What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

conspiricy theroists

Just curious, if the elections are rigged, how did the government change so dramatically in this election? I think this election just goes to show that the people wanted change and that the polls are secure from tampering.

2b2s
 
Last edited:

9Lives

three for playing, three for straying, and three f
Veteran
Well democracy does not work..never did. So what ? Why ? because the majority of people are complete idiots. And they vote for idiots. I will never in a million years believe everything is as it seems. Such a big country like USA can only be run from behind the curtains.
 
I feel like my vote was essentially wasted as I am an independent(libertarian), but I believe that some day my vote will count and there will be a third party in this country.

2b2s
 

PazVerdeRadical

all praises are due to the Most High
Veteran
2broke2smoke, too true, and imho there is a monopoly (or binopoly?). in the majority of countries with a democratic tradition are ruled by two exclusive elite political parties.
not only do they control the arbitrary concept of a "goverment", but also control and rules and play of the economical game, always having control of the wealth and manipulating as they wish; there is no equal chance/opportunity for anyone except they have a capital to start the game with, but this is not so for most people of the world, so these systems must crumble now it would seem, just a thing of nature, entropy? who knows.... peace!

edit: 9lives, if you want, check out an essay called 'revolt of the masses' by 'jose ortega y gasset'. i am sure u can find it for free on line. one of the most famous written papers on why democracy is a sham. paz!
 
Last edited:

Blatant

Member
Well then that Solves it.
Is'nt Royal Blood Inbred to keep the lineage alive? Git R Done!

Blatant :wave:
 

vavwl

Member
An absurd amount of of presidents have been directly related to European royalty. Its very suspicious to say the least, something like 43 presidents are related to each other and royalty. GW Bush was the first president to win who didn't have the most royal blood. John Kerry is more royal then him. Other then that every times its been the one with the most royal blood.
 

Bramski

Member
It's all an illusion bro, there's no democracy. The people who really run America do so with impunity and anonimity and will continue to do so no matter who the president is.
 

Nikijad4210

Member
Veteran
Elections are determined by % of royal blood, has nothing to do with the vote of the people.
Well, if that's the case, since I'm related to past Danish, Russian and Scandanavian royality and am distantly related to current Baltic area royals, my vote must count more than others, right?

Lmfao, come on people, the politics of the US isn't determined by "royal blood" so much as MONEY. And we ALL know you don't have to be royalty to be stinking rich these days.
 
G

Guest

Bramski said:
It's all an illusion bro, there's no democracy. The people who really run America do so with impunity and anonimity and will continue to do so no matter who the president is.
right on Broseph! i agree 1000%
 

PazVerdeRadical

all praises are due to the Most High
Veteran
Kmarpa said:
Well, if you are an angry young person, that view shapes your politics. Angry people see the world as an angry place. People without confidence see the world as run by others with power. I used to think most people were stupid until I needed help and those "stupid" people had there shit together way more than I did and helped me out.
That view changes when you grow up...

hello kmarpa,

when you see a hungry dog, does that mean you are hungry as well?, does not seem as ifyour line of reasoning there hold much weight. it is far from being a fact or constant or axiom. i wonder if by that sort of reasoning, when the historical buddha shakyamuni became enlightened and saw that the people would not understand what he had realized, if this truly then means that since buddha saw people as too stupid to understand his -illumination that could not be taught- that in truth it all means buddha was stupid because he saw stupid people? :yoinks: :confused:


Kmarpa said:
And if you think the running a government is easy, try organising 40 people to agree on a single issue and act in concert. I have done my share of organising and work on committees and it's exhausting to get people to work together. Whether it's a buddhist meditation group or political action committee. I can't imagine what it takes to pass a law.

running a goverment isn't easy because the prime motivation is greed for power, the prime motivation isn't compassion nor art.
see, if it were art, you can always get more than 40 musicians for a big orchestra concerto, and it will sound pretty harmonious ;)

but in politricks it is all chaos and darkness because those involved are only putting forth those gloomy ambitions as inspiration


Kmarpa said:
But it's easy to sit back and criticize everything. A friend of mine with 4 kids who I thought was "a stupid average american" ( my arrogant twenties) humbled me when she revealed that she volunteered at a homeless shelter and was making a trip to help the poor in Sudan ( 14) years ago.

Me, the smart one with no kids. I did nothing but criticise the stupid people, like her, who was taking small steps to make the world a better place. What was I doing , nothing. Just critcising and finding excuses for my own powerlessness.

That's when I realised what you think you know doesn't mean shit. It's what you do to help make the world a better place that counts. So I don't give a shit about the wealthy, because they are not me, and it's what I CAN do that counts. Not what they can do. That's just an excuse , a cop out.

It's what we can do to make the world a better place. It's never been up to THEM, it's always been up to us. But you all know that ,right?

so because you criticised out of cockyness and hastiness, does it mean all criticism, even constructive, is a big no no? :confused:
being able to make constructive criticism, or making proper observations regarding economical elites which in the real world do in fact have a lot of impact in how money moves thus affecting the whole world, and doing things to make the world a better place are not mutually exclusive, you know? you can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, no prob :D

one love!
 

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
PazVerdeRadical said:
2broke2smoke, too true, and imho there is a monopoly (or binopoly?). in the majority of countries with a democratic tradition are ruled by two exclusive elite political parties.

Yes, in many so called representative democracies, that's the way the power structures institutionalize themselves.
In countries where the power's spread out on a multitude of small parties, it is difficult to form majorities that can dominate the other parties, and coalitions of smaller parties tend to quarrel between eachother, which makes for weak governments. This was the situation in Italy for many years, a country that has seen 61 different governments and lots of political turmoil since World War II.
So the power tends to focalize around two dominant political blocks, that alternate between eachother. When the voters become tired of one block, they vote for the other. It's like choosing between tuna or chicken salad.

I don't think ALL political leaders are power-hungry idiots, I do believe that there are people that try to change the system from within, that believe in higher ideals (not saying that they necessarily have to believe in mine to be 'righteous'). But being up there at the top of the power pyramid is a little like slipping on the ring of Sauron, it will corrupt you whether you like it or not. After all, once you're inside the hamster wheel, what can you do but to keep on running?
 
Hey rosy,

I am inclined to agree with you, as the old addage says power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2b2s
 
G

Guest

PazVerdeRadical said:
hello kmarpa,

when you see a hungry dog, does that mean you are hungry as well?, does not seem as ifyour line of reasoning there hold much weight. it is far from being a fact or constant or axiom. i wonder if by that sort of reasoning, when the historical buddha shakyamuni became enlightened and saw that the people would not understand what he had realized, if this truly then means that since buddha saw people as too stupid to understand his -illumination that could not be taught- that in truth it all means buddha was stupid because he saw stupid people? :yoinks: :confused:

Nicely asked

The buddha didn't see people as stupid. He saw them as ignorant to the causes of their suffering. Because of his realisation of the nature of suffering and what we do to ourselves, he had compassion for all beings.
He had woken up from ignorance.

The first thing he taught was the Four Noble Truths:
Suffering ( The three kinds of suffering, the suffering of ignorance, the suffering caused by the fact that neither the things we desire nor the desire itself is lasting, and the suffering of suffering< longer explanation>)
It's Cause Ignorance
The Path to Realisation ( The 8 Fold Path)
It's Result: Nirvana

Well democracy does not work..never did. So what ? Why ? because the majority of people are complete idiots. And they vote for idiots. I will never in a million years believe everything is as it seems. Such a big country like USA can only be run from behind the curtains.

A proud person sees people as stupid. They think "I am here and they are there." A person motivated by anger, sees people as angry and selfish.
Our view of the world is shaped by the way we act in it.

So to say, the cliche's I hear in this thread are points of view. I projected my own experience onto the sayers because I once held that point of view until I realised I was the stupid one. I was proud, I thought that I was a victim of outside forces and didn't realise the freedom we have to make the world what it is.

I just find that the cliche's of the government is bad, the rich are bad, the world is bad to be repeated by the same kind of people.

Do you see the people as stupid or just ignorant of the results of their choices? One view cause pride, one causes compassion.
Which has a more constructive result?

Sure people do negative things to others, unaware that everything they do will come back to them. We cause suffering in each other which sows the causes of future suffering in ourselves.

When I read cop out threads that say, the suffering of the world is caused by a few, I respond by thinking. We have all made the world it is today, together. What can we do together to change it ,not out of pride and ego, but for the benefit of everyone?

That's my idealism, it's not important if anyone agrees with it. It has changed as I have gotten older and I am sure it will continue to change.
So take it all with a grain of salt.

Peace... :chin:
 
Last edited:
Top