A group of citizens "lobbying" for a specific government action is one thing. In the US, most of the "lobbying" is done by large corporations who hire other businesses whose only business is "lobbying" and these corporations spend enormous amounts of money hiring these other companies to solicit favors from people in the Congress and government which they almost always get. Most people refer to this as "bribery", except the politicians.

If Trump wins, you will never hear from these women again and nothing will be done even if absolute unequivocal proof were available. The media are cowards, there is no "fourth estate" in this country. They sell themselves to the highest bidder which would be the corporations that pay their salaries and whoever happens to be in power.

If Clinton wins, they will also disappear as they will have served their purpose. Even if everything they say about Trump is true and there is unequivocal proof, they served their purpose so no one will care.

The Constitution enumerates two "high crimes": Treason, and Bribery.

I think that it's rather telling that they chose to list these two crimes specifically, because they are so related to one another. In both cases, someone in a position of trust and power is abusing that trust in order to deliver the Nation into the hands of its enemies.

But His Imperial Majesty, King John Roberts the First, exercising the "Divine Right of Kings" that the Court one day simply appointed unto itself ... (the Constitution does not contain the word, "unconstitutional") ... rewrote the Constitution by means of his Imperial proclamation.

At the same time, King John declared that "corporations" were "citizens" and that they had "Constitutional rights," specifically including (heh, heh ...) "freedom of $pee¢h."

A very(!) Wise Man once said that, "By their fruits shall ye know them." I don't know how much money King John and his black-robed cronies took for rendering that decision. But its fruit is that it simply "legalized Bribery," even though the Constitution itself forbids it.

Thus far, "hundreds of millions of citizens" are not yet angry enough to force this bit of quasi-judiciary nonsense to be reversed, nor to do other obvious things such as term-limits and popularly elected Justices. (The Constitution says almost nothing-at-all about the Judicial branch.)

No politicians allowed
 

How about randomly selecting candidates? Ordinary citizens serving instead of life-long politicians. The selection process would work similar to jury selection, but with no judge or lawyer review. 2 or 3 candidates per office, publicized with their views on various issues, and the election held, all within a few weeks every 4 years. The random selection system would have to be open source so as to be readily auditable.

Well its an idea. Somewhat reminds me of France, and I know I have posted about France on some other post on LQ General. They have it right at least. Candidates from each party are allotted a fixed sum, no more no less; and ANYONE can be a candidate - you do not need some rich asshole for support - which means you are not tied down to anybody's whim, save for the public if you truly intend to serve and not some rich asshole.

You will never see a system like that here in the States - because there will be no bri-*cough* I mean lobbying of any kind - money will have less influence. Its not the Murrican way.


Vive la France!

This only echos what I have been saying, and what everyone should know or already knows all along....

The wife of a President is refer to as First Lady as their title.

If Mrs. Clinton wins this election, I'm curios to know what will the title be for the husband?

The First Lady-cuck

FBI reopens Clinton investigation as new emails found
 

"The FBI has learned of more emails involving Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she headed the State Department, FBI Director James Comey told several members of Congress, telling them he is reopening the investigation"

https://www.rt.com/usa/364586-comey-...investigation/

Amusing :)

Perhaps First Gigolo or First Skirt Chaser :)

The latter most likely


I don't like either candidate, but at the same time those Shillery supporters who claim Drumpf is a sexual predator, remind me again about her own husbands affairs again? The idiocy is just astounding. Nevermind also the corruption, and the $300m the 'Clinton Foundation' "raised".

I'll just leave this here:

That's a huge difference.

That's also a huge difference.

Also: you do realize that you're pretty much the only person currently posting in General who thinks RT has any credibility, right? I'm seriously wondering about what family background you might have, that would cause you to think that the Russian government and the Russian media can do no wrong.

like fox/cnn has any actual cred? As of right now you are the only one who does not think rt has any cred. That doesn't reflect all of LQ, and whoever doesn't like RT thats not my problem.

And I do not see the different between affairs/predator... Again WHY should I think only less of drumpf and not shillery? I don't like either, she pretty much down played bill's actions and his willie, but has the nerve to go after drumpf? c'mon now.

Again I don't plan to vote in this sham election anyways...

Clinton Foundation did nothing to help anybody - so what kind of 'charity' is this foundation then?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us...aiti.html?_r=0



But wait, Dugan may not like the nytimes, so please list a more reputable source dugan please by all means. :rolleyes:

nytimes is fine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525

Would this be ok? or again please whatever 'trustworthy' news outlets dugan

No, I think I'll just leave you to figure that out on your own. So far you've been doing better.

Back to the theme of this thread. . .

On most ballots there already is, in fact, a 'None of the above' option. Namely, put any name you please in the write-in box. If you like the idea of agitating for an open-source random-selection process, perhaps a write-in vote for 'Linux' or 'Tux' would be the thing to do.

US election: Clinton campaign condemns FBI email move
 

"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign team has challenged the FBI over its decision to brief US lawmakers on a new inquiry into the Democratic candidate's email use."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37813607


Yes, how dare they? Such impudence!

I see a potential happy result in this election due the FBI reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. I would be happy if Hillary Clinton won the election in November, was inaugurated in January, and was indicted two days later for bribery and corruption through the Clinton Foundation and violating the security laws as Secretary of State. Then Hillary Clinton would be forced to resign and Tim Kaine would become president. I think that Tim Kaine would make a very acceptable president.

I also think that Mike Pence would make an acceptable president but I don't think that Donald Trump will be indicted anytime soon.

So I will be happy to vote for Gary Johnson as planned and hope for an indictment against Hillary Clinton after her inauguration if she wins.

--------------------
Steve Stites

Hi...

That would be anarchy (and very undesirable) but it does remind me of an expression which I think has a bit of wisdom: "That government is best which governs least." Not all problems can or should be solved by the government. :)

Regards...

Government is needed for two things: to make uniform laws (but, not all laws need be uniform, and to do things that individuals and corporations need but cannot individually afford to do.

For instance, in the 1950's and 1960's, we decided that the US needed an Interstate Highway System.

Today, as for-profit health care (sic) providers and for-profit health insurance (sic) providers, having been given exactly the law that they paid so much for, are now going bankrupt and closing "non-profitable" hospitals, we in the US must soon realize that we need a US National Health Service. This is to remove the incentive for "making profit" from a vital-to-society activity that cannot be done "profitably" if it is to be done well and made available to everyone in society who needs it.

My father would have died, thus saving the health insurance company a lot of money, because Revenue Management decided that the treatment he needed was eight hundred dollars "too expensive." Had we not marched into Revenue Management with a certified check, and listened to an Accountant call the Doctor and authorize treatment, we would have been giving that check to a grave-digger.

My uncle did die in an identical scenario.

The very same insurer who built a palatial palace to itself in Chattanooga, Tennessee just cut coverage to 70% of the people in the State of Tennessee and raised rates 65% in one year for the rest.

A for-profit hospital management company that seeks to gain monopoly power in the same city has been striving for years to shut down a community hospital in nearby Georgia, and is methodically buying up and closing down other hospitals in outlying regions so that more patients would have to be transported longer distances (if they make it ... and if they weren't, guess they wouldn't have been profitable anyway ... c'est la guerre ...) to receive treatment (sic) in t-h-e-i-r (profitable) facilities.

That's what "government" is, or should be, "for."

Not "trying for fifteen years to build an oil pipeline for Richard Cheney, Inc. to the Caspian Sea by way of Afghanistan." (Which effort, albeit unsuccessful, has never been stopped ... at the cost of undocumented numbers of soldiers ... because "it would be so goddamned profitable.")

- - -
And if you vote for "either one of 'those two,'" don't expect any change for the next eight years.

The decision ... no matter how much they scream and no matter how many billions of dollars they spend screaming ... i-s [y]ours.

Since Mr. Putin himself clearly states he doesn't care who is president, only about rhetoric of the next president - seems that all this 'hacking' is another red herring to distract the US population.

Vladimir Putin ... who is by no means innocent of being at the helm of horrible things either ... is nevertheless a very experienced head-of-state, and he is of course "at arms' length" from the actual election and its outcome.

If you take the time to actually listen to the quoted video in its entirety, you'll see that his observations are extremely prescient. For instance:

• This is entirely the conjuring of "the American mainstream media," which of course does everything that it does for a calculated purpose.
• The apparent purpose is to strengthen the political objectives of the Democratic Party against those of the Republican Party.
• The strategy is to conjure up "an enemy," and then to say that your opponent is aligned to the purposes of that enemy, and is endorsing its President. (Putin makes it quite clear that any such perceived endorsement is not reciprocal.)
• Trump is acting "flamboyant," to play to a group of voters who feels disenchanted with a 'ruling elite.'
• It's anybody's guess what either of these two would actually do, if either is elected.
• Yes, it is a good thing if either of them are even talking about normalizing relations with [Russia], but ...
• The only thing that actually matters to a foreign state is what the winner actually does after having won, and that's still anybody's guess.

After any winner of the post "wins," for the next four-or-eight years there is nothing left but the daily grind of doing the job. The mainstream-media rhetoric stops (until the next election cycle), and reality sets in.

- - -
I'm always reminded of this quote, more-or-less made by "an American President": Which American President said that?

George Washington!

General Washington, being the first President to serve under the then-brand-new Constitution, had misgivings about the structure and the definition of the Office, which has absolute military authority but no civil authority other than "veto and influence." (The delegates debated other possibilities, including an "Executive Council," but this is what they came up with.) It has been that way ever since. Young (wo)men enter the office, but, invariably, old (wo)men come out.

To my way of thinking, the Mainstream Media is very much to blame, in some respects, because it sets up expectations in the minds of voters that the actual definition of the Office cannot achieve. No matter what either candidate says that they will do, they can't actually do it (by themselves). The actual running of the Country is not "a reality-TV show," yes, but the usually level-headed attorney and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be seen these days, either.

Which is why I am not voting for either of them.

That was once my opinion as well, until i read the book of Judges for the umpteenth time and realized its very last verse was a statement of glory, not lament. 450 years that nation lived with NO HUMAN GOVERNMENT, save an occasional charismatic judge raised up by the Almighty as a stop-gap measure. A wild ride? For sure. Unrealistic fantasy? No argument. Undesirable anarchy? I no longer think so.

Meh ... No, they simply lived as they always had ... as tribes, with leaders that never bothered to have been captured by (or, more likely, given the situation of those days, were simply never known to ...) the "official State history" authors of a book such as Judges.

Its "last statement" was: "a statement of official propaganda!" :jawa:

As we read books such as Judges, now many-thousands of years later, let us always bear in mind exactly what these books are: they are "Official State Histories."

The authors are writing about spans-of-history that might be "450 years," or more. Therefore, their writing is entirely based upon the histories that were available to them, as they may have been doctored-up by <<persons unknown>> even "several generations(!) before their own time." Also, their projects are commissioned by the then-extant State Government, which is paying the bills, and which undoubtedly has Its Message To Send. Their purpose, above all, is to Send That Message.

And so, even though the writing may encourage you to believe, "this is The Way That It Really Was, and 'Your Gentle Writer™' is Not There™," one ought not actually believe any such thing . . .

How could they be Official State Histories when there was no Official State? (which was my point exactly) That you see the Scriptures themselves as political documents indicates your personal bias, nothing more. My comment was mostly directed toward ardvark71 who appears to believe, as i do, that there are powers greater than the State.

What is one to actually believe, then? The authoritative statements of an LQ Guru?

Yes, I would vote "No Confidence" or "None of the Above"

For years, I've spoken about elections where "None" was available. Candidates were required to get 50% plus one vote or more to gain election. In the case of those running un-opposed, they would be out of office without the 50%+1 tally.

I've firmly believed that the lack of House and Senate "term limits" was a major oversight in the writing of our Federal Constitution.

This!!!! It won't really matter who the president is when you have congressmen/women and senator in power for their entire life, and they are ripped of real life because of their sheltered place in government.

Also it seems the democRATS are scurrying about, because of these new Clinton revelations seems that the Clinton camp are hard at work at obstructions: http://ijr.com/2016/09/687917-federa...on-of-justice/

I like neither candidate, but when Mrs. Clinton actually MET with the prosecutor on the tarmac 'all of the sudden' - and all the revelations since then - well - she does not even deserve to be running (inb4 Trump "lock her up" mantra) - the FBI needs to keep probing and not be swayed by any of her connections.

Seems to me they are also so desperate that they are trying to say it was the Russians behind all this - lets dispense with the lies shall we?

Tux for President!
 

It must be recognized that anyone who wishes to influence peoples' lives (outside the family circle) is morally and emotionally screwed up. The more power-hungry, the more screwed up. From this it can be seen that the fatal flaw in our political system is that only such screwballs can be elected, like the scum rising to the top of a boiling vat full of dirty socks. George Washington was the last decent president because he was the last one who didn't really want the job. The more time that passes, the more the vat boils, the dirtier the scum.

So here's the next revolution: an open source random selection process. 3 names selected at random for each office, in September. The names are published, with brief bios and viewpoints of each candidate. The election is held in November without a single caucus, convention, or campaign. Once the term is served, the person is exempt from all further service and can return to normal life.

A write-in vote for 'Tux' would be a vote for such a system, as well as a 'None of the Above' vote. Let the revolution begin!

"Nevertheless(!), if I may politely say, both(!) of you," appear to be quite-willingly caught-up in this trap(!) that neither(!!) of you actually need bother(!!!) to be caught-up in. :eek:

Fact is, at no(!) point have "your electoral choices" actually been confined to "just (one of, specifically) two."

Although this lie happens to be "a multi-billion-dollar lie," it remains just as un-true as ever it was.

Throughout this entire electoral process, it has always(!) been the case that f-o-u-r equally-qualified names would confront your "almighty pen."

Go ahead. "Choose."

Go ahead. "Choose freely."

Go ahead. "On Election Day, be an American." "And let their damnable 'multiple billions of dollars'™ be damned."

:jawa: ...

No, I'm not a fan of this option at all

Well, I was told that RT is not a reliable source, but how come other more 'reliable' sources didn't show this at all?

-edit

Well, if Assange confirmed that the Russians have no hand in this I guess the Clinton camp needs to finally shut the hell up already about the Russians... Not going to happen, the American people are too stupid not to fall for the Russian 'threat'.

Because reliable sources don't treat Assange as one. Duh.

BTW, I see that a) your show of being familiar with anything other than RT lasted exactly one day, and b) you've declined to elaborate on where your bias in favor of Russia (and China, which you were asked about years ago) comes from. This is an interesting pattern, as we've had another poster (Sigterm) who I also suspect was intentionally hiding a Russian background.

How is Assange tied to Putin?

What is a reliable source anyhow? I think we can all agree that all 'sources' have some sort of bias, but still... As Mr. Assange stated when asked on the video, wikileaks have released plenty of documents about Russia - so naturally you would think RT wouldn't have anything to do with any of this, let alone show an interview like this.

So, if Wikileaks released documents about the skeletons in Russia's closet, just as much as the west's, - yet only the west is barking loudly about how bad Assange is, and how is is mostly a 'Russian mole' or pawn, or whatever (sources please?) - how would the Russians benefit from having their own atrocities laid bare? You would think they would be just as in a tizzy to get at Assange as well.

Or is it because, we should only be focusing on how bad the Russian are? I already know how bad they are, but hey I have to give them the most credit. They've not really said much about the documents, not really pointed many fingers about the west, yet the west like to point finger at them the most 'look how bad the Russkies are' (so that you do not see what we are doing behind your backs).

The part you quoted didn't say that. I've since edited it, but what I meant was that reliable sources don't take Assange or Putin at their word.

Tell me again how Russia's state-run media was the only one good enough to air an interview with Assange, and how that proves that Assange and Russia obviously have no connection.

Ok noted - I don't take Putin at his word, although yes I give him more credit than most other politicians only because he has said nothing; only the western media/government are the ones shouting the loudest. "Look what the Russians are doing in Syria, ...Nevermind the mess we've made for the past decade"

I don't have to take Assange's word - I can just troll the wikileaks site and make my own conclusion.

If wikileaks exposes information on various states even on the Russians, then why would it be in RT's interest to even have anything to do with Assange, or the Kremlin? If it also exposes the West's misdeeds, then hey that is a rather shrewd move if you ask me - the Kremlin knows they have skeletons in their closet but letting it go because the west has just as much perhaps more - not a bad move IMO. Besides, this isn't Правда(PRAVDA) we are talking about here.

Again, shrewd move by the Russians - I don't think the Russians appreciated the leaks of the abuses carried out - I am sure they would have preferred also that remained quiet.

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:...blowers/Russia

Which country's media just gave Assange an interview, Jeebiz? And which country did you just say he exonerated in that interview?

From the description of the video:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger



Uh, Pravda? :rolleyes:

Show me anywhere in the wikipedia article that John Pilger has any ties to RT, or the Russians.... Please by all means.

You just said that only RT even cared about that. So which is it?

Maybe Dartmouth Films are under the Russians?

No, it is just that I am fully aware of the irony that this kind of content, I get from the Russians.

If he produces something and only RT airs it (presumably after buying it), well, there's the connection right there.

You're not going to get out of this, Jeebizz. What you just said was that Assange just gave an interview that in your mind clears Russia of wrongdoing, and only RT chose to give that interview attention. Gee, I wonder why.

I'm not trying to get out of anything - how does Russia benefit if they also have their own secrets exposed at one point or another? If assuming the Russians are aware of this - then they would either have Assange killed once he is fulfilled his 'purpose' - then there is the issue of Edward Snowden criticising his Russian hosts (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/wo...ssia.html?_r=0) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...37904068,d.cGc)

But sorry I digress, the issue is Assange right?

Since at the moment the focus is still on the west, because of that election thing as well - that happens to be the main focus as of right now; - I just find it rather of 'Russian meddling' in US politics narrative a cop out

Oh btw... if you want me to answer this, then you need to answer two things for me first.

1. what do you think my answer will be?

2. what would your response be if I gave the answer you expect?

I rather like this bot's response. ;)

Reminds me of a review I read of The Laffer Utilities (a Leisure Suit Larry spinoff product), which included a sort of chat bot. If you asked it "Should I vote for Bush, Clinton or Perot?" it answers "you really should not"

1. The Kremlin is paying Assange phat amounts of monie$? (How much, and is that before or after taxes?)
2. *sings* Kalinka, kalinka, kalinka moya! V sadu yagoda malinka, malinka moya!

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2016/1...lieve-the-nyt/ http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/3...ald_on_clinton

I have stated previously that all sources have bias - the fact that this source concentrates all of it's efforts at this point in time at the west - it doesn't bother me a bit - I'm going to again play devil's advocate here - lets assume I then agree that Putin is behind all this, what makes the west so very different in it's own right? They do just as much meddling as well.

No, I was going to say that the DNC hacks were traced back to Russia, the forensic and technical evidence was released online for civilian intelligence experts to go over (all of which came to the same conclusion), it's now the consensus of the U.S. Intelligence community that the Russian government at least authorized those hacks, and that the materials stolen in those hacks were exactly what Wikileaks released.

AFAIK, Greenwald (since one of your link titles mentions him) doesn't deny that this happened, he just thinks it it's not relevant.

(Please tell me that you expected this to be brought up).

And who's the Devil?

With Greenwald I agree, why should I care if it were the Russians on that? I live in the west, so it was drilled into my own little head that the west can do no wrong ever.

I can only expect so much - in the end what I believe and what you believe is different that is fine. Plus where would the fun be there were no debate?

Whether I am correct, or you are correct the main point at least is that opinions are being laid out , thats a good thing.
I don't know, but I do hope you guessed his name , and do please have some sympathy for him....


All joking aside, in this surrealistic world the fact that the if the Russians are behind all the exposures - why should it invalidate it? Again, I do not live in Russia - so I don't care what Putin does or does not do; however again I live in the US a country that sure likes to beat the moral drum - but when their own shenanigans are exposed - can't have that.

Inb4 two wrongs do not make a right - I don't care if what was done by the Russians were 'wrong' - I do think that you and I can agree on one indisputable fact that there is no real black and white, but different shades - nobody is innocent - but in my opinion (yes just an opinion) - right now the lesser bastard aren't the Russians. Sorry