The final popular vote is not yet counted. The Electoral College vote has not yet been given and is not yet due. It’s one two three what are we fighting for? According to rules of the game that long preceded him, Trump won the game and Hillary conceded that Trump won. If you want to fight about that decision then that’s your decision and the state will make its decision based on your behavior. Everybody who plays does not get a trophy.
(c)budbromley
Awesome thought provoking edition of Nigel Farage’s speeches on freedom … in his case from the prison of the European Union and its currency. But his points apply equally to the federal government of the United States of America: it needs to relinquish power back to the various states and the states back to the citizens. Get back Jo Jo. About 15 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRz1QyBFG9E
HRC concedes, “…our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to keep building that better, stronger, fairer America.’’ While that’s all true, Hillary’s words in no way reflect her actions or those of Democrats and RINOs. If anything their actions are the opposite of their words. It’s Newspeak.
George Orwell’s famous book Nineteen Eighty Four (1984) was intended as a warning, not as a guide. Here is Syme speaking to Winston in chapter 5: “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
Progressive Democrat Presidents led America into World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. The Iraq War was begun by President Clinton with a non-fly zone which escalated into bombing of Iraq’s radar installations and military facilities and shooting down aircraft. In the third and last debate of the 2016 presidential campaigns, Hillary Clinton proposed a no fly zone in Syria.
Hillary Clinton is proud of her intervention in Libya, boasting “We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha ha.” She was referring to Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed in the streets. But U.S. Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed there also and we don’t know how many Libyans and others died there. And now Libya is a failed country, a chaotic base for Islamic terrorists. Why don’t we all vote for so-called “progressives?”
My Representative in the U.S. House is an Iraq War veteran and an officer in the military reserves, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard, a so-called “progressive” Democrat. Recently she posted the following on Twitter:
“No-fly zone in Syria means thousands of US ground troops, massive US air presence, war w/Russia. Cannot allow this.”
with a link to this article: http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/24/13382528/syria-intervention-plans-problems
Headline:
“The hot new policy idea in Washington is the hottest old idea: direct US military intervention in Syria’s civil war.”
“In the past several months, the siege of the rebel-held eastern part of the city of Aleppo has dramatized the war’s terrible cost. In the last presidential debate, Hillary Clinton proposed imposing a no-fly zone in the country and setting up “safe havens” somewhere in Syria, where neither ISIS nor Bashar al-Assad’s forces can tread. A bevy of foreign policy heavyweights, ranging from Democratic foreign policy hand Zbigniew Brzezinski to John McCain, have made similar proposals. It seems like there’s a new such proposal somewhere in the American media every day.” …
and this..
Our votes as progressives in this election can affect the lives of millions of people in this country. It’s crucial we vote on November 8.
Congresswoman Gabbard complains about U.S. military and foreign policy and its inevitable result, which is U.S. boots on the ground, death and destruction. But then she encourages voters to vote “progressive.” Face the truth Congresswoman: Democrats and especially so-called “progressive” Democrats are interventionists. They always have been. They think they know what is best for everyone. They intervene in foreign affairs of other nations, including bombing and killing those in other nations when no war has been declared, even when there is no danger to the United States. During the Obama administration, which is obviously so-called “progressive” and Democrat, eight (8) countries have been bombed by the military and intelligence forces of the United States. They intervene in the personal affairs of Americans, regardless the prohibitions against in the U.S. Constitution. Their interventions force taxpayers to pay for abortions for other people through their taxes, though most taxpayers don’t want that, and then they deny that is happening. Their interventions force people to participate in gay marriages when their conscience tells them it is wrong. Their interventions enable illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, illegal voting by illegal aliens, and prevent the Border Patrol and ICE from doing their job. Their interventions, like “progressive” President Wilson’s, kept women from voting, until he changed his mind to avoid losing re-election. Their interventions, like President Obama’s, ran guns to Mexican drug cartels and killed a U.S. Border Patrol officer, and untold numbers of Mexicans. Their interventions like President Wilson’s created the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank which has put every American in debt for about $175,000, and climbing fast, a creation “progressive” President Wilson later said was the worst mistake he ever made. The enormity of Wilson’s mistake is clarified since it was Wilson who led America into the disaster that was World War I.
So-called “progressive” interventions circumvent law, not to mention morality and ethics, which subverts our republican, constitutional, form of government. If they are in Congress or the President, they have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. But they are instead intentionally subverting and circumventing the Constitution. But who dares call that treason? I call them “so-called progressives” because they are not progressive at all, they are in fact regressive, backwards. Their policies and laws are subjugating you and all of us to the rule of government, the rule of violence, little different from an absolute monarchy or oligarchy during the historical period of Divine Right of Kings, before the Magna Carta, before the American and French Revolutions. So-called “progressives” are going backwards to a period when there were almost continuous wars and people worked for , died for, and worshiped their rulers who usually sent their subjects to war to refill their treasury and boost their egos.
So, why not, let’s all go out and vote for the so-called “progressives.” It’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for? So-called “progressives” and their interventions pave the road to hell.
By law, only citizens can vote in federal elections. Illegal immigrants or illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States. The President is inciting criminal activity.
Would that Hillary meet the same fate as Marie Antoinette, after she is made to sing? Marie Antoinette was the last Queen of France prior to the French Revolution. Marie’s nickname was Madame Déficit. Let’s hope our new revolution goes more peacefully.
A poster pondered, the elites are “People that look for the greater good and want to improve the planet. People who also like to give back (the philanthropy in the article). People who want the world to be a better place for their children than it is for them. I concede that these are not the people who live paycheck to paycheck.”
I would not make that concession. I know many people who fit that description entirely, and they do live paycheck to paycheck…and they are certainly not among the elite. I asked if he meant to say that? And, he said,”…the choice of best in public policy to run our country…” That is the collectivist rant, their sales pitch. “It takes a village,” they cry. “That is not who we are,” they cry. But in fact they don’t know who we are and they could not care less. They ignore the tragedy of the commons.
Matters of public policy, sociology, and even law and justice are, so far, several orders of magnitude less precise than matters in technology, science, engineering, and math. Not even close. But they are an ever tightening noose around our necks, progressively limiting our freedom. We have not yet reached the earliest stage of scientific development of biology, classification by taxonomy. Biology of course is far beyond that stage now and well into genomics. But we still cannot take apart a cell and put it back together again.
We seem to have stopped studying these matters of politics as a true science after John Locke, Adam Smith, George Berkeley and David Hume. IMHO, political science has not even reached the stage of the first classifications by the earliest biologists. In political science and socilogy, expertise and the value of expertise are declining daily. We the people of the Earth are a fractal at best, widely diverse and variable. So far, no one has discovered or invented and agreed on a taxonomy that fits, even something as broad as life. Where does life begin? Where does it end? There are too many variables and almost no one is studying it anymore. Imagine the curve for a normal distribution in 3 or 4 dimensions, at least.
Rather, political science is the call to a soapbox. Rarely is anyone studying policy and politics as science except for the purpose of control. But that’s not science, that is an application of technology.
In today’s circumstances, imposing a system, a bureaucratic technocracy, such was we have today is probably the least effective policy, worse than anything except outright tyranny, communist, fascist dictatorship and total anarchy. Today, we have a tyranny by oligarchy. A study at Princeton confirms it.
The end result on our current path is something like the movie Gattaca, or Blade Runner or worse. Not much has changed since the American Revolution and the French Revolution and a solid argument can be made that civilized society and government have regressed.
The best policy maximizes freedom and severely limits government to that which is necessary and applied equally to all. What we have today is not noblesse oblige elites but rather a loosely defined group who have learned how to scam the technocratic system for their own benefit. The truth of that is obvious in America, Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Brasil or attempts at supranational governments such as the UN, the EC or NAFTA…essentially everywhere.
Creating more laws will never solve the problem. Instead, that creates more problems and opportunities for those who scheme the system, and usually that was someone’s intent.
In contrast, more freedom eventually results in more trust and personal responsibility. A free society does not rely on an act of law or a license, but rather a man’s word and his actions which are freely transparent to all to judge and be judged.
American politician. “…served as the 38th Vice President of the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969. Humphrey twice served in the United States Senate, representing Minnesota from 1949 to 1964 and 1971 to 1978. He was the nominee of the Democratic Party in the 1968 presidential election, losing to the Republican nominee Richard M. Nixon.”
“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite. We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without suspecting that change is under way…. If I seem to be extremist, the reason is that this revolutionary clique cannot be understood, unless we accept the fact that they are extremist. It is difficult for people governed by reasonableness and morality to imagine the existence of a movement which ignores reasonableness and boasts of its determination to destroy; which ignores morality, and boasts of its cleverness in outwitting its opponents by abandoning all scruples. This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.” ~ U.S. Senator, William E. Jenner, Indiana, (R), 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.