It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The King is Dead ... Long Live the King!

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:43 PM
Greetings fellow ATSers,

So I've been thinking and junk ...

It should now be apparent to even the most uninterested and disconnected of the American voting public the more things change the more they stay the same. Yes, some things have changed from the last administration to this one but so many others, core issues expressed by Barrack Obama during his campaign have remained the same. Most of all, all the partisanship, all the bickering, all the gridlock, all the spending, all the corporatism, all the deception and indifference towards the American populace has remained a tragic constant.

So what are we to do?
What if anything is within our power to change the paradigm and extricate ourselves from this false choice that is the party system which enslaves us?
And can it be done without guns, without frenzy … with method, reason, and clear intent?

In essence, is there an approach, is there an avenue available to us within the system to reorient it to the people and calibrate our politicians priorities in the process back to representing US!

Most importantly, can the hidden hands behind the curtain be stripped of their power to control the game?

The standard knee-jerk reaction by the general public and one that is option championed in the hallowed servers of ATS is the "vote the bums out" approach for that will show them!

This approach in my humble opinion is fatally flawed! For it is based on the premise that the power lies in the hand of the actor instead of where it really manifests, the director. Metaphorically, the political power game could easily be represented as a play, or even a sports team … voting the bums out as a sign of discontent would only change the actors/players whilst the producers/owners remain the same.

It is my contention that the sting pullers have rigged the game in such a fashion to allow for this kind of political catharsis that is mass replacement of representatives to make us feel that we have recourse when in fact none is there and they simply couldn't care less who sits in the capitol's and white house armchairs.

Thus, "vote the bums out" is a ruse, an illusion of electoral power, there to placate the citizenship.

It simply, in the big picture, means absolutely nothing!

So once again we come back to what are we to do?

For that we must disconnect for a moment and go back to the roots of politics, political theory, political philosophy, and to a certain degree sociology.

The reason, logically deducted, that voting in/out representatives at a national level is an exercise in futility is because that is not where the real power lies. But we're also not familiar, though we all have our own suspicions, as to whom really is controlling the game. The only vulnerability, the achilles tendon if you will, of the system that can be realistically "attacked" is to withdraw our (the public's) tacit consent to the government to govern them!

Consider the following:

The word legitimacy is often interpreted in a normative or a positive way. In a normative sense, legitimacy gets greater attention as a part of moral philosophy. It is a status conferred by the people on the government's officials, acts, and institution through their belief that the government's actions are an appropriate use of power by a legally constituted governmental authority following correct decisions on making policies.

According to the German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger, "Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern and with some recognition by the governed of that right."[1] The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset argues, it also "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society."[2]

Something becomes legitimate when one approves of it. In a positive sense, legitimacy gets greater attention in political science. For example, an institution is perceived as legitimate, if approval for that institution is general among those people subject to its authority. According to John Locke, the British social contractualist, issues of legitimacy are linked to those of consent, both explicit and tacit. "The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed." wiki

Think about the above for a minute because therein lies the ONLY power we really have within our system.

Our power to acknowledge and assign legitimacy.

So if there is a philosophical foundation to be considered, a grass roots movement to be created, it HAS to be based on the premise of non recognition … for all other approaches, including "vote the bums out" keeps us fully engaged in the game and reenforces the existing power structure's legitimacy.

To vote for anyone is a vote for the system and the existing game.

The solution is easily gleaned, simply envisioned, but oh so hard to implement …

And the solution is this: DO NOT VOTE or VOTE BLANK BALLOTS!

I realize that this sounds completely counterintuitive to the democratic process but it really is the only approach available to us when the process itself has been rigged against those who it is meant to represent … namely the citizen of the state.

States/Nations exercise this approach all the time in international relations/diplomacy. Non recognition of other states/governments is a standard and well established tool used to deny legitimacy to those states/governments. In essence, they do not engage them, they simply deny them the right of consideration.

Imagine a 2012 election where only a tiny proportion of the American public votes for ANY candidate. People would be elected with minute amounts of votes relative to population size. There would be no mandate, and no legitimacy given to those who have forgotten us. The system would grind to a halt. They wouldn't even know how to process what just happened.

But most importantly the cry of "enough" would be heard loud and clear: Get your act together or we will NOT engage you, we will not recognize you, we will not empower you by playing your musical chair game! And we will keep abstaining from the political process until you reorient your priorities to those which you are sworn to uphold.

This in my opinion how real change begins. Not ideological/partizan change but the only change that really matter … reclaiming the power to its rightful owners, US.

Best of all, dogma and ideology are not required as this is a strategy premised upon an philosophy that unites all beings, that the government works for us.

The sword of indifference is a mighty weapon in the political process/game and one that strikes at the heart of the divide and conquer paradigm, truly emasculating it and rendering all but impotent. One that the aforementioned string pullers do everything in their power to keep from our collective realization keeping us distracted with the bread and circuses of the false duality of the two party system.

I don't know if we have or can muster the collective understanding and will to apply this approach for it requires a true grass roots movement and it has to be done by a majority of the voting public to be effective … nevertheless it is one of the few useful approaches available to us. Heck, half the people don't vote anyway so we're half way there to begin with.

Alternatively, you can vote for the other guy next election and hope that this time, as opposed to every other time, it will make a difference.

PS. Another strategy for dissent often contemplated is to simply stop buying stuff, that our dollars are the only true power we have. Whilst this is true, that is a conversation for another thread on another day, and a much more perilous approach for it bears the pitfalls of a plethora of unintended consequences characterized by the "cutting off the nose to spite the face" syndrome. A valid conversation to be sure, but not this conversation.



[edit on 3 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I appreciate your words. I'm so sick of the fake populist cries of the 'constitutionalists.' It's nice to read some thoughtful and creative insights that get to the political core. That said. I'm not almost sounds like a movement of apathy, which is sorta a contradiction, and sorta how we got here.

I tend more to side with the consumer 'strike.' Yes it is cutting off the nose to spite the face in some sense, but it will also force change. Along those lines, I think massive worker strikes would be effective. I have spoken to people from other (democratic) countries, and they shut it down when they are pissed, and they get results. They still need us for their system to maintain stability, and thus generate the holy profits and power the 'elites' covet. We need to refuse to play their game at the degree of exploitation they demand. We need to shut it down, peacefully.

We need the powers that be to answer and fear us. However, the teabagger movement does not elicit fear, because, in fact, I believe they know that most Americans will reject their violent and shallow rhetoric. Sadly, I think they way the powers that be somehow turned all the legitimate anger of the teapartiers to support the republican status quo and obstructionism is the most sickening manipulation I have seen in my short life.


[edit on 4/3/2010 by skunknuts]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by schrodingers dog almost sounds like a movement of apathy, which is sorta a contradiction, and sorta how we got here.

Though in the surface the notion of willful indifference seems paradoxical it is by no means apathetic. In fact the collective will required to implement such a strategy is considerable.

To "reset" the game there has to be a common understanding that the system is being used against us and that we cannot vote our way out of the conspiracy. This understanding has to be all but universal (within the US) crossing political ideology and dogma.

It is imho, the most powerful tool at our disposal and one that "they" are counting on us not using.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:38 PM
While I applaud your "out of the box" thinking, I feel the not voting solution is not the answer.

Regardless of voter turnout or final tally, a winner would be declared nonetheless based on majority. Mandate or not there would be a victor. Like in the Olympics, a medal would be awarded based on results based on who participated and earned the most points, regardless if it was a World record. (Plus the serpent & mongoose angle. Efforts made of a "Don't Vote" campaign by subversive group to suppress voters and the other side wins.)

I agree with skunknuts, it seems like an apathetic alternative. I too, would only embrace change by non-violent means.

I kinda like this concept.

In the parlance of Jello Biafra (Dead Kennedys) another option is: Don't hate the government, become the government.

Nice thread.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Regardless of voter turnout or final tally, a winner would be declared nonetheless based on majority. Mandate or not there would be a victor. Like in the Olympics, a medal would be awarded based on results based on who participated and earned the most points, regardless if it was a World record.

The Olympics metaphor is not a valid one kk ... not if one understands the outlined reality of political legitimacy. It simply works differently. A winner would be declared by default and not by the will of the people, for their collective will would be oriented to reject their authority and rescind their tacit empowerment.

If another sports metaphor is to applied, the metaphor would be this: Consider the MLB all-star game where the fans vote the players in. In this context the exercise of willful indifference would be for everyone to agree to not vote at all and to not watch the game for it makes little difference to MLB if you vote for one player as opposed to another. Not voting and not watching is in effect rejecting the legitimacy of the game, one that would surely make them reconsider their approach.

Make sense?

[edit on 3 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:58 PM
How exactly will voting in another figure head do anything?

The government is a monstrous abhorrent entity. 600,000+ statutes, Fiat Currency controlled by Private and secret banking cartel, MIC, Mega Corps, Agencies that have all three branch's power, Lobbyists, Bribery, Blackmail, Socialists, Fascists, Corporatists, Global Governance attempt.

Yes, voting will help. /s

So, states are going broke, the country is broke, 2 wars (that we know of), Mexico coming apart at the seams and encroaching over the border (see helicopter thread-signals), New taxes being implemented, etc etc etc.

Yes, voting will help. /s

Sorry, it is time for a "Fundamental Transformation" that Obama likes to say.

No more taxes on labor.
No more taxes on property.
No more funding of private corps by public moneys.
No more intervention in other countries.
No more porous borders.
No more towards removing US sovereignty.
No more federal reserve.
No more fiat money.
No more public owned corporations.
No more lobbyists.
No more corrupt politicians let off with no punishment.
No more insane, brain dead, island tipping politicians allowed to stay.
No more foreign ownership of US land or companies.
No more lies.
No more un Constitutional mandates or legislation.

How about-


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

My poorly illustrated point was to try to say that although a "quorum" (world-record)
was not achieve it would most likely default to majority of votes tallied.

Sorry, it was a poor metaphor. I should have simply said weak-sauce.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

~Edmund Burke~

My dear brother and most wise counsel, I implore you consider what you ask. The perils of indifference are well documented, whether it be the more recent horrors of Rwanda, the past and even present evils of Cambodian mines, Hitler, slavery, on and on and on we can see how indifference is not a virtue to be held up as effective strategy when dealing with forces that fully intend to control your freedom.

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws”

~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild~

While it may be true that these so called "TBTB" have found the political playing field a convenient distraction from their machinations, there's always some sort of Toto that comes along and begins yapping away, and tugging at the curtains until finally revealing the doddering old fool who hides behind the curtain pretending to be some great and powerful Oz. Once Oz is revealed for who he really is, a doddering old fool is usually the revelation, and while we tend to find comfort in our mass delusions of status quo and security and stability, it is in the end, freedom we crave, what we desire, and it is that which we will act for, as people are rarely willing to risk sacrifice simply to protect a comfort zone, and while comfortable they may become apathetic about their freedoms they've lost, but never indifferent, and once enough is enough, it is not indifference that takes hold, but fiery rebellion.

Your suggestion of not voting at all is almost already happening, and in Los Angeles the voters have certainly employed your strategy:

What if there were an election and no one voted? That’s what happened in Inglewood, or nearly so. In the November 3, 2009 countywide election, only 86 Inglewood voters cast ballots– less than one twentieth of one percent of the city’s electorate.

Inglewood’s 0.18 percent turnout took place during L.A. County’s consolidated elections. By comparison, turnout rates in other cities for the same election included 8 percent in Compton, 10 percent in Pasadena, and 11 percent in Lancaster, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Statement of Votes Cast. Ballots consisted mainly of city council and school board races.

Less than one twentieth of one percent of the cities electorate? Isn't that what you're suggesting? But answer me truthfully, do you truly expect that this low voter turnout will change the politics as usual in Inglewood? Do you think the pathetic numbers in Compton, Pasadena, and Lancaster will frighten politicians who now have no mandate, when they were so willing to defy mandates when they had them?

On a federal level, regardless of what percentage of votes they get, once they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws pursuant to it, they have a clear and undeniable mandate that most ignore. Do you honestly believe a low voter turnout will change this? Not showing up to vote is pointless, and accomplishes nothing more than total surrender of inherent political power. Respectfully declining to participate in the game that has been rigged doesn't mean to stop voting, it means to start voting smarter, and against parties, and for independent candidates, not because those candidates will change the system, but because as freshman elected officials they can do the least amount of damage, particularly if the threat of future elections or even recalls will keep this freshman official more inclined to serve his or her constituents needs.

Respectfully declining to participate in the game that has been rigged means changing the rules and evening out the playing field so that the opportunity to win is available to all. Indifference will not achieve that end, action will. Don't refuse to vote, instead make sure you vote and if you refuse to do anything then why not consider refusing to pay the so called income taxes you, in all likelihood are not even liable for.

Would you pay for a pound of beef and accept in return only a half a pound? Would you pay the 13th month of rent your landlord demanded at the end of the year, or would you look at him like he was insane and calmly explain to him that there are only 12 months in a year? Would you pay taxes you're not liable for? What makes you think you are liable for the income tax? Have you ever read the legislation that supposedly makes you liable for this tax, or out of apathy and indifference have you never bothered to read the laws of which you presumably comply with?

I have heard it argued that less is more and this clever aphorism may have some symbolic meaning when polishing up a creation, but in reality less is less, more is more and A is A. We must not do less at this point, and if we are to protect our rights and freedoms we must do more. We must do more than just vote. We must do more than just protest. We must refuse to cooperate with legislation not aligned with law, and we must refuse to fund an out of control beast that will gladly bit the hand that feeds it. We must stop convicting our brothers and sisters of "victimless" crimes, and as juries hurl off our comfortable indifference and with all the compassion necessary refuse to convict a person based upon invented crimes by legislatures, brought to court by zealous prosecutors who would demand a jury imprison a person without even producing a victim to justify such imprisonment.

Indifference and the shameful act of taking from a government while believing they would never tread upon our liberty, is what has led to this current state of affairs, and indifference won't get us out of it. We can no more ignore the evil "TBTB" away any more than we can ignore a virus away or a charging rhinoceros away. Instead of ignoring the game masters, instead we must become the game masters as is our place as the rightful holders of the inherent political power.

I can show great indifference to the gathering clutter that is the mess in my domicile, but at some point, I must act if I am to clear the clutter and have a livable area. I can not ignore the mess away, I must act. This is what we all must do now in order to clean up the mess that we surely made.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
States/Nations exercise this approach all the time in international relations/diplomacy. Non recognition of other states/governments is a standard and well established tool used to deny legitimacy to those states/governments. In essence, they do not engage them, they simply deny them the right of consideration.

This is the exact same approach that our government uses to deny us legitimacy. It's worked pretty well for them so far, huh?

[edit on 3/4/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by schrodingers dog

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

~Edmund Burke~

I cannot help but feel that I have failed miserably to convey what it is that I am trying to communicate, for surely the above quote isn't applicable to that which I am proposing.

I am not suggesting apathy ... and I must once more emphasize that voting blank/choosing not to vote is, if done by a majority of the population, an incredibly significant and overt act of collective will and the total opposite of apathy, and it is by all measures doing something.

And it is premised on addressing the very foundation of both social contracts and institutional legitimacy. For without legitimacy there is no power.

And yes, the example you offered was a catastrophic failure for this approach cannot work disconnected from the rest. It is an act that can only yield results of done in unison across the land. A collective "we're not playing your game anymore!"

Once again, to vote for a person or party is fundamentally much more meaningful than the intended short term ambition to get a person elected ... it is by all measures a vote to legitimize the system itself. Thus the only logical remedy it to redress the source not the consequence.

Alternatively, like I said earlier, we can keep doing what we're doing expecting a different result.

[edit on 3 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

This is the exact same approach that our government uses to deny us legitimacy.


Though the thinking underpinning what I am proposing might sound preposterous at first, it is in fact a rather common tool used by business, states, and all institutions in their own power struggles.

We the people are in fact the only ones keeping it in the bag ... hence to a great degree our resulting circumstances.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

That my friend is as they say the crux of the situation.

And here is where the madness needs to stop completely for once and all.

Not voting is not an option, but neither is voting the lesser of two evil's.

The lesser of two evil's is still evil and that saying is the repugnant idiocy of the ignorant who are too damn lazy to do something different than complain, whine, and bitch when things are not done as they were promised.

Voting is not the last of our responsibility, it is but the first of our responsibilities.

If the lesser of two evil's is the option people would rather take, then that road leads only to more apathy, which is not only sad, it is pathetic.

If you do not like your options when voting, voting for the leat corrupt out of two corruption options only leads to slightly less corruption.

Get real.

There abounds many millions of resources in our hands through the Internet.

1) Get both rotten options tossed off the ballot via a digital campaign.

2) Go viral nationally to make the focus upon those two people even more powerful.

3) Form a non-profit and put someone else on the ballot.

4) Research exponentially all the details of office and run yourself.

5) Do all of the above.

You get my drift, I'm sure you do, but to those who speak towards or lean towards violence, this is even further madness than the madness of living with the lesser of two evil's, because speaking of and or leaning towards violence is not an option, it is a sure way to be killed only.

A non-profit takes three people and $80-$90 to start, legally.

Begin a policy think-tank with that to run the policy of the non-profit.

Through the non-profit and think-tank find a suitable candidate.

Thorough background check up the wazoo.

Put the man or woman into office to represent whichever office you can approach through multi-tiered fund raising, publicity through public speeches.


There are literally countless ways of forcing America back to where it listens to the citizens, not the lobbyist and special interest groups money.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I am not suggesting apathy ... and I must once more emphasize that voting blank/choosing not to vote is, if done by a majority of the population, an incredibly significant and overt act of collective will and the total opposite of apathy, and it is by all measures doing something.

I would suggest to you that it is not at all an overt act and is instead decidedly covert. A covert act of hostility as opposed to the overt act of hostility in which "we throw the bums out". I would further suggest that either form of hostility, either covert or overt, is not the best method of decision making, and it would be better to be operating on a more emotionally controlled level of reason, than anger and hostility.

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.

~Thomas Jefferson~

Whether Jefferson was self reflecting, making observations based upon his experience with others, or just yammering on again, he hit upon a truism worth understanding. The rottenness of politicians begins before they hold office, and it is not the power of office that has corrupted as much as the power of their own hubris has corrupted them, and because its hubris in the end, they will always fall. It matters not who we vote for, they're all rotten by virtue of wanting the damn job to begin with, that's not the point. The point is, we don't elect them with any expectations other than obeying the law with the full understanding that we are vigilant and will hold accountable any official who has stepped beyond his or her scope of jurisdiction, acted under color of law and obstructed justice and they will not be privilege the immunities that come with operating within the scope of jurisdiciton.

We must always expect nothing but rottenness from our elected officials and do what we can every step of the way to thwart their mischievous and miscreant ways. We must not expect purity from them as they are subset to us, and are merely subordinates tasked with certain chores serving us. Not in some Orwellian dystopian world where we are all wards of the state, but simply protecting the rights of the people by establishing justice, providing for a common defense, ensuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare. To serve in this capacity and not beyond it, to protect freedom and not destroy it, this is our job, to make sure this is the government we deserve.

The failure is not yours my brother, I am the one that just fails to see how petulantly refusing to vote in some sort of muted protest, will accomplish anything at all. What if war was declared and nobody showed? Finally there was peace and we all knew it would never last. Because just as sure as revolutions are cyclical, political revolutions operate on the cycles of having. There are always the have's and the have not's, and when the have not's have come to a point where they have so little they can no longer sustain themselves, they will revolt and a redistribution of wealth will take place creating a natural apathy that allows the have's to begin their methodic accumulation of wealth as the gap between them continues to grow until it has become so wide...

As surely as these cycles of revolutions have been with humanity since time immemorial, they come with ability to measure and predict. This is why the colonists were able to manipulate a movement and minimize the tragedy and chaos of violent revolution compared to the less designed and more organic uprising in France a few years later. Where the Founders of the United States of America were in many ways clever opportunists who capitalized upon an unpopular tax, (that was ironically not a tax without representation as it was levied to pay for the British military expenditures in Canada, as requested by the Colonists), to begin what was a carefully orchestrated movement, that marked the peak of what was called The Age of Reason, and era that many contend ended with the violent and tragic revolution of France.

The brutal and horrific massacre that became the French Revolution was not sparked because an indifferent Queen Antoinette uttered; "Let them eat cake", it was preordained by a populace indifferent to their own inherent power and their ability to act in ways that influence an outcome that holds positive repercussions for years to come. The ability to measure and predict was sorely lacking in the populace who revolted not out of a strong sense of autonomy, but because their rulers had not properly cared for them.

Why act out of helpless petulance and protest in "out of the box" ways, when we can do so much more than protest. I do not suggest we keep on voting to keep playing their game. I am suggesting we keep on voting, changing the rules of the game every step of the way, not expecting purity in government office holders, but knowing that we can elect the unelectable, and we will not elect them to prove anything at all, we will elect them to drain our enemies of their finances, to engage them in a protracted war they can't win, to use every method of guerrilla voting, activism, and assertion of natural rights, to sabotage the corporatist interest, while rendering an out of control government useless without our willing agreement to comply.

It is not in rejecting what is nothing more than a privilege to begin with, as voting is not a right and merely a government granted privilege and understanding that, of course we are playing their games, but we were fortunately endowed by a Constitution that laid out clear rules to that game, and it is up to you and I and everyone else to demand those rules are the ones we play by. We can't hold accountable, those of whom we refuse to elect. We can't expect them to repeal legislation we refuse to comply with if we don't elect them to repeal the damn legislation. We can't expect to see the alphabet agencies, starting with the IRS, go away if we continue to comply with their rules. Their rules our not our rules, and those rules are carefully and clearly laid out by Constitution, prudent legislation and Case Law that serves as this nations jurisprudence, and it is the justice we have demanded our government establish, and it is that justice that is now being obstructed.

I just don't see how not voting will accomplish anything other than playing their game and what I find easy to imagine is a Washington D.C. filled with politico's feigning flustered sputters, while pretty talking heads blather on our television screens, shocked and stunned by this mass cooperation of indifference, parading about experts from every field to discuss this strange cultural phenomenon while we all watch glued to our seats, periodically snickering because we got them good, while they go about the business of doing what ever the hell it is they do.

I suggest we can become active enough without making any undue sacrifice, and we can mandate and direct a government that will begin to repeal draconian laws, begin the process of revoking corporate charters to malfeasance, eliminating the wasteful programs and getting down to the painful process of paying off the debt. It won't happen today, but with each day we can get closer simply by doing what we can individually. I haven't voted for a winner in any election for more than twenty years. Imagine if this November I did simply because people didn't stop voting, in fact, those who stopped voting returned and instead of voting for the lesser of two evils we voted for the lesser funded politician for no other reason than cost the corporate donors money.

Beginning with that, we remain vigilant over these freshman officials and if they move beyond the scope of their jurisdiction the for Christ sakes let's one of us finally go down to the Sheriff's and file a verified complaint for obstruction of justice and demand this charlatan be arrested and brought to trial for their high crimes. Knowing full well that the next one we elect to replace the other bum will only be another bum in sheep's clothing, we continue to use the law to our advantage rather than imprudently yield to paper tigers.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:49 PM
Explanation: S&F!

I totally disagree SD! SKL said it best "Not voting is not an option, but neither is voting the lesser of two evil's."

And SKL goes on to show the right way to go about it!

But OL is an extremist and recommends voting in an even bigger Evil!

Next Elections lets Vote 1 China OK!

Here is my reasoning for that...

If I want a big brother state to watch over me... well China does it the best and why should I settle for less?

Personal Disclosure:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:05 PM
SD, I understand the premise of denying legitimacy, however, I believe you provided the refutation, to your own idea, within the OP.

Heck, half the people don't vote anyway so we're half way there to begin with.

Historically, voter turnout in years of presidential elections has been between 50 and 60%. In the mid-term elections, generally, less than 40%. If it were to make any difference to legitimacy, would not those numbers have credence? (among eligible voters)

In recent times, the onslaught of pollsters has provided additional numbers, which should either bolster or "de-legitimize" policy. Neither have been the outcome. I offer the, well documented, public opposition to the Iraq war and the HCR bill, as evidence.

Respectfully, I disagree with the idea of not voting and submit, the solution is in the demise of the two-party system. I suggest finding a suitable, Independent candidate to support, vigorously. The loss of a controlling majority, by any party, would force true compromise.

top topics


log in