How important is the will of the people?

Now this may seem like a silly question however it is hard to deny that the MSM is biased in it's election coverage and I believe it to be quite manipulating.

The notion that "we cannot let Trump be voted in" I think misses the entire point of democracy and seems to encourage the point of view that people cannot be trusted to elect their own leaders.

Rather than pointing out the various flaws in both candidates which is unproductive can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important?

Or can it be argued that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of democracy?

I present:

Between Nun and Not; The Nun left town and the Not is all tied up...

The POV that the Criminal Media propagates is the will of The Power Elite (TPTB / NWO / Patriarchy / whatever). And then The People tend to take it from there auto-propagating what the Criminal Media tells them as if it's their own will.

The last time I voted with the "will of the people", I helped send us to a 15yr war and still counting. And both prospective candidates will continue that life and money black hole. You guys just couldn't go for the nice old guy.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The notion that "we cannot let Trump be voted in" I think misses the entire point of democracy and seems to encourage the point of view that people cannot be trusted to elect their own leaders.

The United States was never intended to be a Democracy, it was designed to be a Democratic Republic. Its decisions at the highest level are not made by direct universal voting, but by representatives chosen through a series of electoral procedures that vary from state to state and even town to town. The parties serve to form a consensus around policy; the primaries, among those parties that have them, are part of a selection process to determine who can best represent the policies that the party advocates.

The process should not be about personalities. The Founders specifically designed the Executive branch to prevent the return of Monarchy. The United States does not follow "Leaders," it elects officials who best represent the views of their constituents.

Or can it be argued that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of democracy?

The question is: could a Trump presidency replace a limited and well balanced representative Executive branch with a self serving Monarchy?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's an interesting POV however a news company should be allowed to be biased.
I think that it's a freedom of speech issue and I accept their right to be misleading however unethical it may be.

But as I stated in this thread can we find a common ground that what people want, whether they have been mislead or not is the most important thing?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's an interesting POV however a news company should be allowed to be biased.

Exactly. The earliest American newspapers were explicitly partisan. The whole concept of journalistic objectivity evolved out of a desire to increase circulation by appealing to readers on both sides of an issue. Unfortunately, this has devolved into the media giving as much attention to cranks as to people who are actual authorities. A certain presidential candidate has exploited this over his entire career. It has always been about PR.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It is, but we've been polarized following a decades long procedure to be at each others throats. The synergy between the 2 Party System and the Criminal Media we can thank for that.

Your "free speech for the Media" sentiment makes sense, until they are all controlled by by a 'small handful' of Criminals.

What happened when Clinton deregulated the media in 1996?
The 1996 Telecom Act was a landmark piece of legislation that drastically altered U.S. media and communications policy. The Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, deregulated the media and communications sectors, leading to increased consolidation in both industries. In the years that followed, radio companies like Clear Channel ballooned in size (Clear Channel now owns over 1,200 radio stations) because radio ownership limits had been removed. The new policies also led to a number of mega-mergers among telephone companies and other media businesses.

originally posted by: DJW001
The question is: could a Trump presidency replace a limited and well balanced representative Executive branch with a self serving Monarchy?

No, the question was "can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important? "

4 responses in and the answer seems to be no.

Will of the people? Haven't you been paying attention?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

4 responses in and the answer seems to be no.

Well that's the design anyways, and you can mostly thank the Criminal Media for that.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No, the question was "can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important? "

The will of the people is important, but people can be misled. This happened in Italy and Germany in the first quarter of the last century. Demagogues claimed to have a way to return their nations to greatness. Remember how that turned out?

Incidentally, I favor a parliamentary system over the one set out in the Constitution.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

4 responses in and the answer seems to be no.

Well that's the design anyways, and you can mostly thank the Criminal Media for that.

Don't be so modest: the "alt-media" has done its fair share to mislead and confuse.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

There are problems with the will of the people too. Look at what a democracy really is?

Fewer than 60% of the electorate tend to vote. Most of them have no formal education in politics and are unable to understand the consequences of policies. In many cases the language used in manifestos is beyond the reading levels of the general population. The IQ bell curve puts ~16% of us on the side of pretty stupid.

As people, we're prone to the biases of personality politics. We want characters and charisma. We bend to peer pressure and we're influenced by the popular press and media outlets. The mainstream media actively and wilfully manipulates the readers and has its own agendas whether they be political or economic or both.

The politicians aren't always chosen by us. They're cherry-picked by the Party and have to conform to what the Party wants if they're to be promoted into the higher ranks. We get to vote for the ones who've successfully negotiated their way through the 'thicket' of politics and personality dynamics.

In this pessimistic context, the 'will of the people' is that of an under/ill-informed minority of manipulated people clamouring to vote for one of a handful of candidates they've been offered. Gotta laugh right?

It's like 'will of the people' is tinsel on a turd with 'democracy' being the turd.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Your "free speech for the Media" sentiment makes sense, until they are all controlled by by a 'small handful' of Criminals.

So are you saying that due to the nature of media the democratic principle of electing leaders that represent the majority view is flawed and outdated?

Sorry if that was an incorrect representation, but as noone seems to be able to answer the question directly my only choice is to try an extrapolate an answer.

a reply to: DJW001

The racist labeling (if you dont support Obama you're a racist) crap was started by the Criminal Media and the Dem politicians Obama's first year, which set the tone and sparked the rise of the SJW race bating / reverse racism crap becoming the in vogue pop culture mentality, and now nobody can get along / compromise / find common ground.

And here's their response to "alt media":

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm saying that when the "aristocrats" (plutocrat oligarchs) have control of the Media and shape and define the national discourse, and thus perpetrate 100 years of social engineering, concepts such as "the will of The People" are the stuff of fairy tales at this point.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The will of the people or I suppose you mean the power of the people "we the people" was one thing back then and is something fully controlled and manipulated now days.

Not to mention that the general public has been so dumbed down that it hardly seems able to have a respectable will and thus "ruled" by a political class, a socialization and programing center called public education, the "press", moneyed interests that abound! ect, ect.

If we are lucky as the people we still may be able to get some mileage out of the House of Reps but not without putting our foot up their asses.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
In this pessimistic context, the 'will of the people' is that of an under/ill-informed minority of manipulated people clamouring to vote for one of a handful of candidates they've been offered. Gotta laugh right?

I agree with that however this starts a debate about the best form of government etc. etc.
Democratic principles seem to be the best so far, so we have either have a broken system or a worse system.

Although in an attempt to put this back on track perhaps I could appeal to your Super Moderator'ness and ask if you could be the first to answer the question "can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important? "

It's either "yes" for reasons or "no" for reasons.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Every race group in this country has an identity political watch dog of some sort save for whites. Most of these are not really pro white any way shape or form. In fact stereotypes of the white race is what fuels their drive.

This is all Hillary is taping into here. None white race fear of whites as natural born racists and predators. She is everything she is saying about others here. Race baiter and even to an extent oppressor of whites by pressuring them into silence.