Why You Shouldn’t Have Voted In The 2016 US Presidential Election

First of all, if you did vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because you thought they’d make a good president (no sense in even suggesting the word “great”) you ought to get your head examined.

The vast majority of Americans recognize there are huge problems facing the United States- from economics to health to the environment to the social services- which require significant reform beyond anything Washington politicians- left or right- have proposed for decades. Yet time after time, and election after election, this vast majority of Americans duly trudge to the polls to deliver their vote- not to the candidate they believe will solve any of the problems, but to the least offensive candidate available to vote for.

And if you are one of the majority of Americans who gave away your vote this way, then you basically have done nothing short of having given your nod of approval, once again, to the very system that you are grossly dissatisfied with.

Put another way, if you disagreed with 70% to80% of a contract, would you still go ahead and sign it anyway, and then expect the contract to end up working in your favor? If you would, you would be nothing short of a fool, which is just about where the American public is today in terms of expecting good things to come from bad political choices.

And both of these political candidates were bad political choices, for their own multitude of reasons which have already been exhaustibly exposed over the last nine months.

What those who are angry that Trump won the election haven’t yet figured out, is that his winning is actually a good thing for an American reform movement, if anyone is willing to get organized and start a real third party organization- permanently housed outside Washington and working to force reform from the outside onto the inside Washington establishment, left or right.

Trump’s win exposed the long overdue, publicly unacknowledged, fact that the U.S. Democratic party is no longer capable of working for the best interests of the American public, and subsequently requires reform from outside the present two party system, which requires real change, and not just another band aid solution like voting for the lesser of two evils.

Currently the public wants and expects change without changing the system, which makes about as much sense as wanting to move forward without lifting up your back foot.

Four or five months ago, those who wanted real reform were rejecting Hillary Clinton, for all the right reasons. While now, in a panic mode, they are doing the same kind of reversal that Bernie Sanders did at the Democratic National Convention, which rings as untrue now as it did back then.

At this point in America’s political evolution it is obviously patently absurd to believe that any one man or woman is going to have all the answers for all the problems facing the nation.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some good suggestions out there being offered up from some individuals, but no one has the capacity to understand the increasing complexity of all the problems facing the nation. And to expect that of them is only to expect failure, which will only lead to apathy and cynicism and perpetuate a pathetic cycle of hoping that the next (nonexistent) “hero” to come along from the opposite side of the political fence (or the same side of the political fence) will this time have all the right answers, and will this time be able to deliver America from its problems and into some magical Disneyland future of bliss and prosperity.

It’s never going happen that way. All that does happen, and will continue to happen, is that the current problems will continue to be dug deeper and deeper, with the same old responses and the same old inept status quo solutions delivered from the same old intractable thinking from the same old status quo thinkers in Washington, who only got to Washington by thinking like those preexisting them in Washington who created the problematic policies in the first place.

Changing the system to allow PUBLIC VOTING on public policy issues

The solutions to America’s serious problems are not going to come from presidential candidate sound bites, but from sound ideas and plans for real reform where they are needed.

And those kinds of real plans and reforms should be voted on in public forums by the public- and not by a few representatives in Washington who allegedly “speak accurately” for millions of their constituents in their respective states, simply because that’s just how the American system works. Implying the American system is basically sound and infallible, despite not having been significantly altered for over 200 years, when it is not.

The American system has good points and bad points, like any system. But to ignore the bad points for fear of destroying the American system altogether is about as ignorant thinking as you can get. Or as the FDR quote that everyone loves to quote, but precious few apparently understand, the only fear you have to fear is fear itself.

Fear of reform- to fix a now thoroughly corrupted U.S. system- is fear of fear itself.

And one thing is certain in all of this. If you don’t significantly alter the significantly flawed aspects of the current, and no longer valid, American system, the problems facing the public are only going to get worse- from the economic, to the health, to the environmental, to the social. That is a certainty.

What the public should vote on are not personalities pledging to work on their behalf, but on the serious issues and policies themselves that are facing the nation. And vote on these issues, directly, at least twice a year.


This could easily be accomplished by having open forums of discussion several weeks before a vote on a proposed policy- and forums not controlled and slanted by the liberal media, or by any political party. But open forums discussing the pros and cons of an issue so that both sides of an issue can be fairly presented to the public- just like they do in a courtroom.

Since everyone in positions of power in American loves to remind everyone in this country that this is a country based on laws. Good and fine. So let’s finally let the public in on the rule of law theory, and vote on the issues. Just like they do in a court room, and just like the Constitution intended them to- directly.

Then after a period of a few weeks of discussing the pros and cons of an issue, over the course of the next week or ten days afterwards, the public should be allowed to go to a computer, at home or at a public library, enter their social security number into a protected government polling website and register their vote on the issue. That means any and every U.S. citizen who wants to, will have a real vote on the issues that matter. Not a secondhand vote delivered by them by their state representative who is allegedly speaking the accurate opinion of millions of their constituents’ votes.

This would finally deliver the power back into the hands of the public. And that is exactly the kind of power those in power don’t want in the hands of the public. Not because the outcome would be bad- the outcome would finally represent the true votes of the public- but because in doing so it would diminish the power held by the politicians who do not accurately speak for the public, yet whose votes they desperately seek for continual reelection.

Issues that the public should be able to take direct votes on should include policy issues like: removing globalism and NAFTA and reinstating the priority of rebuilding America’s economy first, from within the country- before allegedly going out to “save” the rest of the world’s.

Issues like having a livable minimum wage. While also proposing creative options that no one is Washington has raised- like enforcing a minimum livable wage for corporations and their franchises, but waiving (or lowering) this elevated minimum wage for small independent businesses to take off pressure from immediate costs and to fuel their competitive edge against larger, established businesses, but requiring, instead, profit sharing options for small business employees to offset the lower base wages earned in comparison to corporate employees.

Issues like having the option to personally have, or not have, medical insurance as an adult- from birth (and through pregnancy) and through 21 or 25 it should be government paid for and free, and from 65 on it should also be government paid for and free, as it is through Medicare- and not be forced into having health insurance to subsidize a corrupted federal regulatory system that covers for the hazards of industry products, and all but guarantees the increasing sickness of the public, and the increasing profits of the healthcare industry, at the expense of the public. As well as being penalized for actually staying healthy, by having no opportunity for real rebates for staying healthy, and only being left with options to access the healthcare system and increase healthcare costs. If people really wanted to reduce healthcare costs, they would start focusing not on the costs of healthcare services, but on the costs saved by preventing illnesses, and regulating the industry products that are causing them, like the cell phone and pharmaceutical industries.

Issues like stopping the planned removal of landline phones by the FCC and forcing everyone to use cell phones, which will drive Alzheimer’s and brain tumors and all other brain disorders to even higher abnormal rates than they already are today. Or stopping and reversing the installment of extremely powerful and hazardous 5G (gigahertz) microwave emissions antenna networks that will likewise lead to even more cancer development among a public that is already suffering under completely abnormal cancer rates associated with already saturated levels of hazardous allowed abnormal manmade EMR emissions from cell phones, computers and wireless devices.

Issues like voting to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or severely limit it, which is no longer valid since we don’t need guns to protect ourselves against the invading British anymore. And that maybe it’s time for Americans to grow up and stop playing with guns, and video games promoting guns, and start doing what responsible adults are designed to do and improve the environment in which they live and not just live to entertain themselves. And those who think that if Americans lose the right to “bear arms” America will turn into a police state, they might want to take a closer look at all the other so-called “police states” around the world that are apparently under siege because of gun bans, such as in: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and on and on.

Issues like voting to remove all political and corporate influences in the U.S. health and environmental regulatory agencies- like the FDA and the EPA, and including the FCC which controls the levels of microwave EMR emissions from all wireless sources, which are probably responsible for the majority of serious diseases and fetal abnormalities now occurring in the population- and allowing only the scientific and medical communities to vote in regulators among their own members to lead these critically important regulatory positions. With these potential regulators being additionally vetted by a special appointed Congressional investigating committee to guard against potential political and/or corporate conflicts of interests, and with seats set aside for public representatives to insure as complete transparency as possible.

And “revolutionary” issues like removing the power to choose Supreme Court Justices from one man or woman, the President, and confirmed by majority vote of 100 Senators – or by roughly 0.000033% of the current American public- and placing the determination of those critical positions, which will impact the society for potentially decades afterwards, into the hands of the public through public voting. Where it should be, and which would also remove the excuse of voting for an incompetent candidate just so you can secure the election of Supreme Court Justices- whose lifetime appointments should also be reevaluated for logic and practicality for the best interests of the current American public, regardless if this was originally set up this way in the Constitution, 200-plus years ago.

And to accomplish these kinds of real reforms of the American system, which politicians, corporations, the media, and all the others who are benefiting from the current corruptive practices of the present status quo system don’t want, Americans are going to have to organize outside the Washington establishment.

ORGANIZING OUTSIDE WASHINGTON to change policies inside Washington

And the first step is to organize into a national American Reform Movement, similar to that created by Bernie Sanders in his run for the Presidency.

A simple initial plan would be for the public to give around $30 a year for a permanent organization working outside Washington, designed to work to achieve reforms for the public good. A large umbrella group which would incorporate already existing independently set-up smaller organizations that have already been working towards these populist goals- with the independent groups keeping their independence, just joining a larger umbrella group to consolidate their power to change the system at the regulatory level, where it is most urgent.

The current U.S. population is around 300 million, with at least 200 million adults. If the public could tap into only 5% of that population that would be about 10 million members, each donating $30 a year would give such an organization an annual budget of around $300 million, which could be productively spent in a variety of ways.

Part of that money could be spent for funding uncompromised scientific research on the safety of current industry products and practices, not bankrolled, as it currently is, by either U.S. industries or a corporate compromised federal health agency doling out research money to sustain status quo research to protect industry products.

Part could be invested into establishing a likewise, independent, scientific journal in which to publish uncompromised scientific research.

Part could be invested in hiring lawyers to sue against the fraud and corruption that is putting the public’s health at risk from products and environmental abuses.

Part could be invested in extremely needed public service ads on television and radio or on billboards to counteract the endless brainwashing of ads by billion-dollar corporate budgets promoting hazardous products every quarter hour of every day.

Part could be invested in a public awareness website posting stories written by writers connecting the non-corporate controlled scientific research, or other more complex policy issues, to the layperson’s non-scientific, or non-economic, or non-legal slanted mind.

And part could be invested in organizing pubic events or protests to push for the reforms needed- such as issuing sorely needed pubic voting on public policy issues.

While the American system may have worked, in theory, 200 years ago, with a population of three million spread across 13 relatively homogeneous states hugging the eastern seaboard, 200 years later, with a population of over 300 million spread across the entire country, the system of representation created by the founders of the U.S. Constitution is no longer representative of the average American in any state of the Union. And therefore has to be changed to represent the average American- of the people, by the people- in any state of the Union.

THE PUBLIC CAN DETERMINE ITS FUTURE, or allow it to be continued to be determined by the present system

From this point forward, the Presidency should be increasingly relegated to a figurehead position. With the President being involved mainly in diplomatic problems both here and abroad, which will actually serve whoever wants to be President in this modern day and age very nicely, since all they really seem to relish is the power and prestige of the position of the presidency over taking on the job to actually work for the best interests of the American public.

While the business of solving the nation’s problems has to finally be given over to the public, whose problems they really are. And that also means that the ways and means of solving the nation’s problems has to also change, to once again- or for the very first time ever- actually engage Americans directly, and give them an adult sense of purpose in life, beyond that of just being used as consumers to increase corporate profits, for the left or the right.

What If the Corporation Tells You to Lie in a Disclaimer?

It has been a long time since I wrote here at this page, and yet, it seems to be just at the right time.

This article is about disclaimers. We’ve all seen the disclaimers, on the back of the product packages, and on television commercials, and sometimes even in the oddest of places, like on plastic bags – disclaimers that say silly things like, “do not put over your head”. Duh, so who’s going to do that anyway?

For the most part, the majority of disclaimers are simply tools that corporations and that lawyers use to make sure that if someone sues, they don’t get harmed or they can get away with claiming innocence.

Yet, some disclaimers are needed, and some make sense and some are quite helpful. So, how does one distinguish between the ordinary, useful disclaimers and the ones that are, so obviously, lawyer’s tools and corporations’ tools to simply stop you from having recourse after one of their products or services has really harmed you? How do you decide which disclaimers are important and which are just plain annoying, and a waste of time, and space and, in many cases, a waste of good human energy?

Or does it really make a difference if we distinguish them, separate them or not? Only you know the answer to that question.

I am writing this article to bring attention, to you, and to the public, the new use of ‘specifically-worded’ disclaimers that are now being demanded for display on some community access channels, and shows. The disclaimer for television is not a real problem. Many producers put disclaimers on their shows, without even being asked to do so.

The huge problem for the latest development in community access television corporations is that ‘specifically-worded’ disclaimer. That’s it — the “specific words”. And when I read the specific disclaimer, I saw, quite quickly, that it simply wasn’t the truth.

So, I ask you. Can a corporation demand that you lie on television (if the disclaimer is obviously not the truth) and if you don’t agree to the lie, can the corporation or the Board of Directors or the boss say that you can not air your show on community television?

Good question!

While I am not sure that I can answer this question directly, I’m pretty sure that I can answer the question by a process of elimination technique. I’ll try that here.

So, by process of elimination, I’ll say that for the most part, on many of the community access television shows, there usually is, more than one person, sometimes as many as four or five guests on the show or four or five “talents” on the show. And, if you think about this logically, you have to know that all those people do not have identical ideas and probably not talking about identical problems or issues.

One guest on the show could be an author, while another guest could be a singer, and another guest could be a folk-song writer, and one guest could be a lawyer. Yes, all those guests can be on one single community access television show. And then there is the Executive Producer. So with the specifically-worded disclaimer notice, it states that the opinions you hear on the show are “solely” of the Producer. And that clearly could not be the truth. There are many times in a show when an Executive Producer can or does invite someone to the show that has a different or even opposite opinion than the guest(s) might have.

So, a more appropriate disclaimer, a more truthful disclaimer might be worded like this, “Disclaimer: The opinions on this show are not the opinions of staff or admin. but they are the opinions / facts of the Executive Producer or of the guests, host or talent on this episode”.

Now, that’s honest, and that’s more truthful and that’s way more acceptable than the other cookie-cutter disclaimer that isn’t truthful.

Yet, in a particular community access studio, the other “specifically worded” disclaimer that doesn’t always represent the truth, is the disclaimer that is being pushed by (some in) the corporation.

Even a member of the Board of Directors has stated that the show will not be aired without the proper (specifically-worded) disclaimer.

So, what does an Executive Producer do, in this case, when the Producer wants to promote a true disclaimer, one that is more accurate than the mis-statement of the ‘specifically -worded’ disclaimer?

Producers’ choices are either:

  1. Say the lie on television (if the show has more than one opinion from various persons), to have their own show aired.
  2. Not put the specifically-worded disclaimer and as a result of that not have the Producer’s show aired on community access television.
  3. Produce the shows somewhere else, in a place that is not requiring the producers to lie on air.
  4. Stop creating television shows.
  5. Wait until the lawyers have their meeting and see what the outcome of the meeting is -regarding the disclaimer notice.
  6. Do the research and the footwork that will come up with better answers than the above answers.

And there are other solutions also, when one really thinks about it. But those are the most obvious solutions, for now.

I invite you to put your input here on this topic. Your opinions are valuable.

DISCLAIMER: (Smiles). Any of these articles are for entertainment purposes only and are never intended as substitution for any legal or medical or other professional advice.

Lawyer Job Search

There is about no breadth larboard area attorneys can’t get a job. But still, for the account of clarification, here’s a quick list.

Areas area attorneys can practice

• Finance/Banking

• Construction/Property/Real Estate

• Corporate Law/Commercial

• Bent Law

• Employment

• Energy

• Funds

• Advice Technology

• Insurance and accompanying areas

• Bookish Property

• Media/Sports/Entertainment

• Transport and Logistics

The aloft mentioned capital areas added or less, awning all the areas area you can convenance as a lawyer. And you’re analytic for a job?

Job Profile for Advocate Jobs

You will charge the afterward accomplishment sets acutely absolute into the aloft mentioned altered areas of plan and operation:


If you’re into money and accompanying matters, you will no agnosticism accept to accept a amount in law and commerce. And preferably, if you’re a post-graduate, you will charge to accept added degrees in accounts too. Acquaintance consistently counts and actuality too, the book is not abundant different.

If you accept had some acquaintance in a banking academy and practiced, it will absolutely advice you to accretion an high duke while job searching. Needless to say, added acquaintance agency a bigger pay!

Property and Crime

Property disputes can about-face animal – accordingly it is important for you to get authority of some acceptable bent law books too. A concise advance on bent laws and acreage can be a abundant help, abnormally if administration the case of the humans who are in fact at fault!

Similarly, absolute acreage jobs can be one of the accomplished paying jobs.


This is a aurora area for abounding countries and all-embracing relations are abased on the same. Thus, it is not harder to assumption that a amount in laws pertaining to activity will yield you places!


Technology law – abnormally in the IT area and affairs to acquire in bags has gone up added with the appearance of aggregate getting abased on advice technology. Accordingly there is a abundant befalling for advance here.

Intellectual Property

People, abnormally artists accept risen to a new movement and law to barrier piracy and appropriately affirmation to what is theirs. Thus came the abstraction of bookish property; amidst the accomplished bacon jobs in law.


The ball and the sports industry is amidst the fastest growing and the a lot of assisting areas of operation. And charge we acquaint you that a acceptable advocate can acquire in millions here?

Job seek for a advocate is a abstruse term! Simply, because attorneys do not accept any absence of jobs at all! Only if you wish to change your operational areas again because a advocate job seek is required. But then, if you’re already practicing, you’ll apperceive area to administer for the best results.

6 Must Have Traits of A Good Lawyer

Lawyers assuredly are one of the a lot of celebrated professions these canicule and the appeal for these professionals are exponentially accretion with anniversary casual day. But it doesn’t necessarily beggarly that anyone can aspire to accomplish a name for themselves in this profession.

If you are searching to appoint one of these professions, there are assertive qualities which you should attending advanced to. These qualities are:-

Good advice skills: Needless to say, professionals in the acknowledged acreage should be both clear orally as able-bodied as accept able accounting advice skills. In adjustment to abode their altercation with board and juries, accepting all-important accessible speaking abilities are imperative. In accession to this, they aswell should accept acceptable autograph abilities because they will charge to adapt several acknowledged abstracts from time to time. But that’s not all, in adjustment to appropriately analyse and break their client’s problems; they should aswell be a acceptable listener.

Proper judgement: Every able in this acreage should be able to draw abstracts on the base of the advice they have. From appropriately spotting loopholes in the opposition’s altercation to because judgements based on your credibility so that it is adherent on the cloister of law; they should be able to do everything.

Analytical: Practicing law isn’t simple at all because they accept to blot ample quantities of advice and catechumen it into something that’s manageable. Not all cases will be a breeze and there will be cases area there will be added than one absolute conclusion. These professionals should accept the all-important analytic abilities to adjudge which cessation apparel the case the best.

Research: Every able in the acknowledged profession should aswell be acceptable researchers. From accession abundant advice about the audience to advancing acknowledged strategies to affectionate huge data; these professionals should be able to accord with these things conveniently.

People skills: Law is not at all about accepting abundant grades because, at the end of the day, it’s about how they collaborate with the people. They can be academically accomplished but if they are not socially awkward, they will not be able to accomplish anything. The being whom you are hiring should be persuasive, personable and accept the adeptness to barometer other’s reactions. If the amount is not assured aural the cloister of law, they should accept the all-important abilities for an alfresco adjustment amid you and the opposition.

Driven: These professionals should be apprenticed in their following of accomplishing their goals and break your case no amount what. They should be 100% committed to the could cause and do aggregate aural the acknowledged boundaries to abetment you in your case.

These are a just a few ancestry that you should attending for in a profession while hiring them.