You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Daily Dose of Sultnpapper 12/02/18> My thoughts and a quote from J. Edgar Hoover.
Yes, I made some mistakes drinking the Republican Kool Aid, but at least I finally woke up and realized the error of my ways. I am not afraid to admit I have made mistakes and the truth is that if I actually had to declare a party that I align with it would have to be the Libertarian party right now and I voted for a few of them in the last election.
Prescott Bush was the biggest piece of shit of them all and he should have been tried for treason. His grandson GW may have outdone him though, only time will tell.
The problem now is there is nobody to vote for!!! They talk about "voter apathy" -- but they also characterize it as "the exhausted majority." Man, does that ever say it. I got sick of voting for "the lesser of two evils" after about two rounds. Now I refuse to vote for someone I don't want just because the other guy is a bigger turd.
One thing I would like to see happen is the doing away with straight party voting being allowed. Where all you do is check one box and every candidate with that party gets your vote in races you are eligible to vote on.
Most people couldn't tell you one thing about more than two candidates at the most that vote straight party.
I also think there should be a "none of the above" option on every single ballot, every single point. And if "none of the above" wins the majority they have to keep putting up different candidates or different propositions until somebody gets an affirmative majority.
None of the above. That could solve a shit-load of problems.
I agree with this thought for sure, I have written in "none of the above " in prior elections.
Back when we had paper ballots.
I'm running with this. None of the above will likely get my vote for a while.
Good to know Jenny. Start questioning your elected officials about their oaths of office and about our money system for starters. We don't get to vote but every couple of years, in the mean time we need to wear these bastards out with hard questions.
I'm not too concerned about the oaths myself. At the end of the day, they are just words and only as good as the person behind them. If we could get quality people in office, oaths would be a mere formality, or a reminder of why they are there.
I do like hard questions. I've heard that each president who discussed restructuring/removing the Federal Reserve was assassinated...any thoughts on that one?
You seem to be very intelligent so this reply baffles me. Oaths are not just words, it is a solemn promise to do what is right.
In the case of the oath that none of them are taking it is an oath to support the constitution and is required by law.
So what we have currently is a bunch of people in government who are basically outlaws, operating outside the law. Not only that, they pass plenty of laws that go directly against the constitution, which is treason. The fact that they even hold themselves out as congressmen, senators and president without that oath is treason as well because it is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America. Which has happened, we no longer have a government of the United States of America, you will always hear it referred to as the U.S. government. It sound very similar, but they are not the same thing, we are led to believe they are but they are not.
By never taking that oath, they could never be held accountable for things they do as holders of those offices, because technically they don't hold them. Most of them probably don't even know they outlaws but they are when you get right down to it.
As for the presidents and the Federal Reserve, only one president has been assassinated since the Federal Reserve has been in existence and that was JFK. Kennedy created United States notes to go against the Federal Reserve notes.
Before the Fed we had National Banks and Lincoln created a paper currency called greenbacks, $150 million worth of them, and used them in place of gold and silver. The banks at the time didn't like that and there is thought that the banks were behind his assassination. He created them in 1862 and was assassinated in 1865.
So you have two presidents who fooled around in the banks playground and ended up dead from lead poisoning, lead from bullets. I can't say with any certainty that the banks killed either of them, but it surely has to be a possibility.
A solemn oath taken by a liar is still worthless. It's kind of like a marriage vow - that too is a solemn oath, but does not actually cause a person to behave in a way contradictory to his or her nature. A cheat will cheat regardless of the promises they made, the contracts they signed, or the oaths they uttered.
Do you think that Trump, or any other politician, would suddenly decide NOT to take the office they had been elected to if they realized they had to swear a real oath to uphold the Constitution? I doubt it - they would say the required words to secure their positions and continue behaving however they please.
I understand what you are saying about them operating outside of the law...but there is no one left to enforce it. It's a giant joke at this point, like the show Who's Line Is It Anyway... the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
I don't know how to fix it. Any ideas?
Were Garfield and McKinley involved in changing the way banks do business? I really don't know a great deal about it, but Matthew and I were discussing it the other day and he mentioned that each one had suggested or tried to change the banking system shortly before his death. You seem quite knowledgeable about these things.
Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner. I have been swamped with design work in the evenings and haven't even had time to write the Daily Dose.
Back in the times of Garfield and McKinley there was a lot of mistrust of any politician and especially the presidents so they could very easily been targets for their policies and both had issues with banks.
Liars and cheats look to get into office since they know they have privileges , like being able to use information they learn in office to buy and sell stocks for example.
Having inside knowledge on certain businesses and industries would make it very easy to "invest" in a business if you know that a law will be passed or repealed that would benefit that business or industry.
For you or me it would be "insider trading" and punishable by a prison sentence but for congress and the senate it is just one of the perks of the job, nothing illegal about them using knowledge of such to make investments.
tRump and the others know they will never have to take that oath to support the constitution so it is a non-issue for them. How many of those same politicians would be willing to be die for the crime of treason though if they did take that oath? The answer is none, none of them would be willing to die so the best way out is to never take that oath and that is what has been done. That part has been going on for decades about not taking that oath, to the point that most politicians probably don't even know it is required by law.
So maybe we need to make them more aware and put them to the test? I will try and expand more on some of this in some future Daily Doses.
Thanks for the great comments and support.
In my wildest dreams I envision an election where literally nobody shows up to vote. What do you suppose the guzbuckers will do then?
There will always be someone who votes, but that would be a neat thought.
It might boil down to who has the biggest family or most close friends.
I will now quit ranting on your blog. (Unless, of course, something else pisses me off.) I have a sweatshirt that says, "Don't start with me. You know how I get."
Witness a case in point.
There is plenty of room, rant all you want. I don't know that I'll get around to answering each one, but don't let that stop you.