Sorry, Political Rant ahead: “The Illusion of Choice”

We are all being lied to, from both sides of the aisle. Neither Reps or Dems are the true representatives of the people. They own us, manipulate us, and lie to us so they can stay in power over us. This election is so fckd up! We don’t have freedom anymore. We have what they give us.


This post may make me seem like something I am definitely NOT.

I’m sure many will interpret it that way and try to assume my motivation and underlying reasons.

But they would be wrong. Let me speak for myself please.

Binary Control and Manipulation

Why are we satisfied with only the illusion of choices in our political choices? Every Election season, we have only two choices given to us by only two major parties. Then they pit us against each other in an increasingly vitriolic and hate filled battle of ideologies that they provide the Talking points for.

All other points of view and ‘third parties’ are either ignored completely or marginalized in the press and media. It’s almost as if both of the Major Parties are the Same Ruling Party. This was my comment earlier on one of my posts in answer to a Canadian commenter.


SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 AT 4:46 AM

  • Here in the US, we only have the choices they give us. Red or blue. And the major parties make sure we only have those choices encouraged and shown to us in the media and news. When your choices are limited to just two and you are being herded into them by fear and vitriol, you don’t really have choice. You don’t have freedom. You have two major parties that are in reality one ruling party with the illusion of choice and the illusion of freedom. Truth is, the very nature of our national government and it’s relationship to the states and it’s citizens dramatically changed in the 19th century. We are not the same country as when we were founded. Neither trump nor Hillary are fit or sane enough for the office. I won’t be consenting to either.

  • The Federal Government was set up to serve, not rule

  • The relationship between the National Government that used to serve the “Free and Independent States” spoken of in the Declaration of Independence was irrevocably changed during the 19th century from one of subservience TO the States, to one of dominance and control OVER the States. 

  • We as citizens of our Several States (plural) before, our States being members of the Country thru their representatives, Elected and chosen by the States, became Citizens of the new National entity (singular) The United States. We are literally not the same country and our citizenship was transferred without our knowledge or consent to the new ‘collective’ citizenship.

  • That was also about the time when our Elections changed from multiple choice to just binary. When what we had as multiple parties, narrowed to just two Major Parties. Easier to control and manipulate us against each other.

  • Can you peg when this happened? 

  • That’s when National Government began to grow, when spending increased, debt started piling up, mandates and interferance in personal lives stated increasing as well, Wars against other countries and peoples around the world for control and financial gain, we started ‘projecting American power’ into the world arena. When the Federal Government stated limiting our freedom and choices… and the two Major Parties started choosing our Only Options for us. 

  • “Red or Blue, Dem or Rep? And we will choose who you will get for options even within those two.”

  • Instead of being heard, we are being ‘herded’ against each other and ourselves

  • It’s about “the consent of the governed”, right? Well, what happens when your consent is manipulated to just the Options ‘they’ provide for you? Is that really ‘free consent’? Or is it Tyranny from an Oligarchy of National Socialism?

  • Just my opinion, your milage may vary

  • I will not consent to either Trump or Clinton. Neither are fit, sane or qualified to receive my vote. I know that the present system guarantees one of them will be ‘elected’, in November, but not by my Consent.

  • -kia


90 thoughts on “Sorry, Political Rant ahead: “The Illusion of Choice”

  1. Well put. If ever a choice was “the lesser of two evils” it is in this election, no matter who the vote is for. Except in this case, the “lesser” is still the devil incarnate.

    Taking your point a bit further, here’s a thought. How about each state have a primary to pick a candidate. Then a national election to elect the top 5. Then a national election again. If there is not a candidate with a majority. then the top 2 have a runoff. That is truly an election by consent of all the people. On top of this, a term limit for the office of President of 6 years. They can run again, but must sit out the following 6 years. Most President just “mail in” the last two years of an eight-year term anyway. If someone is that popular (or good) they could actually become President a second time, ala Grover Cleveland. The way it is now, from day one of swearing in, a new President is effectively beginning their campaign for the next election. This hampers their ability somewhat because they’re trying to please the base and lobbyists in their first term. Anyway, just a thought.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Hey, I’m not going to judge over a political rant. After all, I’ve resorted to posting poetry on my spot. So you go, friend.

    Whah? Not going to fall for the old “manufacturing consent” gig? I’m not going to vote for Hillary or Trump. I’ve taken a fair amount of flak for it on twitter, lost close to 750 followers in the last 6 months. I’m not thrilled with Stein either. What I will do is vote for down ballot progressive candidates and do everything I can to break the 2 party system. Until then, well never see the changes we need like getting money out of politics, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

      • No. I understand the appeal of libertarian talk to some folks, but there’s no working model of a libertarian government anywhere ever. I support the social contract between the government and citizens when it’s responsible, transparent, and answerable to the people. Libertarianism is “so” not that.

        Liked by 1 person

          • Sorry, I missed this comment which is helpful in putting the one I replied to in context. Yes, the founders held a number of opinions. They owned slaves, some of them thought limiting the vote to property owners a good idea, and so on. What they got right was an opportunity to revise the Constitution to keep up with current times. And we have to our credit. Again, I like the idea of limited govt intrusion in private lives, however implementing unfettered capitalism, ending social safety nets, and ending regulatory organizations tasked with the safety of the citizens isn’t going to end well for a vast portion of the country. It will benefit the Koch Bros and oligarchs like them.


  3. This election year is extremely discouraging … and scary! To think of either one of these individuals as the leader of our country? Gives me stomach upset.

    I don’t want to wish her bad luck, but I sorta’ wish Hillary’s illness had been diagnosed as something a bit more severe. As you may know, there was some talk within the demo circles about replacing her after the “incident,” but it seemed to all die down when it was discovered it was :”just” pneumonia. I had hoped maybe Sanders might be able to enter the picture again. This is not to say he’s the perfect choice either, but I definitely preferred him over HC … and ABSOLUTELY over the other guy.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mike, if we want any chance to return the control of the government back to the people…it surely won’t be with Clinton as pres. We are not voting for a president…we are voting for 1, 2 and possibly 3 seats on the supreme court, that must be returned to center from far left…

    The supreme court MUST return to support our Constitution…not the political left’s agenda to take total control…

    And for me personally…I am against abortion, which the left endorses..

    No vote, will be a vote for this country’s almost certain change to socialism…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Persedeplume,
    Just in case you missed this info, Bruce is a former porn addict (his words) whose nasty habit was curtailed by (his) god. So he says. He’s a big hero now in his fundamental Baptist (I’m guessing) church – they lap that stuff up. In essence, he exchanged one addiction for another.
    Oh, and he has a wife and (I think) a daughter. Grandchildren, too. A real gem, Bruce is.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: What’s the Difference? | MyDoorIsAjar

  7. The current fervor over what trump was recorded… 11yrs ago… saying about his misogynistic ways and attitudes is all just more smokescreen to distract from what wiki leaks is coming out with that confirms what we’ve all known since the Benghazi incident. The email deletions and cover up is to hide the facts that Hillary and Obama were running weapons to the Islamic militants who became ISIS thru Lybia to the rebels in Syria in a secret effort to topple the government of Assad, An act of war and an international war crime, at a time where congress… you know the representatives of the people Hillary and Obama serve… were telling them not to go to war. Ie. Refusing to consent to what the administration wanted to do. It’s all connected.
    So go ahead, get upset and indignant about what trump said on camera 11 years ago.
    We are all being lied to, from both sides of the aisle. Neither Reps or Dems are the true representatives of the people. They own us, manipulate us, and lie to us so they can stay in power over us. This election is so fckd up!

    We don’t have freedom anymore. We have what they give us.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Ummm, no, KIA – not a smokescreen. The fervour is about people reacting to more proof of tRump’s blatant misogny. An attitude that all Americans should be aware of when casting their vote. There are those of us who feel that misogyny is of great concern. Please don’t try to minimize his actions – and add the caveat, “But it was eleven years ago!”. The thing is, this is the kind of behaviour that all asshats who have no respect for women exhibit – on a daily basis.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Just did a post on how I feel about trumps words and actions… and Rudy’s justifications of them. I agree with you. Trump is a slime ball that should never have been allowed to get this far


      • The thing is, we shouldn’t have to use the “How would you feel if it was your daughter/wife/mother?” We should just be able to have respect for each other. In what instance have you ever heard the words, “Imagine if it was your brother/husband/father?”

        I also think the ‘powers that be’ in the GOP who let tRump rise to the position of candidate should be named and shamed. It should never had gone this far.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Ever get the impression the whole process was rigged for a Clinton win? You know: prod Trump to decimate what’s left of the GOP, allow him to dominate the media to draw away attention from serious policy issues, bump off Sanders in the primaries, shut out the third parties and then spring an October surprise days before the debate to draw attention focus from the Wikileaks reports?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Some food for thought: I was a model in France some years ago. We used to talk like that all the time. The women just as much as, if not more, than the men. It had nothing to do with sexual assault, and all to do with sex, of which there was plenty between all us models. Period. No one got upset at the super-bawdy banter. The women used to ask all the time if they could grab my, ummmm… “package,” and lead me around by it. Then, often, they did. You’ll note that Trump indicated that his advances were welcomed. Because, he said, he was a star. As a friend of mine pointed out, while all that speaks ill of Trump, it says nothing good about the women either.

    And, as I mentioned in a recent post on my own blog, women also used to ask me regularly when I’d do to them just exactly what Trump described. Same words, or nearly the same, different but similar circumstances — as models, I guess you could say we were “entertainers” — same meaning.

    If it’s kind of a truism that men have a general vague idea that they’re “superior” to women in some ill-defined way, it’s equally true that women seem to have that same state of mind as regards men. Kind of the balance of things.

    What you said — real men respect women — is true. As is the flip side of that equation: real women respect men. The general zeitgeist, however, is one of general contempt for men. Women feed that zeitgeist as powerfully as, if not more powerfully than, men do. Are there no real women out there?

    Again, these are hyper-sensitive times. Men and women in their various guises as entertainers. professionals, athletes, political candidates, etc., tend to live up or down to the general atmosphere of the milieu in question. Let’s face it: what Trump said is what Bill Clinton did — numerous times, and he’s one of the most popular ex-Presidents in recent history. This doesn’t excuse any of it in the slightest, but it does mean that all this outrage is faked. Serious question: If Trump is a boor, and a cad, and not a “real man,” then how on earth does Bill Clinton get a pass?!? And the woman who aided and abetted his abuse of women? How does she get any kind of a pass?

    People looking into their own hearts know that this kind of thing is very, very common. If the definition of a real man is that “he respects women,” then we’re not all real men all the time, and there are precious few real women out there, as so many of them seem to have bought into the general “men are dopes” zeitgeist. If we’re expecting perfection from anyone, we’ll always be disappointed.

    Bottom line: all the vapors about Trump’s now 11-year old comment are much ado about nothing. Or at least nothing of any actual importance. We’ve already had a white trash President in the white House — Bill Clinton — it’s not Trump’s trashiness that should make him ineligible to be the President. He was elected nearly a quarter of a century ago. Trashiness on the part of political candidates has been in place for a very long time.

    Your previous post about the revelations in the leaked e-mails was on the nose.


    — x


    • A very disappointing comment x-P!
      DT described how he jumped on Ms. O’Dell – a married woman – like a b***h (in heat?).
      He further went on to lay out his method of attack/assault on these women :- pop some breath mints, grab them by their private, no waiting, just start kissing them. And all this he assures himself is okay to do because he’s a ‘star’ and women will let him do anything he wants.

      It’s your prerogative to support DT, but to try to defend and make his despicable actions the norm is sad.


      • Thanks for your comment, ancients. I was not in any way defending Trump’s behavior, just saying that all the condemnation of it, and uproar over it, by the Democrats and the media are all faked.

        I absolutely do not defend it, but rather complain about it. All the time. Because I lived it, and loved it, and now regret it. I regularly bemoan the fact that I engaged in it extensively when I was a model in France.

        I guess, what I’m saying is that we’re all going to fall short of perfection many, many times in our lifetimes. It’s why we then ask for forgiveness, and look back and say, “Wow! I’ll never do that again!” Kind of the definition of “regret.”

        I don’t in any way support Trump. I’ll vote for him because of a mathematical calculation: I think the odds of a less bad outcome for America are better with Trump than with Hillary. Simple as that. However, I don’t support him. Nor do I support the debased culture that he reflects. Nor do I support the actions that I did back in my modeling days. More to the point: I knew I was doing things I disapproved of, when I was doing them! Our fallen nature shows itself many, many times, in many, many different ways!

        I’m not familiar with the O’Dell story, but I’ll look it up. If, as you say, he said those things, then I can tell you that I’ve said those things to other women, and they’ve looked at me and said right back, “Well, when are you gong to do that to me?” And so on.

        Would I disqualify myself for something like the Presidency? Nope. I’m not that person anymore. However, the odds of my ascending to the Presidency would be significantly reduced because of that past. A simple truth. The very same people who are whining about Trump from the left, would jump all over me, with the same faux outrage, even though such behavior and speech is quite common within the ranks of the left.

        Again, it pains me to describe my much younger behavior that way, but it’s true. And I’m not a better man for having done it. I guess, though, I am a better man for having learned from it, and for rejecting it now. Still, I wish I could have learned that lesson without having engaged in such libertine behavior.

        One of the things I like to tell my kids is that I’ve arrived at middle age without ever having indulged in illicit drugs of any kind. Very few (none?) of my friends can say that. I point to my “accomplishment” with more than a little personal satisfaction, and I tell my kids that they, too, can avoid what “everyone’s doing,” and regard it as a real accomplishment, in which to take great satisfaction, when they’re older.

        Sadly, I can’t say that same thing to them about sex. So, while I deeply disapprove of Trump’s behavior and words, I understand where they come from, and felt it necessary to point out some important possibilities:
        • It’s entirely possible that Trump’s declarations were not abusive. That they were simply an accepted part of the milieu in which Trump found himself at that time. Remember, Trump said that “the women let him.” It’s entirely possible that they liked it! They certainly did in the French modeling crowd of which I was a part.

        • I don’t know the O’Dell story, but when I used that kind of language to describe my interactions with women, it was always welcomed, and returned, by the women in question. Today, yes, I strongly disapprove of that kind of thing. Interestingly, I never, ever not even once, engaged in that kind of behavior with a married woman. I always had a strong reverence for the bonds of marriage. What a complex creature is a human being, eh?!?

        • Women say — same words! — and do the same things today, and they did — to me — back in the 1980’s when I was a model in France. And I liked it.

        • A premise of one of KIA’s posts in this exchange is that real men respect women. Okay. The converse — that real women should respect men — should be equally true. It’s not part of the American zeitgeist though, and contributes to all the faux-outrage of the left and the media toward Trump.

        • Let’s face it, the outrage toward Trump — on the part of anyone except social Conservatives — is entirely faked.

        So, no, I don’t approve of Trump, but I understand, the feeling and environment that produced the bawdy banter that was caught on the TMZ recording.


        — x


        • “He did it too” is a poor defense. Truth is, neither of the major party candidates weve been ‘given’ to vote for or against is fit or qualified to be president. They are both monsters.


          • Yep. And again, I’m very sympathetic to this point-of-view, and understand completely how one could come to that conclusion.

            I find it odd that everyone is so up in arms now, whereas there was none of this — except from us social Conservatives — back when it was Bill Clinton actually doing all this snorg.

            Surely you remember how we social Conservatives were all “sex-obsessed,” and “perverts,” and how it was “only sex,” and how we all needed to “get over it,” and “everyone does it, and we needed to “move on?”

            If Trump is a monster — which is probably just a bit hyperbolic — then why didn’t we look at Bill Clinton, and say, “He’s a monster?”

            The point: we didn’t. As a result, our “horror” and “outrage” at Trump now are more than a little hollow.

            Unless, that is, we’re going to use this opportunity to say and do something about the debased culture of which both Clinton (and Clinton) and Trump are simply typical examples.

            As regards the current electoral situation: we have, as I mentioned before, the choice of the execrable, debased Hillary Clinton — someone who fits your definition of “monster” and who has fit that definition for thirty years in the public eye — and the debased Trump.

            At that point, the rational political decision, it seems to me, is to come to a conclusion as to which would be the least bad for this the greatest country that has ever existed.

            Yes, there are three options: (1) Vote for Trump, (2) vote for Clinton, (3) vote for no one.

            But, there are other choices as well: Vote against Trump, vote against Clinton.

            The political salvation of this country will happen with at least two major efforts: (1) Defending all that is good and right and decent in America, and (2) resisting the forces that would do bad things to America.

            I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m selecting option #5: vote against Clinton, by which I’m doing a little bit to contribute to effort #2: resist the forces that would do bad things to America.

            It’s a purely mathematical calculation. And I don’t pretend to be confident that my conclusion is correct.

            Trust me, I wish I could pull a lever that I was confident would: (1) vote decisively for someone, (2) vote decisively against someone, (3) defend all that is good and right and decent in America, and (4) resist all the forces that would do bad things in America — all in that one little lever pull!

            But, I can’t. So I have to content myself with Option #5: vote against Clinton.

            And, I think I just did it again: used my next post as a response to your fine comment. Again, my apologies.


            — x


              • Okay.

                I don’t know what you mean by a “false dichotomy.”

                It is the choice. That it’s a bad choice doesn’t change the fact that it’s the only choice at this time.

                If by voting for no one, you think you’re striking a blow for making better choices in the future, I’m sympathetic to that point of view as well.

                When I point out that I’m voting for Trump, I’m pretty sure that I made it cleat that I’m holding my nose when I do so. 🙂


                — x


              • Did you not read what I wrote? I said clearly that I was voting for a candidate of my choice. Just not either clinton or trump.
                How do you understand that as voting for no one?


              • Binary choice is not good. There are so many more perspectives than two.
                Why would you have to suspend rules for me to vote my conscience?
                Who made the rules that there are only two political parties that have any legitimate expression?
                When did that start? What brought it about?
                My vote is mine, none of your business to ask. But you should be asking why you think it’s ‘the rules’ that we only have two choices…


              • Easy there, Tusker. I was asking the other person in the thread, not you. I guess I chose my words poorly when asking the question. I should have said, if you could pick anyone as a candidate, which one most closely aligns with your qualifications as president. Better?
                If you read up the the replies, you’ll see we already discussed not liking the 2 party duopoly.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Wow! Hmmmm… First thing. If we could wave a magic wand and suspend the rules for me, I’d immediately wave the magic wand to un-suspend the rules for me.

                However, I’ll treat the premise of your question respectfully, as it deserves.

                If I were to have my druthers, then a President Cruz would be in the Oval Office, and he would have a Republican Senate and House of Representatives.

                Without the two chambers of Congress in Republican hands, though, President Cruz (1) would get nothing done, and (2) without a single, solitary doubt, the Democrats would find some pretext under which to impeach and remove him.

                @Persedeplume: there are very few paths to political restoration and salvation for this country. And some major, improbable things have to happen for that to occur. This has been a time when an astonishing number of things have happened to strip away defense after defense against the abyss toward which this country is hurtling.

                If, however, I were to get my wish — President Cruz, and a (Conservative) Republican Congress, and they still were to fail to roll back some or all of the sludge that has accreted onto the ship of state, then I’d say we’re probably doomed.


                — x


              • I know that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not sure that it’s true.

                I’ve had conversations with high-ranking Republicans, and they said — to a man — that they absolutely were behind Cruz’s courageous and quixotic campaigns to force certain issues. However, because of the media/political climate, at the time., they had to oppose him publicly.

                Furthermore, there were many Democrats who supported Cruz — not all of them are scum-sucking leftists. 🙂 But, again, there was absolutely zero possibility that they would do that openly.

                My point: A Cruz Presidency, with Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress would be a test as to whether this country can survive. It certainly won’t survive if it continues on its current trajectory.

                In other words, if a President Cruz were resisted by Republicans in Congress, then it’s entirely possible that we are simply doomed.


                — x


              • I’ve made it a mission to talk to Trump supporters to understand their motivations and so on. It’s clear to me most of them don’t have any idea how government functions much less what the role of the POTUS is. I guess Trump would top the list, lol.
                But seriously, we’ve got an awareness deficit on both sides of the aisle. There’s not an easy or immediate fix, I’m afraid.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Trump obviously thinks he can go in and do what he wants, bullying anyone who gets in his way, threaten to investigate anyone, refuse to work with anyone he wants. Fascist dictatorship.
                Hillary thinks she can do what she wants, cover up whatever, with the media’s help of course. And trample the Constitution at will. (Did you notice in the last debate when the moderator asked how she would choose a supreme Court nominee, not one word of how they would interpret and uphold the Constitution) to her, it’s what she can get done, her will. Her power. If Congress or the Senate, the actual representatives of the people, disagree… Just go around them and do it anyway. Ala Obama Style. Fascist dictatorship is waiting for us. Either way the election goes.

                Liked by 1 person

  11. Praetorius,
    One sentence – Bill Clinton is not running for President. I shouldn’t have to say anymore than that. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton is not a misogynist, not a racist, and not xenophobic. Haven’t heard of any groping of males, barging into dressing rooms, speaking trash about males, etc. – in fact, she seems to actually have respect for people. Something one would hope the President of a powerful nation should possess. What you’re telling us is that you are voting for a predatory sleaze and hoping things will just magically work out. Right.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point seems to be this: Many women you knew in your modelling career were promiscuous and behaved as badly as the men you knew (including yourself) so you figure all women act like this. I have to conclude, from that statement, that you’ve not met any women since your modelling days who’ve been any different than those women. And you believe that there are women who hate men, so the ones who don’t – and actually are treated like tRump obviously treats all women – deserve to get treated less than human because of he women who DO act like that. Just because. . .or something like that.

    Is that it?


    • Carmen, anyone who treat and talks about women as badly as Trump has no business anywhere near high office.
      But what if a woman who threatened, attacked and defamed the accusers of another rapist who just happened to be her husband? Would such a person, although not the one who did those things, be any less guilty for covering them up and attacking the victims of her husband, who you are correct in saying is not running for president?
      If we are correct for questioning Trumps ethics and disqualifying him, should we not be doing the same about hillary?
      This whole election cycle is f’d up.


        • Well, there once was a grouping of states that tried to cecede peacefully, till the federal government forced them back into the union and killed 800 thousand to do it


          • True. Despite the Founders glorious intentions, the system was beset with divisive political factions right from the outset. And expanding populations and territorial control have only exacerbated the problem. As this site notes (second last paragraph under “Controlling Government

            The idea of representative government is the principle behind the doctrine of enumerated powers. There is a limit to the expanse of territory and the number of people any government can manage without resorting to tyranny. America today consists of 3.79 million square miles and 308 million people. The presumption that any 535 people are collectively or individually wise enough to “rule” so vast a nation through the “rule of law” with laws applying equally to each individual’s circumstances and needs without abolishing their liberty is utterly preposterous. That is why the Founders limited the power of the Federal Government to make laws only for matters of national importance.

            Of the 536 elected representatives making up the U.S. Legislative Branch, only one is elected by the voters of all the fifty states. That single individual is the President of the Senate, and he is forbidden by custom and his political party from actually participating in the functions of the legislature. The remaining 535 are elected only by the voters of their home states and are not accountable to the voters of the remaining 49 states, no matter what types of despotic laws are imposed on their citizens. If history teaches us anything, it is that a national government cannot function simultaneous with individual liberty unless its powers are strictly controlled by a written Constitution that is actually followed.

            However, nothing will change until public indignation with the current system reaches a tipping point. Whether or not that transition occurs peacefully remains to be determined. At the moment, things aren’t looking too good.


          • I’m sorry Mike but I must interject here. On the point about wanting to secede peacefully, this is only partially true at best, and at worst a canard. The reason for the secession, was because the southern American states wanted to continue having the “right” to own black people as slaves. Most, if not all, of the southern economy was based on slave labour and their uprising was as a result of anti-slavery Lincoln being elected to the presidency. This certainly had nothing to do with electoral reform or even a whiff of anything remotely moral or noble for that matter. The motives for their secession were downright sinister and evil. I regard the American Civil war, along with WW2 as the most important wars ever fought for human freedom and equality.
            I’ll also note for the record, that it was the Confederates who attacked Union-held Fort Sumter first, that started the war.
            Being from Canada, I can relay to you, that having a multi-party system is not really that much better. We have 2 of the bigger parties (Conservatives and Liberals) who get a sizeable portion of the vote, with the NDP making up most of the rest. The lesser parties (Like the Green party) get very little support. Federally, we’ve only ever had Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers (NDP has only been around since 1961). NDP have had more success provincially where there have been a few premiers (equivalent to your state governors) So even though we have a myriad of choices, it is more or less a 2 party system here as well. We don’t have legal money-laundering PAC’s in Canada however. That’s probably all the difference right there.

            Liked by 1 person

  12. The Oligarchy is real. It is in control of our world. Plutocracy, The Oligarchy, aka the 1%. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Ventura, and Bernie Sanders are right.

    It is not OUR world while others own it and run it. Learn what you need to know. They have had control of our world for thousands of years! They created a Heaven on Earth for themselves, at our expense!

    The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors

    Ancient Alias Names List (2017)

    All Roman Emperors From Antoninus Pius On Were Descended From Piso Family Of Rome

    Oligarchy And Ancient Genealogies

    The Roman Piso Papers

    Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s