ARE WE ENTITLED TO AN HONORABLE CONGRESS?

I agree. My point precisely. Trump's independence and lack of establishment ties and the perceived capability to maybe actually drain the swamp is what made many top Republicans never Trumpers.

 

I suggest you rethink that, it tends to destroy your ability to control your own life.
Base rule of responsibility is that you are responsible for everything you think, do, say or feel- because you are the only person who can control those things.
That also means that others are responsible for what they do in the same way.

If you vote for a politician that turns out to be a fraud- you made a mistake; generally a judgement error because you would not have knowingly voted for such a person. You are responsible for your mistake.
The politician however has knowingly chosen to cheat and act fraudulently, knowingly deceived the voters, and is knowingly abusing the privilege of office and knowingly failing to serve the people.
HE is responsible for those things because he is the only person who can control them.

If you hold yourself responsible for his actions- then you take responsibility for something that was never in your control, and something you cannot change..... and you literally take the rap for the other persons transgressions, and allow them to continue. I don't think you really want to support that.

This is brick and mortar psychology, basic critical thinking without the emotions. This is how you retain power over your own life. Control the things in your power; do not let others make you responsible for things in their power. That is allowing yourself to be used, and volunteering for it. If it works, other people will join in and become your abusers too. Congress didn't get to where it is by us making bad choices every time- it got that way because sleazy tactics started to work, and it spread like a disease- becoming the only tactic that works.

It is up to us to remedy that condition is congress- not by becoming clairvoyant and always electing the ideal person, but by creating an environment in congress where the only tactic that works is honor. Then regardless of how inept a person we send to office- while they may do a poor job representing us, they will have no choice but to do so honestly.
IF all else fails- read the instructions, enforce the rules. It's time we did that.

That IS within our power.

 

If the voter sees that his elected representatives are acting dishonorably, and nevertheless votes to re-elect the same scoundrels over and over again, isn't the CONTINUED corruption ultimately then the fault of the voter?

 

Who will enforce those rules? The ethics committee ...where misdeeds go to die in darkness? I am anxious to see the details of your proposal, and especially interested to see how you plan to get it into place.

 

Same rule. IF you have no good choice, you pick the least of evils. That's the best choice of what is there- and the answer is to find a way to regulate what the choices are to you.... AND what the choices are to those on the list. IF you started violating the fundamental obligations of your employment and started stealing from your employer, you would be fired. He would be correcting his mistake.
IF you were told to shape up or lose your job, then you could chose either one- and that would be your choice of what is available

It would be impossible to avoid ever electing a person with low morals or character. So that is not in our power. However, making that conduct unacceptable and cause for removal should and could be within our power. The government works for us- although they usually fail to see it that way. We pay the bills. We have the right to demand what we pay for.
It's not automatic; we have to step up and fix the situation. It is NOT impossible. Not even complicated- but the right answer and the right process must be followed.

 

My group can't get it in place- that's up to the people. Our objective is to strike the match, light the fire- and present a viable way to solve the problem. It's up to the public to get behind it, push it, see it passes. That's where the super-majority comes into place. All the people have to do- is back it. IF 75% of the people tell congress they must do this- it will happen. IF being a crook becomes political suicide, there will soon be no crooks.

If most people want to wait until "somebody else" does it for them, they lose. That is not within my control- only theirs.

 

No way. These voting gimmicks almost always benefit Democrats. I think there have been final Election Day votes in California when it was two Democrats running against each other. In other words, if you were a conservative, you had no choice. These so-called “jungle primaries” really suck. But it’s California so one would expect it to suck.

When I lived in Massachusetts, the rotten, lazy Democrat congressman from my district constantly ran unopposed. The post office in my town was 9 to 4 Monday through Friday. Good luck to you if you had a job and had to sign for a piece of mail.

I ended up leaving the ballot blank. He finally retired from Congress so he could spend more time with his family. Good riddance although what replaced him was just as bad.

 

I agree, but the people who make laws will never vote themselves out of their job.

 

Hmmm... I don't know. ~75% of the people have been telling Congress to decriminalize marijuana for years. I really do hope you're on to something here, because it sounds exactly like what we need to happen... But, I'm afraid that people's capacity for apathy is greater than we would hope it is. (There's my cynicism coming out again!)

Curious... have you put any thought into how the left/right propaganda machines will try to twist, demonize and resist your proposal?

 

Hold the presses!!! I actually agree with you. We elect our leaders based on distrustful reporting, massive spin/distortion from our "news" organizations (both sides) and an education system that seems more interesting in turning little children into sexual aberrations than into well-educated citizens. You get what you deserve.

 

if that's true, then it means the extra candidates almost always takes from democrats is what you are saying

a Republican that did not want Trump, but would take him over a dem for instance could vote Trump as a second choice, so really depends on the 3rd party choices

 

If there were no umpires and players made their own calls- none would call themselves "out". But then- this is why baseball has umpires, people with the authority to make those calls on the spot, who have no skin in the game.

What if-

 

There are several critical points. One is that such a solution meet those parameters our professor laid out for us- make no enemies, leave no way to legitimately attack the premise.
And yes, those various propaganda and political maneuvers- at least all we could think of over the years- carefully considered. Have a mountain of paperwork on all these things, which we knew would raise questions that must be answered- and we can. It's not possible to be "bulletproof" in today's political world, because of the degree of distortion and fabrication going on. There would be attack on mom and apple pie or anything. Cause is no longer needed, demonizing is a weapon and sadly, too widely seen as end justifying means. However, we think we leave no legitimate way.

We know there will be political opposition of course. Even the fact this comes from the outside will be seen as reason. Our tool is to overcome that with the super-majority. Their opposition will be to divide people to block that, and if that doesn't work, to prevent it ever getting out of committee- and that too can be overwhelmed with the super-majority. It all hinges on the people caring enough to actually take a position.

What we don't have a way to measure accurately is that apathy thing. It's our biggest concern as well, and we have no control over it except to make the plan and presentation as good as possible to help get people on-board.

My producer has a lot of experience in advertising and marketing. He says there are a certain number of people that you will never motivate or reach, just due to their nature. I agree- the question is how large that percentage is, and can we reach the rest.

 

Very reasonable points. There are ways for voters to evaluate politicians. For instance, I would never vote for a professional politician. They have been corrupted necessarily in order to make a career out of it. I would only vote for newcomers, or failing that, against incumbents. There are some things voters can do to improve the mess. Then there is my lie detector idea.

 

No reason to shout it to the world. You could've kept that a secret.
I don't base my vote on distrustful reporting, in fact, I have a rule, believe 1/2 of what one sees and none of what one hears.

I certainly am not so out of touch with reality that I would think schools are turning kids into a sexual aberration. That one would say something so off the wall means they believe what they've been told without even attending a school board meeting to find out for oneself.

 

Well....we had a right to know. The New York Post wanted to expose the Hunter Biden Story. Now we know the DNC in collusion with the FBI silenced all media before the 2016 election. You stay tuned and see for yourself. I'm sure my speech has been limited also in social media. We'll find out more, dont you worry!

 

Disagree. Term limits are the only way you'll get statesmen that view their positions as an act of servitude instead of a class of elite taking only for themselves.

 

Reverend Slumlord is currently trailing 7,000 votes with 75% of the vote counted.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...6/live-results-georgia-senate-runoff-n1651252

MTG screwed the owner of her health spa, so, she can't be all bad!

 

Warnock now leading by 2,000 with 76% counted

 

The back and forth makes it too difficult to call it.

 

Rev Slumlord now up by 25,000 with 83% counted

 

Trouble is all too large a portion of electorate doesn't care how corrupt a politician is as long as he promises them some some of the take.

 

NY Post is a media company own by Rupert Murdoch. NY Post has online and paper publication. They published Hunter Biden story online and Paper publication. If they wanted, they could have gone to Fox news, Sky news UK, Sky news Australia and 100s other Rupert Murdoch media all over the world and publish the story.

What NY Post couldn’t do is put “Free advertising” in Tweeter about Hunter Biden.

Again, twitter is not a government agency, DNC is not a government agency. Private entity suppressing free speech is not unconstitutional. I am sure if I use “F WORD” in this forum, the moderator will delete my post. That’s not suppressing free speech. I can’t go to my church this Sunday and preach “homosexuality is good for Christian”., I will be thrown out of the church.

You are right, FB and Twitter suppress free speech. Musk just banned Kanye West and don’t let him express his free speech against Jews. But none of them are unconstitutional. You want to express your view against Jews, go to Gab , they allow complete free speech. You want to rant about Liberal, go to Truth Social. But social media like FB or Twitter has no legal obligation to give you FREE PLATFORM to express your free speech.

 

This is about government collusion with media and scotus already said no

 

True.
I think they would care- but they rationalize it, tell themselves such people actually care about them and justify immoral actions. That manipulation, is the tool of most ambitious politicians. It's also the greatest threat to the survival of a free nation, because it promotes dependency- and that is a kind of slavery where people trade their dignity and independence for basic needs controlled by their "leaders".

This is measure of weakness to strength in people. In the short term, it's always easiest to take something free- but in the long term, the price is everything you have... including your self-respect and power over your own life.

Anything the government "GIVES" the people is something they TAKE FROM the people.