A Billionaire Versus 300 Millionaires?

300 millionaires might be an exaggeration but not by much. Congress's net worth is just over a million dollars per person with 269+ of them being worth over a million. That's pretty much half of the US Government. How is it believable anymore that these people have any clue of what represents the majority of America?

Source

I know a lot of people don't like Trump, and most Democrats seem to really like Sanders. I tend to draw a more refined message by listening to both of them. Sanders is right on a lot of things, and so is Trump. They're both wrong on a lot of things too. Maybe a Trump and Sanders ticket? Who knows... it seems anything is possible in this political fiasco we get to watch unfold.

All of it got me thinking though...

We know the establishment / TPTB have the game rigged. Gerrymandering has been taking place for decades to ensure elections go one way or another, and the media puts it right in everyone's faces during the elections by showing the maps of each state and knowing well in advance which districts are dominantly one party or another. These districts are laid out in such a way so that the exact number of winning districts in each state can be determined before voting even occurs, with exception of a select FEW. These are the districts that candidates will campaign in the most. If they know that there is no way they can win a state, they rarely appear or campaign there. They will campaign the hardest in "swing" states, and know exactly which counties to visit in order to win the state because some counties are already determined to be red or blue. At that point, it becomes a matter of SuperPACs and MONEY to see who can win over the most voters in just those counties and districts. This really means that the President, every election, is determined by only a few counties in the country. To compound the issue, most corporations (and elite) will donate to both parties, not just one, knowing that whichever one wins, they can say that they contributed to it and ask for favors later.

This machination we call government is fueled by money and run by millionaires. If you could remove money from politics, you'd have the type of government the Founders hoped for. There was a reason Congress was responsible for printing money until the Fed, but I digress.

Money is what is used to lobby and bribe.
Money is what is used to pay for war.
Money is what is used to manipulate governments, including ours.

So with a government consisting of millionaires, the old adage "Fight Fire With Fire" comes to mind.

Maybe the only way to fight a bunch of millionaires is to be a billionaire. Maybe that's what is making Trump so appealing is that people are tired of feeling like they are being pushed around by a small group of disconnected elitists, and they want a bigger bully. You know, like when you get the big bad ass kid at school to beat up the bully that's bullying you by paying him? It seems like a lot of the talking that is taking place has more to do with that than politics.

It could also go the other way, and instead the bigger bully just takes your money and decides to team up with the other ones...

People seem tired of politicians and the flippant decision making that is supposed to be "For the People" but is clearly "For Their People" - and sick of them flamboyantly parading around as if they are doing all of us a service. I know I am.

Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire. I'm not advocating for Trump, this is really just a thought exercise more than anything else.

I will say in closing that when it comes to any seat of power, the most valuable thing I have learned from my government is that -

Greed has no party affiliation.

~Namaste

I note the cult of personality is also high on the agenda within the US political sphere

The people representing the people don't know or care about those they are charged with caring for

Absurdly those with the powers to do something about those electded, vote for this separation of the common and the extremely wealthy.

Thinking about politics hurts my head due to the sheer madness of it all but I liked the part of your post where you said the American people want a bigger smarter bully to set the wrongs right for a price.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Much of your argument seems to be based on gerrymandering. Let me provide you with an alternative view on the subject. You have an area the size of two districts, half of them are Republicans and half of them are Democrats. You can let each one elect a representative but then half of each district isn't going to have a representative they agree with, so effectively they aren't being represented at all.

Alternatively, you can draw the borders in such a way that the majority of the Democrats are in one district while the majority of the Republicans are in the other. Now each has a representative that's much more in line with the values of that district. Isn't 90% of the district having a rep that shares their values better than only 50%?

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

To carry on your playground analogy, I never paid anyone to do a damned thing on my behalf when I was at school. I did the right thing, all day, every day, and took my licks, because it was the right thing to be doing at the time, and has remained so my entire life. When confronted by evil and wrongdoing, I do not look to others, I do not check to see if authorities might be abroad to either help or hinder as they will. I act, regardless of the threat to my person which is posed by the doing of it.

Ones nation must stand on the same principles as does its people. If my nation were standing on my principles, it would stand a great deal taller than it does. What principles would you have your nation stand upon?

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
You get what you vote for! Now if the majority of people vote for millionaires with the delusion that somehow these people know how the vast majority live then it is the fault of the voters. You can blame the press and to some extent this is indeed the case in the past when the only source of information was the press. But this is no longer the case it is up to "we the people" to ensure folks are not so stupid as to be led by a minority with a self interest. We have far far more information at our fingertips than we have ever had in history. Being misled is no longer an excuse.

This is a conspiracy site but I will state this : If folks jump up and down about NWO or Illuminati whilst trying to get folks to wake up it is absolutley guaranteed to drive them back to the comfort blanket of the established press.

There is no organised NWO, there is however the control of power in the hands of the few due to money and control of the flow of information. These few go to each others "house parties" and thus the cycle of control and support seems to be an NWO. They are just protecting each others obscenely fat bank balances.

The cycle can be broken at the grassroots level using social media.

I really don't quite understand why some people think Donald Trump is a worse choice than "Clinton part II" or "Bush part III".

Trump is running a Presidential Campaign and a company with 22,000+ employees, that has billions of dollars in real estate holdings. People need to start giving the guy some friggin credit. In contrast, what other organization, WITH EMPLOYED STAFF, was Obama "running" during his initial Presidential campaign? NONE, just his Presidential campaign, with some skeleton crew staffers left behind, to autopilot his Senate duties, same goes for "Bush part II" (just replace "Senator" with "Governor").

Although Trump did grow up rich, inheriting money and property from his fathers businesses, the Trump Family is self-made for the most part and do not seem to be directly connected with NWO/Old-Money types (all the Trumps are Tax Dodgers BTW). Trumps grandfather did not process properly through Ellis Island, in the late 1800's and had left behind many unpaid debt in Europe by the time he came to America and started his new businesses. What regualr people don't seem to understand is that folks like Donald Trump and Ross Perot are considered "trash" by the standards of the Romney and Bush clans types, with family members having held political offices, in the Untied States, as far back as the 1850's. Note, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama also had no direct family ties to the NWO/Old-Money types. However, they were not nearly as wealthy, nor as independently bold, as Trump or Perot and eventually all of them did "toe the line", following the orders of the NWO/Old-Money types.

The reality is that Trump will NEVER be accepted as part of the true "Owners of Capital" club because he is the decedent of regular working class immigrants from Germany, that came to the USA via Ellis Island. Whether voters believe it or not, people like Donald Trump and Ross Perot before him, are truly, the best chance, regular people have to being represented by someone in office who's family is not beholden to or part of the NWO/Old-Money types. Although I have not thoroughly checked, it does not appear that Donald Trump nor Ross Perot were ever invited to or attended the Bilderberg Conference. That's a GOOD sign, not a bad one.

Also there are some other things to consider, if Trump has a REAL chance at winning the republican nomination or somehow gets huge backing as an Independent, the "Owners of Capital" will simply do what they did to Ross Perot and once that process unfolds he will eventually decide to "willingly withdraw" from the race.

Also, do people really believe, that if someone like Donald Trump wins the election, that he will be able to do what he wants, as apposed to, what the "Military Industrial Complex" wants him to do?

Anyone who becomes President of the United States has to "cow tow" to the "Military Industrial Complex" and even Donald Trump is not immune to a guaranteed "CIA visit" once in office.

Be assured they will pay him a visit, if he ever wins, and like Ross Perot, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Obama, he too will be told to "toe the line" and "play ball", as they dictate. For example, why in the world did Arnold Schwarzenegger need to do ANYTHING along party lines? His fame and popularity COMPLETELY transcended political parties, yet somehow he was still "answering" to politicians who "in theory" should have had no affect on his personal life, political career or personal fortune, all of which existed prior to being elected and was held COMPLETELY outside of the confines or influence of the "Military Industrial Complex".

Also consider this angle, there is a huge assets difference between someone like Mitt Romney, who has a $250 million net worth and Ross Perot with a $5 billion net worth (Donald Trump has a net worth of $4 Billion). Yet, someone like Romney was a shoe in for party nominations. As I alluded to above, its NOT the money nor the popular vote that matters, people like Mitt and Jeb Bush are government insiders and both come from families that always have been government insiders. That was not the case at all with Perot and the same goes for Trump, hence neither of them can be elected regardless of the popular vote or the public's desires or how much money they spend.

Ross Perot dropping out of the 1992 election was not happenstance either, nor simply about his daughters wedding:

Mr. Perot offered no evidence, only quoting friends and an unidentified "top Republican." "I can't prove any of it today," he said on tonight's CBS News program "60 Minutes." "But it was a risk I did not have to take," he added, "and a risk I would not take where my daughter is concerned." Mr. Perot accused the unidentified C.I.A. employee of being hired to tap into his computerized stock trading program to prevent him from having the money to revive his campaign.

Trump and Sanders, in my opinion, are the least likely, currently "visible candidates", to be heavily affiliated with NWO/Old-Money types. Trump and Sanders weren't "born into" the "right kind" of political families, in fact their ancestors were immigrants from the lower classes of Europe. Its actually really too bad they can't be on the same ticket, running as Independents, with Sanders as President and Trump as VP, with people like Ralph Nader, Jessie Ventura and Ron Paul filling the various cabinet positions (pooling campaign resources, with the intention of actually trying to win, as a team and not solo).

But if they tried to pull a "hat trick" like that, I'm sure quite a few of them would QUICKLY find themselves at risk of being in a "plane crash" or on the wrong end of a "car accident".

I think Ross Perot would have done a much better job than ANY of the "good ol' boys" that we've gotten as Presidents since then. Again, Perot dropping out of the 1992 election was not happenstance, nor was it simply about his daughters wedding. He was likely threatened in some way that none of us can imagine. Why has he been so quiet, for the last 20+ years? Donald Trump will be no different, but, if he decides to run for President and he somehow wins, best case scenario, it will be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan all over again.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Much of your argument seems to be based on gerrymandering. Let me provide you with an alternative view on the subject. You have an area the size of two districts, half of them are Republicans and half of them are Democrats. You can let each one elect a representative but then half of each district isn't going to have a representative they agree with, so effectively they aren't being represented at all.

Alternatively, you can draw the borders in such a way that the majority of the Democrats are in one district while the majority of the Republicans are in the other. Now each has a representative that's much more in line with the values of that district. Isn't 90% of the district having a rep that shares their values better than only 50%?

Perhaps you're right, point is taken, but the bigger problem is trying to please everyone. There will never be a way to make every person fall into a specific district that represents them. Trying to do so is the wolf in sheep's clothing by concealing the fact that the selection process for electoral and delegate votes is completely rigged.

My argument is not just on gerrymandering, it's just a small part of a much bigger problem. The whole country is divided almost down the middle with a two party system. I can tell you that most people when you talk to them, do not fully agree with EITHER party, even the ones that they associate themselves to. There are policies that Democrats put into place that the democratic populace do not agree with. Likewise for the Republicans. A large majority of people in both parties have voiced their agreement with Independents that put forth legislature, which was clear during Ron Paul's run and things like auditing the Fed. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram of the 3 dominant views (democrat, republican, independent / libertarian), most of the populace sits right in the middle of where the 3 overlap. Yes, there are plenty that SAY that they are fully on board with one party or another, but if you were to describe some of the legislation to them without telling them which party put it forward, most party members would say that believed it came from the other party. Once you tell them it's from their own, either political pride takes over and they suddenly agree with it, or they will still disagree with their own party.

But here's the thing that I'm getting at. These elitists are rich and know exactly how to win the election game and how to continue doing their dirty work using money as their tool. Gerrymandering plays into it, sure, but so does the two-party system. The reason Burger King became like McDonald's is because people were tired of having only one choice for a fast food burger. As soon as there was a second choice, even if it used the same meat, same buns, same lettuce and tomatoes from the same distributors, nobody cared as long as they had a CHOICE. The illusion of choice when it comes to our system of government is the real problem, and gerrymandering hides it in a very innocuous way. Using money as way to bribe election officials, lawyers, judges... it has been happening for decades and every now and then, you hear about someone getting caught and it's brushed under the rug by the major media.

As I mentioned in the OP, this is more of a thought exercise. Fire with fire. The only language these greedy people speak is money, so having someone that speaks that language better than any other seems far more valuable right now and could end up being the best or worst thing this country has ever seen.

~Namaste

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Ones nation must stand on the same principles as does its people. If my nation were standing on my principles, it would stand a great deal taller than it does. What principles would you have your nation stand upon?

That's an interesting question, and I look at it this way...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in a way that was not hard to follow. I would be surprised if anyone that sits in our government today could even recite the laws of the Constitution to you without index cards or a teleprompter. Very few, if any. I try to put myself in today's world and the world 225+ years ago. Would my principles be the same? How much smarter would I be if I had the time to do nothing but read, ponder, think, philosophize, study and experience life the way the Founders did? How much smarter would our government be if they were men and women of virtue and honor and spent the same time dedicating themselves to the good of the people in the way that the Founders did? Nobody does that anymore because they don't find value in doing so and being distracted is so much easier, a page taken from the Roman Empire.

There's a great book called the 5,000 Year Leap... and it shows through various letters and diary entries, published journals and quotes from all of the Founders, just how much thought and reasoning went into the creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. These were incredibly smart men, and today people have lost sight of that greatness through the dumbing down of the people and daily distractions. The Founders studied Cicero and natural law (not today's common / statutory law) and were absolutely brilliant when it came to all different types of studies, from astronomy to medicine to philosophy to law, they were well versed in many aspects of the sciences and politics. They knew that central banking was dangerous over 200 years ago and knew that too much government power any one direction could tip the scale and lead to tyranny. Sometimes I hear people that spat off a few things about gun ownership and say that "militia" doesn't mean the people... I encourage those people EVERY time to read what the Founders actually wrote about it because it was extensive and had nothing to do with the military, but everything to do with the usurpation of power in government. Those same people will quote one or two lines from the Constitution and authoritatively declare that "it means this..." - without even knowing who it was that proposed it originally, or any of the names of the signers of the Constitution or why it was originally put into these national documents.

It's easy for me to say what principles I stand on, because I stand on the shoulders of giants in that regard and believe in many of the same things the Founders did, therefore I fully support the Constitution. I understand that times change, laws change, technology changes things... but I still stand by the principle of individual freedom and liberty, that no other man or woman can be told that they cannot be free to live their life in happiness (or otherwise) without fear of government. That if any of that is threatened, we as the people of our nation have the rights to defend our freedom, ourselves and our fellow citizens from tyranny.

It's unfortunate that in my several decades of witnessing our government's follies, this is the first time in my life that I feel tyranny breathing down my neck.

~Namaste

a reply to: boohoo

Some excellent points and very interesting perspective, thanks!



~Namaste

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
You get what you vote for! Now if the majority of people vote for millionaires with the delusion that somehow these people know how the vast majority live then it is the fault of the voters. You can blame the press and to some extent this is indeed the case in the past when the only source of information was the press. But this is no longer the case it is up to "we the people" to ensure folks are not so stupid as to be led by a minority with a self interest. We have far far more information at our fingertips than we have ever had in history. Being misled is no longer an excuse.

Take a look at gerrymandering and why it's not just an information problem. The press isn't just the press, it's 6 companies that own and operate almost every single television and radio station and print media in the country. People are misled in every direction, and very few people know how to read between the lines and find independent journalists or verifiable sources of information. I do agree that it's up to we the people, but you can only lead a horse to water. The information might be out there, but if it's not in someone's face they will more often than not just move on and ignore it.

There is no organised NWO, there is however the control of power in the hands of the few due to money and control of the flow of information. These few go to each others "house parties" and thus the cycle of control and support seems to be an NWO. They are just protecting each others obscenely fat bank balances.

You can call it NWO or whatever you want, but yes, the power is extremely condensed. Only 700+ transnational corporations control 80% of the world's money, and those corporations are held by a very tight-knit group of families, and those families have been accumulating wealth and power for decades, even centuries. And you don't think that there's a conspiracy there? It's a bit more than just "house parties" my friend, and there's plenty of evidence supporting that. I suggest you check out the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" so that you can see how those same people who sit on the boards of those corporations and financial institutions are closely related to people in political power. In some cases, they are one in the same. It's not a cycle, it's a web, and we're all stuck in it. Money goes in, it doesn't come out. There's no way to fight that from the outside without the wealth and resources that they have. If 700+ corporations get together and decide they want to rule the planet, they can easily do so and announce their plans which would incur an immediate resistance, but why do that when it's easier to rule the planet without anyone knowing that you are?

The Illusion of Choice

The cycle can be broken at the grassroots level using social media.

How? What does that plan look like because I have not seen one. Why hasn't it been done already? Who is going to do it? When? You can't make a claim like that without having some way to ground it, it doesn't work like that. If social media could break the cycle of power, it would have already, which is the premise of my OP... money seems to be the only way to break it. Either money has to become worthless, or the way it's used has to change.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I'm not necessarily saying that gerrymandering is right but there is some rational thought behind it, it's not merely those in power trying to be malicious.

I agree that most people are in the middle, I got into a pretty big argument with someone here a few weeks ago for expressing that same point. My thought is that people really aren't all that far apart on the vast majority of issues, what divides them is that people latch onto a team and support it, because they assume that team supports what they do. As a result people tend to support a particular ideology and that creates division when the truth is that if people just sit down and talk about things they're much closer than you would otherwise believe.

If you give people 2 choices it's naturally going to break down with 40% believing one thing, 40% believing the other, and 20% in the middle. We have that with our parties today since there's really only two choices.

This plays into politicians, and especially the presidency as well. People think they need to agree with someone 100% but that's really not the case. One of my favorite political quotes is "If you agree with me on some of the issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on all of the issues, get your head examined".

The problem with Trump is that he has a whole bunch of ideas, but has yet to explain how any of them work. Sure things like build a wall, kill ISIS, and so on are easy and popular but talk doesn't mean anything. All of his plans so far are impossible to carry out. It's not a case of having crazy ideas and a crazy plan to make them work like in the case of Sanders or Paul. It's that he has crazy ideas with no plan to make them work.