The Real Strategy: Opinion: Christopher Kemmett: Real Retards Vote- Why you Don't Want to Stop Them

Source:The Daily Review

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.

Sheldon Richman: 'The Anti-Politician Politician'

Source:The New Democrat- Ain't that the truth.

"The good news about the presidential election season is that so many voters seem disgusted with career politicians. The bad news is that these voters are naively opting for "outsiders" who in reality are just politicians in another form. They are anti-politician politicians."

From Free Association 

"Lying Politicians And Words. George Carlin comments." 

Source:George Carlin- speaking at The National Press Club, in 2008.

From George Carlin

"The anti-politician politician." Not my line, but I guess it would be someone who is a politician, but doesn't like status-quo politics. Someone who speaks freely, doesn't come off as being bought and sounds like they're running for office for the coal industry, or the environmental lobby. Whose not afraid to look at independent facts and research and just doesn't go by the party-line.

Someone who of course has a lot of things in common with their party, but goes against them when they're clearly wrong. In other words someone whose last name is not Clinton, or Bush. Not sure that politician exists at least who is running for president in one of the major political parties. Senator Bernie Sanders, might be the closest, but he's been in Congress for over twenty-four years now and is a career politician.

Actually, all five Democratic presidential candidates have served in at least one chamber of Congress. Martin O"Malley, who was a big city mayor in Baltimore and Governor of Maryland, would be the exception to that. Bernie Sanders, sixteen years in the House and now almost nine in the Senate.

You go over to the Republican Party and you'll find, yes Donald Trump. But he wants to be President of the United States, as much as Pope Francis wants be an Atheist. His campaign is clearly about him and he sees a faction of the Republican Party the old Silent Majority that feels left out in American politics and the country as a whole. And he is speaking their language right now. And will continue to speak their language until he finds a better group of people to pander to.

I guess you could call Carly Fiorina an anti-politician politician, but not from a lack of trying. But because she hasn't won an election yet.

Ben Carson, brain surgeon and by a lot of counts at least as it has to do with medicine and education he seems pretty bright. But at least to me it doesn't sound like much more than a right-wing hipster (if there is such a thing) who speaks in catch phrases. Who uses a lot of what could be called grand rhetoric, but that doesn't have much meat in the language. Who uses catch phrases to try to bring people to his side on right-wing social issue positions. Apparently unaware that hipsters tend to be pretty young and liberal-libertarian on most social issues.

Americans might say they want an anti-politician politician. But it's only when politicians make their positions clear and speak from the heart which is when they lose.

I at least and George Carlin would be with me on this, see Americans voters as much if not a bigger problem than politicians themselves. You only get to being a career politician by getting elected and reelected over and over. And unfortunately the way politicians get reelected over and over is telling voters what they want to hear and then doing something else when they get reelected. And making it look like they wanted to do the things they ran on, but that wasn't possible, so they had to settle. When the fact was they had no plans to act on the positions that they originally supported. With voters at home actually buying that like they buy a bottle of water or something and not putting much thought into what they were sold.

If Americans want better politicians, then they have to vote for better more candid people. And not try to fire them simply based on one vote or policy, even if those positions are incredibly unpopular. Because a lot of times doing the right thing in American government is unpopular at least at the time. President Harry Truman, knew this by heart.

If politicians feel they can do the right thing and take tough stances on key issues without the fear of losing their job and having to work for a living, they'll do that. Because who wants to be an accountant, or teach for a living, or some other really hard job where the money isn't great, when they can make 150,000 dollars a year, with three months or more of paid vacation every year. Where you get a week off for holidays.

Voters, need to be smart and do their homework and know who they're voting for and let that person do their job. That is the only way you get better politicians and better government. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The National Journal: Clare Foran: All The Ways 2016 Contenders Want to Change the Constitution

Source:The National Journal

I have to admit, that 2015-16, at least not yet isn’t as interesting as the 2011-12 presidential election cycle, at least when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and proposed constitutional amendments. In 2011-12, you had so-called constitutional conservatives like Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum, both offer several amendments to the Constitution. Representative Bachmann, wanted to use the Constitution so the Federal Government could outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage. Senator Santorum, would’ve actually gone further and supported the first two amendments, but added an amendment to outlaw gambling from the Federal level as well.

Now it seems to me anyway looking from this from the outside as a non-conservative, that someone who calls them self a Constitutional Conservative, would like the Constitution as is. And want to, gee I don’t know, conserve the Constitution as is. And leave the constitutional amendments to Progressives who want the Constitution to progress forward and create more, well progress. I mean this all sounds like commonsense anyway and maybe I just get from not being an addicted career politician whose only happy when I’m holding office and looking for the next step up in my political career. And as a result I feel giant craving for voters who I need to like me.

2015-16, isn’t as bad, at least so far. Hold the phone, because we still have more than fourteen months until the presidential election. You got a couple Democratic presidential contenders, offering amendments to overturn Citizens United. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And few Republicans offering amendments to allow for states to define marriage as only between a man and women. Governor Scott Walker, offered that amendment. Senator Marco Rubio, offered an amendment to excuse people who choose not to buy health insurance from paying a tax on that. Mr. Big Government anti-Federalist Republican Rick Santorum, is back at it with an amendment that would have the Federal Government define marriage for everyone else. Between a man and women.

Keep in mind, the politicians and wannabe politicians that are offering all of these amendments, are all smart enough to know what it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution and why we only have like 27 amendments to it. They all know that there’s a better chance of Paris Hilton winning an honorary degree from both Harvard and Stanford, than the U.S. Constitution being changed anytime soon. What they’re counting on I believe at least is the people they’re speaking to, are unaware of how unlikely these proposals would ever become law. They’re speaking to their audiences and bases both Republican and Democrat. And represent a big reason why so many Americans don’t like American politics and don’t bother to even vote.