The critical area where the republicans must get smarter.

You shouldn't want either temperament to win. The point is to blend them so each one is the most tolerable version of itself and we have a society that works for everyone. If either side "wins" that means they have become authoritarian and a multitude of people are now being oppressed or even eradicated. It is because we continually fail to understand this that we spend the majority of our lives like a rodent in a hamster wheel chasing an unattainable carrot on a stick.

Say it with me now, folks. Politics. Isn't. Something. You. Win.

If that is how you have been playing the game then, quite frankly, you are probably either a narcissistic a-hole or your mind is not your own and your thoughts are brought to you by your friendly neighborhood think-tank. There is a reason the left's message has shifted from a plea for tolerance to a demand for acceptance as they've assumed more and more cultural control.

However, the joke will ultimately be on them because in this game even if you win you lose. One would think that a party that claims to represent equality and democracy would understand this concept.

a reply to: projectvxn

Maybe the business community vote is the source of cancer? A business should not get a vote that is equal to or greater than a citizens. Business vote based on values of money, while citizens vote based on love. No different than eating... a restaurant will put some things in their product that may be bad for you, while being good for their profits. A mother cooks food based on love and sustenance, so its less likely they put a tainted ingredient in the food.

People should be voting... not businesses.

You are correct though in what you post... citizens are decades long in ignoring the adverse affects of business voting ingress. The common voter still thinks a Red/Blue vote is representing them while it most likely respresents a business interest.

All of these realities equate to a clear standard of being overly influenced in voting booths. Seriously... it's a joke that politicians aren't required to wear NASCAR outfits labeling who their sponsors are. And, we get junk like that pulling votes out of the 3rd party???

Sorry, this subject gets me worked up. I agree wholly... surely the business tyranny is overly invasive. It's just one of the reasons I get annoyed when people vote Red/Blue... the foundations are weak, let alone the less relevant structure built uopn it.

What we will watch though... a Red vs. Blue war... not even forcing them to change their tactics going forward... they can count on voters showing up to agree that they hate the other party/person more. Career politicians are just human pacifiers... nothing more.

Defining just who/what is AN Enemy Of The State

?? Democrat Progressives, Marxist Advocates, Antifa, BLM, Mr Soros, Then on the flip side there is: NeoCons, War Hawks & assorted Lobbysts, Zionists,
...just to cite just a few of the Blocs who advocate terror or disruption of government (secular govt ->
lets rid the land of All God references/ All religious tolerances and privilege afforded to sects/cults/ main stream religions or ideologies


Secular Government definition
Freebase(0.00 / 0 votes)Rate this definition: Secularism. Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.
What does secularism mean? - Definitions.net


priv·i·lege
[ˈpriv(ə)lij]

NOUN
privileges (plural noun)
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

a reply to: ttobban

Maybe the business community vote is the source of cancer?

I just proved that it really isn't.

The vast majority of the business community does NOT employ a lobbyist in any way.

citizens are decades long in ignoring the adverse affects of business voting ingress. The common voter still thinks a Red/Blue vote is representing them while it most likely respresents a business interest.

This is not what I said.

a reply to: projectvxn

People form the business community. Tainted individuals, based on their two sided manipulation, transitioned to the lobbyist sectors... businesses aren't fully ran by robots yet.

An opinion is not proof... it is your reality.

What you missed out on in what you said is source. Businesses are formed by humans, which used its systems and influence to gain the political influence currently seen. I think where we differ on opinion is that you are looking at business as it being the foundation, while I see that as impossible being that businesses are human made.

Your points feed my entire points in the thread... not just yours. Your saying that its proven that a particular existence lives in your reality. If other are conscious to a lrager plateau or variables, then not only does one's value of proof shrink off, but it speaks that a larger more inclusive world of variables and influence can't exist. Being right about something forms priority to possibly learning about the expanding realities around us. What one person is WOKE to does not speak for another's WOKENESS.

Consciousness is about adding variables of possibility while removing self worth... its an attitude, and not an accomplishment. You are right for your reality... I will express that endlessly. Notice how my reality allows for possibility, while influence deems your opinions as proof?

To say I am wrong for speaking about something you are not seeing is just as a flawed premise of action as allowing the Red, Blue, or Business influence your opinion to absolute proof. These are yet deeper channels of understanding... surely being right about a specific will cause blindness to added variables.

My reply to you was to feed my previous points that the big picture isn't viewed... people just reach for their influenced color and point the other color for being wrong. I am admittedly wrong, pre-debate, and that sincerely pisses those that need to be right off.

Go on with your bad self... not sure what else to say. I actually valued your impartial input in this thread prior to claiming "proof". Is this the point where I shall be educated further by your proof of stake?

a reply to: projectvxn

* People form businesses.
* People manipulate business to have a vote equal to or greater than a person.
* Business build influence standards to be financially motivated.
* Over half of the richest counties in the U.S. reside in and around where our politicians live.

en.wikipedia.org...

* Business PEOPLE become rich.
* Business PEOPLE chose to build corporate giants rather than build culture.
* A person now has to become rich to gain any bit of influence.

Now I have to ask?

Do Americans watch Mom & Pop shops buying out corporate giants in the commerce sectors? The law of averages states that corporate giants eat up Mom & Pop shops, and I beg anyone to prove the fulcrum to tip otherwise?

Voters employ lobbyists, because voters allowed for their influence to take hold. How are votes to equate to being reasonable when pre campaign votes are based off of what another tells us to be proof? Proof to one person may likely just spark questions in another... the only difference is the level of influence and where the ability for influence sets in.

The vast majority of the business community does not employ a lobbyist in any way, I see what you see. Forgive me if the landscape tends to show me that 1% of business controls 99% of people. Masking a business as innocent when they are built off of manipulative humans may have some sort of influential reasoning... that's not my duty as a voter to dissect.

a reply to: ttobban

The law of averages states that corporate giants eat up Mom & Pop shops, and I beg anyone to prove the fulcrum to tip otherwise?

I content that this is only a problem in a society where wealth is finite. It is, in fact, not finite.

a reply to: projectvxn

It has to be defined as a problem to be viewed as finite. Never was it mentioned to be a problem... it was stated that it resides within the reality of the beholder/voter to define OPINION.

I do see a finite wealth structure as you do, yes. But when I see a world of humans fighting for their life and basic rights while CEO's get bailed out with HUMAN generated money I have a problem with that.

HUMANS beings ripped from their savings in 08' while it was transferred to shady bankers is a stat.

So, it is a problem for me... yes. Businesses don't care about people, therefore their perception of "FINITE" is actually not conscious to the reality that HUMANS operating businesses yields a harvest that there is way more to the 'FINITE' picture than maybe seen at one's

There are world's that exists outside the needs of money, and they are human of nature. Some may be able to put a price on the influence of a human life based on human made constructs, while others don't wish to honor the over reach of influence gained up and to the point of history we are now.

Some may see it as perfectly admirable to one up fellow humans and define a finite world. The common American was rich in many ways prior to the corporate engine dictating to HUMANS what should be viewed and judged for as a substance of reality as a standard of operation.

The new age debates should include the finite vs. the infinite possibility. Sadly, there is little to no middle ground to debate on as the need to be on one side of the Red/Blue fence or the other shows tb be of utmost importance.

Just for the fact that reality is in the eye of the beholder, it is important to be a rogue voter. If finitie business is what you vote on... keep on doing it if it is meaningful to you. You're a smart person. When new realities become aware, it will drag your opinion along with it... it's called learning and growing... a natural human phenomena. I thought differently in times past, but I removed influence of others and grew from it.

The system in place of Red & Blue tyranny promotes the lack of learning and forces identity politics. Talking about what we can do to right the ship as individuals and not a business entity is crucial to winning back influence where it belongs... in action, and not within a spectrum of color.

These opinions of preference include infinite possibilities, where one hopes to be wrong in hopes of ALL being able to figure it out for themselves. The Red/Blue/Business societies do tend to side with the finite, so we speak from different worlds it appears.

a reply to: projectvxn

I guess I should have summed it up more clearly... hahaha.

If less than 1% of 7 billion plus people can influence a standard and essentially eliminate the 99%'s worthiness or participation in influence then what you accurately state as infinite equates to a definitive finite reality for about 99% of the human population.

I can and should worry about my specific actions, but it does not remove the reality that some of my battles seem finite in possibility since the influence has already laid its course. It hurts a bit to have no support from a group, but never will regret live as a reality for me. To be a rogue philosopher in these times calls for a deep desire to suffer... I'd gladly take suffering and vulnerability over the acceptance of over-influencing entities.

A common phrase citizens should hear from politicians: "I can honestly say that I don't know what the best course of healing is, but I remain strong in desire to learn just what it is the American people desire so the worth of a vote in the eyes of Americans gains confidence in their chosen leaders."

Just listing a 'D' or 'R' next to names while interviewed equals finite. Voters aren't even being made aware of what officials voted on, yet the common American knows Mike Trouts OPS on rainy days. The infinite resides in possibilities... the voting system used now promotes finite ideals.

As a quiz... what are the perceived chances given in terms of percentage that you can see a 3rd party candidate winning a presidential election? You can go ahead and predict a .0001% chance and claim infinite realities, I get it. The law of averages speaks that we can truncate that .00001% dow to 0%, which is finite.

a reply to: ttobban

I do see a finite wealth structure as you do, yes

This is not what I said nor have I ever agreed with this statement.

a reply to: projectvxn

For sure, and not all lobbyism is bad.

I should have been more specific and said campaign financing needs reform.

Sometimes I get the feeling the lobbyists are handlers for the people who wrote checks to superpacs and campaigns.

Nothing wrong with a conversation.... But if you have to pay a politician to do something, would they have done it without the money?

a reply to: projectvxn

Agreed... I misspoke and did not proof read my post prior to entry. It is a good day when I am wrong, as maybe I learned something new. Proofreading prevents thread drift and question evasion, I get it now... thanks. That sentence should have read as follows:

I do see what you mean about finite wealth structure as you do, yes... but maybe we're missing the possibilities outside of the business world?

I had more typed out, but I erased it... this thread is going to start drifting at the same time you avoid prior questions is the pattern I am sensing..

Please take notice that I feel nobody should be swayed by ANY source of information to vote off of. Not only will I untether influence from my voting constructs, but aim to remove influence from my debating influences as well. It's a freeing feeling being wrong... others should try it. To tangle into debate with your off topic derailments while evading the course of debate leaves a sour taste on the eating end.

Is it really so difficult to answer somebody's question while you belittle their off topic content in one post... it has to be dragged out into a separate off course topic all the time with you??? I hope you're running for Red or Blue office with those talents of evasion...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lobbying may be the primary driver of influence within U.S. voting, and politicians should be required to display who funds their party affiliations, their contributors, and their terms in office. They should be wearing NASCAR type suits with their sponsors listed lobbying is that bad.

Sure... not all pharmacists are bad either. One player in a game falls to little relevance in the grand schemes of influence.

Americans let lobbyists form the big pharma companies that speak on behalf of the voting businesses. Lobbyists play both sides well, so they seem masked as friends. All the while, Americans let the very SAME company both destroy human lives with their opiate influence then turn around and sell the victims the remedy. Only in America would such freedoms of miraculous nature of voting birth such kin that divvy off their voting responsibilities to business entities.

www.webmd.com...

promarket.org...

All of that stuff had to happen as a pretense to the voters being wrongly influenced come poll time. The Red/Blue divisiveness we see today is largely due to the influence of lobbying. Businesses should NOT get a vote that is equal to or greater than a human being's. Lobbying promotes the elements of money, while ignoring the civil aspects of humanity.

What has me upset to see so much, is that what they have done was so influential that even 3rd party faithful's are now jumping ship as the absurdity escalates between the two colors.

Seriously... not even 5% popular vote gained based on hatred for the other color??? Watching 3rd party faithful's walk away to appease a circus show is one of the saddest elements of American politics I could imagine. It's sad when times shifted from "you don't get a say if you don't vote" to "don't look at me, because I didn't vote them in.

When 3rd party players are activists, which the OP shows, the masses should be worried.

Neither side ever wins come election times... it's only the American that falls for their tricks that lose.

One day I'd like to switch my avatar back to stars. Lobbyists stitched those "stars" you see now.

Vote Trump = idiot.

a reply to: KellyKill