Never saw this one before. Clever. "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A well armed lamb is a voter contesting the vote."
If someone idiot is caught red handed committing a murder, then admits to it, he's given a load of rights. For instance, the press cannot report on it, in case it "prejudices" his fair trial. However, in politics there are no such rights or safeguards. The people that control the media can report whatever lies and propaganda they want. They're the only people who EVER decide an election, in the West. I know some politicians, we don't live in a democracy any more than some shithole in Africa. Its all window dressing and bullshit. The overwhelming majority of politicans, including prime ministers in Britain are stooges.
A real democracy simply means lots and lots of talking unfortunately :sunny: How are they deciding an election exactly? They can't simply write that the other contestant won You mean that the public is gullible enough to let themselves being misguided? A subtile difference me thinks.
Not sure what you are saying. They decide what policies they want, and who best meets their objective. Then they decide how they are going to report the debate. Ofcourse their friends in the judiciary, civil service, economics etc are all part of the same club (same high schools, primary schools even). The public don't have a lot of choice other than to believe what they are told. By the time they've decided its Conservative OR Conservative pretending to be Labour (Tony Blair!), the whole process is finished. So yes, they choose who wins. And they can always expose some sort of "scandal" if they think they're getting close to risk parameters. After their decision, the whole process is a bit of theatre, its irrelevant. And I'm not getting this from some "Bilderbergs Exposed" type website. I'm getting it from... well ... names I don't want to reveal in public.
I put this up because I saw a poster on Yahoo commenting on the ninth circuit court ruling that California laws against personal carry were unconstitutional. I know having lived there, you could not carry concealed unless you had A GOOD REASON. For example=you carried a bunch of money regularly. The lawyers evidently argued that law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed by choice at any time. I'm taking no position in this thread--just thought the saying was rather clever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0RiA2zTIk4&list=TLfRBrh0DWxrpQhGtxDI5agOrYVw0ouvEk"]Noam Chomsky "Really Existing Capitalist Democracy" - YouTube
