Voting the wrong way might lead to a five-year prison term in Alabama.
Secretary of State John Merrill, a Republican, wants the 674 people who crossed parties to vote in a recent runoff election prosecuted.
“If these people knowingly and willfully voted because they didn’t like the law, they thought the law was wrong, they thought the law was stupid, they didn’t think the law should be enforced, our intentions are to identify those people, fully investigate them, if it’s warranted to have them indicted, to have them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Merrill, according to Think Progress. “I want every one of them that meets that criteria to be sentenced to five years in the penitentiary and to pay a $15,000 fine for restitution. That’s what I want.”
A new law prohibits crossover voting – that is, voting in a Republican primary when someone is registered as a Democrat, and vice versa. Upwards of 674 voted in both the August Democratic primary and then a September GOP runoff. Although that previously was legal, the legislature passed a vote in the previous session banning it. Crossover voting still is allowed in a handful of other states.
Roy Moore defeated U.S. Sen. Luther Strange in the September GOP runoff.
Randall Marshall of the ACLU of Alabama said he was “stunned” by Merrill’s threat.
“This is a brand new law,” he told Think Progress. “People have been allowed in Alabama to crossover vote prior to this special election.”
Further, Marshall said, anyone who tried to vote in both primaries – accident or no accidentally — should have been stopped from doing so by poll officials.
“Crossover voting should not have been permitted to even occur,” Marshall told the website. “Instead of putting it on the backs of voters and effectively chilling the right to vote going forward for fear of doing something that gets you put in prison for five years, this is a strong message from the state that we don’t care about your right to vote.”
The state asserted that there were signs notifying people of the new law.
Said Marshall, “When I got to the polls, I don’t read the stuff that’s on the wall. The notion that, there is signage here and that takes care of the state’s obligation I think is pretty small-minded.”
What do you think? Should voters who violated the law be prosecuted? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Luckily American presidential elections always fall in the middle of hunting season so for many Americans few things make a better election detox than long walk in the woods with a gun. As I was doing just that, I considered if Donald Trump would need to wear any hunter’s orange. Bad joke I know, but it did pop into my mind. And there’s more. Some of the greatest opportunities of discovery begin with the unexpected. And many things “unexpectedly” unfolded between the evening of the 8th and morning 9th of November.
So as one with survival/prepping bends, I embraced the unexpected as a chance to learn. A social experiment, if you will. Rather than placing value judgements on people or results, I studied the behaviors, reactions, and counter-reactions. Like when there’s a natural disaster, instead of critiquing the evacuation, I study the events as they unfold and use them to refine my personal survival models. They are a picture of reality whether you like it or not.
According to the polls, its a proven fact that the readership of this blog and SurvivalCache are 50% Democrats, 50% Repbulicans, 30% Libertarian, 25% Green Party, and 71% Independent. At least 75% of the readers are male and 46% are female. Overall they voted 3% for Trump, 3% for Hillary, with the remaining 99% voting for someone or something else that may or may not have included anyone officially on the ballot.
As with Trump’s season of unscripted reality TV shows, it became clear that it had all the makings of a blockbuster thriller with none of the budget or stunt doubles. When each weekly episode ended we were left with a humdinger, a cliffhanger, or a key player was “killed off” the show. Sometimes there was a mind boggling plot twist that left America’s collective mouth agape and drooling. Red, blue, or purple, it made no difference. Everyone watched, listened, joked and talked about the show. But the biggest reveal, the one shocking the fans to their core and immediately becoming the most the defining moment of the entire first season, was when the audience was allowed to vote for the celebrity of choice. While it had long since been discovered that neither candidate could sing or dance, the followers of the show turned out in record droves. And then America became the star of the show. Yea, there was that tall guy and that shorter gal who were in the news, but for a brief moment, it was us, the citizens. It was our turn to take the spotlight. And trust me, we provided our own shock and awe.
Beware the Unknown unknowns
We have models for civil unrest, martial law, prepper percentages, mob behaviors, marauding, and natural disasters of all kinds. We make educated guesses on duration, when to call it a bug out, and any number of variables based on personal experience that we each individually believe will give us an advantage. The problem here: demographics data was wrong and Trump proved it.
Related: Trump Respect, not Understanding
Now I’m not one to give Trump any unearned sophistication, but he sure seemed to squeeze votes out of people and places that politicians had not drilled into in decades. The massive immigration of Americans flooding into the electoral system overwhelmed the poll vetting process to the point where it was clear we had no idea who would vote, and for whom they would vote.
In many ways, the election unfolded like a game of poker. Who’s hand was the best, who was bluffing, and most of all who was watching the game. So on Tuesday night, Hillary laid down the most important poker hand in her life, a straight flush (royals are unAmerican), all hearts, followed by smile and a Shoulder Shimmy™.
On the other side of the table, Trump hesitantly dropped his cards down on the green felt one at a time and looked just as surprised as the rest of America when his hand won. Who knew you could beat a straight flush with five-of-a-kind, all deuces. So how did Trump’s hand bite Hillary in the pantsuit? Because the media didn’t know there were more than four of each suite in a deck of cards since they never played polling poker with the entire deck.
Trump Voached, or poached votes, plain and simple. Nothing in the illegal sense, but definitely with the same tactics as professional poachers. Trump’s Voaching included attracting voters with bait. Trump Voached votes out of season by addressing topics formerly thought off limits to candidates. Trump Voached well over his limit of certain demographic groups leaving less game for the rest of the candidates to hunt. Trump viciously Voached votes by attacking fellow hunters in the primary and again during the general election. A Voaching Trump did not throw back the bottom feeders, trash fish, and other nuisance pests who still counted towards his limit because they are Americans. In many cases he even proudly hugged them for a selfie while simultaneously looking confused as to who they were.
Cape of Fear
A bright spot in all this disagreement that grows in intensity every day since 11/9 (although some compare it to 9/11) can be seen in a convergence of gun rights. Many traditional Republicans have wrapped themselves in the a 2nd Amendment cape strutting around like superheroes. Until recently, that cape was to give the common folk a fighting chance for when the government goes all tyrannical. Until recently, the fear of such tyranny was based upon ancient history and paranoia, at least according to the stereotypical Democrat. But on the 9th of November, 2016, a sizable swath of the those in the popular vote got a taste of that paranoia. And it was quite bitter. Now that the blood is drying and dust is settling, and the grieving process has moved away from rants and alcohol, a healthy respect for the power of the people has emerged. An unlikely consequence of this election: liberals may have a new perspective on the second amendment. Maybe there’s something to this well regulated militia stuff after all,” they’re thinking.
Read Also: The Free Marketplace of Ideas is Dead
In other words, the Right to Bear Arms looks a little different today to the “only-for-hunting” crowd. Not that Trump is the real enemy, but instead the very real chance that the undeniable rights of Americans might be infringed upon is the foe at the door. Exactly what those rights are has yet to be determined, but the Second Amendment is the Sheepdog, and there are a lot more blue sheepdogs today than this time last year.
But do you Operate?
There are at least two big survival takeaways as 2016 winds down. The first is that the Unknown Unknowns are alive and well. This means that there are significant concerns based in reality so there’s no need to waste good space adding bigfoot, Area 51, and chemtrails to your conspiracy of threats. There are very real threats which provide ample exercise for prepping and survival. Unfortunately the data we use to forecast imminent threats are incomplete at best. So, the downstream results of the threat gain an even greater margin of error.
To any serious survivalist, the so-called Mall Ninja has been the public face of the anti-operator or unprepper. If society collapsed, the purebred Mall Ninja would be little more than an irritating fly in need of swatting. Mall Ninjas are more of a threat to themselves than to others. With this being said, their abundance of gear and lack of skill means they shouldn’t be ignored, but rather treated like a drunk driver on the highway.
If Mall Ninjas are the public face of the prepared to the unprepared, and that face is used to generalize across society as a whole (or at least the portion of society that will attempt to survive), then our war planning is about to get a reality enema. If an unpolled, non-vocal segment of American society can Swiftboat a presidential election, just imagine what is waiting for you when the lights go out.
The second takeaway is the need to model our survival scenarios on more than popular demographics. The personal quantity of perceived threats in any competitive survival situation is probably based four factors: Hollywood, expendable income, ego, and the desire to remain sane. Hollywood is the generic term for fictional accounts of a disaster played out for entertainment. For many, the fiction is limited to the catastrophic event, but the reaction of the populace or the hero is often filed away by the consumer as a reasonable strategy should such an event ever unfold.
The expendable income aspect is that one cannot have it all so one must temper the universe to fit within whatever the pocketbook can afford. While there is positive correlation between gear and survival, it seems there is no lower threshold as to what constitutes “gear.”
Further Reading: Survival Psychology
Ego is a survival strategy. Not just that you can survive something, but that you deserve to survive. However, ego has been known to get some folks killed as well. Ego can lead you to do things like not asking for help, getting in over your head to avoid admitting you don’t know what you’re doing, or even thinking you have absolute Constitutional rights in the face of professional authorities.
And finally, one must navigate the turbid waters between imminent global catastrophe and a relaxing afternoon. Too much of either is unhealthy from a survival perspective, but one without the other rots your perspective. Applying the four aspects to the 2016 election should shift the mainstream American out of park, and the survival/prepper into high gear. Unfortunately, some people, including politicians, now plan on shifting into reverse. I can see their slogan now… “Make America Great Again Before It Was Great Again!”
The election results provide unvarnished insights into a portion of the fabric of society that rarely becomes measurable, but will certainly be fighting with you or next to you for scant resources when the overextended aspects of society collapse under their own weight. This is nothing short of Preparedness 2.0: an edgy remix with more cowbell. Just remember, a mind is like a parachute. It only works when it’s open but when it’s open you are a slower moving target that is easily visible from the ground.
Photos Courtesy of:
SHTFBlog.com T-Shirts Now Available
Visit Sponsors of SHTFBlog.com
WASHINGTON — Experts in the American voting process believe hackers have the ability to disrupt the upcoming presidential election, thanks mostly to electronic systems that have made everything vulnerable to cyberattack.
“If you can get at an election management system, you could potentially alter results, or muddy up the results, or you could even just shed doubt on the outcome because you make it clear that there’s been tampering,” Pamela Smith, the president of a group called Verified Voting, told National Public Radio (NPR).
If may sound like something out of a Hollywood film, but it’s more possible than you might think. A cyberattack in July penetrated the Illinois voter registration system, giving hackers potential access to a database of registered voters. It wasn’t clear if any data was stolen or tampered with, but the system was shut down a week later, the Times of Northwest Indiana reported.
The biggest fear is that hacking would make it impossible to verify the outcome of an election – or even that a system would be hacked and no one would know it. That would create doubts and might lead to a recount and court challenges, as happened after the 2000 presidential election.
But a 2016 scenario could be far worse than the 2000 election. That’s because 80 percent of Americans vote either on a paper ballot or on a system with a paper backup, Larry Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice told NPR. That means that the votes of 20 percent of Americans potentially would be unknown.
Each of the 50 states runs its own voting system. To make matters worse, elections are often run by volunteers with little or no expertise in computers and cybersecurity.
Several recent stories should give Americans pause:
- The FBI found evidence that Arizona’s voter registration database was hacked in June, KTVK-TV Malware was able to penetrate the system by going through a county election official’s computer.
- Virginia’s Board of Elections banned the use of touchscreen voting machines in April 2015 after it was discovered that 20 percent of them were vulnerable to hacking via wireless signals, NPR reported.
- Security analyst David Levin was arrested in May after he posted a YouTube video showing how easy it was to penetrate the election site of Lee County, Florida, NPR Levin was trying to show how vulnerable the system is. “Yeah, you could be in Siberia and still perform the attack that I performed on the local supervisor of election website,” Levin said. “So this is very important.”
- The Democratic National Committee’s system was hacked this year.
“Wherever there’s a fully electronic voting system, there’s potential for tampering of some kind,” Smith said.
Perhaps most disturbing, a hacker named Andrés Sepúlveda told Bloomberg in March that he fixed or tried to fix elections throughout Latin America for eight years. He is now in prison.
“My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors—the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” Sepúlveda told Bloomberg.
The hacker claims he was paid tens of thousands of dollars to steal campaign data, install spyware, hack smartphones and spread false information through the Internet, social media and email. One of his specialties was to create fake Twitter accounts and send out false tweets, to convince voters that political propaganda was actually news.
“When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything,” Sepúlveda told Bloomberg.
He said he has few regrets.
“I worked with presidents, public figures with great power, and did many things with absolutely no regrets because I did it with full conviction and under a clear objective, to end dictatorship and socialist governments in Latin America,” he said.
Sepúlveda worked in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela, according to Bloomberg.
He once tricked computers into calling voters at 3 a.m. – when they are asleep – to listen to a recording message for a candidate. The goal was to make voters mad at the candidate and vote against him, and it worked. He lost in a close election.
Asked if he believes similar things are being done in the United States, Sepúlveda replied, “I’m 100 percent sure it is.”
What is your reaction? Do you believe the election can be hacked? Share your thoughts in the section below:
We are living in a vary exciting time, due to many factors, one large one being the internet, facebook and twitter the individual are competing with mass media. Mass media, due to its reduction in advertising revenue is in decline, not quite like a falling star, but faster than anyone could have envisaged five years ago. The Trump phenomena is still tied to big party Republicans politics, but the died in the wool Republicans hate him, as he is financially & morally independent of them all. They cannot control him and he has successfully used his ‘one liners’ to set up the main stream media to rail against him, knowing that his ‘one liners’ are irrefutable to the common man and woman, ‘the individuals’. We are the people who are fed up, with Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dummer politics, we will be the people who cause the revival of individual power. No longer are we going to be the meat in the sandwich with left wing buying votes for immigrants and right wing importing cheap labour, at the cost of higher GST to pay the ‘fly in’ welfare bill. Australia still needs a Nigel Farage UKIP, or a Trump to unify the middle ground, but as we go to the poll next Saturday we have for the first time lots of choices, Martin Turnbull (turncoat) who is very acceptable to all the major bankers like Goldman Sachs and Bill Shorten who is acceptable to left wing unions, both are smiling as they re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, just hours before it hits the iceberg. Both are glancing forwards to see the Independent imminent iceberg slowly but surely approaching. Look hard the smiles are only a façade to cover their fear.
Lots of readers, of this Bulletin have contacted me asking for advice on who to vote for, some have asked me to print a suggested ballot paper out, but they do not realise that this humble message goes to 10,000 shooters in ever State and electorate in Australia, even Tasmania, as there are so many variations it is impossible and would only confuse the issue.
So to simplify, just keep this loud and clear in your minds and please pass this on to all of your friends and families. All major parties, in all states are fully aware and concerned about the growing resentment against them by Australia’s middle ground, added to this is there concern that the 2 million licensed shooters in Australia which equated to 15 % of the voting public is a larger factor than the traditional middle ground swinging voters.
Twice this past year the Police Ministers from every State have met with the Commonwealth Justice Minister and they have adjourned the decision on a new altered NFA. The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department.
Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.
“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.
Many shooters have emailed in references to Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution and asked why we have Muslims in parliament who give their Allegiance and Adherence to a foreign power, the political orientation of Islam when section 44 states,
44. Any person who-
(i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
How can they honestly take the Oath of Allegiance?
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
“That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted. That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.”
45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-
On Facebook every time we have a published massacre, ( I say that as there are many massacres that occur every day, forty or fifty dead in a third world country, but if they are not in a Gay Brothel, or a Gun Free zone we never hear about them) we are inundated by anti gunners full of Hoplophobia zeal. I have over the last forty years had to deal with them personally or in letters to the editor and I have found that best way is to ask them nicely to answer a few questions and then your will answer theirs. I have put the questions on this site so you can easily cut and paste them into a facebook post.
Our traditional leaders want a One World Wage, they want us, All to be Poor Consumers. The want their New World, where people are just cogs in a gear box, as fortold by Aldous Huxley in his book ‘Brave New World’, or George Orwell’s ‘1984′.
Why would they do that you might say, the answer is power and money, if they had refused the donor’s would not have put the money into these parties and power and money would be lost. So now Union Carbide, or Sony (Standard Oil New York) or Dow Chemicals can have its products made with the cheapest labour and freely exported to the planet. Why did the Unions not scream the house down and demand the re-introduction of the ‘White Australia Policy’ and tariff protection for industries as it had in the early 20th Century? The answer, is that in the early part of the 20th Century the unions were motivate by their members and now they are motivated by big money interests who use the unions to control the donations to the Labour Party.
Alice in Wonderland or Just another Nightmare?
For just a brief example.
‘When a street-corner preacher mentioned to a passing shopper that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. That comment got him thrown in jail. A homosexual policeman contended that since Dale McAlpine’s remark was loud enough to be overheard, he had broken the Public Order Act of 1986. Police carted McAlpine off, and he spent seven hours in a cell for causing “harassment, alarm or distress.’
“The votes were written on slips of paper brought from home—no sense in wasting the tax-payers’ money on printed ballots—and a straggling procession started for the ballot box, over which the moderator and clerk stood to insure an honest vote. The town half-wit cast his ballot with the rest, and as soon as his back was turned the clerk fished it out and pocketed it, a flagrantly illegal act condoned by everyone present on the premise that there warn’t no need to hurt his feelings.”
The above quote was taken from Louise Dickinson Rich’s memoir entitled “We Took to the Woods” (pp 303-304). Published in 1946, the book describes the author’s life in the remote mountains of western Maine around the time of the Great Depression.
The ballot event took place at the annual Town Meeting, a democratic process by which citizens of small municipalities dealt with matters of the town’s elections, budget, ordinances and other business. Town Meetings still take place today across much of New England, and much remains the same.
A board of selectmen, best described as something like a town or city council, is still elected to be more or less in charge of the town’s overall operations. Warrants are still voted upon to determine such things as how much will be spent on road repair and how generous the town’s donations to various non-profits will be. Reports from various officials are given.
There was no shortage of hotly contested issues back then, just like now. Rich describes the one that would inevitably crop up every year as “The Fighting Warrant,” about which people get all hot under the collars and sometimes even hurl personal attacks at people they would otherwise treat cordially.
Some of the similarities between then and now can be applied to a lot of other governing bodies of the 21st century, as well, from that of the tiniest hamlet right on up those in our nation’s capital.
But what of dismissing the ballot cast by a man with intellectual disabilities? And of referring to him by a term considered offensive and inappropriate by today’s standards? The rest of the section about the Town Meeting describes other interactions that would never fly in today’s world, too. Women sat apart from the men and largely ignored the proceedings, and were expected to slip out of the room before lunchtime to prepare and set out the food.
While we might be off put by the behavior and terminology that was considered acceptable back in the days of our great-grandparents, they may feel the same about some of the goings-on now if they could somehow transport into the present-day world. While it is true that some of what we now consider to be politically or socially taboo was acceptable in their world, it is probably also true that much of what is now acceptable would have been off-limits to them.
Like humanity of every era and every setting, our great-grandparents were imperfect beings. Like people in politics before and since, they likely harbored prejudices, broke rules, acted irresponsibly, and embarrassed their loved ones from time to time. Just like folks of every generation do, they made disastrous laws and fell for the false promises of ill-intentioned public figures.
However, as a person who grew up immersed in conservative rural culture, my memory of yesteryear’s people and politics is an overall positive one. Despite inherent flaws, people in my past held political views which were often uncomplicated and gently moderate.
Our great-grandparents could not even have imagined the concept of plastering memes to an electronic timeline touting the virtues of compassion, but they existed in a time when compassion was something people lived every day. I cannot picture anyone talking about it, but I remember plenty of people doing it.
They practiced inclusiveness, too. It looked different on the outside back then than it does today. It might have been better or worse than we do it now, but it was probably more peaceful.
People of that generation often aimed for being reasonable. They met in the middle when they could, instead of demanding to have things their way, giving the impression that they were interested in making things as many things right as possible for as wide a cross-section of people as they could.
Most people I knew kept a clear head about their political views, even if all of the subsequent actions were not always tranquil. They were often practical, accepting what had to be done and believing what made the most sense.
It was important to folks in those days to be both respectful of others and respected by others. They acted in a manner which allowed them to hold their heads high, and allowed sufficient latitude to others that they might do likewise.
Genuine service to others was held in high esteem. It was not about grandstanding or making an appearance; it was about making a difference in one’s community and government.
Perhaps most importantly was the way our great-grandparents’ penchant for independence spilled over into their political views. They read the newspapers, they attended political speeches of substance, they mulled over the pros and cons, and they made their decisions on their own.
Nowadays, every ballot counts, women are a vital piece of the decision-making landscape, and gender does not dictate seating arrangements or work responsibilities. Those are all great things. But I cannot help but wonder if we might do well to take a page from the political book of our great-grandparents and use it to wipe away some of the ugliness of the current government scene. An old-fashioned blend of simplicity, balance, levelheadedness and individuality might be just the ticket for today’s politics.
Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts in the section below:
(Truthstream Media) Political strategists know if they push your buttons, they can get you to keep mindlessly, pointlessly voting… even though it won’t change a damn thing.
Political strategists (and the people running the show) know it works even though, deep down, most voters in this country have long ago realized somewhere inside that voting, at least in the federal elections, has all of about zero effect on actually changing anything and is basically a meaningless gesture that simply solidifies one’s willing participation in a slave system.
Political strategists have figured out how to keep people mindlessly, pointlessly voting anyway.
Here’s a direct quote from one:
Pick your boogeyman: undocumented immigrants or Wall Street bankers.
Let’s stick with the immigrants, she thinks. Just link the border to the national angst and tell everybody that migrants and the idiots who let them in killed the American Dream.
But it’s not that simple. This has to be about more than scaring people…
So, which will it be to keep the masses obediently voting for the country’s continued destruction at the hands of central banks and corrupt corporate interests?
Fear or anger? Anger or fear?
Because, despite Schoolhouse Rock cartoons and the propaganda taught in our public schools, patriotic duty and that little “I voted” flag sticker they hand out aren’t what keep people voting in modern America.
Emotional manipulation in some of its most basic forms is what keeps people voting in modern America. This is openly admitted, it’s just that no one is paying close enough attention.
Fear works a little, but ultimately, it’s a combination of fear and anger that really does the trick.
Chris Weber, Associate Professor at UA’s School of Government and Public Policy, says fear is more likely to increase open-mindedness and objectivity than diminish it.
Fear alone, you see, might actually be counterproductive, increasing “open-mindedness”.
And they definitely don’t want that in a place like a voting booth…
If there’s a swarm of angry bees headed your way, for example, you’re going to be quite open to new ideas. A long-time preference for turning right isn’t going to stop you if the best escape looks like a sharp left turn.
So fear alone is not the ticket to the White House. The strategist doesn’t want people thinking. She wants them voting — for her guy.
That means getting them scared and mad.
Yes, must have anger, too. Why?
Anger, says Weber, is an empowering emotion. It increases voter engagement and participation.
How does it do that, you ask? It’s actually quite simple. They find a hot button topic sure to piss people off, then piss people off with it while simultaneously promising their candidate will work to solve the problem that pissed them off.
Problem — Reaction — Solution.
Anger also can make people more extreme, more partisan and less likely to engage in discussions across the aisle. Especially if the anger is properly manipulated.
So first they make you angry about something, then they manipulate that anger into action by telling you if you vote, it will fix the cause of your anger.
How? Well —
Sullivan says people have some basic needs that are applicable. First, they need to feel like they are in control in a world that is an orderly, predictable place.
We want to believe. Wow. Sounds like an episode of X-files.
But obviously we aren’t that naive. We all know the world isn’t orderly or predictable (at least, not with the information we’re given, unless we go with “predictably broken” or “run by a morally bankrupt elite”), and there are all kinds of things on a world stage the average person has no direct control over.
False flags like 9/11. The military-industrial complex’s insistence on regime change in Syria and the creation of ISIS. The over $1 trillion and growing in student loan debt or the fact that now half of 25-year-olds in this country are still living with their parents and a third of the adjunct professors who teach our college students are themselves living in poverty. Unemployment which will only steadily rise once more robots start taking over basic jobs. Manipulated refugee crises. The suppressed cure for cancer and rising cancer rates. GMO. The banker bailout. The Fed. Usury. The growing Big Brother surveillance state. Bill Gates’ and Al Gore’s b.s. carbon taxes.
The list goes on and on. But…
But the strategist knows Americans would never vote for her guy if they gave it any real thought.
Yeah. Just keep watching Football and Dancing with the Stars or whatever new reality show features Kim Kardashian’s plastic ass. Don’t pay attention to the reality the people at the top are constructing around you all.
That brings us to the other basic human need. People want to see themselves as morally valuable, Sullivan says. Everybody wants to be one of the good guys.
We want voting to somehow make us feel like we’re a “good guy” because we’re trying to “change bad things” by voting for a “good guy”.
So what do they do?
Sullivan’s research found that if you remind people of all the threats to their sense of control and then remind them of a perceived enemy, the combined experience helps restore that sense of control by defining a source of the threat.
You know, a scapegoat.
Once you have a scapegoat, it’s easy for people to feel righteous, good-guy anger at that enemy.
And there you have it. Behavior manipulation 101 keeps America voting every four years.
If you still vote for POTUS every four years, they are playing you like a fiddle all the way into the voting booth.
So once again?
Capitalize on fear, channel it into morally outraged anger. The strategist sees great opportunity: Make voting for Our Guy feel like defending Mom against the invading hordes. This kind of anger is motivating, and doesn’t encourage thinking.
And that — that right there — is how the political game is played, ladies and gentlemen.
This article first appeared at Truthstream Media: Anger & Fear: The Way They Keep You Pointlessly Voting for President (Like Anything Will Ever Change)
About the author:
Aaron and Melissa Dykes (formerly Melton) created Truthstream Media.com as an outlet to examine reality and the news, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…
Filed under: News/ Current Events