Reply to NY Times Arpaio is a sadist article

Sadism is the result of ignorance and smallness of humanity. None-the-less, people who know they, or "their kind", are superior to "the other" people, justify their sadistic attitudes by dehumanising the "inferiors". Arpaio, Trump, Mcconnell, most Republicans, start from that position. The result is that they choose to "Rule the others" and not to serve the people. It is the story of Jefferson against his fellow founders: they believed "man is not wise enough to govern themselves" and have the landowners, slave owners, and well educated make the laws and "govern ( or rule)" the people. Jefferson said, "If man is not wise enough to govern himself, he should govern others?" Representative lawmaking has failed democracy. We must fire our Representatives and vote directly on the laws ourselves, directly on the Executive officers, and directly on the Judicial officers. Our government must be "our" government and officers of the government must be responsible to the people: see assocactualdemocracy.com, join up and support it. Freedom is the freedom to decide one's own fate.

Hair on Fire ... Putin's open confession at Helsinki

I have been running around with my "hair on fire" since I saw and heard the Helsinki questioning/interviewing of Putin and Trump.

First Trump says Putin told him, forcefully, that he and his associates, all of the Russian government, had nothing to do with interfering in the U.S. election in 2016.

Then, when asked if he believed Russia interfered in the election, Trump answered, in part, "Why would they?"  Effectively saying he believes Putin over the professional people of the U.S. CIA, NSA, and FBI.  He gave aide and comfort to the enemy.  He put Putin's denial over the evidence presented to him, multiple times, again and again, since he took office.  But that's who he is and how he lies.

My hair caught on fire when the reporter asked Putin if he, Putin, had wanted Donald Trump to win the 2016 election and did he Putin, have his people work toward that end.  Putin listened to the translation and immediately said, "Yes, yes I did."

This is, in front of the whole world, to open cameras and microphones, a full confession that Putin DID, indeed did, interfere in the U.S. election of 2016.  In so confessing, Putin confessed to interfering with the internal affairs of the United States Government and therefore violated the United Nations Charter. he U.N. Charter forbids, in those words, "no nation shall interfere in the internal affairs of another Nation".  Putin not only contradicts Trump when he said he wanted Trump to win and had his people working toward that end, effectively that Putin did interfere in the election, but Putin admitted to violating the U.N. Charter and the United States Sovereignty.

Why hasn't this been jumped on by our media, scholars, DoJ, CiA, and Congress.

Trump is a Traitor and Putin is an enemy aggressor who violated our sovereignty, they both said so at Helsinki..

educating character as well as intellect

But, and it is a big but, we are educating intellect to the neglect of character. Look how many of us are bright competent people with no honor, no morals, no dignity, no compassion, no history or philosophy, even no religion, influencing and being a major part of their character. Science is truth, morality is evolution's result and methodology for maintaining and enhancing civilization and culture. We need to teach it, too.

Money is more important than people: Capitalism's philosophy

Capitalistic Republicanism has one major flaw, it advocates, in its actions and the policies it enacts, that

               MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE

with which the liberal community disagrees.  The Supreme Court's Ruling in Citizens United is a prime example. But all of Wall Street, the rise of American, Russian, Chinese, and Indian Oligarchs is another example.   The Constitution holds:
"...no man can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."  And the "property" view is taking over all of our motivations.  Our Representatives are bought and paid for before they run for office.  On average a congressman spends nearly 2 million dollars to get a 140 thousand dollar a year job.  How's that work out for the rule of law and the equality of the people?  The Political Action Committees (pacs, were the pack in the money) are simply addresses where the bribes can be sent.  And the Courts have ruled that the bribes are now free Speech.  King George should have thought of that.

The Constitution enshrines the opinion that "man is not wise enough to govern himself."  Only Jefferson opposed this idea
by asking,"Then he should govern others?" The people have never voted on a law they live under; never voted directly for the Executive officers, never voted for a Federal Judge.  Because the "Founding Oligarchs" didn't want the people to do so. The people are to be governed, ruled, and whoever makes the rules, Rules the nation.  We need change.

Response to Times on Article about Thieves of Democracy...

Roger Duronio

New Jersey5h ago

The real thieves of Democracy are the 'Founding fathers': we don't vote directly on laws, we don't vote directly for the president, no one votes for the Federal Judges. Why? Because the 'Founding Fathers' did not want us to: they firmly believed that 'man is not wise enough to govern himself'. Consequently elected Representatives make the laws under which we live and not, We The People, because we are not wise enough to do so. We vote for members of the Electoral College to chose our President, because we, The People, are not wise enough to do so. And Federal Judges are not voted on by us; because, you guessed it, we are not wise enough to do so. The only Founding Father who stood against this position, embedded in the Constitution, was the, arguably, brightest of the group, Jefferson. Jefferson said, in his first inaugural address, "It is often said man is not wise enough to govern himself, then he should govern others?" Actual Democracy is people voting directly on the laws under which they live, directly on the Executive officers, and directly on the Judges. Everything else is being governed by what Rousseau called the "Elected Aristocracy".

4 REPLIES

joe parrott commented 5 hours ago

J

joe parrott

syracuse, ny5h ago

Roger, Calm down, Dude. There was never a direct democracy in a large nation in the history of the world. Greece, the birthplace of Democracy, had an elected Senate. We are a nation of over 300million people. You can't run a government with that many people directly involved. Sorry, not. even. close.

Thank you for your submission.

We'll notify you via email when your comment has been approved.

R

Roger Duronio

New Jersey | Pending Approval

@joe parrott 200 million people vote for the president in one day. They can just as easily vote for a law. The "rich and greedy" don't want us to vote for the laws. We don't want the responsibility. There are millions of reasons why we should be ruled like the sheep we are. But no other form of government than people voting on laws, voting for executive officers, and voting for judges (making hem responsible to the people) is a democracy. We couldn't get rid of slavery and women could never be allowed to vote, and... the Earth is flat. They were all wrong. Because something has never been done is not, not, a reason to rule out doing it.

jaco commented 5 hours ago

J

jaco

Nevada5h ago

@Roger Duronio Given that voters elected AOC I can understand the idea that "We the People" are not wise enough...

Thank you for your submission.

We'll notify you via email when your comment has been approved.

R

Roger Duronio

New Jersey | Pending Approval

@jaco The people will error, but Congress does too. A new idea came out a few years ago: group think, groups working together to solve problems. And gee, two heads were better than one, and 2,000,000 were better than 538.

Lisa commented 4 hours ago

L

Lisa

Expat In Brisbane4h ago

Idaho has elected judges, even to the state Supreme Court. When right-wingers didn’t like a judgement a few years ago, a man who’d lost his job as a veterinary assistant ran for Chief Justice. He got a lot of votes, too. I am most certainly NOT in favour of elected judges — provided, of course, that the executive branch and the senate actually do their respective jobs and don’t nominate, and approve, unqualified Thomases and Kavanaughs. I live in hope.

Thank you for your submission.

We'll notify you via email when your comment has been approved.

R

Roger Duronio

New Jersey | Pending Approval

@Lisa The Federal Judiciary is the most corrupt group of people in the U.S. Corrupt in the sense that they freely pick and choose when to apply the laws for the benefit of the country, and when to apply them to maintain a status quo (and law be damned), and when to apply them to favor a political party. They meet each year to give themselves new "paths to follow" without being answrable to anyone. Jefferson said "..it's as if they are not even a part of the country."

marybeth commented 3 hours ago

M

marybeth

MA3h ago

@Roger Duronio: Not quite, although I understand the argument you are trying to make. The fact is that you can't apply 20th and 21st century values and mores to the 18th century men who wrote the Constitution. At that time, only men who owned a certain amount of property (meaning real property, not chattel) could vote. This excluded all women (because women by definition were chattel, the moveable property of husbands, fathers, and other male relatives), most blacks, Indians, and white men who didn't own property at all or who didn't own enough property. The Founders didn't trust the unwashed masses, hence the property requirement to vote. This ensured that only men wealthy enough would have a say in government. It also reassured white Southern slave owners that power would remain with a small group. Slowly, those ideas about voting rights changed. Property requirements were chipped away, and eventually abolished, opening the franchise to poorer people who didn't own property (renters, etc.). The post Civil War Amendments not only abolished slavery but extending the franchise to former male slaves. Women were still denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. The voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War. We've had a history of gradually expanding the franchise, not restricting it.

Thank you for your submission.

We'll notify you via email when your comment has been approved.

R

Roger Duronio

New Jersey | Pending Approval

@marybeth The next evolutionary step in government is to end the Representative Republic and install an Actual Democracy where thepeople don't ask someone to make the laws under which they live but make the laws themselves. Nothing else is democracy. Nothing else is justice. It does away with bought and paid for Representatives and all the corruption and stupidity that comes with it. 30 million Californians have two Senators and 500 thousand Montanans have 2 Senators. That is not justice. The Constitution needs to be Amended so people keep their power and everybody has the same amount of power. 1 person 1 vote: for laws, executives and judges.

Mueller Must Indict Trump

Since the only outcome is claimed to be impeachment and not indictment, Mueller's work is irrelevant, legally.

The Democrats are as afraid of impeaching Trump as the Democrats were of indicting Bush in 2009.

Consequently, America has given up, totally, the Rule of Law.

Our Presidents are now proven to be above the law, beyond the reach of Justice: Impeachment is a 'political' action and if the politicians protect the President so they can keep trying to win elections and the Justice Department has handcuffed itself from indicting the President, The President is above the law.

My advise to remedy this quandary is for the Justice Department to change their rule against indictment and say that a President must be indicted if there is evidence to support an indictment against the President then he must be indicted, and there will be no discretion in deciding to indict.

Mueller must indict Trump and get the Supreme Court to support his action.

Antisemitism discussion...

Anti-Antisemitism is not exceptional.  Whenever a group of humans seeks to implement a position of superiority over a different group of humans, or every other group of humans, they start with groups that have been denigrated before or start demonizing new groups. Hitler did it with the Jews. America did it with the Indians and then the blacks, probably concurrently with the blacks: white = good; everything else = bad.

There are some who believe the Old Jewish Testament, that declares the Jews are "The Chosen People" is a point of antagonism and 'backlash' for all the non-Jews.

Fear causes biological irrationality and to overcome both the fear and irrationality takes a huge  mental effort, years of discipline and rational study, or the basic adherence to Jeffersonian Democracy: "All men are created equal".  Most people are too busy obeying bosses, seeking survival money, or a "better way of life" to worry about who they hate, why they hate, and who they are helping when they hate. 

"Love thy neighbor" is stated in Buddhism, reiterated in  the New Testament, and embodied in law under " no man can be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law" and "all men have the right to the equal protection of the laws".   Except, of course, all the others, the ones we hate.  And gee, can you believe it, some of them hate me, and you.

Funny, isn't it.