Source: KTAO

OHIO AG CORDRAY "BANKS OPERATING ON A BUSINESS MODEL BUILT ON FRAUD"


It's absolutely dumfounding why anyone would consider allowing any career politicians back into public office, especially one who is named after a lizard . . . which is not very far from being a snake! Oh that's right, he is a snake! In case everyone has forgotten, just about every single career politician is a snake!

It's also dumfounding because I believe most people know career politicians cannot be trusted any farther than you can drool down your chin. If you're someone who would say, "I like Newt," perhaps it's time for a little self-psychoanalysis. Why the hell is that so? It can't be because he's actually worthy of fondness. It has to be because, once again, Newt is a great performer and he has absolutely no problem acting charming and sincere all the while looking you right in the face and lying to you without blinking an eye.

Remember, Newt has been a career politician for over thirty-one years. He was reprimanded with ethics sanctions when he was Speaker of the House by a vote of 395 to 28. Roughly a year later he ended up stepping down as Speaker and left the House as well. Let's not forget the bizarre ad in which he sat with the equally snake-like Nancy Pelosi for an ad campaign aimed at conning us all into believing the fraud of man-made global warming (watch it here) so the same snakes could tax the living crap out of everything and everybody in the name of reducing our carbon footprints. Perhaps the choicest moment for our loveable Newt came when he decided it was a good idea to hand divorce papers to his first wife, Jackie, the mother of his tw... after uterine cancer surgery.

Yes, Newt is another fine example of someone we should keep putting in the mix of useless politicians that dutifully do the bidding of those in real power, the bankers and their corporations that have become nothing but a public menace. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. We love Newt. He's just so cute.

If the "Lesser of Two Evils Idea" Is Something You Act Out In The Voting Booth, Why Does It Matter So Much Who Replaces Incumbents?

One of the most ridiculous things I hear over and over is, "How do we know when we vote them out that we're not just replacing them with people who are just as bad." Then I point out that even if we seem to have a choice it usually ends up being a choice between the "lesser of two evils" anyway so what's the big deal?

Fact is that we know the vast majority of people in Congress are about as evil as you can get. Our political and election system is corrupt, so corrupt that the odds are that just about everyone running for office with a chance of beating an incumbent is going to be bankrolled as well as the incumbent. Anyone bankrolled as well as the incumbents will most likely be as bad as the incumbent. Candidates that seem to be good people aren't bankrolled so they are perceived by voters as being unelectable because "they can't win" against the well funded establishment candidates. Voters conclude that they can't vote for who they want because they will be throwing away their votes on candidates that can't win. If they don't throw their votes to "the lesser of two evils" the really evil one will win and we sure don't want that.

Has a degree of being "less bad" ever made any difference? I mean seriously. Bad is bad folks. The whole notion of less bad is another hair-brained concept that we have folded into our collective arsenal of brilliant dysfunctional attitudes. It's time to really look hard at the choices we are making and why we're making them.

I've concluded that most of what we do is based on nothing more substantial than deep-rooted social conditioning. Most of what we do is nutty and we keep doing nutty things because we all keep repeating the same story about the need to do it to each other. We have to vote for the lesser of two evils. WHY? Don't you think it's time to think of something else to try and some healthy reasons to justify doing it?

If all we usually end up doing is voting crappy people into office anyway the notion that we have to worry about replacing incumbents with someone just as bad is silly. The way we end up playing the game that is an inevitable outcome anyway. The game is orchestrated to con us into acting out the same behavior pattern every single time. It would take an act of God for voters to actually vote for the good candidates they usually perceive as not being electable. If voters would do that perhaps we could change things that way. But it's not going to happen. It never happens. Voters will not vote in large enough numbers for candidates they perceive an unelectable.

Listen. We have to look at the playing field we're on and what we have to work with. Since only the well-funded and media-hyped candidates are going to be perceived as the ones that "can win" those are the cards we are being dealt. That's not going to change as long as the game is set up the way it is. You may wish it were another way. However, this is and we are stuck with it. Let's take the cards we're dealt and do something unexpected with them. We can play the game in a way our controllers don't expect and cannot control.

The Kick Them All Out Voting Strategy

If you want to hold current members of Congress accountable all we need to do on election day is throw all our votes to the strongest challenger to the incumbent. It's that simple . . . even if you can't stand the challenger. Even if you think they're worse than the incumbent is, I guarantee they are not that much worse. Remember, bad is bad. There's no such thing as better bad.
If we are ever going to turn things around we must stop worrying about the "lesser of two evils" or that we must and get "a good person" into office. The so-called good people are usually perceived as being unelectable therefore they are.

This leaves us with only two choices. One choice is to vote the way we usually do, which ensures incumbents will remain in office. Secondly, we can dispassionately vote incumbents out by casting all our votes to the strongest challenger. The goal of the election must be to hold current members of Congress accountable by removing them from office. This is strong medicine folks and strong medicine often tastes nasty. The bottom line is someone has to get more votes than the incumbent or the incumbent will remain in office.