NeoNote — Politicos without sin
❝❝Politicos lie, it's what they do. I'm not bothered with Trump's use of the the phrase "witch hunt" or his other misdeeds. I'm bothered by the assertion that Trump's opponents and especially the Democrats and the mainstream media are Without Sin™ while Trump and his cronies are amazingly guilty and a unique threat to (the people, women, gays, blacks, left-handed paper hangers…)NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
I'm not going to go into specifics here because the gods know we've seen plenty of that elsewhere. It's a false choice, that one side is somehow more moral, more adept, just plain nicer, and better for the country than the other. Both major parties work to lock out alternatives and to restrict who gets to run and what gets discussed. You're told that choosing one from column A OR one from column B is better than not choosing. You're told that you participated, even if you just chose the form of your destruction. Heads they win tails we lose. And the red queen is long gone from the table.
When the game is rigged, of course the only choices are bad ones.
The game is not who gets to call the shots or who gets to make the rules. That's the distraction.
Ask the tea party which they would prefer.
That's the distraction. Somebody has to be "in charge." Meanwhile government spends more money, passes more laws, and leaves you with less freedom.
Right now you object to Trump. That's perfectly understandable. But a few years ago there were good people who were objecting to Obama, and the Democrat leadership and press were doing their best to demonize those people. Their reasons were at least as valid to them as yours are to you now. They didn't deserve to be attacked for their ideas anymore than you do. Obama did do questionable things.
No one is holding the elites responsible.
As long as you buy into the idea that one side is marginally better, the circus continues and you are cut out of the decisions. When the game is obviously rigged, the only answer is not to play.
I think "None of the Above" should be a valid choice, provided that if NOTA won, none of the people on that ballot could serve in that office for at least one term.
Well, first there's the question about what and where they are being represented. That's a very involved discussion, but for the moment let's just say that most laws are regulations are not only unneeded but threaten people.
Answering your question, if there are two and only two major parties (and inevitably first-past-the-post voting produces only two "legitimate" parties), most people end up voting for the least bad candidate, not the candidate who represents their interests, Just as one very obvious example, what the Diné expect from civil rights is completely different than what Hispanic immigrants expect, which in turn is completely different than "blacks" expect, which in turn is completely different than what Iranian immigrants expect. All of which is going to be modified by if they are legal or illegal immigrants and if we are talking about stealing mineral rights. Which the state of Utah tried to do to the Diné and the Ute last year.
This points out that all government should be as local as possible. But even more so, it reveals the needs for alternative voting or ranked voting. One of my favorite YouTubers CGP Grey explained it better than I could, take a look.
Whatever we do, we have to allow that the voter's interests are not necessarily the "national interests." Voters can and do resent it when politicos do things "for the voters own good." We've conditioned people to think that government is the first, last, and best choice to solve their problems.
Look at us now, rather than talking and finding things we can build on, both major parties are trying to seize control so they can inflict government on their enemies. There's no way Trump could have gotten elected if Obama hadn't played it fast and loose.
We're in shakeup territory, but those "in charge" have underestimated the stakes.
The reason Trump got elected wasn't because people were impressed with his business record or his hairdo. In part HRC helped, she and her minions wanted the Republican who was easiest to defeat. So the DNC machine pushed for his nomination.
If the best choices that the "system" can produce is HRC or Trump, doesn't that show that the "system" is failing?
But in this case, if you can win without being most people's first or seventh choice, then it's time to try something else. The thing is, the existing major parties will fight that because it means giving up their power. They'll fight it legally, they'll fight it illegally, and the only people who get screwed are the citizens. They don't want solutions, they don't want answers, they just want obedience.
Until the "system" collapses of it's own weight.
We're beyond the point where things can be saved. The American Dream has become "how do I exploit the other guy?"
One of them, yes.
Another is "Let me help.
Still another is usually labeled Christian, but originated in different cultures and societies. "Treat them nice because you want them to treat you nice. It's the Ethic of Reciprocity and it's arguably the foundation of Western Civilization. At least, when we remember it.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus