It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

You really really believe you elected your President?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


If the states could leave the Union before the civil war, how can it not be considered mandatory, because it implies they cannot now,no?

Or is it that the States already in the Union are not considered as real legal states by the feds, by a trick of law that no one saw?... ( Man, the more we go into this and the more it all looks like a scam of epic proportions! )
No wonder we are not interested in politics, as a civilization... ( The western ones, I mean. )




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
In response to the OP:

The electoral college is one of the most misunderstood aspects of American politics. This misunderstanding arises from the popular misconception that the USA was designed to be a democracy. It was not, though it is one now for all intents and purposes.

Read some of the writings of the original founders of the USA. They didn't have very good things to say about democracy. Basically what they said was that in a democracy, what's actually good for the country gets thrown out the window and it's all about pandering to the lowest common denominator to get votes. Demogoguery becomes rampant, and people come to power based entirely on personality and ability to reach the masses (read: money) rather than actual merit. The worst scum of society, sociopaths, realize that they can get in on this, and become attracted to politics. Ultimately, this means that in a mature democracy you are virtually guaranteed to be ruled by the worst possible rulers. In addition, this system allows the politicians to create the illusion that "the people" are the government and therefore anything the government does is a-ok because it is done by "us".

In other words, basically what we have going on today. Many of the American revolutionaries actually preferred monarchy. The last sentence of the above paragraph is crucial for understanding why. In a monarchy, the people cannot be so easily deluded with the illusion that they are in control. So if the government/king gets out of hand, there is a revolt and the king gets beheaded (like Charles I). But people get too unruly in a democracy, and they are just told "tough, if you don't like it vote them out", as if the candidates provided to us by the powers that be are not hand-picked by the rich and powerful to support their interests, and force-fed by the media to the point where nobody else has any chance of getting elected.

But the American revolution was about the abuses of monarchy, so they didn't want one of those either.

The attempted solution to this was the electoral college. The original plan was that you only voted for people you knew and trusted. Local politicians. Your city board member could be your next-door neighbor, but who the heck is this President character? So the idea was people would vote for electors from their districts, the same way they'd vote for a Representative. The elector would campaign in that district, essentially on a platform saying "this is what I'll look for in a President", the people would vote for the elector, and then the elector who wins would vote for the President. Additionally, the State legislatures would send two electors of their own, appointed in the same way as Senators were back then, so that State governments would be able to exert influence on the executive election process.

It never actually worked this way. Voters wanted to have a say in the actual Presidential election, so they were given that, sending electors who pledged to vote for a specific candidate, rather than having people vote for the electors themselves in lieu of the candidates. It's hard to say whether the original idea would have been any better, though. There's so much room for corruption in sending a bunch of electors to vote in secret for the President.

In any case, we are essentially a democracy now (with all the crap that goes on in democracy as I mentioned above). Because whoever wins the popular vote in a State has a whole slate of electors for that candidate sent to vote in the College, and because the number of electors a State gets is proportional to its population, the candidate who wins the popular vote across the country is probably going to win the election. The only exceptions are in ridiculously close races, which are always questionable enough that the popular vote really could have gone either way anyway. But in general, the President is elected by the people en masse, just like any democracy.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Thank you for the time you took to answer!
Well, I think the College is way too manipulable to really work...

You said a democracy would bring sociopaths and the likes in politics... Isn't that what we are seeing now, with the Elites?

Rome also had big troubles with one of their king. They rejected the concept of monarchy until Julius Caesar manipulated everyone into becoming a Dictator ( someone who will say what to do ), a tittle you could pass on to your children or next of kin.
With all the talk of the Elite being all related, it looks like it hasn't changed a bit.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
You said a democracy would bring sociopaths and the likes in politics... Isn't that what we are seeing now, with the Elites?

Yup. Like I said, the USA is pretty much a democracy.



With all the talk of the Elite being all related, it looks like it hasn't changed a bit.

Precisely. The only difference is modern society has an ideology of anti-elitism, so the elites are generally underground. But they're still there. You can't get rid of them. Primate social behavior is hierarchical. You might not think might makes right, but might always determines those at the top. Anyone who commands a military is vastly, vastly powerful.

If anything the ideology of anti-elitism and the resulting secrecy just makes the elites even more dangerous than they were when they were flaunting their eliteness all around us commoners.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

If anything the ideology of anti-elitism and the resulting secrecy just makes the elites even more dangerous than they were when they were flaunting their eliteness all around us commoners.


You are absolutely right! The more they can hide, the more they keep access to unknown technology... and the more they can develop hellish plans to submit us a bit more!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 




If the states could leave the Union before the civil war, how can it not be considered mandatory, because it implies they cannot now,no?


Nothing implies that states are required to be in the Union .. no portion of the Constitution, nor any Federal Law.. it is however a common understanding that if any state tried to leave, the Federal Government (with some state backing) would assault the state in question and force it into submission.

The American Civil War was not a civil war at all, because it was not "internal strife" as would define a Civil War.. in the Civil War entire geopolitical/economical territories completely self reliant with pre-established governments left a Union .. it can therefore be called many different things.. a War in general, a Revolutionary War (like the US vs Britain) or as it's more commonly referred to as a War of Succession.



Man, the more we go into this and the more it all looks like a scam of epic proportions!


Most of the Founding Fathers were very anti-Federalist.. Federalist did eventually take over, because the very nature of any Federal system is an eventual, gradual, and unstoppable consolidation of power. Every law Congress makes, ever action taken by the Executive Branch, every debate somehow, in someway furthers the power of the Federal Government. Given enough time, the Federal Government eventually becomes THEE Government. In the case of the Civil War the Federal Government tried to regulate the trade of the Southern States, among other regulations. The South tried to leave and the North forced them into submission.

Since then the true scam has begun, because before the Civil War you were not defined as an American, but as whatever respective state you hail from. You were a Virginian first, an American second. After the Civil War the Feds worked tirelessly to end all state identification, a wave of legislation to normalize as many interstate laws as possible to downgrade the differences, and moving northern politicians into southern territory to prevent a "southern rising" of political ideology.



Well, I think the College is way too manipulable to really work...


The College it's self isn't manipulated, in fact it works essentially as it's supposed it.. the only thing that isn't working is .. Democracy. Just because we are a Republic (or Confederation) does not mean the representation has to be by vote in such a direct way.. by forcing politicians to be prostitutes, those that pay the bills have the power. Then you take into account the vast majority of voters are not educated enough to understand most issues, more than half ignore national problems all together, and many don't vote. Democracy as a system is inherently flawed because Humans are to ignorant to self-govern in this capacity.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 

My 1st problem with the presidential elections is that I only get a choice between BAD and NOT AS BAD. Like Bush vs Gore - can we have a do-over?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I believe our kind overlords at Corporation X did in fact give us a choice between two candidates of their choosing.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FearNoEvil
 


LOL you and SpectreDC are right. In Canada, even if we have 5 candidates for an election, it seems their true colors range from bad, to not so bad, too...
Maybe corporation X has tentacles so long that they are everywhere.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


It is somehow shocking to hear the Civil War wasn't really one... We have been told that for so long... But at the same time, it is the winner that writes history, so...

You say that the North had other preoccupation than the liberation of slaves? It is so obvious... They knit this one very tightly... Was it to form a (con)federation?, i mean enough to become a superpower?
It would have been a rare happening to have them really help poor people and not themselves...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
It would have been a rare happening to have them really help poor people and not themselves...

Good observation. The slavery thing was a pretext, and largely added on afterward to rationalize the North's imperialistic war.

The fact is the North's position in the Civil War violated the very principle underlying the whole American Revolution: Popular sovereignty, or the idea that the people have the right to choose their own government.

But the North could not afford to let the South leave, because tax revenues were already being spent disproportionately in the North to support northern industries. The whole war was about protectionism. The loss of the southern states would have sent the North into economic turmoil, as revenues that so many in the North depended on would have vanished overnight (and in fact did).

As for slavery, the South's secession would have spelled its doom. The only things keeping it alive were federal acts like the Fugitive Slave Law, which required free states to capture escaped slaves and send them back to the slave states from where they came. After secession, this law would have been moot.

All other Western nations abolished slavery without bloodshed, largely because slavery is an unsustainable economic system, especially when you're surrounded by free regions that the slaves can escape to. More and more resources must be spent just to keep the slaves in their places, which ultimately comes to a tipping point where it becomes cheaper to just hire the slaves as free workers than to maintain their status as slaves.



[edit on 26-5-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


I can see a parallel with the situation of the Province of Québec...

Canada do not want to recognize us a distinct society. We are French speaking, do not perceive things in the same way the English do, have been subjected to assimilation and ridicule and so on... We are ignored by English Canadians, for the most part, it seems... when you listen to MSM.
And yet, every Canadian Prime Ministers had to "show" he had Québec's blood running in his veins to obtain the job.
Plus, we have the St-Lawrence river that is the biggest water way to get to the center of North America, almost... We are paying the most taxes...

If they could make slaves of us, they would, that's for sure...

So, they do not want us, they want what's ours... And it is worst for every Amerindians...
2 Canadian genocides would be bad for worldly PR...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
No I don't think the average person gets a say or a vote!

Most of the time it's "Shut up slave or it's two to the head"



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by godfish
 


I just remembered; when in my last year of High School, a teacher said that we were living in a free country, contrary to Russia.
I still have no idea why, but I got infuriated and told her: "You shouldn't say lies like that to the children! The only difference between Canada and Russia is that in Russia, if you say the government is sleazy, you'll get in a gulag... You can say the Canadian government is sleazy, they'll let you. But if you have proof, you're more than likely to find there ARE Canadian gulags..."


The poor miss was in a state of shock... I didn't know about conspiracies then, and I do not know why I acted like that. It was pretty unusual for me...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yup. Way too many people don't get it. Our society has become a bunch of surface citizens. Whatever they're told, however things appear is their reality. Most question nothing for they no longer have any depth to their thinking. They're just surface-breeders. Breeding more surface beings.

If people were paying attention in 2004, Kerry won the popular vote (supposedly) and Bush, the electoral college vote (supposedly).

It really doesn't even matter anymore.

This system is so corrupt and so broken, it doesn't matter if they just flipped a coin from now on.

Presidents haven't been elected in decades. They've been pre-selected by the Elite.
Obama? Puh-lease. He was a shoe-in back in 2006 and virtually came out of nowhere.

We should all forget about politics and figure out a way to get our lives back. Collectively. As a planet.

Nations keep us divided and the corrupt systems that run them, keep us angry.
Let's move away from it all. It's all about to come crumbling down anyway.
Stick around. The show of all-shows, is about to begin.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by One Moment
 


LOL! I love the irony of your avatar! It's so true! LOL

Ah... if more people were ready to make a stand! As it is, many people tell me that they won't risk losing the few bits they have. Even if they think they will lose it all eventually... Brainwashed?... Seems more like Brainsedated...

I remember a few years ago, in Italy, the government had risen the taxes on gas. People asked it be returned to the previous amount. Gov. said no.
On the next friday afternoon, at 3PM, everybody cut their motors where there vehicle was and let it there. Nothing could move in the country anymore! After a week, the gas price was lowered below what it cost prior to all that...

We, as a people, do have a power. We just don't use it at all. Our ancestors who fought for liberties, even if they, too , were mislead, would die again if they could see our collective apathy.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Regarding the legality of secession, please read this wiki on Texas v. White, 1869.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the majority opinion Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote this:


The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?


And this:


When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.


Secession would be as illegal today as it was then. To claim otherwise is delusional.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


Wow. That is crazy! If you are in a free country, the first right should be to leave. Not on every account and without being accountable for share of responsibility, but nonetheless.

It was like reading. "When you sign this contract, after 7 years, your soul is mine! Thanks for this view, Grumble! :0 Hun!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


That was actually Lincoln's own assertion and was actually the focal point for his war against the South ... The Justice simply highlighted Lincolns own assertions and expanded upon the meaning.. HE did not interpret anything regarding the Constitution, only what a former President had said (Chief Justice under Lincoln was Taney) .. Personally, I don't put much faith into a man who's supposed to define the Constitution but uses a speech given by a former President.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some specifics on the Civil War.



new topics




 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join