats controlled the government they could, and they should, but they won’t, pack the courts to the max, confirming dozens of “liberal” judges nominated by Joe, or whoever is president. There should be no limit to the number of justices on the Supreme Court. If you are qualified, nominated and confirmed, you can vote.
Notice how Joe says it will shift the focus to a court packing conversation if he talks about it, which is exactly what should happen. He accuses Trump of changing the subject as he himself changes the subject by refusing to talk about it. Joe would rather focus on the problem than consider its solution.
What more do you need to know about the lesser of two evils?
If the intention of the court is ethical and accurate interpretation of the constitution, the Supreme Court should be massively expanded to include as many qualified judges as possible.
When a justice feels personally compelled to rule on a case before the supreme court, they should be allowed to do so, considering they are qualified, nominated and confirmed, according to the law. The more judges the better. The more opinions the better when pursuing a consensus of legal interpretation for hundreds of millions of people.
Considering the technology and the philosophy, the only logical motivation to keep the court constrained to nine members is to achieve politically motivated rulings via erroneous constitutional interpretations, to serve the monster, for profits.
Conservatives are supposedly motivated to pack the courts to protect the unborn. Don’t believe it. Those who care so much about the unborn are the same people depriving the living of healthcare. It is a hypocritical contradiction in logic that should be suspect for ulterior motives.
Social issues that tug instinctively at your heart strings are used to disguise the true agenda. It is a profit driven agenda not a philosophical one, that drives the corrupt to organize to control our government, and our courts. Their motive is not benevolent.
It’s funny, in a way, to watch the professional pundits being shocked now, at Trump’s flagrant lying, only because most of those same people didn’t seem to care when they served previous republican administrations that lied constantly. They reported with unquestioning faith, back then. As I recall.
Trump is merely saying aloud now what republicans have always done and denied. Admittedly this president is less dignified, but it’s the same basic agenda of privilege, division, and profiteering from public debt.
It’s ironic somebody who lies so constantly and shamelessly about everything, openly embraces the same agenda previous republican administrations pursued, but felt compelled to lie about.
The lies the fake news let slide, back then.
The democrats always prefer to look forward rather than acknowledge the problem in need of correction. Because they are part of the problem. They ironically reach across the aisle to perpetuate the problems of division.
The duopoly is the problem.
The duopoly parties normally pretend to be in opposition to each other, for relevance and donations. But now the division is getting real.
Democracy and representative government theoretically prevent the division that is happening now, in our country. The deprivation of representation is creating tensions that will inevitably result in more conflict. We can safely assume that is the intention.
Money is being used as a substitute for representation, creating a hierarchy of allegiance to an authority that is counterfeited, undemocratic and undeniably undesirable for the public.
Private profit from pubic conflict.
It is imperative to identify the adversary and challenge their agenda with leglislative reforms, such as updating apportionment law.
The public’s adversaries are packing our courts with partisan shills to interpret the constitution in a way that protects and defends the scam.
Sheldon Whitehouse nails it down, as seen in the video. His directive to identify the adversary is exactly correct, but will fall on deaf ears, as usual, because the problem is bipartisan, and will be ignored by both sides of the corporate media.
Still, bravo to the senator. He will find what he seeks on Wall Street.
The peaceful transfer of power from one organization to its opposition doesn’t happen, ever, despite what some might say. The reason we have had a peaceful transition of power here, in the past, is because our political parties weren’t really in opposition to each other.
We have had an economic duopoly. The transfer of power in an economic duopoly is called succession. It is a peaceful transition of power among allies and associates in a mutually beneficial venture.
That’s no longer happening. Joe Biden is running against shameless corporate greed, and all of the global investors who need to maximize their profits from the scam. Unfortunately, those investors are a heavy voting demographic, so Joe must appeal to them, to win, for the duopoly.
Better scam light than left out.
The democrats deny representation to the so-called radical left, so they themselves don’t become obsolete. If the duopoly actually divided, which it hasn’t, there would be an opposition. And an opposition doesn’t transfer power, at least not peacefully, ever. The democrats will accommodate the ever-shifting rightward leaning ideology of the duopoly in order to “save” our democracy. They always do.
In other news, Trump’s taxes got leaked and surprise surprise, he is a tax evading deadbeat cheat in debt up to his eyeballs to his dark money overlords. As if we didn’t know. As if his base loves him any less or it even makes a difference.
This is the normalization of corruption disguised as an election.
Yes, he’s a crook, now move along. Right on the eve of the first debate. Which was hilarious. I’ll have to get back to all that later. Time allowing.
The corona virus economy is hitting my company pretty hard, as I knew it would. I run a small side street business off of Main Street. My “corporate” accounts aren’t buying, so it looks like I will get to become a little domino in the great Main Street collapse, due to our state mandated shutdowns and social distancing practices.
Global Lizard Incorporated has its big government knee on my small business neck and it’s getting hard to breathe. Sales are low and the rent is still too high, and the congress just declined to provide any further assistance, so the math is getting difficult.
It’s Sept 11, 2020 and time is flying.
Bad news abounds. The climate change debate is pretty much over now, now that the entire west coast is on fire. Be sure to notice those who said climate change was a hoax are the same people who now say that the coronavirus is a hoax.
The virus keeps spiking, if you can believe the news, and many people don’t, which is also reported on the news, ironically. We are coasting along with at least a thousand deaths a day, they say, from the virus.
Fake News?
It’s bad enough when the news is bad but when corporate media can’t even agree on what’s true, it magnifies the disorientation and further devalues the truth, and discourages those who seek it.
The corporate media report what they deem is relevant and then we get to choose what to think about it, from either the left or the right side of the officially sanctioned corporate opinion channels.
Alternatively, the internet is full of endless and diverse opinions with no official authority to the truth, comparatively.
The terrorist attacks from nineteen years ago today are a perfect example of the academentia of our era. The conspiracy theories on the internet about that event dwarf the number of the “official” theory videos posted about it.
Most people in real life believe the official theory though, as implausible as it is, because they have not studied the details of the event. Most people polled know very little compared to those who have documented it and posted videos about it.
If you could measure the consensus of those who studied the event and posted videos about it, the truth would become self-evident, despite the subscriber “thumbs up” count.
What is the truth? I’ll post that soon. Suffice to say for now, whatever it is, the result is the same and so is the remedy. We’ll get back to all that, later.
The election season is heating up with the most intense and divisive campaigns I’ve ever seen, which has been more than a few. I remember when Herbert Walker was asked by Bernard Shaw if he would still be against the death penalty if the wife of his opponent, Michael Dukakis, was raped and murdered.
True story, look it up. (aka same question)
Bernard Shaw would never have dared to construct that hypothetical using Barabara, like he did with Kitty. It was shameless.
It was the first question, first debate, as I recall. It was a seriously devious question, never called out by the corporate servants for what it was, like so many other collusions I’ve seen. But let’s not reminisce.
We are less than two months away from the election and the smear and fear is in full gear, cranking up hotter than the stock market. I expect the October Surprises to be played in ping pong fashion next month with a rapid back and forth, of he did this and he did that, and who’s worse than who?
We have reached a new low.
The right wingers are fear mongering with racist nightmare scenarios if Biden wins, and the left wingers are heaping so much dirt on Trump his supporters will need to navigate a fog of shame to vote for him, but they will, many many times.
It’s a horrible system. We get to vote for either Dr. Frankenstein, or his Monster. If the monster loses the election that doesn’t mean he stops his ops. It just means he loses his badges, to some degree.
The protests against the police continue to grow.
A pattern is developing. Videos of police brutality, or worse, keep surfacing, followed by protests that result in more conflict and death.
The shooting has started with no political solutions in sight. The only solutions offered by the establishment are Biden or Trump, and their political parties.
It’s like looking at a menu of bad food when you don’t have any money to order. You know you’re going hungry, either way.
The pandemic deaths are disproportionally killing more people of color, they say, as the markets have fully recovered, disproportionally enriching the predominately white investors of Wall Street.
Forty million people are recently unemployed and the evictions have begun. We’re on the precipice of a huge social and economic crash. I expect extreme division and inequality coming soon, leading to ever-escalating conflicts and unreported tragedies.
All in the name of capitalism.
The Qanon folks are a thing now, for sure. They are the Joker wing from Gotham city, here to provide the republicans with a dangerous and surrealistic ally to help protect and defend the scam, as foot soldiers, deployed as necessary. They’re ready.
Qanon will be supported by a parade of right wing mercenaries and militia groups from around the country with misleading names like the Apple Pie Christians, and what not. They will be popping up here and there, over time, to do battle with the protestors, in a way police can’t.
Apathy by design
Most people tune out the news because their participation is futile, or they are represented by their money so they never need to think about it. Most people have more important priorities.
It’s the people who are left out that are the ones who are the most vulnerable for recruitment into the coming conflict. They are the most likely to protest.
A couple mercenary shills are hired to light the fuse and the next thing you know everybody’s grabbing stolen merchandise because they can, and then the shooting starts. At some point it won’t stop.
The necessary police reforms we need to stop the violence mirror the democratic reforms we need to save our democracy. It’s about apportionment.
Apportionment is the foundation of an honest democracy.
Police should be apportioned to precincts by race, and live in the same districts they serve. Their numbers should increase relative to the population, just as the number of representatives should increase. Law enforcement should be accessible and accountable. They should be the friends and family of those they work for.
Communities have been abused and they’re angry. So it’s not a surprise that they are incited to looting and the like, when they can. It’s predictable behavior due to the indignity of being institutionally abused, along with the inequality from an adversarial economy. It’s no wonder they can become volatile.
The shooting starts.
Another black man was shot by an officer, seven times in the back, on video, with no visible provocation. Jacob Blake was his name. Shot at point blank range in front of his kids.
That was followed by riots and two homicides by a right wing vigilante kid who came in from out of state to protect property, supposedly, and killed some people with his assault weapon.
The tit for tat death spat has begun. Until now, it’s been the police getting caught on video killing black people. Now, private groups of opposing forces have started killing each other.
Left versus Right, Black versus White.
More snuff videos are being broadcast. Hooded executions by police and sedative injections are normal and lawful police procedures around here, apparently, to control uncooperative suspects. I hate to mention it because it is so disturbing. But, like it or not, it becomes part of this narrative because it demonstrates the result, and even the intention, of the conflict-based economy.
Our economy is divisive by design, which can be corrected here, theoretically and democratically, to be more inclusive, but that’s not happening.
There are obvious alternatives to drugs and hoods to subdue people who are potentially dangerous, but there is very little discussion about reforms.
For starters, controlled substances need to be available legally, from a doctor, as necessary, at a price that puts criminals out of business.
Drugs should be better regulated and drug addicts should be better monitored for rehabilitation, treated as patients, without the trauma or the fear of being incarcerated against their will, as criminals.
Putting hoods on people is a medieval torture tactic. If that is considered normal here, normal needs to change, right away.
The violence is escalating and it is being encouraged by the president. The left wing pundits say it is an election strategy, which is naive, if not misleading. This is a strategy towards more violence that will escalate, regardless of who wins the next election.
This is an orchestrated conflict with paid combatants traveling to, and for, the fight, centralized for the cameras, attempting to provoke more violence with violence. It’s an unbeatable strategy.
Inequality and violence will escalate in tandem, intentionally, as policy, to profit the conflict-based economy, as always, without reforms.
It would stand to reason that those with the tools to surveil and stop those responsible for the violence don’t, because they are in league with each other.
I expect the violence will continue to escalate now, indefinitely. Our economy depends on it. That’s why the economy itself needs to change and be better regulated to prevent private profit violence.
For those who don’t get how this works, the bad guys secretly contract both sides of the violence and the angry pawns are drawn into the conflict, which validates more law and order, provoking more protests and more appropriations for conflict, resulting in ever-increasing authoritarian crackdowns, inevitably making democracy impossible and solidifying the power of perpetual incumbents
Investors have designed the conflict-based economy to profit themselves, not the public. And it’s working. The divisive policies that extract wealth from the public, rather than accommodate them, predictably increases inequality, public debt, investor profits, and of course, the violence.
It was reported that there’s ongoing looting and rioting in Portland with caravans of right wingers rolling into town in their overpriced trucks with their oversized tires, shooting paint balls at protestors with their overpriced paint-guns.
The police allowed this blatant display of lawlessness to go on without arrest, from what I have heard. As if it was normal. It’s not now, but give it some time.
The privileged vigilantes apparently terrorized the protestors without repercussion, proving there is an allegiance between the hooligans and the authorities, allied against the protestors.
Same with militias and the mercenaries, Qanon, and all of the right wingers. They’re all against the protestors, they call them Antifa, rioters, looters, anarchists, black lives matter, the radical left, and a few others I’m probably forgetting, democrats, I suppose. Anyobdy who opposes this president, is their opposition.
This is the result of inequality by socioeconomic design. It is a military tactic used against a domestic population to escalate conflict in order to divide and conquer and plunder, for profit.
The intention of the constitution is to promote the general welfare, yet the government continues to give taxpayer money to investors instead of the public in the name of saving the economy. They deprive economic stimulus to Main Street while looting the public treasury, for investors.
And they wonder why there’s no inflation.
The Fed announced they intend to raise inflation, meaning raising prices and devaluing money. As if inflation is a strategy rather than a consequence of what they have already done.
Asset values continue to blow money bubbles while millions of small businesses shutdown, as predicted, maximizing inequality for the national demise.
Institutional Investors will now begin buying businesses with money stolen from the taxpayers through the extraction scam sanctioned by the corporate shills that occupy our government.
Why would anybody believe a word they say? The fed is as dishonest as the president and they serve him with common purpose. They are on the same side of the legalized crime, working against democracy and the common good to protect and defend the scam, for perpetual profiteering.
Wallstreet.gov
The Fed keeping rates at zero indefinitely makes sense to you, right? That’s cool, right? Just ask any investor. They’ll tell you. That’s what they heard from the professionals, we can assume it must be true.
Or, possibly our treasury is being drained by a giant globalist corporate vampire of corruption.
The financial pundits all pretend this is normal despite the business model being blatantly corrupt. They have nothing but faith in the extraction scam because it’s making them all tons of money, depriving taxpayers today and enslaving future taxpayers to a life of eternal servitude and poverty.
The real reason they want inflation to rise is so they can devalue our purchasing power further, as another cyclical extraction tactic to maximize and further normalize the squeeze.
Another consequence beyond the increasing inequality will be that businesses will need to keep revising their pricing to keep up with the Fed’s ever-increasing target inflation rate. Great plan!
They say they are targeting 2% inflation.
Even if you believe inflation is actually that low, and it’s not, inflation will still be over twice as high as the interest rate from a savings account. Meaning you will lose money if you try to save your money in a bank, forcing the “smart” money into the scam.
The problem is they can’t create inflation because they are hoarding all the money to themselves, in the so-called market, for their so-called “growth”. The growth is in asset bubbles nowadays, not employment.
That’s the problem.
Investors extract from the markets like a farmer milks a cow. The taxpayers keep giving but there’s no return for the workers because the growth goes to investors. The workers would spend more if they had more which would result in real economic growth, for workers. If most workers make too much money, inflation happens. That’s how it works.
Inflation has been relatively low because the money is being extracted from the real economy instead of fueling it. Our economy is currently on life support because most of the money printing and stimulus went to investors to reinvest in market “growth”, not economic growth.
Most people don’t have enough money to spend. That’s why inflation remains low. Though our money is loosing value, it’s still valuable because it’s scarce, for most people. It’s not rocket science. It is a policy of intentional inequality by political design that should be reversed.
If economic growth was the intent the stimulus would go to consumers and small businesses. If the money the public spent to bailout corporate excess went into the real economy, it would boom.
Our inflation is less than hyper, though, not just because unemployment is high. It’s because inequality is high.
And the corporate lizards must be high, threatening us with stagflation, despite it being the inevitable result of their extraction scam and overcompensated lizard-like lifestyles of excess.
Our economy will suffer if we vote for Biden, they say. Afraid their advantage is in danger and that their privileges might be diminished in some small way, by the democrats. Which is unlikely.
The business model of Wall Street is fraud. It can’t survive without taxpayer money.
If they can’t scam us through inflation they will need to charge us to loan them money with negative interest rates, they say, to keep the extraction scam profitable despite being exposed for what it is.
The bipartisan scam will soon remove its mask of being a legitimate business model and begin charging us for the money they borrow to invest, so they can continue to pay themselves outrageously high sums of money with less reliance on those unseemly bailouts.
The banks will become like a branch of government. They will insure stock market profits with taxpayer dollars to subsidize the corporate lizard class. It will be undeniably divisive, extractive, unethical, and unfair, yet embraced by both sides of the political aisle, and nobody will notice.
Global scams
And it is easy to see that their global trading strategy is simply trading goods across borders to monopolize commerce, for Wall Street profits.
We have created a mountain of debt for some to profit others. To get out of this mess we need either high growth, high inflation, or defaults, Rajan explains in the video. All of which haven’t happened for a long time, he says, without mentioning the taxpayers filling the Fed’s punch bowl.
Our economic “system” is un-American.
Our global economy is a mercantilist middleman fantasy come true. It should be corrected by law, by maximizing domestic production and supply chains. But it won’t happen because investors control our government and use it as a bottomless piggy bank to buy our geography like it’s a board game.
That’s another problem in need of correction.
When Trump declares the choice between himself and Biden, is the same choice as Made in the USA or Made in China, and gets a thunderous applause, it’s because Americans prefer products made in America, obviously. At least they do in theory, but not in reality. It’s an easy applause line, but it’s not really true.
The truth is both candidates support the status quo of global trade, which is Made in China, for investor profits, which is Wall Street, or may as well be.
Metaphorically speaking, Wall Street is China, to Main Street. Give or take a few labor markets and a few corrupt politicians, but generally speaking, we are investing in China, or some corporate equivalent that competes unfairly against Main Street.
China Street companies function as economic adversaries to Main Street workers. Wall Street is China’s ally. They work together to undermine democracy, and Main Street jobs.
Consumers love the low prices and investors love the profits, but the workers would like to be compensated adequately, with growth. It’s the right thing to do for economic balance in order to enable democratic reforms.
Both candidates are beholden to the China/Wall Street scam, despite their rhetoric. Most voters support it too, and the workers need the cheapest prices they can get because they lost their good paying jobs to Wall Street, so they’re stuck.
Bringing back jobs is an empty slogan I’ve heard for decades. Like supporting democracy, it doesn’t happen around here. I’ll believe it when I see it, and even if I do see it I know it won’t be good enough because it never is.
I’ve seen it said too many times.
This is a Wall Street government and stimulating the economy through market injections to profit investors proves it. It also identifies the problem to be fixed.
Our political system ignores that our political spectrum is an economic spectrum. That problem should be fixed with a new apportionment act.
If money is representation, and it is, it is our representation that is being extracted. They used to say, no taxation without representation. Now we should say, no taxation by extraction. We want growth to pay our bills.
Wall Street is hitting all time highs and reinvesting record profits simply because the government took the taxpayers money and gave it to investors, in a betrayal of the real economy, which is about to crash.
The extraction scam.
By my math, the government took about thirty thousand dollars from every hard working taxpayer, like myself, and is pumping it into the markets for excessively leveraged investor profits.
You’re welcome.
The stock market is up and the economy is down because investors profit from public debt.
The extraction scam of the conflict based economy is likely seen as a normal business model to those who are in it, and profit from it, but it’s not. It’s an unethical monster of taxpayer extraction in serious need of some serious regulation, at the least.
It’s bad enough to invest in worker exploitation, forcing workers to compete for lower wages, as Ali Velshi describes in the video. It’s inexcusably worse to spend taxpayer money to support financial institutions as if they were some kind of government agency, like the military, or the IRS.
They should be, but that’s a different discussion.
Mr. Velshi doesn’t mention that and might even disagree. That’s why news consumers are right to be skeptical about getting their information from the corporate news media, whose primary purpose is to generate profits for themselves and their investors.
Same goes for representatives. The failure of officials to fulfill their rhetorical intentions is self-evident, regardless of the reason.
Congressional delegations should be apportioned to states according to the income of the people in those states to help insure accurate representation and economic justice.
If everybody is poor then all of the representatives should go to the poor. Income-based representation is the logical upgrade to our current apportionment law. It is the logical remedy for the inequality that has crippled our “middle-class” democracy.
With a new apportionment act, “growth” can once again compensate the producers of production appropriately instead of overcompensating those who just “trade” ownership of that production, in an ever-increasing squeeze for more profit, ultimately derived from institutional inequality and taxpayer bailouts.
Those who counterfeit excessive profits for themselves in the scam, are usually the same as those who think we can’t afford a public healthcare option, or other vital services the government could provide if the public’s wealth wasn’t extracted from them on an ongoing basis, by private interests.
I just watched this video. It’s from the channel, Learn Liberty, on YouTube. I don’t know anything about them but the title sucked me in.
Why Government Fails
I started watching it and found it very well done. It’s a very logical and methodical approach to understanding socioeconomic design, and the private versus public paradigm competing for our political beliefs, our ideological allegiance, and ultimately our votes.
This is of the highest grade propaganda. It’s a solid 99% right on the money. It’s all very persuasive except the conclusion. And he lets you draw the conclusion yourself, which makes this propaganda extra-primo caliber disinformation brought to you by those that professionally rationalize their own economic privileges, for money.
Be careful what you wish for the professor says. He is implying that you don’t want the government doing stuff for you because they have no incentive to help you compared to the private sector. Profit motives will insure your customer satisfaction, he says.
It is a lock-tight argument for changing the government to be more helpful, accessible, and user friendly. The problem is the professor is not doing that. He is actually making an argument against “socialized” healthcare and against using the government to provide the public services necessary for the common good, without saying as much.
HIs argument, all of which is very good, supports a fraudulent conclusion, which is the private sector is the better choice, ignoring the fact that the government could be redesigned to make the public sector accommodate the needs of its citizens.
We need to fix the government, not privatize it. Like most of these “liberty” wankers, the professor is wrong. His free-market advocation is really an argument to perpetuate the scam, profiting some by exploiting others.
A political solution for the public would be to fix the government, not privatize it to benefit those who can afford it.
We’ve come a long way through a slog of empty rhetoric to get to the brink of democratic failure. From Herbert Walker’s “a thousand points of light” to “let them eat light” or something like that, I heard Biden saying last night, as he accepted the nomination to challenge the incumbent madman, currently sprouting authoritarian roots in the White House.
Biden’s performance was near perfect but his promises rang a bit insincere, to my ears. That’s because I’ve heard it all before.
The duopoly shovel their slogans of hope and compassion out every election cycle and the public policies just keep getting worse and worse, for the public, even if the democrats win, I’ve noticed. I consider them a complete lapdog resistance at best. The democrats are accomplices in our unequal economy and complicit in our current social instability, to some degree or another.
The democrats just had their convention to nominate Joe. There was no live audience due to the virus so it was a little weird. It’s as if democracy has already been defeated and the resistance has been relegated to their basements, coordinating a series of infomercials to deliver their propaganda promises to the wind.
Still, it was a pretty slick production and very nicely done. Obama was keeping it real and Nancy was larger than life. She wears her place with grace in our history, like no other, imo, despite the empty rhetoric. Bernie nailed it as usual. Nobody tells it like it is better than him. It was a good cast and they all did well, imo, considering the circumstances. I enjoyed the show and generally like the democrats.
Now to the critique.
For context, don’t forget conspiracy is a hot topic. Qanon gets promoted on the news, daily, nearly every hour. They were discussing today how Trump would not denounce the group, as if they’re organic and autonomous. I also saw a number of examples of discrediting truth by associating it with lies, which I wrote about in the Q-Laid post.
It’s all a conspiracy and they’re all in on it.
I’m not going down that rabbit hole right now, but I will say what everybody thinks is our normal economy can be argued is actually a massive conspiracy. That is indeed what I have been arguing here for some time. There’s an open invitation in the forum to anybody who thinks they can argue this economy is not an ongoing conspiracy.
I noticed Obama mentioned conspiracies when he asked last night “what’s the point?” He then unloaded a healthy dose of what he calls the point. The point, he said, is that people get scammed by the rich because they don’t vote, correctly.
Parse that for a second and what you find is the ex president trying to absolve himself of the responsibility of the mess we’re now in. His comments imply that this downward trajectory towards a government functioning as an adversarial wealth extraction scam has nothing to do with him. It is the public’s fault, and not his. Wrong!
First of all, Obama attempts to demonize conspiracy theories, while missing the point that the democracy he is telling us to save is threatened by an adversary that is itself an ongoing conspiracy to destroy our democracy, from within. Hello?
Donald Trump is an inside job. That’s the point. The adversary is a conspiracy.
The Trump administration is an ongoing conspiracy to dismantle our government and cripple our democratic potential, while handing out borrowed money and waving the flag for votes.
And that’s a conspiracy, not a democracy.
The democrats could have built a national voting system in 2009 to protect our democracy, but no, they bailed out their bad investments instead. They chose to save their own looted booty rather than provide the public with an adequate electoral infrastructure. They could have done both, but they didn’t.
The truth is the public put Obama in charge for two terms and he served those he was elected to protect us from. The continuity of debt and extraction has been a bipartisan scam for decades. Obama was an accomplice in the conspiracy and he now has the audacity to blame the voters, who voted for him.
So the point is not that the public doesn’t vote correctly. The point is those who are elected betray their voters, for money, routinely. When Obama was elected the democrats controlled the entire government and they governed like republicans.
So don’t blame the voters, blame the democrats for not stepping up and doing what needed to be done when they had the chance to do it.. Betraying your constituency is another form of election fraud.
The Obama admin was a Wall Street Trojan horse.
Obama and the democrats bailed out the scammers, against public opinion, and didn’t bring the change the country desperately needed, so the public voted for the other guy, the supposed outsider. Anybody but the status quo, won.
We voted for the Wall Street Trump horse, so they say.
Now, ironically, The democrats are back with another Wall Street horse, to save us from the other Wall Street horse. Our election is a Wall Street horse race.
This is what happens when you vote for the lesser of two evils. Eventually the vote goes so low and the choice gets so evil that we are now supposedly voting on whether or not we want to vote anymore. That’s your choice, they say, democracy or not.
When the election is understood to be about democracy itself, as in, a vote for Trump is a vote against democracy, voting for the democrats is not a choice. When one of two choices is to forfeit your choice, you have no choice. That’s a conspiracy to deprive the public of democracy, and it’s working.
So the point Mr. Obama, is you can’t say that there’s no point in seeking the truth about conspiracies and then describe the government as a massive conspiracy working against the voters. The contradiction is self evident. Checkmate, sir.
Voters are right to be cynical.
Obama literally admits the government functions as an extraction scam, which is the truth, but then blames the voters, which is a lie. So his bias and deceptive intent should be acknowledged, along with his most excellent oratory skills, bravo. I loved the bit about the constitution.
Credit where credit is due, but notice he calls the scam a skew. The system is merely skewed, he says. It’s not a scam. It’s all nice and legal like, ya see. This is not a conspiracy. This skewering is normal. It’s by democratic design, because of your apathy.
So what’s the point? He says.
The question is do we want to live in a militaristic security state where the leaders lie to the people and dictate policy by decree, where soldiers with bad attitudes look for public problems to solve, problems that look like you, or someone you love.
The dems are promising the usual platitudes disguised as political solutions. When we’re talking about losing our democracy, all other issues should take a back seat. If by some chance the democrats ever control the government again I wouldn’t expect any meaningful democratic reforms. It’s not what they do. The dems reconcile republican excesses. That’s what they do.
I don’t want to get all hyperbolic here but I won’t be surprised at whatever happens during this election, and after. If you believe those who lost the last presidential election, the democrats, it sounds like they’re prepared to concede as necessary moving forward. Our democracy had a good run, they’ll say.
A battle of platitudes.
Joe Biden promises to build back better because Make America Great Again isn’t working out, apparently, for the democrats, even though their stocks are poised for a big Trump bump if Biden loses. Their conflict of interest is self evident. The party loyalists who professionally preach left wing gospel will prosper more if the right wingers win, which proves the fallacy of the current political spectrum.
That’s why I wasn’t surprised to see Joe reach his conciliatory rhetoric across the aisle and promise to work with the monsters threatening our democracy. He’s already promising to look forward and let the healing begin, as democrats always do after taking the White House.
Joey’s kissy face rhetoric shows the scammed do not have adequate representation. The democrats deprive the public of an honest and accurate representation based on the most important metric, money.
Democrats deny the reality that money is representation and that the economic pendulum has swung so far to the right in the last fifty years that the only acceptable response is a complete rejection of the policies that got us here.
The democrats need to take an ideological stand of corrective action. The simple fact that Biden didn’t have a piece of corrective legislation in his hand, endorsed by lawmakers and ready to debate in congress, is enough proof for me to know that democratic reforms are not a priority, for them.
If money is representation, and it is, the democrats have nothing to fear. It’s the uninvested taxpayers that pay the toll around here. They don’t have enough money to influence lawmakers to correct their never ending recession.
That’s why we need the apportionment act for a democratic upgrade. If we want to save our democracy, and we do, we need a government that reflects the current population and their economic diversity. Neither party does that. The lesser of two adversaries is stilll an adversary.
The plan to save the world. This is a compelling infomercial by Q, I assume, explaining that the plot to scam us is not human nature. It’s a criminal conspiracy, he says.
First problem, nobody is anonymous here except the deep state. So I don’t trust Q already. So far, to me, this is a deep state op to identify and catalog those who disagree, for further psychometric testing of potential leftist sympathies. We know who you are.
For all I know this video is made by the deep state to further rub their smugness into your economic wounds, like salt, while they simultaneously trickle down overly generous compensation packages to the producers of their propaganda. I smell a ghost.
However, it is a slick video, and great title. Let’s watch more and see what the plan is to save the world. The video is certainly identifying some of the obvious symptoms of the problem. Let’s see what the solution is.
Okay, the first major flaw in the narrative happens at 3:57. The criminals did not use their media to set black against white. If anything the media reduced racism because a larger audience shamed the practice into near submission.
BS at 4:07 The media didn’t convince us to fight and destroy ourselves because of our differences. They have organized around division because we are divided. Division in the real world escalates for evermore profits and the media reflects the conflict. The quest for supremacy provokes hate, not the media. The media provides the rationalizations for those predisposed to fight.
Q is a church. lIke all other institutions if you do not pledge allegiance to them they won’t do anything for you.
4:21. The criminals popularized lifestyles, implies that too much freedom is a bad thing. The video is blaming the free market and free will for the reason we have broken homes.
Ok, we’re at 5:20. JFK was invoked, and accurately, and the viewer says, yes, that checks out, maybe I can trust the next sentence telling me Reagan was also a good guy.
Stop!
I had to hit pause right there because the rabbit hole has just been opened. Let’s see where this goes. Bush charged Reagan with voodoo economics. Just because Bush was guilty doesn’t mean Reagan wasn’t.
Iran Contra ring any bells?
What’s the point of trying to separate Reagan and Bush? Why save Reagan at the expense of your credibility? Let’s see what else they got.
Every president after Reagan is the deep state he says. I’m curious why the cutoff. It’s probably the demographic of the audience, not the history. The deep state has been in high gear forever. Why the cutoff after Reagan?
The world declined into darkness, do you need me to tell you how? He says. Then starts listing the symptoms of free market capitalism and the conflict-based economy.
Ok, here comes the solution. It’s just a change of personnel it turns out, that’s all we needed all along. We just need people who aren’t evil running our government. It’s that simple, we’re supposed to believe.
This is where things start to get better, he says, hold on to your proverbial hat. Let’s hear him out.
8:40 We’re going to expose the criminals for what they are, you say, and then you use Weinstein and Spacey as your villains, to imply Q will bring justice to sex predators. I’ll let that go as a bad edit but implying your good guy generals are going to save us from the democrats is just stupid. It’s partisan dribble.
We don’t really have a policy idea. We just need to hook up with authoritarians to wage war on people to save us from the others, especially those who inappropriately violate proper sexual etiquette, I believe he just said.
This is deep state propaganda. I have no doubt at 8:41 let’s continue.
The next sixty seconds the plan comes together, they are going to win the white house and defeat the democrats who hate America. That is an insult to intelligence and a call to partisan loyalty at the same time.
So if anybody hasn’t figured out the plan yet, spoiler alert!
The plan is to not vacate the White House. He’ll say sorry, but I’m not leaving. I’ll be writing your history books now with me starring as the great hero. If there’s a problem with that, take me to court.
So the mission of the Q is to help normalize the plan. The plan where the constitution is ultimately retired and everybody is cool with that, based on their allegiance to the plan, the plan they don’t yet understand.
9:30 Ok, All evidence shows peace is returning and the good guys are winning the war, he says, while his hero president dominates liberal cities with authoritarian provocations.
Ok, fellow slaves, he says the problem was the criminals had too much power, yet his only political solution is to arrest and punish those who have done very bad things.
He’s talking about punishing people you love for something he says he knows and you don’t. You don’t see a problem with that mister non-existent counterpoint? I do.
This plan has no political solutions at all. The plan to save the world is to arrest the political opposition and justify it by calling them powerful criminals and child molesters.
