"So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?""You bet, had we been brain dead we would have voted for Mitt Romney!"
And if you had a functioning brain, you would know both of them are corrupt, evil criminals and you would not have voted for either of them.
THIRD PARTY or Write in ..... for the 100+ IQs
No difference in what matters - US only has one party, masquerading as two. Same wars, same whores for Israel and corporations, plunderers, liars and murderers
And refusal to participate for the 135+. Voting cannot reflect social preferences, and validates a system that ① is inherently corrupt in ways that cannot be remedied; and ② forces dissenters to fund the preferences of a minority of the citizenry (a moral wrong).To participate is to commit a tort: it is to knowingly conspire to steal the productivity of those who have no desire to fund or participate in political life (including the implementation of politically-drive n policy).Do not be misled by the masterful misdirection of Acton ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"): the actual fact of the matter is that only the already-corrupt are attracted to positions of power.
Like Communism and Ayn Rand.... it is all very nice, in theory. Workers want food on the plate and beer in the fridge. Someons once told " I don't care if you are Commie or Capitalist,I just want a STEAK when I get home".
I know what you're getting at, but let me open with this: both Communism and Randian drivel are extremely poor theories (for anybody with a decent in economics, Rand was a shallow ignorant hack... and her writing was awful).That aside, the point you make - that most of the working class (and others) don't care what system they live under so long as it produces increasing material satisfaction (steak on the table etc) - is probably true, but it's also a very slippery slope. What if people in the South in 1860 genuinely believed that slavery produced more output per worker? (It doesn't, but let's ignore that for now). What if the average German citizen in 1941 genuinely believed that sending the Jews to gas chambers would increase output per worker? Note: I'm not saying that these people's belief was correct, or that it was arrived at without significant propaganda... just whether or not they actually believed it.And so it is today: a very large bulk of the people think that 'representative' government is ⓐ representative (it isn't, and it cannot be); and ⓑ established to secure their rights and what-not (again, it isn't, and cannot be).Neither of those things is true, either in theory or in practice: in fact, both are provably false in theory, and observably false in practice.There would be no steak under my regime - it seems clear to me that cattle have inner lives; perhaps not as rich as our inner lives, but they can certainly experience emotion, and can suffer... so it is wrong to violate their integrity in order to eat them. (I ate meat in vast quantities for 45 years, and nowadays I still lapse from time to time... even though I know it's wrong. This is why I understand the problem of knowing what the right answer is, when the wrong answer feels good and seems easy).
(1) The "War of Yankee Aggression" (LOL) was about taxes .... the North was bleeding the South. Do you really believe those YANKEE Shippers who BROUGHT the slaves here --- cared? Look at the Bushs (Kennebunkport) and Nazi ---- HEY! I wonder if early BUSH Family were in the slave trade TOO.(2) WWII was WWI part 2 --- onerous reparations ,etc. Hitler merely figured out how to unite the masses.
The War To Prevent Southern Secession wasn't about 'taxes' as such: it was about preventing the South from developing the ability to source merchandise from sources other than the Northern manufacturing centres, and to sell Southern raw materials offshore. The excise component was of minor importance relative to the total cash flow from South to North.It was also about power. pure and simple. (I never suggested it was about slavery: it most certainly was not. Lincoln himself said that if he could keep the union intact without freeing a single slave, he would do so).Note also that the importation of slaves had already been outlawed in every state except South Carolina since the Jefferson administration (importation of slaves was illegal from 1807). This was not due to any misty-eyed regret over slavery in the US: like all trade bans, it was just another protection racket. Slaveowners knew that imported slaves competed with domestic 'production' (of slaves), in the same way that car manufacturers always try to get .gov to impose tariffs on imported vehicles.As to WWII - I have said time and time again that if the US had stayed out of WWI (as Wilson promised to do in the election campaign of 1916), the three sides of WWI would have reached a compromise that would have resulted in no Treaty of Versailles... hence no reparations, no Weimar Republic... no hyperinflation, no rise of Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. The Holocaust is directly traceable to the interference of the US in WWI, and their insistence (along with the French) of punitive reparations.