Eliminating Elections Key To True Representational Democracy

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: ERISunveiled

no one has demonstrated this won't fix the problems it claims, or that it will create problems worse than what we will have now.

1 in every 5 adults has some form of mental illness, and 1 in every 35 has a serious mental illness. What do you propose for all the psychopaths? What about the criminal element; will they magically turn over a new leaf and decide to become constructive members of society?

these are policy issues to be decided by our representatives. This proposal is simply a different way to select who are our representatives are

originally posted by: ERISunveiled

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: ERISunveiled

no one has demonstrated this won't fix the problems it claims, or that it will create problems worse than what we will have now.

1 in every 5 adults has some form of mental illness, and 1 in every 35 has a serious mental illness. What do you propose for all the psychopaths? What about the criminal element; will they magically turn over a new leaf and decide to become constructive members of society?

these are policy issues to be decided by our representatives. This proposal is simply a different way to select who are our representatives are

You propose an 8th grade education is all that's needed to serve; would you be comfortable living in a country run by a bunch of 8th graders?


P.S. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you might be with one of the alphabet agencies on a fact-finding mission. ATS tends to be populated by very patriotic people; perhaps you'd get a better idea of the peoples' pulse on Facebook. Not saying you are, but if it quacks like a duck and all that.

a reply to: ERISunveiled

Ok, let’s start simple, and work from there. I want change, I really do. The changes I want include reasonable term limits for government. When they leave after their term, that’s it, no lobbying, no running for another office, zip. Back to private citizen. Sound similar? It’s not, because I also want to vote for who I think would do a good job.

I want fair elections, show up in person to cast your vote, and be able to identify yourself. If you can’t, go home.
Severe disabilities that would prevent an in person vote, and can be proven by a doctor, can vote absentee. Fraud would be automatic jail time. If that’s inconvenient, tough. No car? Take a bus or carpool. I day to vote, 3 days to tally.

We have a system in place that will work if we tweek it. Punish people that subvert the system for personal gain, because no matter what system you put in place, unless you have honesty in politics, you have nothing. Instead of a 2 party system, how about a 10 party system. Why are they’re only 2? Are there only 2 views in this country?

I could go on and on, but what I’m trying to say is that you don’t have to destroy what we have, we should be improving it. The American people deserve better leaders.

The power of a United America is incredible, that’s why we are being divided. They want us bickering and calling each other names, this distracts from their crimes against the people. If we were united, they would never get away with the things they do. Fix the system we have, it will be far easier to do than what you propose. The government does not want change, and are horrified when the people push back for fear of losing control. If we would only unite, and see what is happening they wouldn’t stand a chance.

I do not condone violence of any kind to achieve this, it’s really not necessary. Peaceful protest on a massive scale would do it, let the violence come from the other side.

a reply to: ERISunveiled

You don't actually think that these "ideas" are unique, and new, do you??

I didn't need to read it all to see where it was headed.

Indeed, it is a totalitarian wet dream.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I get a kick out of the thought that these are in any way, "new".

Every totalitarian regime has attempted every one of these ideas.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights are enumerated. They are not bestowed by ANY man. We are all born with the rights to freedom, to liberty.

That's why God, by whatever name, must be taken out of the equation.

a reply to: Topcraft

Instead of a 2 party system, how about a 10 party system. Why are they’re only 2? Are there only 2 views in this country?

There are more than 2 partys in the US. Just because most of the population divides themselves into Bootlickers vs. morons doesn't mean that everyone does.

observerdesk.com...

If you like to party, give the Libertarians a try. You can always go back to being a bootlicker or moron if it doesn't work out.

a reply to: seagull

Someone once said that those who fail to learn from history end up repeating it while those of us who did learn have to live with it.

a reply to: ERISunveiled

It does not Matter . The False Gods Still Control Earth Politics,,,,,,,,,,


www.youtube.com...

Just an fyi legalising sex work and drugs does not generally make something liberal by itself.

Nazi Germany had both private & state owned brothels and you could buy Meth produced by state owned companies from nearly any pharmacy. That particular regime wasn’t exactly known for it’s liberal attitudes.

Not that i’m against legalising sex work and drugs, but you need more than that to not create a dystopian nightmare world.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get a kick out of the thought that these are in any way, "new".

Every totalitarian regime has attempted every one of these ideas.

that's quite a claim you need to back up with some evidence. bc if I just believed you based only on this post then that really would make me as dumb as you think I am.

ppl think these posts are about me trying to convince others this is a good idea. flip it. i post about sortition so someone can convince me this is a bad idea. so. if you have a link to something that shows "Every totalitarian regime has attempted every one of these ideas" then lay it on me. until then all I see are a bunch of sheep bleating for the status quo bc even though it sucks--it's all you know--and anything different would be scary.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just get a kick out of all these "new ideas" and none of them contain any aspect of individual rights, personal freedoms or liberties.

That's cause you're a conservative and those are conservative policies and those are bad. Didn't you read? Progressive policies are the good ones, duh!

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: ERISunveiled

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: ERISunveiled

no one has demonstrated this won't fix the problems it claims, or that it will create problems worse than what we will have now.

1 in every 5 adults has some form of mental illness, and 1 in every 35 has a serious mental illness. What do you propose for all the psychopaths? What about the criminal element; will they magically turn over a new leaf and decide to become constructive members of society?

these are policy issues to be decided by our representatives. This proposal is simply a different way to select who are our representatives are

You propose an 8th grade education is all that's needed to serve; would you be comfortable living in a country run by a bunch of 8th graders?


P.S. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you might be with one of the alphabet agencies on a fact-finding mission. ATS tends to be populated by very patriotic people; perhaps you'd get a better idea of the peoples' pulse on Facebook. Not saying you are, but if it quacks like a duck and all that.

no. you would need to be 18. the 8th grade education is all that's required bc it's actually not that hard to run the govt. we had a massive dip# run the highest office for... how many years? anyway. the idea only 'smart' people can run things is a successful psyop run by one of the alphabet agencies (better not say which one lest I blow my cover... oops) but yeah, the 8th grade education is required bc we... i mean I... didn't want certain communities excluded from being able to serve in sortition, like the Amish who will sometimes remove their children from school after finishing 8th grade

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just get a kick out of all these "new ideas" and none of them contain any aspect of individual rights, personal freedoms or liberties.

That's cause you're a conservative and those are conservative policies and those are bad. Didn't you read? Progressive policies are the good ones, duh!

thanks for bringing this back. still waiting for this person to explain what they mean by "individual rights, personal freedoms or liberties" and how this idea takes those away from ppl.

Also. my post doesn't dictate any policies conservative or progressive--those are for the representatives to figure out when in office. this plan is merely articulating a different way to select who our representatives are.

a reply to: ERISunveiled

"A" massive one ... as in only 1?! From where I sit we're into our second year of two idiots, unless you consider them so bad they only, at best, are equal to one person.

“At stake is the NATO Alliance, in terms of our unity, joining together — through, sometimes, compromise; certainly always through collaboration — to be a unified voice, especially when these very founding principles of our relationship are being compromised, if not attacked.”

That's what passes for deep, diplomatic thought from one of the two. She actually thinks Europe has been at peace for 70 years as if Yogoslavia never had civil wars, or Russia never attacked Georgia and then Ukraine prior to this. The *Berlin Wall* only fell 30 years ago, so the idea of Europe at peace for 70 years is laughably wrong.

But, I guess, since she's progressive like her boss, she's a "good idea".

a reply to: ketsuko

thanks for this relevant response. *FLAGGING POST*

originally posted by: ERISunveiled

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just get a kick out of all these "new ideas" and none of them contain any aspect of individual rights, personal freedoms or liberties.

That's cause you're a conservative and those are conservative policies and those are bad. Didn't you read? Progressive policies are the good ones, duh!

thanks for bringing this back. still waiting for this person to explain what they mean by "individual rights, personal freedoms or liberties" and how this idea takes those away from ppl.

Also. my post doesn't dictate any policies conservative or progressive--those are for the representatives to figure out when in office. this plan is merely articulating a different way to select who our representatives are.

If you are unaware of the definition of freedom or the importance of the Constitution then you are obviously a person that has never sworn an oath to the Constitution nor have you ever fought for the rights enumerated.



Grow up.

originally posted by: ERISunveiled
a reply to: ketsuko

thanks for this relevant response. *FLAGGING POST*

Oh, I see.

You don't like me remarking on our current leadership when you, yourself made disparaging remarks about leadership. I must have targeted the *wrong* leadership.

The point is that you want to dictate.

You baldly state that progressive policies are good and conservative are bad without making arguments to support your claims as though this is self-evident. It is not, and plenty of us will debate you on this point assuming you make any kind of point to begin with.

a reply to: ERISunveiled

Where did I say you're dumb?

Misinformed? Yes. Politically naïve? That, too.

Not the same thing, really.

As for examples? Read through history for examples that more than vaguely resemble what you've put forward.

I think you'll discover that those regimes were all totalitarian, and more than one still is.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ERISunveiled
a reply to: ketsuko

thanks for this relevant response. *FLAGGING POST*

Oh, I see.

You don't like me remarking on our current leadership when you, yourself made disparaging remarks about leadership. I must have targeted the *wrong* leadership.

The point is that you want to dictate.

You baldly state that progressive policies are good and conservative are bad without making arguments to support your claims as though this is self-evident. It is not, and plenty of us will debate you on this point assuming you make any kind of point to begin with.

since i had a moment of weakness and responded to an off-topic remark --i'll respond to this now, but only to get back on topic. here goes. this is not a discussion about policies our representatives make--it is a discussion about how our representatives are selected. once they are selected they can legislate any ol way they want whether i like it or not.