When it comes to the democratian agenda, there is no input from the people that these people will stand, unless it happens to support their worldview.
The lie of this particular column is that, if the vote were meaningless, why would they be opposed to it?
In fact, an even better question is this: if the vote is meaningless, then why do they care at all?
Obviously, this vote does have meaning. If your vote didn't have meaning, these scum wouldn't even be talking about it. But in the end, the meaning here is clear: a vote against these issues, a vote opposed to their agenda, eliminates their ability to claim that the people have never come out against the way we're being screwed.
What's a politician to do? How can a politician whose people have voted against what he wants to do, actually go ahead and do it?
And what about the democratian's own so-called poll? What if the vote at the only poll that really matters comes out and crushes the view espoused by the democratian? What does that do to their credibility?
Look, we get it. This newspaper has never believed in the will of the people. In fact, this newspaper despises the will of the people when that will happen is to conflict with their agenda.
But to come up with bizarre terms like "hyperdemocracy" as if "hyperdemocracy" is somehow a bad thing?
Representative government is but a form of government, that has been delegated authority by the people. It's not a death warrant. We're not a slave to it, it is a slave to us. Article 1 section 1 of this state's Constitution even go so far as to say:
"all political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."Article 1 section 4 says:
"the right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."Frankly, it's a shame that our local daily newspaper happens to view the exercise of these rights, enumerated in our states constitution, as anything but democracy in action.
And taking it a step further, even if they were right, that this is some sort of "hyper democracy", that, in and of itself, does not mean, that we should vote no when in fact we are opposed to light rail in our community.
Ultimately, this editorial simply takes the democratian out of the closet, where the will of the people is but a meaningless obstacle to the implementation of their worldview as they see it. This is an attitude that would not of been out of place in the 3rd Reich, or in the greater Soviet Union.
It is an attitude, to our shame, that is what we are subjected to on a daily basis, by the local version Pravda Izvestia.
So instead of taking the C Tran board to task for their incompetent arrogance, they take the voters to task for having the temerity to exercise their right to express an opinion on a part of their agenda.
If you believe for one minute that this newspaper remotely thought that the people would support their agenda, well I've got a Mayor to sell you. Rest assured that if the newspaper believed this vote would come out in support of their position, they would not only not have written this editorial, they would encourage such a vote.
Is it any wonder they entered into bankruptcy under this kind of leadership?
(Transcribed by Dragon naturally speaking 12.5)