In the 1960s, Moscow inaugurated special “ZiL Lanes” or “Chaika Lanes.” Named after the Soviet limousines reserved for high government officials (the ZiL was a copy of the ’63 Lincoln, the Chaika a copy of the ’56 Packard) these were roads that, like the limousines, were reserved for high government officials. ZiL Lanes allowed the Nomenklatura to whiz from the Kremlin to their country dachas in comfort, while their inferior comrades were stuck in jams on the Kutuzovsky Prospect. The Soviets built several ZiL Lanes, and the one along the Kutuzovsky Prospect is still in use today serving Putin’s pals.

Earlier Americans took a different approach. A possibly apocryphal story of George Washington’s inaugural ball has it that someone had brought him a stool or podium to speak from, but the general feeling in the room was that the president—even Washington—was just a man like the rest of them and so the stool was taken away. Today, of course, even the mayor of New York gets to stop traffic for his convoy, and they are building a permanent fence around the people’s house in Washington, D.C. to keep the people from getting too close. Bill De Blasio also built a wall around the mayor’s mansion on the Upper East Side.

It’s beginning to sound more like Marxism than a new birth of freedom. Marxism, remember, is nothing but an aristocracy of the bureaucrats.

But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? When the Office of the Attending Physician will provide them with special emergency medical care for an annual fee of just $626.89? When their job comes with an average annual expense account of $1.4 million for representatives and $3.7 million for Senators? When their license plates allow them to park illegally, anywhere? When the last time they held a normal job was 40 years ago—or never?

Teddy Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905; he accepted the medal but turned down the money, not wishing to cash in on his office. Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for becoming president and you better believe he took the cash. But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s $400,000 per event speaking fee (at least as of 2017).

It’s hard to find a single high-ranking public official, with the exception of Donald Trump, who has become effectively poorer during his time in office. Some have become much, much richer. Nancy “Marie Antoinette” Pelosi expresses her concern for struggling Americans while maintaining her own winery, two commercial properties, and two personal homes with a special freezer in one of them just for ice cream. The speaker’s salary is $223,500 a year (a $30,000 raise since 2018) but, of course, the bulk of her $100 million fortune comes from clever insider stock trades her husband executes in advance of favorable legislation. (A new set of these astonishing trades was executed just two weeks ago, Yahoo Finance reports.)

Perhaps it’s time we take our public servants down a notch or two, so we can look them in the eye. If our public services are so good, and our elected officials are so eager to lavish money on those public services, why are the same elected officials so eager to avoid using them? How many congressmen take the bus to work or send their kids to public schools?

Much more.....

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/09/congress-vs-normal-people/


And most of you believe these people can be trusted to demand an honest election, how naïve can you be? Our elected congress represent the campaign donors who pay for their re-elections. Not the voters who sent them to Congress!

Interesting post. Just a few things. Tell me why is it that when the Soviet hierarchy took on their corrupt aristocratic airs, you say what that was, was Marxist and yet when the same thing was and is happening in the US (as you rightfully acknowledge) you still speak of it as Marxist. Doesn't make much sense does it? Indeed it makes even less sense when you consider that Marxism/Socialism is only about 200 years old whereas the leadership all over the world and in every capitalist country on earth has been practicing this corrupt aristocratic/bureaucratic control since the dawn of civilization. You ever consider that maybe the blatant corrupt bloated hierarchy that we're seeing in the developed world got to be as obvious and as bad as it is today precisely because you believed them in the past that that kind of stuff only happens elsewhere in other systems of Government.

Another case in point. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. What did that show? Apparently it showed that socialism doesn't work. But when capitalist governments are brought down repeatedly by their populations (Egypt, Iran, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines to name just a few), then the problem is authoritarianism not capitalism. Similarly when the capitalist economy dies (1933, 2008 and on the brink again) & they bail out the rich to kick start the dead economy again. They say see capitalism works and you believe them.   

And as for your "aristocracy of the bureaucrats" that aristocracy has been operating in the US since the moment it was born (pre Marxism/Socialism) and today their palace is called the Pentagon. Change the administration as often as you like (some may even pretend to be different like Trump) but the truth is everything still stays the same because the elections are just the game they play for suckers like us to believe we have some control when in fact we have none.

You wont fix whats wrong with the system because the system is whats wrong. The US constitution was nice while it lasted but its over. Its no longer fit for purpose. Its a T model Ford that desperately needs to be put out to pasture and replaced with a constitution that gives decision making power to the people instead of so called "representatives" who inevitably are corrupted to work for the Power Elite. Only Direct Democracy is democracy, the rest is just a show for the gullible.

Quote:

But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income?

That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics.

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:33am:

Quote: But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics.

I know that's the impression people have of politicians but its not correct. Most politicians do very little thinking about policy. They vote according to what they party tells them to vote and they spend most their time campaigning to stay in the good books of their constituents. They are basically just PR people who do very little independent thinking about the issues and what comes out of their mouth is what a bureaucrat puts in it. 

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:45am:

freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:33am: Quote: But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics. I know that's the impression people have of politicians but its not correct. Most politicians do very little thinking about policy. They vote according to what they party tells them to vote and they spend most their time campaigning to stay in the good books of their constituents. They are basically just PR people who do very little independent thinking about the issues and what comes out of their mouth is what a bureaucrat puts in it.

So what?

So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:10am:

So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system

They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer.

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:45am:

freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:33am: Quote: But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics. I know that's the impression people have of politicians but its not correct. Most politicians do very little thinking about policy. They vote according to what they party tells them to vote and they spend most their time campaigning to stay in the good books of their constituents. They are basically just PR people who do very little independent thinking about the issues and what comes out of their mouth is what a bureaucrat puts in it.

In Australia, perhaps. In the US?  Doubtful.  The concept of "Party" is very different between the two countries.  The idea of "Party discipline" is also completely different.  In the US, parties exist basically to harness the money and the will of the people who are their members and get other people who aren't, to support them. 

In the US, there is basically no "party discipline" as we know downunder.  Congresspeople and Senators vote how they personally feel on an issue.  What they believe their "base" will support and what their party desires.  Sometimes they call coincide and the vote reflects what the party represents.  More often than not, it is what the Congressperson/Senator believes.  Guns are a case in point, as is Abortion and so on.  Government support is a big issue.  Foreign relations another.  All get special attention.

In Australia, MPs/Senators vote as their party wants, no way anything else is tolerated.  The MP/Senator has to rely on the support of their sub-branch to get preselected to stand for their seat.  Occasionally you have mavericks which can buck what their Party wants and have good control of their sub-branches and buck the trend and vote differently to how the Party has determined they should vote.   Occasionally, the sub-branch rebels and the MP/Senator is replaced by some more agreeable to what the sub-branch wants.  Recently we had the case of Kevin Andrews.  His sub-branch decided on a replacement for his seat. ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:51am:

Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:45am: freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:33am: Quote: But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics. I know that's the impression people have of politicians but its not correct. Most politicians do very little thinking about policy. They vote according to what they party tells them to vote and they spend most their time campaigning to stay in the good books of their constituents. They are basically just PR people who do very little independent thinking about the issues and what comes out of their mouth is what a bureaucrat puts in it.  In Australia, perhaps. In the US?  Doubtful.  The concept of "Party" is very different between the two countries.  The idea of "Party discipline" is also completely different.  In the US, parties exist basically to harness the money and the will of the people who are their members and get other people who aren't, to support them.  In the US, there is basically no "party discipline" as we know downunder.  Congresspeople and Senators vote how they personally feel on an issue.  What they believe their "base" will support and what their party desires.  Sometimes they call coincide and the vote reflects what the party represents.  More often than not, it is what the Congressperson/Senator believes.  Guns are a case in point, as is Abortion and so on.  Government support is a big issue.  Foreign relations another.  All get special attention. In Australia, MPs/Senators vote as their party wants, no way anything else is tolerated.  The MP/Senator has to rely on the support of their sub-branch to get preselected to stand for their seat.  Occasionally you have mavericks which can buck what their Party wants and have good control of their sub-branches and buck the trend and vote differently to how the Party has determined they should vote.   Occasionally, the sub-branch rebels and the MP/Senator is replaced by some more agreeable to what the sub-branch wants.  Recently we had the case of Kevin Andrews.  His sub-branch decided on a replacement for his seat. ::) ::)

I think its correct that in more recent times the American system (not the Australian system) has evolved to give a bit more independence to individual party members but at the end of the day it’s rare for individual party members to vote consistently against what the party dictates because the party provides the infrastructure and doner contacts through which they obtain the funds to win their seats and continue holding their seats. In fact we saw it very recently when AOC and her group campaigned to force a vote on Medicare for all and were not going to vote on Leader of the House (Pelosi) unless the House first voted for M4All. What happened? They went to water and did as the party dictated and voted for Pelosi and still there has not been a vote for M4All. Why? Because the Parties control their members and the Powers Elite control both parties to ensure that nothing much changes and that the real decisions are made by the Power Elite.  Bernie Sanders is another good example. He's been an independent for much of his political life but to run for President he had to run as a democrat or have no chance of getting even as far as he did, which wasn’t very far despite the ground swell of support for his policies which the Party didn’t support and therefore was not going to succeed.

Most so called "Representatives" in politics in the Western world today are there for their careers because there is very little that they can actually do (even if they were inclined to and many are not) that is contrary to what has already been decided for them by a handful of people who control the party.

There is hardly a country today that doesn't claim to be a democracy and not one of them is. In Australia, where most of us are sure we're a democracy and most the others are not the vote for gay marriage was delayed for years (even though it was well know that it had huge majority support) and when they finally put it to the people we were told that the plebiscite was advisory only.

Our system of politics was never designed to be a democracy but rather just an elaborate show to make us feel that we have a meaningful say in the running of our lives when in truth we have no say at all.

Its the 21st century. The American Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was designed by the American aristocracy to keep power in the hands of the American aristocracy. But never the less some crumbs of benefit were sprinkled down the ranks to the plebs. But the system is old and tired and cant control the peasants as well as it used to because deep down people know that it doesnt really serve them. Its time for the next great leap forward

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:39am:

Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:10am: So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer.

Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 2:54pm:

I think its correct that in more recent times the American system (not the Australian system) has evolved to give a bit more independence to individual party members but at the end of the day it’s rare for individual party members to vote consistently against what the party dictates because the party provides the infrastructure and doner contacts through which they obtain the funds to win their seats and continue holding their seats.

Sometimes yes.  American representatives have always been far more independent than Australian or British ones.  There are numerous examples of American representatives bucking the trend and voting against what the party wishes.  Recently with Trump's second impeachment there were several Republicans who votes against their party discipline and voted to impeach him.  There was some backlash but how much was considerably less than what would happen downunder.  Trump got impeached.  I don't believe he'll be convicted but there is always a possibility of Senators voting to do that.  His lawyers like him, were arrogant and that could count against him.  There are numerous examples of American representatives voting how they wanted, not how they party desired - quite often on issues of "race".


Quote:

In fact we saw it very recently when AOC and her group campaigned to force a vote on Medicare for all and were not going to vote on Leader of the House (Pelosi) unless the House first voted for M4All. What happened? They went to water and did as the party dictated and voted for Pelosi and still there has not been a vote for M4All. Why? Because the Parties control their members and the Powers Elite control both parties to ensure that nothing much changes and that the real decisions are made by the Power Elite.  Bernie Sanders is another good example. He's been an independent for much of his political life but to run for President he had to run as a democrat or have no chance of getting even as far as he did, which wasn’t very far despite the ground swell of support for his policies which the Party didn’t support and therefore was not going to succeed.

It is quite hard to run as el Presidente' when an independent.  Sanders just bowed to the inevitable. 


Quote:

Most so called "Representatives" in politics in the Western world today are there for their careers because there is very little that they can actually do (even if they were inclined to and many are not) that is contrary to what has already been decided for them by a handful of people who control the party.

Again, doesn't work that way in the US.  The party members control the party there in a big way.  They all vote in the Primaries for their party to determine their candidates.  Downunder, only the Democrats experimented with that same process.  The others have all stuck with the sub-branch - satisfy them and they select you for their candidate, except of course for the small number who are "parachuted in" from high and sometimes even then, they are ignored.


Quote:

There is hardly a country today that doesn't claim to be a democracy and not one of them is. In Australia, where most of us are sure we're a democracy and most the others are not the vote for gay marriage was delayed for years (even though it was well know that it had huge majority support) and when they finally put it to the people we were told that the plebiscite was advisory only.

That a great deal more to do with internal Tory Party politics than it did with the popularity of the issue with the voters.  Tories were unwilling to back what they believed their members wanted.  Many of them also didn't support it.  What was required was a plebiscite - a proper referendum - the Tories tried to do it on the cheap, that's all and as a means to delay the inevitable. ::)


Quote:

Our system of politics was never designed to be a democracy but rather just an elaborate show to make us feel that we have a meaningful say in the running of our lives when in truth we have no say at all.

Well, when you look at the history of the Westminster Parliament you see that it started as a means of securing power for the aristocrats and the powerful and ended up being controlled by the people.  The same process occurred here.  The colonial parliaments were controlled by the rich and powerful.  Today they are controlled by the people.


Quote:

Its the 21st century. The American Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was designed by the American aristocracy to keep power in the hands of the American aristocracy. But never the less some crumbs of benefit were sprinkled down the ranks to the plebs. But the system is old and tired and cant control the peasants as well as it used to because deep down people know that it doesnt really serve them. Its time for the next great leap forward

There hasn't been an Aristocracy in the US.  Tsk, tsk.  The US Constitution was the first written constitution.  The UK still lacks a constitution.  Australia copied what it believed were the best bits from the UK, the US, and Switzerland.  It appears to have worked. 8-) 8-)

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:39am: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:10am: So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer. Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser

Who is telling them?

It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts.

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:39am: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:10am: So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer. Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser Who is telling them? It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts.

The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts. 

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084] I think its correct that in more recent times the American system (not the Australian system) has evolved to give a bit more independence to individual party members but at the end of the day it’s rare for individual party members to vote consistently against what the party dictates because the party provides the infrastructure and doner contacts through which they obtain the funds to win their seats and continue holding their seats. Sometimes yes.  American representatives have always been far more independent than Australian or British ones.  There are numerous examples of American representatives bucking the trend and voting against what the party wishes.  Recently with Trump's second impeachment there were several Republicans who votes against their party discipline and voted to impeach him.  There was some backlash but how much was considerably less than what would happen downunder.  Trump got impeached.  I don't believe he'll be convicted but there is always a possibility of Senators voting to do that.  His lawyers like him, were arrogant and that could count against him.  There are numerous examples of American representatives voting how they wanted, not how they party desired - quite often on issues of "race".

How longs a piece of string. I say they're allowed a bit extra independence and you say a lot. The thing is the few matters where they do assert independence are in the "of little significance category" that do not challenge the fundamental principles and policy objectives of the party. If those were being defied why would the party support the member? of course it wouldn't. And the Trump impeachments are really not a good example. His policies are largely in accord with traditional Republican core principles. Whether he comes or goes, that's not threatened. Its just a side act.    

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084] In fact we saw it very recently when AOC and her group campaigned to force a vote on Medicare for all and were not going to vote on Leader of the House (Pelosi) unless the House first voted for M4All. What happened? They went to water and did as the party dictated and voted for Pelosi and still there has not been a vote for M4All. Why? Because the Parties control their members and the Powers Elite control both parties to ensure that nothing much changes and that the real decisions are made by the Power Elite.  Bernie Sanders is another good example. He's been an independent for much of his political life but to run for President he had to run as a democrat or have no chance of getting even as far as he did, which wasn’t very far despite the ground swell of support for his policies which the Party didn’t support and therefore was not going to succeed. It is quite hard to run as el Presidente' when an independent.  Sanders just bowed to the inevitable.

Exactly thats the point. The party system reigns you in. It reigned in AOC and her group and Sanders because they threatened party power (in the case of AOC) and fundamental party policy (in the case of AOC and Sanders). Those who operate outside of it or don't toe the line within it cant govern so that nothing changes and every 4 years they have their fan fair to pretend that the average Joe has some control when he has none.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084] [quote] Most so called "Representatives" in politics in the Western world today are there for their careers because there is very little that they can actually do (even if they were inclined to and many are not) that is contrary to what has already been decided for them by a handful of people who control the party. Again, doesn't work that way in the US.  The party members control the party there in a big way.  They all vote in the Primaries for their party to determine their candidates.  Downunder, only the Democrats experimented with that same process.  The others have all stuck with the sub-branch - satisfy them and they select you for their candidate, except of course for the small number who are "parachuted in" from high and sometimes even then, they are ignored.

Again, I dont agree and the proof is the people who come out of the system and the primaries (Thank god we dont have primaries in Aust). The difference between them is paper thin. And the vetting in the Aust party branches has the same result. The thing is the pollies are competing for career slots not for major policy differences. Sanders was the only one in a long time to actually offer something different & the party machine made sure he wouldnt succeed.   

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 2:54pm: [quote] There is hardly a country today that doesn't claim to be a democracy and not one of them is. In Australia, where most of us are sure we're a democracy and most the others are not the vote for gay marriage was delayed for years (even though it was well know that it had huge majority support) and when they finally put it to the people we were told that the plebiscite was advisory only. That a great deal more to do with internal Tory Party politics than it did with the popularity of the issue with the voters.  Tories were unwilling to back what they believed their members wanted.  Many of them also didn't support it.  What was required was a plebiscite - a proper referendum - the Tories tried to do it on the cheap, that's all and as a means to delay the inevitable.

No. It was all about party politics. And I mean all parties labor, Libs, Greens. Both labor and Libs delayed the Bill because neither wanted to go into an election fronting as the party that would enact gay marriage because they knew even though it had majority support there were still many on both sides of politics opposed who would threaten them at the seat level. There was only one reason for the delay. To suit the parties, not the people. Indeed it was one of the more blatant examples of how undemocratic Australia really is

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:13am:

freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:29pm: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:39am: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:10am: So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer. Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser Who is telling them? It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts. The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts.

They are the party machine.

And your proposal is to pay the monkeys even fewer peanuts until they write a bestseller?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084] [quote] Our system of politics was never designed to be a democracy but rather just an elaborate show to make us feel that we have a meaningful say in the running of our lives when in truth we have no say at all. Well, when you look at the history of the Westminster Parliament you see that it started as a means of securing power for the aristocrats and the powerful and ended up being controlled by the people.  The same process occurred here.  The colonial parliaments were controlled by the rich and powerful.  Today they are controlled by the people.

Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted. 

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 2:54pm: Its the 21st century. The American Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was designed by the American aristocracy to keep power in the hands of the American aristocracy. But never the less some crumbs of benefit were sprinkled down the ranks to the plebs. But the system is old and tired and cant control the peasants as well as it used to because deep down people know that it doesnt really serve them. Its time for the next great leap forward There hasn't been an Aristocracy in the US.  Tsk, tsk.  The US Constitution was the first written constitution.  The UK still lacks a constitution.  Australia copied what it believed were the best bits from the UK, the US, and Switzerland.  It appears to have worked.

I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.   

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:00am:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 9:13am: freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 9:29pm: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:39am: Jest wrote on Feb 13th, 2021 at 10:10am: So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer. Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser Who is telling them? It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts. The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts.  They are the party machine. And your proposal is to pay the monkeys even fewer peanuts until they write a bestseller?

I dont know why I have to keep repeating the same thing with you. My proposal is to fire them. I wouldn't pay them a cent because I would immediately and without hesitation put them out of work. I don believe in so called "representative". I have no need to employ them. And no they're not the party machine. They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told if they want to keep their jobs and if they buck the system there are plenty ready to challenge and take their place.You know that. 

Quote:

They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told

Who tells them?

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 1:28pm:

Quote: They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told Who tells them?

Hopeless! You're going around in circles. Scroll back. This is the 2nd time you've asked and it was answered the 1st time.

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 1:28pm: Quote: They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told Who tells them? Hopeless! You're going around in circles. Scroll back. This is the 2nd time you've asked and it was answered the 1st time.

Let me guess, a talking machine whispers in their ear?

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:45am:

Again, I dont agree and the proof is the people who come out of the system and the primaries (Thank god we dont have primaries in Aust). The difference between them is paper thin. And the vetting in the Aust party branches has the same result. The thing is the pollies are competing for career slots not for major policy differences. Sanders was the only one in a long time to actually offer something different & the party machine made sure he wouldnt succeed.

You are free to disagree.  However you are wrong.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:58am:

No. It was all about party politics. And I mean all parties labor, Libs, Greens. Both labor and Libs delayed the Bill because neither wanted to go into an election fronting as the party that would enact gay marriage because they knew even though it had majority support there were still many on both sides of politics opposed who would threaten them at the seat level. There was only one reason for the delay. To suit the parties, not the people. Indeed it was one of the more blatant examples of how undemocratic Australia really is

Errr, the ALP and the Greens did go into elections backing Gay Marriage.  Your memory is faulty.   ::) ::)

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:07am:

Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.

You live in a fantasy world it appears.  We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy.  Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion.  The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it.  The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change.   ::) ::)

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.

Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:47pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:19am: I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.    Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia.

Yet you, dickheaddle that you are, refer to the Liberal Party as the 'Tories'.

That's  how stupid AND lyingly dishonest you are,  Bbbwian.  You do not have an honest bone in your body. You'd die rather than be truthful.

But then that IS your role in life, to be a lying, despicable hypochrite.  You are living it, with bells on, old Dad-o'-Turd.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:43pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:07am: Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.  You live in a fantasy world it appears.  We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy.  Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion.  The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it.  The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change.   ::) ::)

None of that makes any sense. First you say we had all the power and then we really didnt have the power. You're being absurd. The federal election was in Nov 2001 & the Iraq war was in 2003 and not in contemplation (certainly not by the Australian people) when they voted. Thereafter the decision was made by the Govt and the people were powerless to stop it. The fact that the Govt and Parliamentary processes, as determined by the Constitution, were such that the people could not stop the Government going to war makes my point. The constitution was never designed to give effect to what the majority of the people want, not even in a matter as important and of life changing significance as whether to go to war or not. And to pretend that somehow its all OK because the constitution lets you number some boxes every 3 years to choose the nannies who will be making the decisions instead of you is about as servile as it gets.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:47pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:19am: I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.    Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia.

I call them an aristocracy because that's what they were in effect. The constitution was drawn up by the power elite to create a Westminster style of Government. They may have gotten away with creating a congressional style of Govt (but I doubt it) but they most certainly would never have been allowed to create a real democratic style of Govt because ultimately it had to be approved by the Power Elite back in England. That was the reality. The common folk had no real role  in deciding what the constitution would contain and they didnt expect to. But its now 2021. We are much more aware now than we were then. The constitution clearly has not deliver democracy because it rarely gives effect to what the majority wants. The Aust constitution like the US constitution is well past its use by date and its time to trade it in for a real democracy.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:36pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 9:58am: No. It was all about party politics. And I mean all parties labor, Libs, Greens. Both labor and Libs delayed the Bill because neither wanted to go into an election fronting as the party that would enact gay marriage because they knew even though it had majority support there were still many on both sides of politics opposed who would threaten them at the seat level. There was only one reason for the delay. To suit the parties, not the people. Indeed it was one of the more blatant examples of how undemocratic Australia really is Errr, the ALP and the Greens did go into elections backing Gay Marriage.  Your memory is faulty.

I said "they didn't want to"  I didn't say they didn't eventually. But from the Rudd Govt in 2007 it took 10 years before gay marriage was enacted and the delay was about one thing; serving the interests of the political parties over what the people wanted.

What follows is a brief excerpt of the history from Wikipedia (Whats it tell you when you read that Gillard opposed the legislation. Clearly that was entirely about her political survival and had zero to do with what the people wanted. Penny Wong who is in a same sex relationship was the same from recollection. And that's the rub. The system is not about democracy essentially because so called "representatives" always put their interests ahead of what their constituents want.):-

"The Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard (2007–13) were divided on the issue. Despite passing a resolution at the party's national conference in December 2011 to support same-sex marriage, the party held a conscience vote when two private member's bill's to legalise same-sex marriage were debated in the Parliament in September 2012. The legislation was opposed by Prime Minister Gillard and several other Labor MPs, as well as by the opposition Coalition, led by Tony Abbott. The first bill failed in the House of Representatives by 98 votes to 42 and a similar bill was rejected by the Senate by 41 votes to 26.

The Abbott Government (2013–15) then resolved in August 2015 to hold a national vote on same-sex marriage, sometime after the 2016 federal election, in the form of either a plebiscite or constitutional referendum.This policy was maintained by the Turnbull Government (2015–18) after Malcolm Turnbull (a supporter of same-sex marriage) replaced Abbott as Prime Minister following a leadership challenge. The bill to establish the plebiscite (which would have been held on 11 February 2017) passed the House of Representatives by 76 votes to 67 on 20 October 2016, though was rejected by the Senate the following month by 33 votes to 29, after the Government failed to attract the support of the opposition Labor Party, minor party the Greens and several Senate crossbenchers.

Despite initially suggesting the Government had "no plans to take any other measures on this issue", Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull came under increasing pressure to change policy and allow a conscience vote in the Parliament (only because the election was now behind him. My words not Wikipedia's) . Consequently, at a Liberal party room meeting on 7 August 2017, the Government resolved to conduct a voluntary postal survey on the matter later in the year. The Government stated the survey would only occur in the event the Senate again rejected the legislation enabling the plebiscite, which happened on 9 August 2017. The survey was held between 12 September and 7 November 2017 and returned a 61.6% "Yes" vote in favour of same-sex marriage.[47] The Government responded by confirming it would facilitate the passage of a private member's bill legalising same-sex marriage before the end of the year.

Frank wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 8:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 7:47pm: Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:19am: I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.    Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia. Yet you, dickheaddle that you are, refer to the Liberal Party as the 'Tories'.

That is that is what the so-called "liberal party" has become, Soren.  The Tories control the party and have done so since Howard became their leader.  You would prefer the Nazi party, I assume?   ::) ::)


Quote:

That's  how stupid AND lyingly dishonest you are,  Bbbwian.  You do not have an honest bone in your body. You'd die rather than be truthful. But then that IS your role in life, to be a lying, despicable hypochrite.  You are living it, with bells on, old Dad-o'-Turd.

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 7:43pm: Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:07am: Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.  You live in a fantasy world it appears.  We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy.  Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion.  The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it.  The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change.   ::) ::) None of that makes any sense. First you say we had all the power and then we really didnt have the power. You're being absurd. The federal election was in Nov 2001 & the Iraq war was in 2003 and not in contemplation (certainly not by the Australian people) when they voted. Thereafter the decision was made by the Govt and the people were powerless to stop it. The fact that the Govt and Parliamentary processes, as determined by the Constitution, were such that the people could not stop the Government going to war makes my point. The constitution was never designed to give effect to what the majority of the people want, not even in a matter as important and of life changing significance as whether to go to war or not. And to pretend that somehow its all OK because the constitution lets you number some boxes every 3 years to choose the nannies who will be making the decisions instead of you is about as servile as it gets.

As I said, you live in a fantasy world.  The power of the people is to elect a new government and dismiss the old.  The power of the Parliament is to either support or dismiss the Government and force an election.  The Government powers are defined in the Constitution.  Until you make sense and work within the Constitution and understand how it and politics work, you're talking rubbish.  ::) ::)

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 7:47pm: Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:19am: I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.    Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia. I call them an aristocracy because that's what they were in effect. The constitution was drawn up by the power elite to create a Westminster style of Government. They may have gotten away with creating a congressional style of Govt (but I doubt it) but they most certainly would never have been allowed to create a real democratic style of Govt because ultimately it had to be approved by the Power Elite back in England. That was the reality. The common folk had no real role  in deciding what the constitution would contain and they didnt expect to. But its now 2021. We are much more aware now than we were then. The constitution clearly has not deliver democracy because it rarely gives effect to what the majority wants. The Aust constitution like the US constitution is well past its use by date and its time to trade it in for a real democracy.

The founding fathers of Australian democracy created a democratic system of Government.  QED.   8-)

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:01pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 1:28pm: Quote: They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told Who tells them? Hopeless! You're going around in circles. Scroll back. This is the 2nd time you've asked and it was answered the 1st time. Let me guess, a talking machine whispers in their ear?

Jest is this "party machine" thing just a lazy excuse for you to make up whatever conspiracy you want?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2021 at 12:16pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:32pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 7:43pm: Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:07am: Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.  You live in a fantasy world it appears.  We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy.  Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion.  The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it.  The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change.   ::) ::) None of that makes any sense. First you say we had all the power and then we really didnt have the power. You're being absurd. The federal election was in Nov 2001 & the Iraq war was in 2003 and not in contemplation (certainly not by the Australian people) when they voted. Thereafter the decision was made by the Govt and the people were powerless to stop it. The fact that the Govt and Parliamentary processes, as determined by the Constitution, were such that the people could not stop the Government going to war makes my point. The constitution was never designed to give effect to what the majority of the people want, not even in a matter as important and of life changing significance as whether to go to war or not. And to pretend that somehow its all OK because the constitution lets you number some boxes every 3 years to choose the nannies who will be making the decisions instead of you is about as servile as it gets. As I said, you live in a fantasy world.  The power of the people is to elect a new government and dismiss the old.  The power of the Parliament is to either support or dismiss the Government and force an election.  The Government powers are defined in the Constitution.  Until you make sense and work within the Constitution and understand how it and politics work, you're talking rubbish.  ::) ::)

Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.       

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2021 at 12:17pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 7:47pm: Jest wrote on Feb 14th, 2021 at 10:19am: I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.    Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy.  The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today.  It was created by Australian politicians.  Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia. I call them an aristocracy because that's what they were in effect. The constitution was drawn up by the power elite to create a Westminster style of Government. They may have gotten away with creating a congressional style of Govt (but I doubt it) but they most certainly would never have been allowed to create a real democratic style of Govt because ultimately it had to be approved by the Power Elite back in England. That was the reality. The common folk had no real role  in deciding what the constitution would contain and they didnt expect to. But its now 2021. We are much more aware now than we were then. The constitution clearly has not deliver democracy because it rarely gives effect to what the majority wants. The Aust constitution like the US constitution is well past its use by date and its time to trade it in for a real democracy. The founding fathers of Australian democracy created a democratic system of Government.  QED.   8-)

Yes Ive answered this in my last post. The "Dear Leader" our "Founding Fathers". Penny dropping yet?

Jest wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 7:56am:

Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.

Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 11:08am:

Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:56am: Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.        Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.

That's precisely what I would expect an indoctrinated person to say. You ignore the obvious facts (the Australian people are afforded no self determination under this constitution - see the points above which you have not addressed) & simply parrot what you've been told. Its also no surprise that at this point in the discussion you rely more heavily on emojis, circular arguments (eg Aust is a democracy so how could it not be a democracy) Bart Simpson come backs (it is too a democracy) and simple assertion instead of giving reasons. A sure sign that you cant find the reasons to back up the claims you parrot. Oh and I do compare the US and UK. Their systems are very similar and also not democracies.   

Jest wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 1:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 11:08am: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:56am: Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.        Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.    That's precisely what I would expect an indoctrinated person to say. You ignore the obvious facts (the Australian people are afforded no self determination under this constitution - see the points above which you have not addressed) & simply parrot what you've been told. Its also no surprise that at this point in the discussion you rely more heavily on emojis, circular arguments (eg Aust is a democracy so how could it not be a democracy) Bart Simpson come backs (it is too a democracy) and simple assertion instead of giving reasons. A sure sign that you cant find the reasons to back up the claims you parrot. Oh and I do compare the US and UK. Their systems are very similar and also not democracies.

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 3:35pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 11:08am: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:56am: Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.        Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.    That's precisely what I would expect an indoctrinated person to say. You ignore the obvious facts (the Australian people are afforded no self determination under this constitution - see the points above which you have not addressed) & simply parrot what you've been told. Its also no surprise that at this point in the discussion you rely more heavily on emojis, circular arguments (eg Aust is a democracy so how could it not be a democracy) Bart Simpson come backs (it is too a democracy) and simple assertion instead of giving reasons. A sure sign that you cant find the reasons to back up the claims you parrot. Oh and I do compare the US and UK. Their systems are very similar and also not democracies.    https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

lol!!! I knew you'd respond with the yawning emoji. You have a history. Every one knows that means you've lost the argument.  What I suggest is that you do some reading about what democracy actually is before you enage in a discussion thats way over your head. And another suggestion, venture outside of your echo chamaber and do some independant thinking. It will have you questioning the "Dear Leader" and the "Founding Fathers"   
and equip you with the ability to bring something worthwhile to a discussion 

Jest wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 3:35pm: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 11:08am: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:56am: Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.        Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.    That's precisely what I would expect an indoctrinated person to say. You ignore the obvious facts (the Australian people are afforded no self determination under this constitution - see the points above which you have not addressed) & simply parrot what you've been told. Its also no surprise that at this point in the discussion you rely more heavily on emojis, circular arguments (eg Aust is a democracy so how could it not be a democracy) Bart Simpson come backs (it is too a democracy) and simple assertion instead of giving reasons. A sure sign that you cant find the reasons to back up the claims you parrot. Oh and I do compare the US and UK. Their systems are very similar and also not democracies.    https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) lol!!! I knew you'd respond with the yawning emoji. You have a history. Every one knows that means you've lost the argument.  What I suggest is that you do some reading about what democracy actually is before you enage in a discussion thats way over your head. And another suggestion, venture outside of your echo chamaber and do some independant thinking. It will have you questioning the "Dear Leader" and the "Founding Fathers"    and equip you with the ability to bring something worthwhile to a discussion

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2021 at 10:11pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 3:35pm: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 11:08am: Jest wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 7:56am: Your strategy of accusing people of what you do to deflect from the illogicality of your position doesn't work. You're the one dreaming you have power you don't, which makes you the fantasist. You can't substitute wishful thinking for logic and make it be true. Look, just because North Korea has a Constitution like Australia and calls itself a democracy, like Australia, (Its official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea), doesn't mean those things make it a democracy. You have to go beyond what people tell you and examine the actual political arrangements that the constitution enforces in order to determine whether it is in fact a democracy and the glaring truth is that the Australian/American constitutions DO NOT allow for any real self determination by the people. Indeed those constitutions prevent it. There is very little in 230 years of so called "Representative" Government that the people have been allowed to decide. Again, in Australia, monumental issues that have had devastating long term impacts on the people were never decided by the people and in most cases it was never even put to them as an option. Vietnam, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, privitisation, immigration, trade deals that have systematically shipped many of our jobs to slave wage paying countries and destroyed our manufacturing base. Even the plebiscite on gay marriage we were told would be advisory only. Contemplate that for a moment. Our so called agents are saying that they can override what we want and decide against what we want. Only the most servile mind could talk themselves into thinking that is democratic. Now I know we laugh at the North Koreans when they speak of their "Dear Leader" but really you need to wake up from your fantasy because calling them our "Funding Fathers" puts you in the same boat.        Comparing a nation where all power is invested in the leader versus a real democracy where it is vested across several institutions reveal how much of a fantasy you live in, Jest.  You are failing dismally in this argument.  The DPRK is a faux democracy ruled by a dictator.  Australia is a real democracy ruled by the people for the people through the election of representatives and the appointment of various individuals in institutions.  You would be better off comparing us to the UK or the US.  Try again.    That's precisely what I would expect an indoctrinated person to say. You ignore the obvious facts (the Australian people are afforded no self determination under this constitution - see the points above which you have not addressed) & simply parrot what you've been told. Its also no surprise that at this point in the discussion you rely more heavily on emojis, circular arguments (eg Aust is a democracy so how could it not be a democracy) Bart Simpson come backs (it is too a democracy) and simple assertion instead of giving reasons. A sure sign that you cant find the reasons to back up the claims you parrot. Oh and I do compare the US and UK. Their systems are very similar and also not democracies.    https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) lol!!! I knew you'd respond with the yawning emoji. You have a history. Every one knows that means you've lost the argument.  What I suggest is that you do some reading about what democracy actually is before you enage in a discussion thats way over your head. And another suggestion, venture outside of your echo chamaber and do some independant thinking. It will have you questioning the "Dear Leader" and the "Founding Fathers"    and equip you with the ability to bring something worthwhile to a discussion  https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png As a troll you are a failure, Jest.  Tsk, tsk.

I must admit Im quite amused by the desperate psychology behind your yawning emoji. Its obviously an attempt at saving face but it doesnt really make sense does it?  You're pretending to yawn to imply you're not interested but you keep posting it because your so desperate to save face which of course means you are interested. Actually the dynamics of this is quite interesting. On the one hand you're desperate to save face but on the other you know that with each post of the yawning emoji you look more foolish. So which will win out? Your need to save face, compelling you to post yet  another emoji or your embarrasement at having to post another emoji. OK counting. You're up to 2 so far.