Only 1/3 of the electorate voted!

[green73]

Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/great-news-from-the-2014-elections/):


Great News From the 2014 Elections

Two-thirds of the people eligible to vote didn’t (http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/11/5/why-the-real-electionturnoutwasfarlowerthanreported.html#alabam a). Since only 1/3 of the people voted for the regime, shouldnt it be democratically dissolved? And notice that we have to go to Al Jazzeera to get the truth. The cheerleading State media of the US are silent.

[wizardwatson]

2/3 of electorate: Resistance is futile.
1/6 of electorate: I hate Obama.
1/6 of electorate: I hate Republicans.

[donnay]

Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/great-news-from-the-2014-elections/):

Yep.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[staerker]

Yep.

[...]

tldr; when the process fails you, just start it again and hope for the best. Y'know, it might work this time.?

[heavenlyboy34]

Probably the best thing about this is that all Americans can stop pretending the regime is legitimate. :) :cool:

[Ronin Truth]

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support."

[ghengis86]

what if there was an election and no one showed up to vote?
what if there were taxes and no one paid them?
what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?

[twomp]

what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?

Then there would be no war. The people that usually want war (including the part-time interventionists on this forum) are rarely the ones who actually have to go fight them.

[Anti Federalist]

tldr; when the process fails you, just start it again and hope for the best. Y'know, it might work this time.?

Better than the alternative.

Re-set the clock to zero and start over.

[staerker]

Better than the alternative.

Re-set the clock to zero and start over.

Yes, but not ideal. What is the point of starting a new government? We already know how it will end.

[Lucille]

what if there was an election and no one showed up to vote?...

Story time!

The Tale That Might Be Told
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/02/tale-that-might-be-told.html


Perhaps they will recount the tale many years from now. Perhaps an old man or woman will tell the grandchildren the story once more, as they try to speed the descent of peaceful rest. It's one of the children's favorite stories.

[ZENemy]

Hilary told me that no difference is made!

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, but not ideal. What is the point of starting a new government? We already know how it will end.

I pray for the day when humanity looks at government with the same disgust that it does at (mostly) slavery, human sacrifice and genocide.

I don't think we're there yet.

But a re-set of this regime would certainly help that along.

[ZENemy]

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support."

:D

I love it! May I borrow?





Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't vote.

[ZENemy]

I didn't vote.

Reported.

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't vote.

:D Good on you, comrade. If you ever just want lolz with it, do "unvoting" as I do. That is, write in imaginary candidates in every office. I'm still hoping Mr Giggles gets an honorable mention somewhere in AZ media. :D

[Suzanimal]

:D Good on you, comrade. If you ever just want lolz with it, do "unvoting" as I do. That is, write in imaginary candidates in every office. I'm still hoping Mr Giggles gets an honorable mention somewhere in AZ media. :D

Come on, you can do better than Mr. Giggles. At least go for something dirty like Mike Hunt, Seymour Butts, or Dr. T Sanchez.:p

[heavenlyboy34]

Come on, you can do better than Mr. Giggles. At least go for something dirty like Mike Hunt, Seymour Butts, or Dr. T Sanchez.:p

I did that for some others. I was just giving an example. I should be more creative next time, though. I was feeling rather lazy about it this year. :/

[Root]

Shit, now I feel bad for voting. I wanted to vote against my congress critter so I feel good about that part.

[Christian Liberty]

:D Good on you, comrade. If you ever just want lolz with it, do "unvoting" as I do. That is, write in imaginary candidates in every office. I'm still hoping Mr Giggles gets an honorable mention somewhere in AZ media. :D

I honestly just didn't think to register. I'm busy and there wasn't really anyone worth voting for. If I had been registered I would probably have just voted for all the Libertarian candidates and used write-ins where there were none.

[CaptUSA]

I voted. I recently moved and there were 3 referendums to raise taxes. 3!!

They were all voted down. :)

Didn't really care one way or the other about the politicians. Threw a couple votes the LP's way and did some fun write-in stuff that someone might enjoy. ;)

[parocks]

tldr; when the process fails you, just start it again and hope for the best. Y'know, it might work this time.?

Some people realize that there will in fact be people elected.

Whether you want there to be government or not.

You're just an idiot if you think that there is no difference at all between all candidates for all offices in all respects.

And that 1/3d number certainly does not apply for my state, Maine. I suspect that it's just completely wrong.

If my state is clearly over 1/3d, and it definitely is - what are the sub 1/3d states?

Maine was at least 56.4% - assuming that every Mainer 18+ is eligible to vote, and we know that's not the case.

Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013
maine - 19.7%
US - 23.3%


Maine - under 18 = 19.7%
maine population = 1,328,302
maine under 18 population = 261675
1,066,627 - max eligible to vote.

601,697 - voters so far

56.4% - at least - of the eligible voters voted

[parocks]

I pray for the day when humanity looks at government with the same disgust that it does at (mostly) slavery, human sacrifice and genocide.

I don't think we're there yet.

But a re-set of this regime would certainly help that along.

People who don't like government not voting just means that the people who do like government win.

I'd rather have the people who like Ron Paul voting than the people who like Ron Paul not voting.

If not voting means that the laws don't apply to you, great. Apparently a lot of people seem to think that it works that way. But it doesn't.

So, all you are doing is getting the shttier version by not showing up to vote for the slightly less shtty version.

[Chieppa1]

I only voted in the election because the ballot questions in New Jersey. Especially Number 1:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE

DO YOU APPROVE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE? THIS WOULD CHANGE THE
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL.

THE CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION WOULD MEAN THAT A COURT COULD ORDER THAT A PERSON REMAIN IN JAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL, EVEN WITHOUT A CHANCE FOR THE
PERSON TO POST BAIL, IN SOME SITUATIONS.THE AMENDMENT ALSO REMOVES LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER EXISTS INNEW JERSEY.THE CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY REQUIRES A COURT TO GRANT BAIL TO A JAILED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE TRIAL. IF THE PERSON POSTS BAIL, THE PERSON IS RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING TRIAL.

THE AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE A COURT THE OPTION OF ORDERING A PERSON TO REMAIN IN JAIL IN SOME SITUATIONS. THE COURT COULD ORDER SUCH DETENTION
BASED UPON CONCERNS THAT THE PERSON, IF RELEASED: WILL NOT RETURN TO COURT; IS A THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY; OR
WILL OBSTRUCT OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.

THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAWS CONCERNING PRETRIAL RELEASE AND PRETRIAL DETENTION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE
EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2017 TO ALLOW ANY NEW LAWS TO BE ENACTED AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO REMOVE LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER
EXISTS IN NEW JERSEY.

Source: http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/2014-results/2014-unofficial-general-public-question-1.pdf

Oh. It passed:

Yes: 850,085
No: 528, 438

[heavenlyboy34]

People who don't like government not voting just means that the people who do like government win.

I'd rather have the people who like Ron Paul voting than the people who like Ron Paul not voting.

If not voting means that the laws don't apply to you, great. Apparently a lot of people seem to think that it works that way. But it doesn't.

So, all you are doing is getting the shttier version by not showing up to vote for the slightly less shtty version.

Problem with this argument is that "Shitty v Shittier" is a lose-win (we lose, they and their cronies/welfare recipients win) proposition-not in the rational self interest of very many people.

[parocks]

Shit, now I feel bad for voting. I wanted to vote against my congress critter so I feel good about that part.

Don't feel bad for voting.

The anti-voting arguments being used are idiocy.

Politicians will be elected whether you like it or not.

And most (at least many) of us here would vote for "no government" if it was a choice. But it isn't a choice. There will be policians elected.

And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.

People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.

We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.

But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.

[parocks]

Problem with this argument is that "Shitty v Shittier" is a lose-win (we lose, they and their cronies/welfare recipients win) proposition-not in the rational self interest of very many people.

What are you talking about?

No one is saying that you're going a nice prize for voting.

You're simply going in there and picking a less shtty politician. In my case, there were choices I found not shtty, but good, but even so, even if all the choices were shtty, if I could find the differences, could identify the less shtty, I'd be voting.

Because it most definitely is in your rational self-interest to pick the less shtty choice.

I'm not saying that shtty does not = shtty - but that there will be someone elected, and the less shtty version is better than the more shtty version.

And it's in everyone's rational self-interest for things to be less shtty than more shtty.

[A Son of Liberty]

And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.

People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.

We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.

But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.

Oh bullshit. You're just not paying attention. The difference is a matter of such infinitesimal degrees that even at a tree-level view they're indistinguishable. And that's just from a practical standpoint. From a philosophical standpoint there is objectively NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, IN REAL TERMS.

EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT PASSES WITH ONE OF THESE SO CALLED PARTIES IN CHARGE AMOUNTS TO SOME GREATER DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't feel bad for voting.

The anti-voting arguments being used are idiocy.

Politicians will be elected whether you like it or not.

And most (at least many) of us here would vote for "no government" if it was a choice. But it isn't a choice. There will be policians elected.

And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.

People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.

We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.

But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.Wishful thinking is wishful.^^
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/65/8f/14/658f14322bcead926f7fb193564462c5.jpghttp://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/1261505769.jpghttp://gi113.photobucket.com/groups/n202/F76GY4X3AO/democrats-democrats-republicans-pol.jpg

[Deborah K]

I think the only reason this is being discussed is because Obummer used it in an attempt to propagandize. Stats are showing "On average, the populations who are likely to avoid the polls are also the populations likely to vote for a Democrat......" http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/05/midterm-turnout-decreased-in-all-but-12-states
oh dear.....

[staerker]

Some people realize that there will in fact be people elected.

Whether you want there to be government or not.

You're just an idiot if you think that there is no difference at all between all candidates for all offices in all respects.

I never said that.? Nice try putting words in my mouth though.

If I were ever granted the marvelous opportunity to decide whether a 'D' or 'R' put a bullet in my head, I would have a really tough time deciding. It really would be a tough decision, there are so many pros and cons to each party, and they really are nothing alike.

You just don't understand the stakes at hand.

[HVACTech]

Shit, now I feel bad for voting. I wanted to vote against my congress critter so I feel good about that part.

you have a civic duty to vote in our system.
in our Republic voting is but ONE of a system of checks and balances. we are NOT a Democracy, in fact Democracy is illegal in this country.
utilizing the Democratic PROCESS is NOT Democracy. but it is a way of getting the people involved and also limiting the damage they can do.
do the same people who belittle us for voting also think that the congress and senate should also not vote?

if people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.. are they worthy of pure anarchy yet? if they cannot even understand much less handle min-anarchy?

[heavenlyboy34]

you have a civic duty to vote in our system.
in our Republic voting is but ONE of a system of checks and balances. we are NOT a Democracy, in fact Democracy is illegal in this country.
utilizing the Democratic PROCESS is NOT Democracy. but it is a way of getting the people involved and also limiting the damage they can do.
do the same people who belittle us for voting also think that the congress and senate should also not vote?

if people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.. are they worthy of pure anarchy yet? if they cannot even understand much less handle min-anarchy?

Again, wishful thinking is wishful.

[phill4paul]

do the same people who belittle us for voting also think that the congress and senate should also not vote?

1/1000 of what they bring up to vote on shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. If the REPUBLIC were true to it's intent the Senate and House would be a mighty damn boring place to spend one's time. But, this "Republic" is hardly what it was intended to be nor is the Democratic PROCESS. And voting harder is not going to change it.

[HVACTech]

Problem with this argument is that "Shitty v Shittier" is a lose-win (we lose, they and their cronies/welfare recipients win) proposition-not in the rational self interest of very many people.

brilliant retort!!
(unfortunately, you did NOT understand the statement)


So, all you are doing is getting the shttier version by not showing up to vote for the slightly less shtty version.

what did you do with the extra time? get your nails done?

[A Son of Liberty]

I most certainly think that the HOR and Senate should not be allowed to vote. In fact, every single time they cast a vote on some piece of "legislation" which presumes to govern over objectively sovereign human beings is explicitly an act of VIOLENCE.

Yes, voting is an act of violence. It's really not all that difficult to see.

[A Son of Liberty]

1/1000 times what they bring up to vote on shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. If the REPUBLIC were true to it's intent the Senate and House would be a mighty damn boring place to spend one's time.

Well we certainly can't have that! Senators and Representatives are awfully important people - the people said so, after all. They need to be occupying their time with awfully important things, as befitting their station.

The state ALWAYS expands its role. And no piece of paper is ever going to stop that. It LITERALLY grows like a cancer until it has snuffed it's host completely out. If history has shown ANYTHING, it has shown that.

[Christian Liberty]

I most certainly think that the HOR and Senate should not be allowed to vote. In fact, every single time they cast a vote on some piece of "legislation" which presumes to govern over objectively sovereign human beings is explicitly an act of VIOLENCE.

Yes, voting is an act of violence. It's really not all that difficult to see.

What if its a vote for Ron Paul? What if its a vote to repeal the drug war? What if its a vote to end the war in Afghanistan?

I'm not a huge fan of voting. I didn't vote this time. I definitely don't buy into the whole "voting is doing your civic duty" and so forth. But I don't think its always immoral to vote.

[HVACTech]

But, this "Republic" is hardly what it was intended to be nor is the Democratic PROCESS.

brilliant retort!
so, enlighten me oh wise one...

what has changed about the Democratic PROCESS?

[Christian Liberty]

Well we certainly can't have that! Senators and Representatives are awfully important people - the people said so, after all. They need to be occupying their time with awfully important things, as befitting their station.

The state ALWAYS expands its role. And no piece of paper is ever going to stop that. It LITERALLY grows like a cancer until it has snuffed it's host completely out. If history has shown ANYTHING, it has shown that.

I want to (non-violently) kill the State entirely. But, I am not convinced that it is actually possible. I want to make the government small enough to drown in a bathtup, and then actually drown it in said bathtub. Barring that, the closer we get to said goal, the better.

[HVACTech]

Again, wishful thinking is wishful.

very powerful retort!
do you know, what separates a Democracy... from a Republic?
do you understand the meaning of the words?

(insert evasive, flippant rebuttal here)

[Matt Collins]

This is good... it means it's cheaper to market to those who actually vote

[HVACTech]

I most certainly think that the HOR and Senate should not be allowed to vote. In fact, every single time they cast a vote on some piece of "legislation" which presumes to govern over objectively sovereign human beings is explicitly an act of VIOLENCE.

Yes, voting is an act of violence. It's really not all that difficult to see.

now, that right there... is... (words fail me) LOL!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IasCZL072fQ

[HVACTech]

This is good... it means it's cheaper to market to those who actually vote

personally I think we humans should ASPIRE towards anarchy. but it is certainly NOT possible yet, if they cannot even handle min-anarchy.
do you think HB can answer the question I posed? (after he finishes getting his nails done and looks it up of course)

pretty simple question, "what separates a Republic and a Democracy" and if a person cannot even do that...

[kcchiefs6465]

now, that right there... is... (words fail me) LOL!

Very convincing rebuttal!

You, Sir, are a wordsmith... A scholar if ever there was one.

How you formulated such a lengthy dissertation into such a succinct and impeccable argument as you've done, I'll never know.

[phill4paul]

brilliant retort!
so, enlighten me oh wise one...

what has changed about the Democratic PROCESS?

^^^

(insert evasive, flippant rebuttal here)

Figure it out yourself jack wagon.

[Suzanimal]

what if there was an election and no one showed up to vote?
what if there were taxes and no one paid them?
what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?

+rep

The What if speech I'm dying to hear...

[kcchiefs6465]

personally I think we humans should ASPIRE towards anarchy. but it is certainly NOT possible yet, if they cannot even handle min-anarchy.
do you think HB can answer the question I posed? (after he finishes getting his nails done and looks it up of course)

pretty simple question, "what separates a Republic and a Democracy" and if a person cannot even do that...
And again, I am amazed!

What a difficult and hard hitting question! Truly illuminating stuff you're bringing up.

We are a republic which operates under a system of collectivism, governed by a piece of paper that no person ever legitimately contracted themselves to adhere to (a paper that said protectors of which almost never adhere to), enforced by thugs with guns who themselves are paid through the taking from all....... Please, bless us with a more accurate explanation.

[HVACTech]

Very convincing rebuttal!

You, Sir, are a wordsmith... A scholar if ever there was one.

How you formulated such a lengthy dissertation into such a succinct and impeccable argument as you've done, I'll never know.


Yes, voting is an act of violence

a "PROCESS" is used to generate electrical power. the same "PROCESS" is used to keep your toes warm.
unless of course, you think we are a DEMOCRACY.
utilizing a "PROCESS" is not analogous to violence. (unless of course, you are a lump of coal)

:)

[heavenlyboy34]

very powerful retort!
You get what you earn! :)


do you know, what separates a Democracy... from a Republic?
do you understand the meaning of the words?
Yes. (I would wager I know the meanings of words better than you do, in fact, having many moons' worth of study and practice in literary translation) I also know both are at best amusing and somewhat egalitarian thought experiments for pseudo-intellectuals and the booboisie.

[heavenlyboy34]

personally I think we humans should ASPIRE towards anarchy. but it is certainly NOT possible yet, if they cannot even handle min-anarchy.
Why? We have proof of practical application of the former on a number of scales, and none of the latter beyond very small, mostly agrarian societies.

[HVACTech]

And again, I am amazed!

What a difficult and hard hitting question! Truly illuminating stuff you're bringing up.

We are a republic which operates under a system of collectivism, governed by a piece of paper that no person ever legitimately contracted themselves to adhere to (a paper that said protectors of which almost never adhere to), enforced by thugs with guns who themselves are paid through the taking from all....... Please, bless us with a more accurate explanation.

dude, the words "Republic" and "Democracy" were developed in like B.C. (or BCE if you prefer.) they are very old words.
China is a Republic.

this is getting funny, you punted,
I will wait and give HB a shot at the question. to repeat the question, "what separates a Republic from a Democracy" or vice-verso.

[heavenlyboy34]

What are you talking about?

No one is saying that you're going a nice prize for voting.

You're simply going in there and picking a less shtty politician. In my case, there were choices I found not shtty, but good, but even so, even if all the choices were shtty, if I could find the differences, could identify the less shtty, I'd be voting.

Because it most definitely is in your rational self-interest to pick the less shtty choice.

I'm not saying that shtty does not = shtty - but that there will be someone elected, and the less shtty version is better than the more shtty version.

And it's in everyone's rational self-interest for things to be less shtty than more shtty.

In the art of negotiation and interaction, there are 4 primary types of proposition: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose. The first proposition is the ideal for both parties. The last is the least ideal. The commonest proposition that occurs in politics is lose-win: that is, the majority of people with vested interest in the outcome of any given election are on the least favorable end-while the minority and the political class are on the most favorable end. Such propositions invariably cause conflict, discord, and animosity-the undesirable outcome in the art and science of negotiation.

[HVACTech]

You get what you earn! :)


Yes. (I would wager I know the meanings of words better than you do, in fact, having many moons' worth of study and practice in literary translation) I also know both are at best amusing and somewhat egalitarian thought experiments for pseudo-intellectuals and the booboisie.

that was a punt.

in a Republic, there is a "rule of law" in a Democracy, there is not.


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

:toady:

[heavenlyboy34]

dude, the words "Republic" and "Democracy" were developed in like B.C. (or BCE if you prefer.) they are very old words.
China is a Republic.

this is getting funny, you punted,
I will wait and give HB a shot at the question. to repeat the question, "what separates a Republic from a Democracy" or vice-verso.
At what point in history? Semantic shift and trends in poly-sci and popular opinion has altered the meaning of the terms significantly in the course of their existence (China, as you mentioned is a republic, as was Soviet Russia and its satellite States).

[heavenlyboy34]

that was a punt.

in a Republic, there is a "rule of law" in a Democracy, there is not.



:toady:

Not in practice. This has never occurred in the history of man beyond, as mentioned earlier, primitive agrarian societies on a small scale of existence.

[HVACTech]

Why? We have proof of practical application of the former on a number of scales, and none of the latter beyond very small, mostly agrarian societies.

methinks, thou art got that 100% completely backasswards.

[HVACTech]

Not in practice. This has never occurred in the history of man beyond, as mentioned earlier, primitive agrarian societies on a small scale of existence.

too much nail polish. the Romans invented the "rule of law"

[HVACTech]

Not in practice. This has never occurred in the history of man beyond, as mentioned earlier, primitive agrarian societies on a small scale of existence.

punt #2.

the rule of law has never occurred?
I know girly man, this is COMPLICATED stuff right here.

[kcchiefs6465]

that was a punt.

in a Republic, there is a "rule of law" in a Democracy, there is not.

I am amazed by your educational prowess.

In a republic there is the rule of law, in a democracy there is collectivist determination as to the law with a legal positivist understanding of what law is.

So explain to me, please, considering the unsupported fact you've offered that this is a republic, what are you using as your evidence? Original intent? What happened in 1798 as a result of the minority of the minority's election to office?

A group of people elect a virtually unaccountable minority, they come together and enact laws that touch every person, said laws are at odds with human freedom and in a majority of cases at odds with the Constitution (written over two hundred years ago, not signed by any living person, yet simply ascribed to them as being contractual because they were born in a given region [read: collectivism; democratic tyranny; indoctrination]). Said laws are enforced by a class that are funded through a given minority (of people in general, but majority of voters) voting to steal property from person 'A,' 'B,' and 'C.' But you are ready to posit that this is a republic even after this simple and brief destruction of any case you may make? And ask stupid ass questions that any competent fifth grader could answer (though they'd answer much as you do, at least partly the result of being a product of public schools)?

GTFOH.

Come back with an actual argument. It doesn't take a political science major to punt the ball way beyond your reach. If you weren't always such an ass, I'd probably have just said "meh."

[HVACTech]

At what point in history? Semantic shift and trends in poly-sci and popular opinion has altered the meaning of the terms significantly in the course of their existence (China, as you mentioned is a republic, as was Soviet Russia and its satellite States).

you know dudette, I was just thinking about that aspect..

I mean, how can you have 50 PSIG (pounds per square inch gauge) in a 1/2 inch pipe!!
but do you know what happens if I convert imperial measurement to metric? nothing.
it is still not PSIA (pounds per square inch absolute) it is just plain ole, PSIG.

[HVACTech]

I am amazed by your educational prowess.

In a republic there is the rule of law, in a democracy there is collectivist determination as to the law with a legal positivist understanding of what law is.

So explain to me, please, considering the unsupported fact you've offered that this is a republic, ."

ya got me there hero. tis true.
in todays world our "constitution" is really nothing more than a corporate mission statement for our crony Republic.

why did you think that I did not know that?

btw.
hot is on the left, cold is on the right. shit rolls down hill, don't chew your fingernails and. payday is on Friday.
anything else I missed?

[kcchiefs6465]

ya got me there hero. tis true.
in todays world our "constitution" is really nothing more than a corporate mission statement for our crony Republic.

why did you think that I did not know that?

btw.
hot is on the left, cold is on the right. shit rolls down hill, don't chew your fingernails and. payday is on Friday.
anything else I missed?
It isn't simply that today the Constitution is never followed, it's that it never was (not to mention it being a flawed document contracted by no one today). It wasn't followed by those that contributed to it. It certainly has been blatantly ignored for the last 160 years. The lip service they offer it is no sanctuary for the truth... and evidence... and history.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[Root]

Don't feel bad for voting.

The anti-voting arguments being used are idiocy.

Politicians will be elected whether you like it or not.

And most (at least many) of us here would vote for "no government" if it was a choice. But it isn't a choice. There will be policians elected.

And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.

People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.

We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.

But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.

Nah man. That's not me. I only voted because the guy who ran against Booker is pretty decent. When I saw a LP candidate was running against Liberal Leonard Lance he got my vote. The two people running for county sheriff are both drug warriors so I wrote in Ron Paul. I wrote myself in anytime there was someone running unopposed, red or blue team. I voted very hard this election. :cool:

[parocks]

In the art of negotiation and interaction, there are 4 primary types of proposition: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose. The first proposition is the ideal for both parties. The last is the least ideal. The commonest proposition that occurs in politics is lose-win: that is, the majority of people with vested interest in the outcome of any given election are on the least favorable end-while the minority and the political class are on the most favorable end. Such propositions invariably cause conflict, discord, and animosity-the undesirable outcome in the art and science of negotiation.


Are you trying, in great detail, to explain what win-win, and lose-lose and all of that is?

What you're talking about doesn't explain reality. If you recently took a course in school that discussed that, that's great. But what you're talking about isn't applicable to what we're experiencing as voters.

Typically, it's Lose More vs Lose Less. That's the way it works. You go in there, and when you can't tell which one is better than the other one, you skip that one. I voted 2 days ago. One of the big races I was happy to vote, the other one I skipped.

There is no good argument that you can make that not voting is better than voting.

We want our people to vote. Because NOT our people are voting. You can easily say that you can't blame somebody for being unable to vote for crap, but you can't argue against voting. You want your people to vote. Your people are going to make better decisions than not your people. Opting out of voting, systematically, leads to problems we have.

When the only people who vote, suck, they're going to vote for the most sucky. When people who don't suck vote, they'll vote for the least sucky. No one is saying that you won't be voting for sucky, but you're voting for least sucky. And if you spend your time telling people who suck that they shouldn't vote, instead of telling people who don't suck that they shouldn't vote, we'd get better outcomes.

Stop telling the people who don't suck that they shouldn't vote.

[HVACTech]

It isn't simply that today the Constitution is never followed, it's that it never was (not to mention it being a flawed document contracted by no one today). It wasn't followed by those that contributed to it.

do you know why we put HVAC/R equipment up on the roof, and let bugs and spiders get in there?
the reason is VERY simple. if we did not.
women and children would take our jobs!!!!!!
if it was easy they would have sent.. (someone) with a notepad.

other than "spoonerisms" what is your point?

what "self evident" truths do you find repulsive?

[kcchiefs6465]

do you know why we put HVAC/R equipment up on the roof, and let bugs and spiders get in there?
the reason is VERY simple. if we did not.
women and children would take our jobs!!!!!!
if it was easy they would have sent.. (someone) with a notepad.

other than "spoonerisms" what is your point?

what "self evident" truths do you find repulsive?
You know, I typed a response to your previous HVAC-experience-pointing-to-pointlessness and deleted it. After the continuing HVAC references, I shouldn't have.

Next time I need a recommendation on an air filter, you'll be the guy I ask.

You wouldn't understand my point if a book was lobbed at you. This conversation is futile.

The Constitution is amazing. It comforts me when I'm cold.

[PaulConventionWV]

Some people realize that there will in fact be people elected.

Whether you want there to be government or not.

You're just an idiot if you think that there is no difference at all between all candidates for all offices in all respects.

I used to think like you. I know better now. I wish more people would just give up and stop voting. Voting for change is an even more hopeless endeavor than not voting for change, especially at this point.


And that 1/3d number certainly does not apply for my state, Maine. I suspect that it's just completely wrong.

If my state is clearly over 1/3d, and it definitely is - what are the sub 1/3d states?

Gee, if the sprawling metropolis of Maine had a good turnout, the statistic must be wrong! You know the saying: as Maine goes, so goes America. California and New York ain't got nuttin' on Maine!


Maine was at least 56.4% - assuming that every Mainer 18+ is eligible to vote, and we know that's not the case.

Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013
maine - 19.7%
US - 23.3%

Wow, that's a really convincing statistic for how a state of less than 1.5 million people can outweigh 49 other states, some of them with over 30 million.


Maine - under 18 = 19.7%
maine population = 1,328,302
maine under 18 population = 261675
1,066,627 - max eligible to vote.

601,697 - voters so far

56.4% - at least - of the eligible voters voted

Can't argue with that.

[HVACTech]

You know, I typed a response to your previous HVAC-experience-pointing-to-pointlessness and deleted it. After the continuing HVAC references, I shouldn't have.

Next time I need a recommendation on an air filter, you'll be the guy I ask.

You wouldn't understand my point if a book was lobbed at you. This conversation is futile.

The Constitution is amazing. It comforts me when I'm cold.

I am very used to being talked to in a condescending manner.

go ahead, check what prices I can charge in YOUR market. :)

you bore me all the way to the bank.

[William Tell]

So 2 thirds of people could take the country back if they wanted too.

[HVACTech]

I used to think like you. I know better now. I wish more people would just give up and stop voting. Voting for change is an even more hopeless endeavor than not voting for change, especially at this point.



Gee, if the sprawling metropolis of Maine had a good turnout, the statistic must be wrong! You know the saying: as Maine goes, so goes America. California and New York ain't got nuttin' on Maine!



Wow, that's a really convincing statistic for how a state of less than 1.5 million people can outweigh 49 other states, some of them with over 30 million.



Can't argue with that.

I think I'll dye my hair blue.

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't feel bad for voting.

The anti-voting arguments being used are idiocy.

Politicians will be elected whether you like it or not.

And most (at least many) of us here would vote for "no government" if it was a choice. But it isn't a choice. There will be policians elected.

And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.

People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.

We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.

But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.

You're right, politicians will be elected whether we like it or not. And guess what else: we don't get to choose. Voting is just about as hopeless as not voting. In fact, it's even more hopeless because at least if the 1/3 of people who did vote would just stop voting, then the whole system would be exposed for what it is.

I'm not even saying this on principle. I literally think not voting is a more practical solution to our government problem than voting.

Your other problem is that you act like a slave. Of course, if you accept it as inevitable that you are going to be governed by Ds and Rs, then nothing will change. If you start acting like a free man, however, it is much more likely to effect change than if you just keep blending in with the herd and bleating along with the other sheep.

[green73]

There's a certain age, varies for each individual, but let's just say "40", where people who've be involved in politics and statism for years can't revert, can't admit to themselves they've been wrong all along.

[PaulConventionWV]

brilliant retort!!
(unfortunately, you did NOT understand the statement)



what did you do with the extra time? get your nails done?

Getting one's nails done would be a much more productive use of one's time than voting.

[PaulConventionWV]

very powerful retort!
do you know, what separates a Democracy... from a Republic?
do you understand the meaning of the words?

(insert evasive, flippant rebuttal here)

I know all about that. I got a degree in the stuff.

While I see where you're coming from regarding democracy vs. republic, I still think not voting is a better idea at this point than voting. Because where we are in the game, we have neither a democracy nor a republic. Voting may have been a good idea when the government was actually responsive to the people, but not anymore.

[HVACTech]

I'm not even saying this on principle. I literally think not voting is a more practical solution to our government problem than voting.

wow, seriously profound dude.
what do you think is more practical?
what did you do with the time you saved?

[pcosmar]

So 2 thirds of people could take the country back if they wanted too.

Less than that,, if they were serious.

[HVACTech]

I know all about that. I got a degree in the stuff.

While I see where you're coming from regarding democracy vs. republic, I still think not voting is a better idea at this point than voting. Because where we are in the game, we have neither a democracy nor a republic. Voting may have been a good idea when the government was actually responsive to the people, but not anymore.

true that, the mid-terms did not change anything. :)

good thing you stayed home on your ass. :)

[specsaregood]

Stop telling the people who don't suck that they shouldn't vote.

It does seem fairly masochistic to spend lots of time telling people that agree with you on many principles to not vote rather than spending such efforts on the people that regularly vote for and support growing the size and scope of government.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think I'll dye my hair blue.

That's one thing you can do with time formerly spent voting! Good job!

[PaulConventionWV]

wow, seriously profound dude.
what do you think is more practical?
what did you do with the time you saved?

Saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to GEICO.

[PaulConventionWV]

true that, the mid-terms did not change anything. :)

good thing you stayed home on your ass. :)

How right you are, my good man!

[Anti Federalist]

Saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to GEICO.

LOL +rep

[specsaregood]

LOL +rep

you might not laugh as much about geico if you read their history. A company that got its start insuring govt employees because they were more stable and safe than the general public. their whole business model relied on growing the federal govt...

[heavenlyboy34]

you might not laugh as much about geico if you read their history. A company that got its start insuring govt employees because they were more stable and safe than the general public. their whole business model relied on growing the federal govt...

Yeah, but the Gecko is hilarious. :D

[Anti Federalist]

you might not laugh as much about geico if you read their history. A company that got its start insuring govt employees because they were more stable and safe than the general public. their whole business model relied on growing the federal govt...

(Bronx Cheer)

Well, thanks a lot, Bobby Buzzkill.

[parocks]

It does seem fairly masochistic to spend lots of time telling people that agree with you on many principles to not vote rather than spending such efforts on the people that regularly vote for and support growing the size and scope of government.

One thing to consider, post Snowden, is that people are getting paid by fed gov to spread their message, which is "people who like us shouldn't vote". So it's not masochism, but doing their job.

Remember, on a related matter, that Ebola Nurse who didn't like quarantines in Maine was working for the CDC in the EIS, the Intelligence Department when she was in Maine. People are now being paid by the Federal Government to pretend to be something they're not. "I'm a Liberty Loving Nurse, I want my freedom. I'm a hero." "NO, you're a Federal Government employee, you work for CDC. The CDC operates Quarantine centers - 20 of them around the US. You are trying to hurt your competition, the states, by discrediting their own quarantines, but I'm sure that you'd support any CDC quarantine."

That's the world we live in. It includes the fed gov paying people to post things on the internet. And they're selling terrible ideas to fans of liberty. The key idea - one that has taken hold - is "don't vote unless the candidate is perfect." You only see fans of liberty saying this. The left doesn't do this.

In Maine, we had a victory in May 2012, which many of you remember. We had 4 more votes at a caucus, and we got the wins. We elected a lot of state committee people. And we also elected a national committeeman, Mark Willis, who was fresh from Washington DC, and a job at INSCOM, or Army Intelligence. And pretty much, since then, all downhill. Our message - "you don't agree with us, we quit." And most of the gains were lost. Instead of increasing our gains, being rational, strategic, we acted stupidly, irrationally. And a primary driver of that was Mark Willis, and his little subfaction.

Eric Brakey was living in NYC in 2011. He was working at Spanos's Ron Paul NYC phone bank. Ron Paul hired him and sent up to Maine to work for the campaign.
He wasn't in charge for the caucuses, but he was in charge for the Convention and he, and the rest of the team, got the win. Skip forward 2 years, he just won State Senate in Maine. So, that's good. It's good to see that a Ron Paul staffer can move into a state, and 2 years after the election he moved there for, he wins State Senate. He was endorsed by Ron and Rand. So, big congratulations to Eric Brakey if this hasn't been mentioned before. He and his team got the win in 2012 and Willis from INSCOM and his team wrecked it.

[specsaregood]

(Bronx Cheer)

Well, thanks a lot, Bobby Buzzkill.

and I didn't even mention their present owner, a douchebag often trotted out by big government advocates. Who makes his money off of increasing taxes and bigger govt.

besides, all the hey let's talk small govt people out of voting assholes buzzkilled this thread.

[H. E. Panqui]

Good grief!..I came on here expecting a site dominated by clear thinking libertarians...certainly not waffle-headed Republican pom-pom wavers!!.. yuck!..

A little hint for the Republican cheerleaders here: Your one stinking vote in a federal election isn't going to be 'the difference' between the stinking D and your stinking R..but your one vote is an affirmation of this obvious (s)election fraud to which we are all witness..

In mere sports competitions you Republicrats demand dozens and dozens of heated, head-to-head, live contests..with the announcers and cheerleaders SECONDARY to the event...before you crown a champion..

But in VERY IMPORTANT political competitions they feed you Republicrat mullets a couple of phony debates (if that) between two hand-picked puppets with the stinking media announcers and cheerleaders PRIMARY to the fraudulent event..YET YOU STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR/AFFIRM these miserable cruds and their fraudulent (s)elections!!

You Republicrats are surely ruinous...self-destructive...stooooooooooooooopid!...

[specsaregood]

Good grief!..I came on here expecting a site dominated by clear thinking libertarians...certainly not waffle
Everyday I wake up and am thankful I'm not a Libertarian, it sounds so exhausting being better than everybody else. I don't know how you guys do it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Everyday I wake up and am thankful I'm not a Libertarian, it sounds so exhausting being better than everybody else. I don't know how you guys do it.

Bah, you're thinking of Objectivists.

[Anti Federalist]

and I didn't even mention their present owner, a douchebag often trotted out by big government advocates. Who makes his money off of increasing taxes and bigger govt.

besides, all the hey let's talk small govt people out of voting assholes buzzkilled this thread.

I'm an anti-voting agnostic rather than a militant anti-voting athiest.

After a whole lifetime of "voting hard" I'm pretty much at this point: "Meh. My personal opinion is, it is pretty pointless, but, if it makes you feel better or helps achieve some marginal success, then, by all means, be my guest."

Certainly there are some voting/political success stories, gun rights being one of them.

Damn, if we could get people to pay as much attention to the rest of their rights, we'd not be in nearly the mess we are in.

[parocks]

Good grief!..I came on here expecting a site dominated by clear thinking libertarians...certainly not waffle-headed Republican pom-pom wavers!!.. yuck!..

A little hint for the Republican cheerleaders here: Your one stinking vote in a federal election isn't going to be 'the difference' between the stinking D and your stinking R..but your one vote is an affirmation of this obvious (s)election fraud to which we are all witness..

In mere sports competitions you Republicrats demand dozens and dozens of heated, head-to-head, live contests..with the announcers and cheerleaders SECONDARY to the event...before you crown a champion..

But in VERY IMPORTANT political competitions they feed you Republicrat mullets a couple of phony debates (if that) between two hand-picked puppets with the stinking media announcers and cheerleaders PRIMARY to the fraudulent event..YET YOU STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR/AFFIRM these miserable cruds and their fraudulent (s)elections!!

You Republicrats are surely ruinous...self-destructive...stooooooooooooooopid!...

Are you getting paid to get the liberty minded not to vote?

If Libertarians can explain how not voting and making it clear that they have very strict demands which must be met before they got your vote, why wou igld Libertarians not be simply ignored.

Almost everything Libertarians do is awful from a political strategy perspective. And I assume that Libertarians are getting instructions on how to behave, politicially, from people who want hurt Libertarians.

Try asking a Libertarian how exactly a proposed plan helps something, how that plan helps achieve an objective - and you get nothing. Just garbage.

Oh, you're sending some sort of message? Listen. That's not a new message. It's the same message that's being sent every year. We're useless and destructive to our own interests. Even when it's fairly clear that the R is more liberty minded than the D, and that's usually the case, you have Ls jumping up and down about how someone who is clearly not a libertarian dream candidate shouldn't be voted for. People putting a lot of time and effort to convince people to engage in self-destructive behaviors.

Gary Johnson said he was running. To provide an alternative to Rand Paul or something like that? Why? Why is that necessary? How does that help? What objective does that serve?

There will a President. It won't be Gary Johnson. And if Gary Johnson cared at all about Liberty he'd be supporting Rand Paul 100%.

I want people with good taste in politicians picking the politicians. Even if they have sht to choose from, they'll come up with a better answer than the people with sht taste in politicians.

Yeah, they're often sht. Use your knowledge of liberty to figure out which of these pols is less sht, and vote for that person. We need all of us better taste people to vote to cancel out the sht taste voters.

These elections do in fact put people in place who do in fact make rules that effect our lives. I want the better pickers picking. And I'm not telling them what to do. I do suggest R - but that's often not the right answer. But I want the liberty fans in there - voting R, skipping a RINO, writing in Mickey Mouse, whatever they want to do, because they're in more general agreement than others about what kind of laws we want.

[Occam's Banana]

what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?

Then there would be no war. The people that usually want war (including the part-time interventionists on this forum) are rarely the ones who actually have to go fight them.

"Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone are considered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses should clearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yet divided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace." - Frédéric Bastiat



"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support."

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.

"In vain you tell me that artificial government is good, but that I fall out only with the abuse. The thing! The thing itself is the abuse!" - Edmund Burke

[Occam's Banana]

I'm an anti-voting agnostic rather than a militant anti-voting athiest.

After a whole lifetime of "voting hard" I'm pretty much at this point: "Meh. My personal opinion is, it is pretty pointless, but, if it makes you feel better or helps achieve some marginal success, then, by all means, be my guest."

Certainly there are some voting/political success stories, gun rights being one of them.

Damn, if we could get people to pay as much attention to the rest of their rights, we'd not be in nearly the mess we are in.

This ^^^.

"Anti-voting agnostic" is a perfect description of my own position.
I sympathize but disagree with the "militant anti-voting atheists."
I shall therefore steal both these terms and employ them myself.


all the hey let's talk small govt people out of voting assholes buzzkilled this thread.

This thread was started by green73 - who I am pretty sure is at least an "anti-voting agnostic" (if not a "militant anti-voting atheist"). His OP is composed of a celebration by Lew Rockwell (who I am fairly certain is also at least an "anti-voting agnostic") of the fact that a mere one-third of the electorate bothered to vote. Given these things, I'm not quite sure what "buzz" pro-voters might have gotten from this thread that could have been "killed" for them by the anti-voting "assholes" ...

;)

[H. E. Panqui]

specsaregood limbaughs: Everyday I wake up and am thankful I'm not a Libertarian, it sounds so exhausting being better than everybody else. I don't know how you guys do it.

:rolleyes:

(LOL! This comes from a suspected cheerleader for a stinking party full of loud, authoritarian Republiclowns who have their hands in everyone's pocket as deeply as the Democreeps at whom they hiss all GD day long! It's not 'Libertarians' who want to run/control other people's lives because they know best...IT'S YOUR STINKING REPUBLICRATS..get real!​)

[H. E. Panqui]

parocks parrots: Are you getting paid to get the liberty minded not to vote?

:rolleyes:

('Liberty-minded' doesn't mean a GD thing if it includes THE VAST VAST MAJORITY of your stinking, warmongering, monetary ignoramus, puppet Republicans. GET REAL..)

[staerker]

There's a certain age, varies for each individual, but let's just say "40", where people who've be involved in politics and statism for years can't revert, can't admit to themselves they've been wrong all along.

In my experience that age is around 20-25.

[Christian Liberty]

So 2 thirds of people could take the country back if they wanted too.

Only if there's a candidate on the ballot that will actually do anything close to that. Oftentimes, there isn't.

Good grief!..I came on here expecting a site dominated by clear thinking libertarians...certainly not waffle-headed Republican pom-pom wavers!!.. yuck!..

A little hint for the Republican cheerleaders here: Your one stinking vote in a federal election isn't going to be 'the difference' between the stinking D and your stinking R..but your one vote is an affirmation of this obvious (s)election fraud to which we are all witness..

In mere sports competitions you Republicrats demand dozens and dozens of heated, head-to-head, live contests..with the announcers and cheerleaders SECONDARY to the event...before you crown a champion..

But in VERY IMPORTANT political competitions they feed you Republicrat mullets a couple of phony debates (if that) between two hand-picked puppets with the stinking media announcers and cheerleaders PRIMARY to the fraudulent event..YET YOU STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR/AFFIRM these miserable cruds and their fraudulent (s)elections!!

You Republicrats are surely ruinous...self-destructive...stooooooooooooooopid!...

Ultimately, for me, its a pragmatic issue which depends on the particulars. I will not commit definitively and at all times to vote Republican, to vote Libertarian, to not vote, or anything else really. It depends on the particulars of the situation.

Will I vote for Rand Paul? Probably. Will I vote for Mitt Romney? Heck no.

I didn't vote this particular time, both out of laziness and because there was nobody I really wanted to vote for.

[H. E. Panqui]

FF writes: Ultimately, for me, its a pragmatic issue which depends on the particulars. I will not commit definitively and at all times to vote Republican, to vote Libertarian, to not vote, or anything else really. It depends on the particulars of the situation.

(Can't argue with that. Ultimately, for me, 'political elections' ought to be a vigorous, honest 'competition of ideas about government'..it is CERTAINLY NOT..and anyone participating by supporting these stinking Republicrats who control/dominate this fraud are making a mistake..including the zionist cheerleader Rand Paul, bozo cruz, etcetercrats galore..although, hypocrite that i am, and susceptible to delusion, I gave his father a pass...the only Republicrat I've affirmed in 30 years...i won't say never again...but...NEVER AGAIN!!) ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10418932_10204683292189573_1805243611356257110_n.j pg?oh=9b843495414acca40dd51b325afcd01f&oe=54F0F767

[Lucille]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-was-turnout-so-low/


2014 voter turnout was reportedly the lowest for a midterm election in over seventy years:

:)

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe next time we can go for only 1 out of 4 voted.

[enhanced_deficit]

..
what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?

Good Q.

If some did not show but others did, then there be problem.

US Army Deserter Forced to Leave Canada

http://images.military.com/media/news/people/kimberly-rivera-428.jpg
Associated Press | Sep 21, 2012
TORONTO -- A U.S. soldier who fled to Canada to avoid the war in Iraq has been arrested and detained at the U.S. border after losing her deportation case.
Kimberly Rivera, who lived in Canada for five years with her husband and four children, was issued a deportation order last month and given until Sept. 20 to leave the country.
The War Resisters Support Campaign said in a statement Thursday that Rivera presented herself at the U.S. border on Thursday and was arrested and transferred to military custody. They said her family crossed separately so her kids wouldn't see her arrested.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/21/us-army-deserter-forced-to-leave-canada.html

[nobody's_hero]

I only voted in the election because the ballot questions in New Jersey. Especially Number 1:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE

DO YOU APPROVE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE? THIS WOULD CHANGE THE
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL.

THE CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION WOULD MEAN THAT A COURT COULD ORDER THAT A PERSON REMAIN IN JAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL, EVEN WITHOUT A CHANCE FOR THE
PERSON TO POST BAIL, IN SOME SITUATIONS.THE AMENDMENT ALSO REMOVES LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER EXISTS INNEW JERSEY.THE CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY REQUIRES A COURT TO GRANT BAIL TO A JAILED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE TRIAL. IF THE PERSON POSTS BAIL, THE PERSON IS RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING TRIAL.

THE AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE A COURT THE OPTION OF ORDERING A PERSON TO REMAIN IN JAIL IN SOME SITUATIONS. THE COURT COULD ORDER SUCH DETENTION
BASED UPON CONCERNS THAT THE PERSON, IF RELEASED: WILL NOT RETURN TO COURT; IS A THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY; OR
WILL OBSTRUCT OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.

THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAWS CONCERNING PRETRIAL RELEASE AND PRETRIAL DETENTION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE
EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2017 TO ALLOW ANY NEW LAWS TO BE ENACTED AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO REMOVE LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER
EXISTS IN NEW JERSEY.


Remind me to add New Jersey to the list of places I never wanted to visit but will especially not be visiting now.

[donnay]

you might not laugh as much about geico if you read their history. A company that got its start insuring govt employees because they were more stable and safe than the general public. their whole business model relied on growing the federal govt...


G - Government
E - Employees
I - Insurance
CO - Company

Big Government + Big Business. No Free Market.

[specsaregood]

./

[donnay]

I'm an anti-voting agnostic rather than a militant anti-voting athiest.

After a whole lifetime of "voting hard" I'm pretty much at this point: "Meh. My personal opinion is, it is pretty pointless, but, if it makes you feel better or helps achieve some marginal success, then, by all means, be my guest."

Certainly there are some voting/political success stories, gun rights being one of them.

Damn, if we could get people to pay as much attention to the rest of their rights, we'd not be in nearly the mess we are in.

I am like Gerald Celente a "political atheist," anymore.

[A Son of Liberty]

What if its a vote for Ron Paul? What if its a vote to repeal the drug war? What if its a vote to end the war in Afghanistan?

I'm not a huge fan of voting. I didn't vote this time. I definitely don't buy into the whole "voting is doing your civic duty" and so forth. But I don't think its always immoral to vote.

There is no vote to repeal the drug war. There is no vote to end the wars... "votes" presume the authority of the state to initiate those actions. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" are organized crime operations for which they seek legitimization through the "electoral process". "Voting against" them merely lends credibility to their process - they don't care whether they fight a war against drugs and terror or not - they care about you giving them the legitimacy to do so; that's the source of their power. "Vote against" them. They'll just come up with something else to "fight against".

[PaulConventionWV]

In my experience that age is around 20-25.

Seriously, how could somebody come back from being wrong about politics at 20 years old? All those years... wasted. All 3 of them.

[HVACTech]

You get what you earn! :)


Yes. (I would wager I know the meanings of words better than you do, in fact, having many moons' worth of study and practice in literary translation) I also know both are at best amusing and somewhat egalitarian thought experiments for pseudo-intellectuals and the booboisie.

somebody bailed your arse out.
have you had the time to look it up?

In a republic there is the rule of law, in a democracy there is collectivist determination as to the law with a legal positivist understanding of what law is.

now that we have the BASICS out of the way..
yes, China is a Republic. (they have a different "rule of law")
what is OUR rule of law wise guy?
or do we even have one?

(sound of crickets chirping..)

[specsaregood]

what is OUR rule of law wise guy?
or do we even have one?


No we don't. We live in a state of anarchy, which I guess is why the anarchists like the status quo and think voting is a bad idea.

[HVACTech]

No we don't. We live in a state of anarchy, which I guess is why the anarchists like the status quo and think voting is a bad idea.

interesting conundrum..

that discouraging citizen participation maintains the status quo, is a well known political tactic.

[phill4paul]

I'm with AF. I'm an anti-voter agnostic. I went to the polls on the way home from work. Meh, it was on the way. I'm in N.C. Voted for Sean Haugh (L) for Senate. In an editorial today I read, and will have to paraphrase, a Dem that was bent. Basically, she said that Hagan would have won over Tillis if the 3.75% of the people that voted for Haugh took the time to understnd politics. Lol. Sorry, deary, I'm pretty sure that those 3.75% knew exactly what they were voting for.

[heavenlyboy34]

No we don't. We live in a state of anarchy, which I guess is why the anarchists like the status quo and think voting is a bad idea.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wRyXEFgNWRE/UZ9aT-voa5I/AAAAAAAAYHA/012PvY3bmek/s1600/inigo-montoya.jpg
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
anarchy



[an-er-kee]




Examples (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-word-origin)


noun 1. a state of society without government or law.




Modern associations of "anarchy" with "lawlessness", "chaos", etc. are simply examples of semantic shift (19th century or so, IIR my etymology rightly). The anarchists on these forums use the word in its original sense. This unfortunate semantic shift is why I've for years now encouraged anarchists to adopt a more fitting word like "voluntaryist".

[HVACTech]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wRyXEFgNWRE/UZ9aT-voa5I/AAAAAAAAYHA/012PvY3bmek/s1600/inigo-montoya.jpg
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
anarchy



[an-er-kee]




Examples (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-word-origin)


noun 1. a state of society without government or law.




Modern associations of "anarchy" with "lawlessness", "chaos", etc. are simply examples of semantic shift (19th century or so, IIR my etymology rightly). The anarchists on these forums use the word in its original sense. This unfortunate semantic shift is why I've for years now encouraged anarchists to adopt a more fitting word like "voluntaryist".

punt #3.

what is OUR rule of law?
I know dude it is frickin COMPLICATED. damn, I hate it when that happens!
do you understand the question?

or do you not understand 3 syllables?

[phill4paul]

what is OUR rule of law?


Which ones? Your's and the mouse in your JTK-1005 toolkit? Or mine?

[HVACTech]

Which ones? Your's and the mouse in your JTK-1005 toolkit? Or mine?

punt #4?

was the query really that difficult?

I will repeat the question, in a Republic, there is the rule of law.

what is ours?

:)

[phill4paul]

punt #4?

was the query really that difficult?

I will repeat the question, in a Republic, there is the rule of law.

what is ours?

:)

Punt #1

I haven't punted. I just signed off and called you a jack-wagon. However, to answer your query...

Your "ours" doesn't include me. So where does that leave you?

[HVACTech]

Punt #1

I haven't punted. I just signed off and called you a jack-wagon. However, to answer your query...

Your "ours" doesn't include me. So where does that leave you?

not to worry dude. nobody else has the balls to even TRY to answer the frickin question..
too complicated I guess.

:)

what is the rule of law in America?
anybody care to take a shot at it?

[phill4paul]

not to worry dude. nobody else has the balls to even TRY to answer the frickin question..
too complicated I guess.

:)

what is the rule of law in America?
anybody care to take a shot at it?

Punt #2

So, I'll ask again.

Your "ours" doesn't include me. So where does that leave you?

[parocks]

parocks parrots: Are you getting paid to get the liberty minded not to vote?

:rolleyes:

('Liberty-minded' doesn't mean a GD thing if it includes THE VAST VAST MAJORITY of your stinking, warmongering, monetary ignoramus, puppet Republicans. GET REAL..)



Is that a No?

[Suzanimal]

Awww, it's hurts their feelings when we don't vote...


Bernie Sanders Wants To Make Election Day A National Holiday

WASHINGTON -- Frustrated with the historic number of voters who chose not to participate in this year's midterm elections, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday announced his intention to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday to give Americans more opportunity to vote.

"In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy," the progressive senator said in a statement.

Turnout in Tuesday's elections clocked in at a paltry 37 percent, compared to about 41 percent in 2010, according to data from the United States Elections Project. If that projection holds, it would be the lowest voter turnout since 1942.


The voters who did show up to vote largely skewed older, whiter and more male compared with other election cycles, and the results were obvious. Republicans picked up control of the Senate, gained seats in the House, won key gubernatorial posts and greatly expanded their hold on state legislatures. Younger and minority voters, on the other hand, largely stayed at home. Voters in the 18-29 age range made up only 13 percent of the electorate, compared with nearly a quarter that were seniors, who tend to support Republicans.

President Barack Obama acknowledged the matter in a press conference on Wednesday, saying, "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too."

But the number of people who vote in midterm elections isn't the only problem according to Sanders. The Vermont independent also called typical levels of turnout in presidential elections "an international embarrassment." The number is higher in presidential years, but the U.S. still ranks behind 120 other countries in average turnout.

"We should not be satisfied with a 'democracy' in which more than 60 percent of our people don't vote and some 80 percent of young people and low-income Americans fail to vote," he added. "We can and must do better than that. While we must also focus on campaign finance reform and public funding of elections, establishing an Election Day holiday would be an important step forward."

Sanders said he would file the bill, titled ''Democracy Day Act of 2014," once Congress reconvenes next week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/bernie-sanders-election-day-holiday_n_6121674.html

[Anti Federalist]

The voters who did show up to vote largely skewed older, whiter and more male compared with other election cycles, and the results were obvious. Republicans picked up control of the Senate, gained seats in the House, won key gubernatorial posts and greatly expanded their hold on state legislatures. Younger and minority voters, on the other hand, largely stayed at home. Voters in the 18-29 age range made up only 13 percent of the electorate, compared with nearly a quarter that were seniors, who tend to support Republicans.

Why not just pass a law making voting mandatory?

Like the USSR.

That would eliminate these racist low voter turnout events.

[Anti Federalist]

what is the rule of law in America?
anybody care to take a shot at it?

It's obvious:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SWAT_team.jpg

[phill4paul]

Why not just pass a law making voting mandatory?

Like the USSR.

That would eliminate these racist low voter turnout events.

It's the only way I see of maintaining our Republic Democracy. I can't understand why people wouldn't voluntarily participate in it, but, if they don't then they should be forced for their own good. Think of it a "Selective Service."

[Suzanimal]

Why not just pass a law making voting mandatory?

Like the USSR.

That would eliminate these racist low voter turnout events.

I think that's where this is headed, comrade.

[Anti Federalist]

I think that's where this is headed, comrade.

Count on it.

Already got the gulags, got the empire, got the Kremlin on the Potomac, got the KGB...

[phill4paul]

Count on it.

Already got the gulags, got the empire, got the Kremlin on the Potomac, got the KGB...

Every thing is about in place in the name of freedom to bring tyranny. Just need one more "trigger." The "horrors" we were fed about Russia during the cold war ain't got jack shit on what American citizens face today.

[H. E. Panqui]

Parocks Becks and Joneses: "One thing to consider, post Snowden, is that people are getting paid by fed gov to spread their message, which is "people who like us shouldn't vote". So it's not masochism, but doing their job....That's the world we live in. It includes the fed gov paying people to post things on the internet. And they're selling terrible ideas to fans of liberty. The key idea - one that has taken hold - is "don't vote unless the candidate is perfect." You only see fans of liberty saying this. The left doesn't do this..."

:rolleyes:

(Apparently this ^^^ ?paid Republican cheerleader hasn't figured out that his stinking Republican Party Inc. is where a whole bunch of real $pooks are!..^^^Alex Jones/Glen Beck tactic: Anyone knowledgeable about their favorite HIDEOUS Republicrats and who speaks out/acts against the scum must be some paid government troll/spook...COMPLETELY BASSACKWARDS..)

"...Our message - "you don't agree with us, we quit." And most of the gains were lost. Instead of increasing our gains, being rational, strategic, we acted stupidly, irrationally. And a primary driver of that was Mark Willis, and his little subfaction..."
(What a crock of Republicrap!! The Republican Party Inc. apparatchiks for whom you suck (s)elected the delegates from Maine!! Overturning the actual caucus vote..THAT'S WHY PEOPLE QUIT, you ?paid Republican Party Inc. troll)

[staerker]

Seriously, how could somebody come back from being wrong about politics at 20 years old? All those years... wasted. All 3 of them.

Interest in politics usually begins around age 15-16 (for intellectual types,) so by age 20-25 they have invested most of their youth, and said a lot of damning things on social media.

[kcchiefs6465]

not to worry dude. nobody else has the balls to even TRY to answer the frickin question..
too complicated I guess.

:)

what is the rule of law [supposed to be] in America?
anybody care to take a shot at it?
You realize that that is an incredibly simple question, right? Oh, and you would have been better served to include the emboldened.

This is just getting silly.

If you think the legislators, police, Supreme Court, courts in general, overwhelming majority of people, etc. give two shits about natural law you are sadly and incredibly mistaken. The evidence is so obvious I don't even believe I need to expound upon it.

[H. E. Panqui]

I get a hoot out of stoooooooooopid Republican/crat 'Constitution thumpers'...the ignoramuses haven't figured out the con. is largely a dead letter...murdered and desecrated BEFORE THEY WERE BORN by the very stinking Republicrats Inc. (Republicans on this site) for whom they suck...shaddup!!..turn off the stinking Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones!!..maybe get a library card or something..

[HVACTech]

You realize that that is an incredibly simple question, right? Oh, and you would have been better served to include the emboldened.

This is just getting silly.

If you think the legislators, police, Supreme Court, courts in general, overwhelming majority of people, etc. give two shits about natural law you are sadly and incredibly mistaken. The evidence is so obvious I don't even believe I need to expound upon it.

well, I would think it was silly, if anybody but you was able to even try.
I never said a word about natural law. have we established that our constitution is (or was) our version of the rule of law?

the only way that I can think of, that someone would be anti-voting. was if that someone thought that our rule of law applied to them.
since it VERY clearly does NOT apply to the people. this should be a very clear indication of what role the democratic PROCESS plays in this Republic.
and yes, it still plays that role.

can we agree that the constitution does NOT apply to the people?

:)

[kcchiefs6465]

well, I would think it was silly, if anybody but you was able to even try.
People have discussed this in depth by the thousands of words. It isn't that they aren't able to answer your questions, it's that they don't particularly care to answer your questions, and that often people get tired of repeating themselves.

You're asking people here of all places what the difference is between a democracy and a republic. I'd venture to say that the vast majority could answer that question. Every poster here that I actually read surely could.



I never said a word about natural law.
The way the post was worded, as well as other posts of yours, I simply assumed that you were getting at the Constitution being based in natural law. For argument's sake I could have used "Constitution" in place of "natural law" and as well, if the Constitution were followed, loosely speaking we'd have a society that respected natural law or lived within the parameters of it. However the Constitution is a flawed document (3/5th Compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, as well as the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses which have been predictably abused). This is even aside from the fact that the Constitution is ignored with regularity whenever it conveniences politicians to do so. And in fact, some openly have flaunted their violations of the Constitution (Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, etc.).


have we established that our constitution is (or was) our version of the rule of law?
The Constitution was not signed nor was it agreed to by any living person. This isn't some minor inconvenience of truth. You cannot have a contract lest someone contracts. Social contract theory is a joke that cannot stand up to even the smallest amount of skepticism.

And while the Constitution was ostensibly meant as a check on government power, it still is alleged and evident that it claims to hold some authority over the people themselves.



the only way that I can think of, that someone would be anti-voting. was if that someone thought that our rule of law applied to them.
The candidates sucked. I don't want the fact of contributing to the confiscation of other's property on my conscious. Let there be a "levy" to defund the police department. I'd vote as hard as anybody. But don't blame those who refrain from voting because both candidates are authoritarian assholes.

People are against voting for a few different reasons. They've explained as much.



since it VERY clearly does NOT apply to the people. this should be a very clear indication of what role the democratic PROCESS plays in this Republic.
and yes, it still plays that role.

can we agree that the constitution does NOT apply to the people?

:)
To a point.... in that it describes how the government is supposed to operate. It still affects people on an individual level.


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The only legitimate government is a voluntary one. That means that if someone doesn't want to pay for X, Y, Z, they ought not be compelled to do so.

I wonder how it is accepted that simply since I was born where I was, I am somehow obligated to pay some 18 trillion dollars of debt. Does that not seem odd to you? Is that not an abortion of justice?

[A Son of Liberty]

Parocks Becks and Joneses: "One thing to consider, post Snowden, is that people are getting paid by fed gov to spread their message, which is "people who like us shouldn't vote". So it's not masochism, but doing their job....[B][COLOR=#111111]That's the world we live in. It includes the fed gov paying people to post things on the internet. And they're selling terrible ideas to fans of liberty. The key idea - one that has taken hold - is "don't vote unless the candidate is perfect." You only see fans of liberty saying this. The left doesn't do this...

I just love this meme. In fact, I love it so much, let's spin it around: There's a very good chance that some folks here at RPF are paid by the RNC to convince Ron Paul supporters to break from their principled positions and vote for "compromise" candidates - ones who may be very good on the welfare state, but hawkish on foreign policy. Or, for instance, they seek to convince principled Paul supporters to back the least liberty oriented candidates because they may offer them "something" after elected.

And, regardless of how they do vote, in the end they have given their approval to a system in which the authority to rule over others is granted through those very votes. The legitimacy of the authority of the state is thereby confirmed - to borrow from Wilde, then, "we've already determined what kind of woman you are, madam; now we're just haggling over the price."

[Southron]

And, regardless of how they do vote, in the end they have given their approval to a system in which the authority to rule over others is granted through those very votes. The legitimacy of the authority of the state is thereby confirmed - to borrow from Wilde, then, "we've already determined what kind of woman you are, madam; now we're just haggling over the price."

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.

[William Tell]

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.

Exactly, it has been said that silence is consent. While I don't exactly believe that, you might as well be consenting if you don't use at least every peaceful tool you have to bring about change.

[A Son of Liberty]

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.

While I think the argument can be well made that violent resistance is just, that doesn't necessarily mean that suicide missions are reasonable.


Exactly, it has been said that silence is consent. While I don't exactly believe that, you might as well be consenting if you don't use at least every peaceful tool you have to bring about change.

Agreed, as long as you're not suggesting that voting is a peaceful tool. It is not. But to be clear, I do engage in peaceful protest and action against the state.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.

Tacit approval doesn't work here. Like a rapist, the regime is a violent aggressor, not an actor in an agreement between 2 or more parties. Just as it isn't rational to blame the rape victim, it isn't rational to blame the non-violent protestor against the elections.

[PaulConventionWV]

not to worry dude. nobody else has the balls to even TRY to answer the frickin question..
too complicated I guess.

:)

what is the rule of law in America?
anybody care to take a shot at it?

The rule of law means the government cannot enforce laws that they, themselves are not subject to.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the efficacy of voting, though.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's the only way I see of maintaining our Republic Democracy. I can't understand why people wouldn't voluntarily participate in it, but, if they don't then they should be forced for their own good. Think of it a "Selective Service."

Republic Democracy?

First of all, the term I believe you're referring to is Democratic Republic. Secondly, that's an oxymoron. Democracy and Republic are two completely different things. You cannot have majority rule and rule of law at the same time. Our system of government was formed as a Constitutional Republic. No "democracy" needed.

[PaulConventionWV]

Interest in politics usually begins around age 15-16 (for intellectual types,) so by age 20-25 they have invested most of their youth, and said a lot of damning things on social media.

Seriously? I think you're making this out to be a way bigger deal than it actually is.

How could someone ever be wrong about politics at 20 years old? How could they ever get back those 4-5 years they spent occasionally talking about politics but usually doing other teenage stuff?

[HVACTech]

You're asking people here of all places what the difference is between a democracy and a republic. I'd venture to say that the vast majority could answer that question. Every poster here that I actually read surely could.


except that no one did, except you. the answer is very simple. 3 words.


The way the post was worded, as well as other posts of yours, I simply assumed that you were getting at the Constitution being based in natural law.

I was attempting to discuss the role voting (or the Democratic PROCESS) plays in this Republic.


The Constitution was not signed nor was it agreed to by any living person.
have you considered the logistics of such a policy?

I am unaware that it ever tried to be a "social contract" since it ONLY applies to and limits the federal gov't and the states. in a Republic, there is a rule of law, we have agreed as such. if the rule of law, only applies to and limits the government... how is this a "social contract"?
it is simply a restraint on government intrusion.
Democracy is prohibited, by the constitution.
does that seem odd to you? why would they include the democratic process.. after outlawing democracy?

clearly, the intent was to minimize the damage that the "collective" (the government or the masses) can inflict on the individual.

introducing the Democratic process, (voting) produces a dampening effect. it stops quick action until cooler heads can prevail in many instances.
it also allows for exertion of power by the will of the people.
the intent, of the structure, of our system. was to diffuse the concentration of power.

voting, can, will and does produce effects. not voting denotes an ignorance of what the intent is.
to understand the intent. it is necessary to understand the threats to individual Liberty. :)


To a point.... in that it describes how the government is supposed to operate. It still affects people on an individual level.

this Republics rule of law is laser focused.
things will change when learned people are sent to DC to change things.
Ron Paul taught me that we have the government we deserve.

peace.

[heavenlyboy34]

Republic Democracy?

First of all, the term I believe you're referring to is Democratic Republic. Secondly, that's an oxymoron. Democracy and Republic are two completely different things. You cannot have majority rule and rule of law at the same time. Our system of government was formed as a Constitutional Republic. No "democracy" needed.

In a "democratic republic", representatives are elected democratically. "Republic" is just a very old style of gov'ment structure. Nothing virtuous, magic, or new about it. Rome, Soviet Russia, People's Republic Of China-all republics.

[HVACTech]

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.

+rep.

:)

[HVACTech]

I don't see how that has anything to do with the efficacy of voting, though.

did someone say that it was supposed to?
where is HB when I need him?!?

[HVACTech]

In a "democratic republic", representatives are elected democratically.

brilliant!!!
:rolleyes:

[TheTexan]

Exactly, it has been said that silence is consent. While I don't exactly believe that, you might as well be consenting if you don't use at least every peaceful tool you have to bring about change.

The problem is, voting is not a tool that is used to bring about change. Voting is a tool used to control the populace. Your participation in that tool only bolsters its efficacy.

[TheTexan]

The only peaceful option left available to us is secession/nullification.

[HVACTech]

Voting is a tool used to control the populace.

did you mean to say pacify?
(I know a thing or two about controls)

or are you really that thick?

[HVACTech]

Tacit approval doesn't work here. Like a rapist, the regime is a violent aggressor, not an actor in an agreement between 2 or more parties. Just as it isn't rational to blame the rape victim, it isn't rational to blame the non-violent protestor against the elections.

voting and rape are synonyms?

:eek:

[parocks]

Parocks Becks and Joneses: "One thing to consider, post Snowden, is that people are getting paid by fed gov to spread their message, which is "people who like us shouldn't vote". So it's not masochism, but doing their job....That's the world we live in. It includes the fed gov paying people to post things on the internet. And they're selling terrible ideas to fans of liberty. The key idea - one that has taken hold - is "don't vote unless the candidate is perfect." You only see fans of liberty saying this. The left doesn't do this..."

:rolleyes:

(Apparently this ^^^ ?paid Republican cheerleader hasn't figured out that his stinking Republican Party Inc. is where a whole bunch of real $pooks are!..^^^Alex Jones/Glen Beck tactic: Anyone knowledgeable about their favorite HIDEOUS Republicrats and who speaks out/acts against the scum must be some paid government troll/spook...COMPLETELY BASSACKWARDS..)

"...Our message - "you don't agree with us, we quit." And most of the gains were lost. Instead of increasing our gains, being rational, strategic, we acted stupidly, irrationally. And a primary driver of that was Mark Willis, and his little subfaction..."
(What a crock of Republicrap!! The Republican Party Inc. apparatchiks for whom you suck (s)elected the delegates from Maine!! Overturning the actual caucus vote..THAT'S WHY PEOPLE QUIT, you ?paid Republican Party Inc. troll)

Oh, I'm not paid by the Federal Government to type on the internet. And I'm not paid by the Republican Party. Or by anybody.

Are you? I've seen you respond. But I haven't seen your denial.

[HVACTech]

The only peaceful option left available to us is secession/nullification.

yes, those are very peaceful options

- Kim Kardashian

[green73]

I think it's just as fair to say that unless you are violently resisting, you have given your approval just as much.


The only peaceful option left available to us is secession/nullification.

Some say tax revolts as well...I'm not saying that of course. Hello, FBI readers of the forum!

[TheTexan]

did you mean to say pacify?
(I know a thing or two about controls)

or are you really that thick?

Pacify, control, tomato, tomato

[HVACTech]

Oh, I'm not paid by the Federal Government to type on the internet. And I'm not paid by the Republican Party. Or by anybody.

Are you? I've seen you respond. But I haven't seen your denial.

there is an old Indian trick in my business.

"if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"

:)

[HVACTech]

Some say tax revolts as well...I'm not saying that of course. Hello, FBI readers of the forum!

pussy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zyhu2ysqKGk

[TheTexan]

Some say tax revolts as well...I'm not saying that of course. Hello, FBI readers of the forum!

Ya, thats an idea worth considering. I don't see an end-game with that approach though.

[green73]

Ya, thats an idea worth considering. I don't see an end-game with that approach though.

Well it's an impossible approach in a statist society that's not in obvious collapse, so yeah. But maybe soon.

[TheTexan]

yes, those are very peaceful options

- Kim Kardashian

Are you saying it isn't?

[HVACTech]

Are you saying it isn't?
well, it is CERTAINLY more peaceful than voting?

THAT is a violent action, comparable to rape.
unless I hijacked the thread of course. :)

[HVACTech]

Pacify, control, tomato, tomato

I already answered that question.
redux.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IasCZL072fQ

[green73]

Are you saying it isn't?

Listen to the Brit. He knows all about how well voting works. :rolleyes:

[TheTexan]

I already answered that question.
redux.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IasCZL072fQ

Hmm. Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

[HVACTech]

we are now like 6 pages deep in this thread.
I have defended "voting" or the democratic process as best I can.

I have received very little positive reinforcement. in fact, little to none.
I never said I was good at "politics"
what I am able to do.. is understand complex systems.
I have attempted to describe the system involved.

no. I am NOT disappointed at those that fucked with me on this thread.

@RPF's voting is dumb and stupid, comparable to rape even.
defending the opposite position will not be defended.

[PaulConventionWV]

In a "democratic republic", representatives are elected democratically. "Republic" is just a very old style of gov'ment structure. Nothing virtuous, magic, or new about it. Rome, Soviet Russia, People's Republic Of China-all republics.

If they didn't follow the "rule of law" doctrine, then they weren't republics. I think we need to dispense of the language that our process is in any way democratic. Voting may be known as "the democratic process", but it carries with it more than just that. You can't call something democracy just because elections are held. It also carries with it the doctrine of majority rule, which is something we need to remove from our governmental vocabulary. This country was started as a Constitutional Republic. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything you need to describe our government is in those two words. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

[PaulConventionWV]

we are now like 6 pages deep in this thread.
I have defended "voting" or the democratic process as best I can.

I have received very little positive reinforcement. in fact, little to none.
I never said I was good at "politics"
what I am able to do.. is understand complex systems.
I have attempted to describe the system involved.

no. I am NOT disappointed at those that fucked with me on this thread.

@RPF's voting is dumb and stupid, comparable to rape even.
defending the opposite position will not be defended.

The problem is that the "democratic process" is not needed in order for the Constitution to be effective. We are a Constitutional Republic, which means the Constitution defines our voting system. The "democratic process" is just redundant semantics. Referring to our system of government as "democratic" is just dishonest at best.

Maybe you have received very little positive reinforcement because people are seeing through the charade of voting? People are finally starting to get it. Our system of government is NOT a Democratic Republic OR a Constitutional Republic... anymore. Right now, it's just pure fascism. You could also call it a SNAFU or FUBAR. Whatever you call it, it's fucking broke and you can't fix it. Trying to fix it by voting would be like trying to fix a car by driving it some more. You have to take it apart and put it back together. In fact, it's probably best not to drive it for awhile. You get where I'm going with this?

[HVACTech]

If they didn't follow the "rule of law" doctrine, then they weren't republics. I think we need to dispense of the language that our process is in any way democratic. Voting may be known as "the democratic process", but it carries with it more than just that. You can't call something democracy just because elections are held. It also carries with it the doctrine of majority rule, which is something we need to remove from our governmental vocabulary. This country was started as a Constitutional Republic. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything you need to describe our government is in those two words. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

^^^^

what he said.

(forum sliding is an art form)

:)

[oyarde]

Well , I voted , on the way to work . Voted for some ( L ) 's and ( R)'s for state offices , voted against a tax increase and against retaining Judges .Skipped over the unopposed (R )'s for local offices,figured all they had to do was vote for themselves I do not have Geico, I have State Farm .

[heavenlyboy34]

If they didn't follow the "rule of law" doctrine, then they weren't republics. I think we need to dispense of the language that our process is in any way democratic. Voting may be known as "the democratic process", but it carries with it more than just that. You can't call something democracy just because elections are held. It also carries with it the doctrine of majority rule, which is something we need to remove from our governmental vocabulary. This country was started as a Constitutional Republic. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything you need to describe our government is in those two words. Democracy has nothing to do with it.
Actually, "the country" started as a collection of mostly egalitarian English commonwealths. /nitpick Where did you get the notion that republican regimes are by definition lawful? Poli-sci textbook? Right winger opinion book? It isn't true. Republican regimes were as lawless in the good ol' days as they are now. I admit though, that the propaganda machines of modern republicans (small r) is remarkably effective. IMO, the broader libertarian movement should study it.

[HVACTech]

The problem is that the "democratic process" is not needed in order for the Constitution to be effective. We are a Constitutional Republic, which means the Constitution defines our voting system. The "democratic process" is just redundant semantics. Referring to our system of government as "democratic" is just dishonest at best.

Maybe you have received very little positive reinforcement because people are seeing through the charade of voting? People are finally starting to get it. Our system of government is NOT a Democratic Republic OR a Constitutional Republic... anymore. Right now, it's just pure fascism. You could also call it a SNAFU or FUBAR. Whatever you call it, it's fucking broke and you can't fix it. Trying to fix it by voting would be like trying to fix a car by driving it some more. You have to take it apart and put it back together. In fact, it's probably best not to drive it for awhile. You get where I'm going with this?

yes, I do. I am a white male, over 6'3" skilled but getting older.
it is REALLY not my problem.
my foolish self was concerned about YOUR generation, you know, the one that got fucked by mine?
pure anarchy sounds good to me.

:)

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually, "the country" started as a collection of mostly egalitarian English commonwealths. /nitpick Where did you get the notion that republican regimes are by definition lawful? Poli-sci textbook? Right winger opinion book? It isn't true. Republican regimes were as lawless in the good ol' days as they are now. I admit though, that the propaganda machines of modern republicans (small r) is remarkably effective. IMO, the broader libertarian movement should study it.

I didn't say the regimes were lawful. I said they weren't republics unless they followed the doctrine of the rule of law.

And yes, I know about the country's English heritage.

[PaulConventionWV]

yes, I do. I am a white male, over 6'3" skilled but getting older.
it is REALLY not my problem.
my foolish self was concerned about YOUR generation, you know, the one that got fucked by mine?
pure anarchy sounds good to me.

:)

So you vote out of the goodness of your heart? Is that what you're saying?

[H. E. Panqui]

Parocks Becks and Joneses: Oh, I'm not paid by the Federal Government to type on the internet. And I'm not paid by the Republican Party. Or by anybody.

Are you? I've seen you respond. But I haven't seen your denial.


(NO..NEVER..Is that clear enough?..btw, i really didn't think you were a paid spook..i assume they could at least find someone literate and knowledgeable to fill the $lot) ;)

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[PaulConventionWV]

The eight stages of voting (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4988.9)(akin to the Kübler-Ross model of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model))

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. So true. +rep

[Suzanimal]

The eight stages of voting (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4988.9)(akin to the Kübler-Ross model of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model))


I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. So true. +rep

Me too.:) +rep

[kahless]

When I vote for the lesser of two evils my lesser never wins. I make about 10 choices a year including ballot proposals which for some reason people always seem to vote yes to. This has been going on for 20 or so years and I cannot remember any of my selections ever winning in that time. I suppose I will be that 1/3 of the electorate next year.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Feeding the Abscess]

Mississippi:

- Worst quality of life
- Poor in nearly every OECD measure
- Second lowest High School completion rate.
- 9.5% unemployment
- Highest poverty rate
- Second-highest homicide rate

Wait for it

.....

- Highest voting rate

VOTE HARDER!

[CCTelander]

Mississippi:

- Worst quality of life
- Poor in nearly every OECD measure
- Second lowest High School completion rate.
- 9.5% unemployment
- Highest poverty rate
- Second-highest homicide rate

Wait for it

.....

- Highest voting rate

VOTE HARDER!


Now that there is a ringing endorsement of voting good 'n hard!