First, your proposal seems like a heavy lift. I don't know if you are serious, in a practical sense. But as always, I resonate with the vast majority of your points. And yes, this is the kind of stuff that needs to happen. And yes we can get these and things such as you propose done.
Some of your points
1. The lobbying and consulting complex must be removed and the process dismantled.
Absolutely.
That's a heavy lift in concept. But as a practical matter it may be as simple as allowing existing parties to endorse candidates only, and not have any financial ties to their campaigns or their activities while serving in office. The lobbying process will dismantle itself and reform. Because it is impossible to take money out of the political system parties should be allowed to raise money for issues they believe in. Parties will be allowed to use any money raised only to run ads and marketing promoting various candidates. They can promote issues and say this candidate is on the right side of this issue. But they would not be allowed to run a candidate in an election and manage a candidate once in office, other than through their public stand on issues influence.
This would begin to organically break down the lobbying money in various ways.
1. Without dependence on party money in elections, candidates would have to raise more money locally, regionally, etc. They in a sense then would be appealing to the lobbyists for campaign donations based on winning the approval of the congressional district voters, or state elections for the senate, and so on. It theoretically empowers more local and state control in national elections and local, and state governments as well. It does not solve the problem of big-money media propagandizing issues with investment cartels, or a dumbed-down public locally buying into an agenda for their slavery, and judging candidates by media standards and positions on issues.. They may only give a favorable press to those candidates that advance their agenda. But they will no longer be able to coordinate any of it with the uni-party control over officeholders and candidates as they do now.
2. The remaining parts of our nation are the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the best of our traditions of political philosophy and practice, from Thomas Paine to Mark Twain, from Frederick Douglass to Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace and Martin Luther King. Our best traditions are also found in the common decency of working people.
Absolutely, again.
3. International Supervision? Any recognized international figures or organizations that usually supervise elections in my opinion are unqualified and a part of the problem. I can see international observers, and comments, suggestions, etc. But supervision needs a clearer definition.
4. Your Special Election Idea In General - Main Problem I can't Solve
Infiltration and scandal press stories. No one I see has been able to avoid infiltration and then embarrassing stories based on half-truths that emerge. Dome draft of ideas gets leaked that has preliminary wording that can be used to trigger some element or elements of the population. Those are just a couple of tools of the trade that you likely know more about than I. Do you have a plan for that?
My thoughts are. Working quickly on this as you are if most can be done under the radar at first favors taking them by surprise. If that first part goes well the second part of getting the word out to the general public to vote could keep the election organizational structure out of significant reach of infiltration. It needs a simple method of getting people to vote and issue savvy, transported if need be quickly enough that it may go without them being able to organize proper infiltration in time to do much damage.
That's all I got for you. If you finished this comment, I hope it has been helpful in some way. Don't know how practical and successful this plan will be, but again, short of a desperate public uprising, things such as you propose need to be known, debated, and work on them begun quickly.
First, your proposal seems like a heavy lift. I don't know if you are serious, in a practical sense. But as always, I resonate with the vast majority of your points. And yes, this is the kind of stuff that needs to happen. And yes we can get these and things such as you propose done.
Some of your points
1. The lobbying and consulting complex must be removed and the process dismantled.
Absolutely.
That's a heavy lift in concept. But as a practical matter it may be as simple as allowing existing parties to endorse candidates only, and not have any financial ties to their campaigns or their activities while serving in office. The lobbying process will dismantle itself and reform. Because it is impossible to take money out of the political system parties should be allowed to raise money for issues they believe in. Parties will be allowed to use any money raised only to run ads and marketing promoting various candidates. They can promote issues and say this candidate is on the right side of this issue. But they would not be allowed to run a candidate in an election and manage a candidate once in office, other than through their public stand on issues influence.
This would begin to organically break down the lobbying money in various ways.
1. Without dependence on party money in elections, candidates would have to raise more money locally, regionally, etc. They in a sense then would be appealing to the lobbyists for campaign donations based on winning the approval of the congressional district voters, or state elections for the senate, and so on. It theoretically empowers more local and state control in national elections and local, and state governments as well. It does not solve the problem of big-money media propagandizing issues with investment cartels, or a dumbed-down public locally buying into an agenda for their slavery, and judging candidates by media standards and positions on issues.. They may only give a favorable press to those candidates that advance their agenda. But they will no longer be able to coordinate any of it with the uni-party control over officeholders and candidates as they do now.
2. The remaining parts of our nation are the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the best of our traditions of political philosophy and practice, from Thomas Paine to Mark Twain, from Frederick Douglass to Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace and Martin Luther King. Our best traditions are also found in the common decency of working people.
Absolutely, again.
3. International Supervision? Any recognized international figures or organizations that usually supervise elections in my opinion are unqualified and a part of the problem. I can see international observers, and comments, suggestions, etc. But supervision needs a clearer definition.
4. Your Special Election Idea In General - Main Problem I can't Solve
Infiltration and scandal press stories. No one I see has been able to avoid infiltration and then embarrassing stories based on half-truths that emerge. Dome draft of ideas gets leaked that has preliminary wording that can be used to trigger some element or elements of the population. Those are just a couple of tools of the trade that you likely know more about than I. Do you have a plan for that?
My thoughts are. Working quickly on this as you are if most can be done under the radar at first favors taking them by surprise. If that first part goes well the second part of getting the word out to the general public to vote could keep the election organizational structure out of significant reach of infiltration. It needs a simple method of getting people to vote and issue savvy, transported if need be quickly enough that it may go without them being able to organize proper infiltration in time to do much damage.
That's all I got for you. If you finished this comment, I hope it has been helpful in some way. Don't know how practical and successful this plan will be, but again, short of a desperate public uprising, things such as you propose need to be known, debated, and work on them begun quickly.
Yes give international Jewry an international “democratic” vote on top of the results of a domestic “democratic” vote …
There’s a reason all the UN security council members are deeply ZOG infiltrated.
AIPAC needs to be put on FARA . Rather the votes need to mean something other than pro Israel stooges more than they need to be counted.
If the voting outcome is the same the quality of counting, or lack thereof, doesn’t matter .
We don’t need any foreign monitoring
A novel and eloquent proposal