Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?

The Israel lobby is something I look at as it is something I do not like seeing, dual citizens in power of one country is an issue as are the many known facts and instances of classified information being passed from those officials to Mossad so I am in agreement with you there.

I could honestly care less the Congresswoman Ohmar is Muslim or black or any other thing. I do care that actions are either ethical or they are not and right now it appears that they are not. As has been proven by her paying off tax debt from campaign coffers, for any other person ignorance of the law is not a defense, and it definitely should not be for a person running for or in office to make said laws.

As for the AOC thing well I would disagree on 2 points. First why should any politician be taking money from outside their district or party war chest that seems to me like reason to not align with having your districts best interest in line (that goes is both sides of the aisle for what its worth). Number 2, she has a horrible approval rating in her own district, if the people you represent say you aren't doing that I would take them as the source.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district

Also please note, I think Trump is POS too but it doesn't excuse poor behavior from the opposition and it appears that that is how we are choosing to look at things.

Anyways, I wanted to weigh in with my opinion, I understand we disagree and I am going to agree to disagree with you on this one because I honestly believe there are better groups within the left that I get behind and that some groups are doing more damage to our cause than good.

You have my respect friend stand strong,
Much Love,
Kobos

I have noticed that playing above board and doing things by the books favors those who don't. A moral victory isn't going to undo any of the terrible things happening. On that note, I don't blame either side for doing what it takes to see their goals realized. Note, I can choose to not blame and still disagree.

ZealotX wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: A lot of America's political problems lies in the fact that all they'll do is vote and protest when it's popular to do so.. instigated by one extreme or another.. Political laziness is rampant in America.. they want someone to fix things for them.. they can't govern themselves anymore..

Voting won't change the system because the parties we vote for are invested in said system. Their job is to convince you of the lie that the system exists for your benefit so they can reap the ACTUAL benefits.. it doesn't matter who's in power, the system literally and LEGALLY works for the shareholders of our financial system.. YOU CAN'T VOTE THEM AWAY..

The 1st amendment preserves the right to the same legal process that saw the States break from England in the first place. That's why it was first and why the 2nd was created, to enforce the first.. voting is weak and lazy..

That's not exactly true. I mean you describe ONE way, but it isn't the only way.

First we have to understand the problem; and why it feels like voting doesn't work. Because half the reason why voting doesn't work is because people feel like voting doesn't work. So they don't vote.

The problem is corruption. Corruption exists in every government. If you plant a tree in a garden and say one tree has fruit that will give you power but you shouldn't eat it... how many people will have to exist in that garden before someone eats that fruit? Before someone yields to temptation? The "left hand" path... or what I understand to be a very self-driven... "self-ish" path is at least 40% more likely to eat the fruit. The consequences of which effect everyone. One person makes a decision for "me" without understanding or caring that they're also making that decision for me....and you... and the rest of us. This is why I cannot be a sith (based on my own view of what it means).

Voting does work. Democracy was the prescribed cure for corruption because you could use democracy to weed out and replace corrupt officials; including the chief executive. But corruption has gotten worse. Why is that? Well if you're a hacker and a system has security you might go find a system that doesn't. Or, and especially if you have no choice, you could sit there and figure out that system and where its weaknesses are. We have an entire industry and profession centered around finding and arguing one's way through holes in the law.

On the other hand we now have small empires (I know people don't like me using that word) in the corporate world that represent very powerful people, not who necessarily run these empires, but who OWN these empires. Instead of owning 100% of one plantation you can own 30% of 5 and make even more money. Some people have this all figured out and they also have lawyers. The combination of the two has led to very strategic hacking(lobbying) that offers the fruit to politicians on the right committees. Placement on said committees are usually distributed based on the same kind of rules you might use for positions in a corporation. Did I not say corporations are often not owned by the people who run them? Eddie Murphy was in an excellent movie about this that should be required watching in the IP.

I know people think there's all these conspiracies going on, but my thing is this... an actual conspiracy is way too risky to keep doing. Whatever your conspiracy is you need to get it out of the dark as soon as possible and make it legal. Part of your conspiracy has to make it legal. Once that happens there is no longer any need for a conspiracy. The "owners" don't need to conspire anymore. They simply buy politicians.

The answer isn't guns. It's an old man named Bernie Sanders. No, I'm not a Bernie Bro. And NOW, its not just him. He's already influenced a change in tactics. Bernie's influence is the ONLY reason Kamala Harris (who I like but who I know is more like a Hillary) is committed to small dollar donations. The thing is, one way or another, we are PAYING for our representation. If YOU don't pay, guess what? Rich people will. Why do you think the Koch brothers put so many millions of dollars into politics? Because you work for who's paying you. Members of congress are REQUIRED to fundraise for their party. Most of them probably hate it. But all these campaigns and democratic processes are expensive. It would be different if the media was required by law to set aside airtime for both parties. That would be fair. But in the absence of fairness it is the highest bidder who wins. It's capitalism.

The little guy sits in front of the TV being influenced by political ads paid for mostly by rich people. What's the point of that? So the little guy goes out and votes for the person the rich people want in office because they're funding that person and fully expect that person to work for them. Why else would they give them money? Why would you?

The importance of Bernie Sanders is that the best ideas, the ones that will best serve the interests and needs of the most people, are also the idea that cost the rich the most. And they're not funding all these politicians and lobbying in order to waste money. The point is to spend all this money to SAVE even more money. At the same time, they promote talking heads on TV that say it isn't fair that rich people should have to pay more when they're giving us jobs. People start connecting this idea of the rich being burdened and if you burden them too much we'll lose jobs because the rich will... stop using your labor to make money?? Let them try. The American people have to stop being scared of the 1%.

It's not the government. You could replace every last person and if the laws were the same they would do the exact same thing as their predecessors. It would be like resetting/rebooting the Matrix. It's not the people, its the system. And its who owns the system and how they interact with it.

There is a movement within the Progressive wing of the Democratic party that isn't happy with Democrats and wants to remove the corruption. Part of the plan is to send in "uncorrupted" members of Congress. AOC was one of these. And you can tell how different she is because she's not simultaneously working for the 1%. She was elected through a grass roots effort. These "Justice Democrats" are also a part of the same strategy behind WolfPAC which is a political action committee designed to get money out of politics.

https://wolf-pac.com/the_solution/

Right now, its not about ideas as much as it is about money. If you have money, you get to have ideas that get voted on. Mich McConnell listens to his DONORS, not the American people. This, I swear, is the reason Americans are so frustrated with politics and with voting and why voting doesn't seem to work. The system keeps offering people the same fruit and they're selling out the country for their own private benefits.

As Jedi, I do not propose we run for office or anything like that. Nor is voting the only solution. Nor is the second amendment any kind of solution that will work here. What I do propose, for all those who want to fight, and don't love the idea of not doing anything, is to fight against the corruption of this or any government. It's what the Jedi did in canon. And Jedi (canon) have to be pure in heart and battle any internal corruption so that the power they are given, by the Force, can be used for positive change. Just because we aren't desert wizards doesn't mean we don't have a power that can change the world. But if you don't believe it then it cannot use you.

I'm not under the persuasion of "Progress" into Corporate Communism, nor of Corporate Socialism (fascism). Voting doesn't work for the very reason we "only had" Hillary and Trump to vote from.. which is demonstrably false btw.. they were selected by the "powers that be" before she ever ran for the nomination. Trump was meant to get her elected BECAUSE she was such a bad candidate. The Mainstream Machine just underestimated America's laziness. They should've told people that he was close to winning in the polls instead of having "no chance" lmao..

The type of people who control our politics don't actually run personally. People like Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are irrelevant. Our system is owned and controlled by an unelected cabal of power brokers and elite investors. They steer policy and always have. Voting in federal elections won't change that unless you voted in people who actually understood and changed that situation.. and they're not going to come from either major party..

So short of that, you'd have to use THE FIRST AMENDMENT to uproot the system as a whole. It's only enforced with the 2nd.. which is how all law is enforced.. sometimes, The Force calls us to confront our oppressors and to defend against their retaliation.. and those who would like to use us as a "human resource" have set themselves against the common man..

However, to say "the rich" is really general. Bernie is rich technically.. are you talking about people like him?.. A lot of these Congress Critters go in an average earner and come out millionaires. To point to people like AOC as pillars of change isn't wise IMO. Her kind of change is DEFINITELY not the kind I would support. Especially not destroying what's left of the Free Market to replace it with some sort of One World Technate with a "Carbon/Social Credit" system. Which is the goal of those who initially proposed the ideas her and others blindly follow.. A result of the social programming of our propagandized "Democracy".. and I'm definitely not in her camp of thinking the science of "anthropomorphic" Climate Change is settled.. that's another Propaganda Trap..

It's not "the rich", there are different power groups all vying for the same basic end. A system of global control.. they see us as pawns in their game.. some religious, some not.. some industrious, some not.. but all are despotic in nature..

You should read back through if you think no one had disagreements with Steam's position.

Kobos wrote: As for the AOC thing well I would disagree on 2 points. First why should any politician be taking money from outside their district or party war chest that seems to me like reason to not align with having your districts best interest in line (that goes is both sides of the aisle for what its worth). Number 2, she has a horrible approval rating in her own district, if the people you represent say you aren't doing that I would take them as the source.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district

I'm not going to say this isn't true but could you provide at least one mainstream news source? This is the Washington Examiner which was created to be a competitor to the Post. You can see its icon even has the same style. Sometimes opposing entities like this do this on purpose so that you accept their news as if its coming from the name brand. So again... not saying its wrong... I'm not saying its "fake news" but they have been fact checked and caught fabricating before so I'd like to be sure. Their AOC poll doesn't seem to be accurate.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/ocasio-cortez-still-popular-district-despite-unfavorable-nationally

Other sites are using this same Stop AOC PAC poll which... c'mon... the name itself suggests its bias. This poll siezed on the whole AOC vs Amazon story but even that was biased against AOC and is in desperate need of a fact check. If you poll someone's approval right after a negative story, whether its true or a false hit piece, you can expect their favorability to drop. The proposed location was not even in AOC's district but they're making it sound like she took food out of the mouths of her own constituents.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-amazon/



I also checked into the Omar situation (because I like to be thorough and not ignore allegations about people on "my side"). Here's what I came up with.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/28/ilhan-omars-alleged-affair-with-consultant-sparks-calls-for-ethics-probe/

First... there's nothing illegal about it. It just looks bad IF the allegations of her having an affair are true. But why is the guy around her at all? Because he works for her. As long as he is being paid for consulting and he's... consulting... then its legit. At this point she denies reports about her being separated from her husband or that she's dating anyone new. I think it would difficult for her to actually pull of an affair with the amount of media attention on her but its not impossible. But until they come out and say it or get caught having some kind of illicit meeting where they go into a hotel one night and one or both tries to sneak out the next morning... all this is unsubstantiated Washington soap opera rumor. Politics can get nasty. People will come after you, your family, anything to embarrass or harass you because they know that enough of that stuff will make you lose votes. But we have to be more discerning. As of right now I can't say she's having an affair and therefore I can't say there's any truth to any such impropriety because she SHOULD pay her political consultant from her campaign. That's what she's supposed to do.

rugadd wrote: You should read back through if you think no one had disagreements with Steam's position.

You are not allowed to just disagree though.

I don't think stooping to that level will further the discussion. Right or wrong, if you truly disagree with steamboat's accusations, which I do too, then why not be better than what you see him to be?

Deimos wrote: I don't think stooping to that level will further the discussion. Right or wrong, if you truly disagree with steamboat's accusations, which I do too, then why not be better than what you see him to be?

To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.
-Sun Tzu

None of us are better than another, but some of us possess more power than others. It is the way of things.

Okay fair enough. I don't think anyone is saying steamboat is right. At least thats not how I read it.

Deimos wrote: Okay fair enough. I don't think anyone is saying steamboat is right. At least thats not how I read it.

The question then becomes one of Hypocrisy then. Are some insults more cutting than others? Did steam blatantly violate this places terms of service by personally attacking others in a very personal manner and is that viscous attack heinous enough to warrant punishment. I have seen bannings for less here very recently. Why is this act of outright aggression just ignored or only given a slap? because he is a Knight and protected? The moderators here, by direct conversation, have said to me that this was left in place as a means of discussion. So lets discuss it. Is it ok to just call another member here a Nazi? This conversation was civil before a Knight of the order entered, a leader in this community, that has raised hell and wreaked havok in personal attack. Is that just ok?