Only a referendum can pave a way for real elections in America

[pvsi]

Dear Libertarians and other third and independent partiers, do not expect me to vote in any establishment's hosted elections again - if you are SERIOUS about winning elections, let us join together to host a referendum on a despot US government, because like most Americans, in 2000 I was swindled into voting for a war criminal, in 2004 I was swindled into voting for another criminal, and I'm done voting in their elections. Referendum will pave the way for REAL elections.

Blaming society of "stupid voters" is very low, it's like blaming a woman who is being raped that she is a whore who hangs around the bad bunch of people instead of helping her. America is being raped as a nation, while political experts on TV and on these forums alike (most of whom profit or seek to profit from politics in one way or another) will criticize the government to gain your credibility while DEFENDING the system, and ridiculing people who post the truth.

[ame=http://youtu.be/5F8qsyix3fE]Liberating Humanity - Message to Libertarians/Election Fraud - YouTube[/ame]

 

[occupied]

"Real" elections would produce no difference in politicians or the policies they promote, what you really want in government would have to be forcibly imposed on the populace and somehow I do not think you would have a problem with that.

 

[editec]

There is NO LEGAL WAY to make a referendum federal vote.

Good idea though.

But it will take a constitutional amendment to make this idea work.

And do you think CONGRESS is going to share its power with THE PEOPLE?

Not likely

 

[bonehead]

There is NO LEGAL WAY to make a referendum federal vote.

Good idea though.

But it will take a constitutional amendment to make this idea work.

And do you think CONGRESS is going to share its power with THE PEOPLE?

Not likely

not quite true. you're correct in the fact government will never agree to release it's grip on power. an Article V convention is the constitutional way to go. congress has no choice when it is called. it's the only LEGAL method to force the will of the people on the government.

 

[Edgetho]

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

~ Ayn Rand

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

***

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

***

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

***

[Libertarians] are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

***

Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

***

[Question] Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

[Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

***

The Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

'nuff said

 

[occupied]

There is NO LEGAL WAY to make a referendum federal vote.

Good idea though.

But it will take a constitutional amendment to make this idea work.

And do you think CONGRESS is going to share its power with THE PEOPLE?

Not likely

not quite true. you're correct in the fact government will never agree to release it's grip on power. an Article V convention is the constitutional way to go. congress has no choice when it is called. it's the only LEGAL method to force the will of the people on the government.

The people rarely have a good idea what their will is. All too often what any given group think they want is the result of PR campaigns funded by special interests. We are already giving the petroleum industry, for example, far too much attention and free money because they spend massively to make their narrow issues into mainstream concerns. I see no solution in our mass media world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear Libertarians and other third and independent partiers, do not expect me to vote in any establishment's hosted elections again - if you are SERIOUS about winning elections, let us join together to host a referendum on a despot US government, because like most Americans, in 2000 I was swindled into voting for a war criminal, in 2004 I was swindled into voting for another criminal, and I'm done voting in their elections. Referendum will pave the way for REAL elections.

Blaming society of "stupid voters" is very low, it's like blaming a woman who is being raped that she is a whore who hangs around the bad bunch of people instead of helping her. America is being raped as a nation, while political experts on TV and on these forums alike (most of whom profit or seek to profit from politics in one way or another) will criticize the government to gain your credibility while DEFENDING the system, and ridiculing people who post the truth.

Liberating Humanity - Message to Libertarians/Election Fraud - YouTube

Well there's Proportional Representation which could make a massive difference in the US.

However, you were "swindled", how so? Yes, advertised to death, but if you believe what they tell you then you weren't swindled, you were merely not voting properly.

 

[occupied]

Dear Libertarians and other third and independent partiers, do not expect me to vote in any establishment's hosted elections again - if you are SERIOUS about winning elections, let us join together to host a referendum on a despot US government, because like most Americans, in 2000 I was swindled into voting for a war criminal, in 2004 I was swindled into voting for another criminal, and I'm done voting in their elections. Referendum will pave the way for REAL elections.

Blaming society of "stupid voters" is very low, it's like blaming a woman who is being raped that she is a whore who hangs around the bad bunch of people instead of helping her. America is being raped as a nation, while political experts on TV and on these forums alike (most of whom profit or seek to profit from politics in one way or another) will criticize the government to gain your credibility while DEFENDING the system, and ridiculing people who post the truth.

Liberating Humanity - Message to Libertarians/Election Fraud - YouTube

Well there's Proportional Representation which could make a massive difference in the US.

However, you were "swindled", how so? Yes, advertised to death, but if you believe what they tell you then you weren't swindled, you were merely not voting properly.

There's the real answer, we do not really need a different system, voters just need to be convinced to quit voting their fears and prejudices, not sure it's possible either but it places the blame where it belongs.

 

[bonehead]

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

~ Ayn Rand

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

***

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party].

***

[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

***

[Libertarians] are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

***

Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

***

[Question] Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

[Rand] Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

***

The Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

'nuff said

not being a Libertarian, I wouldn't know that. I'm a realist - political ideology has no place in my attitudes. there are problems and solutions. we currently have many problems - and the solutions can be many or few. what is best for the most? best to allow the citizens to decide than to force a decision on them.

 

[rdean]

In "real" elections, the GOP wouldn't have a chance.

 

[bonehead]

In "real" elections, the GOP wouldn't have a chance.

and would you know where these "real" elections would be?

 

[rdean]

In "real" elections, the GOP wouldn't have a chance.

and would you know where these "real" elections would be?

Yea, in this country. Gerrymandering is the only thing keeping Republicans in office, bonehead.

 

[bonehead]

In "real" elections, the GOP wouldn't have a chance.

and would you know where these "real" elections would be?

Yea, in this country. Gerrymandering is the only thing keeping Republicans in office, bonehead.

and your solution is?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The solution is the voters, not a referendum.

 

[bonehead]

The solution is the voters, not a referendum.

well, we have voters - and the voters think elections ARE a referendum. so just saying " the voters" is a little weak. please explain.

 

[g4racer]

Gerrymandering has been around for a long time and been used by both parties. It is not against the law; but most consider it unethical. Well they consider it unethical if it works against them. We have a situation where at least a half of voters are not represented in Congress and I find it odd that this has not been a subject for discussion. We have elected a President that did not have a majority vote and that is wrong.
When a person is elected to Congress who do the represent? The people that voted for them or all people from their area? We don't have a Congress which puts the good of the nation first; but the party. The People are at the bottom of their lists.
Shall we look at some problems:
Medicare: Joint replacement is great, it can make you feel like your 18 again. Well you may be 70 or 80. Medicare should allow a maximum of 1 set of replacements how many seniors are on their 3rd set. Aging is a process we all usually experience, the cost second or third or fourth set should not be allowed.
I had considered having my knees replaced; but found that in order to have any major effect the hips and back would also need work. At 78 I decided against it as I can see several years of recovery being required. I accept that I now can't do the things I once did because I'm old. We must accept the fact that age we are not going to be 18 forever.
I really feel sorry for those who think it is their right to have both knees replaced, both hips replaced, a penis implant and take the purple pill so they can be as they were 6 decades ago. I wonder how many of the Tea Party has had that stuff done at least once and then complains about welfare?
You want fairness? Require honesty and ethics from our politicians; but first make sure you have it yourself.

 

[pvsi]

"Real" elections would produce no difference in politicians or the policies they promote, what you really want in government would have to be forcibly imposed on the populace and somehow I do not think you would have a problem with that.

You are trying to put words in my mouth: I never advocated any sort of violence, or a coup, and when I suggested to take over a media building it is only to demand a referendum and nothing else.

 

[pvsi]

There is NO LEGAL WAY to make a referendum federal vote.

Good idea though.

But it will take a constitutional amendment to make this idea work.

2. And do you think CONGRESS is going to share its power with THE PEOPLE?

Not likely

As I state in the video, the referendum is the first step to pave way for real elections, so that after society is WAKEN UP to the fact that "MAJORITY IS NOT IN FACT STUPID" they can unite behind a coalition party and elect independent leadership.
2. Congress and Senate will be replaced in full by the people in the real elections following a referendum.

 

[bonehead]

Gerrymandering has been around for a long time and been used by both parties. It is not against the law; but most consider it unethical. Well they consider it unethical if it works against them. We have a situation where at least a half of voters are not represented in Congress and I find it odd that this has not been a subject for discussion. We have elected a President that did not have a majority vote and that is wrong.
When a person is elected to Congress who do the represent? The people that voted for them or all people from their area? We don't have a Congress which puts the good of the nation first; but the party. The People are at the bottom of their lists.
Shall we look at some problems:
Medicare: Joint replacement is great, it can make you feel like your 18 again. Well you may be 70 or 80. Medicare should allow a maximum of 1 set of replacements how many seniors are on their 3rd set. Aging is a process we all usually experience, the cost second or third or fourth set should not be allowed.
I had considered having my knees replaced; but found that in order to have any major effect the hips and back would also need work. At 78 I decided against it as I can see several years of recovery being required. I accept that I now can't do the things I once did because I'm old. We must accept the fact that age we are not going to be 18 forever.
I really feel sorry for those who think it is their right to have both knees replaced, both hips replaced, a penis implant and take the purple pill so they can be as they were 6 decades ago. I wonder how many of the Tea Party has had that stuff done at least once and then complains about welfare?
You want fairness? Require honesty and ethics from our politicians; but first make sure you have it yourself.

now there's an attitude I can appreciate - an honest criticism without party influence.
both major parties are just two sides of the same valueless coin. an Article V convention awaits for these types of people. it is time "we the people" require our government to work as the employees they are instead of acting like they are our employers.

 

[pvsi]

There is NO LEGAL WAY to make a referendum federal vote.

Good idea though.

But it will take a constitutional amendment to make this idea work.

And do you think CONGRESS is going to share its power with THE PEOPLE?

Not likely

not quite true. you're correct in the fact government will never agree to release it's grip on power. an Article V convention is the constitutional way to go. congress has no choice when it is called. it's the only LEGAL method to force the will of the people on the government.

The people rarely have a good idea what their will is. All too often what any given group think they want is the result of PR campaigns funded by special interests. We are already giving the petroleum industry, for example, far too much attention and free money because they spend massively to make their narrow issues into mainstream concerns. I see no solution in our mass media world.

The people and their anti establishment movements are being constantly derailed, but they all know very well what they want from government - JUSTICE: that includes welfare moms who know that in today's real world, they can not grow a garden or pay their bills without government assistance or on McDonalds salary. That includes millionaires who want to be sure that they are not robed, and so on.