To summarize the big lie, our government is intentionally dysfunctional for the public because it is controlled by special interests.

 

From the right-wing to the left, the professionals rationalize for you that the lack of their legislative success is by rule and government design, not them. It’s not their fault. It’s not their special interests, or their employers, or their investments that are to blame for your stuggle. They say this is how the framers designed our system, for our own good.

 

Wrong! The design was for majority rule.

 

Turns out our democratic failure is a bipartisan conspiracy by special interests to prevent democratic reforms from being passed, for the public. The public loses even when the democrats win.

 

Fail by Misinterpretation

 

The filibuster equals minority rule. That’s what it is. It allows the few to overrule the many. The constitution mandates majority rule so the filibuster, as practiced, is unconstitutional.

 

That’s the big lie, or at least one of them. The government is an antidemocratic conspiracy preventing political solutions for the public by misinterpreting the law for special interests.

 

Those who say Trump won the election don’t care about democracy or the minimum wage, or the truth. They are a cult of self-serving bias. As far as I can tell their motive is supremacy with the freedom to exploit others. Of course they will claim victory and call fraud. Their blatant disregard for reality is a military tactic, imo, they are using against you, to disorient you from the truth, in their assault on our democracy.

 

What’s being called the big lie is itself a lie. They always lie so their claims of election fraud are just more lies on a long list of lies, that we all knew were lies and have since been proven to be lies.

 

Democracy and lying are ethically incompatible. So is voter suppression. The political opposition is openly legislating voter suppression and lying about their motives.

 

We need a secure citizens network to measure public consensus to tanscend this nonsense. Instead, the government has delegated censorship to the social media companies, who can now decide what is true, for the government, as well as filter what is false, from us.

 

Claims of election fraud are a perfect invitation to upgrade our democracy, technologically, for credibility and verifiability, as is necessary. But we won’t. The invitation will remain unopened while the democrats work overtime thanking each other for their efforts.

 

The video starts out with Maddow contradicting the constitution, followed by Joe Biden explaining the purpose of the Vice President is to serve the President. Which is also wrong. That might be how they do it in party town but the constitution says the Vice President is the president of the senate, which means the vp is the presiding officer of the senate, which means the vp controls the senate and the parliamentarian procedures, including debate, as well as the tie-breaking authority.

 

The intention of the constitution is to check the power of the president with separate and distinct interests as reflected by the distinct ballots cast by the state electors, for the vice-president, as is mandated in the constitution. I've noticed we don't do that.

 

It’s the partisan party paradigm that forces Joe to preach his submissive assistant theory. He argues that his logic is opposed to the unitary executive theory, while it actually supports exactly that, by relegating the vp to the executive, exclusively.

 

Intentionally or not, the law is misinterpreted to prevent popular legislation from being passed that would benefit the public. Everybody’s in on it, whether they know it or not, and whether they admit it or not, the results have been the same for decades. It's what we do.

 

The Public Loses

 

The republicans represent business. They rarely and barely pretend to represent the public. The democrats do, that’s the problem. They pretend that they represent the public, but they don’t.

 

The election fraud conspiracy theory that triggered the insurrection is being referred to by democrats as the big lie. Which it is, but there’s a lot of lying going on now days. What's true?

 

Our democracy is dysfunctional in many ways, but to believe that there was an organized conspiracy amongst the hyper-partisan states to miscount the votes for Joe, is a conspiracy too far. That’s Q-crazy. If that big lie was true, something or someone credible would come forward with evidence to expose it and prove an assertion of some kind that they could call true. But they don’t which is proof enough to say shut up and sit down. Call out their scam for what it is.

 

The Big Lie

Just a few months ago candidate Biden was insisting Court Packing was a question of distraction, preferring to focus on the negatives of his opponent rather than consider longshot solutions for the public. Now that the democrats control the entire government and political solutions for the public are actually possible, that question, like many others will be forgotten, by the democrats, or quickly defeated, as usual.

 

HR What?

 

Democratic failure is intentional. An example is the senate parliamentarian chosen to decide if the minimum wage can be included within a reconciliation bill. It’s a perfect example of the democrats intentionally sabotaging their own campaign promises in service to the establishment, the republicans, and themselves.

 

False promises are election fraud.

 

The decision to include a minimum wage hike in the Save our Ass Relief bill being delegated to a parliamentarian is a strategy to keep the stain of democratic betrayal off of the VP’s shiny new shoes.

 

Cue up the scapegoat.

 

As if the scapegoat is in charge. The VP should dictate to the senate democrats and threaten their dissent with political retaliation, like republicans do. But, no. They know their failure will be forgiven because their constituents have no where to go.

 

The result of the senate filibuster rule is another good example of legislative self-sabotage by democrats. The sixty vote threshold is a violation of the constitutionally-mandated majority vote. The deviation from that legal intention allows a minority to prevail against the majority, as a rule. It’s an absurdity being reported as normal, when it's not.

 

The constitution declares the president of the senate to be the tie-breaking vote. Any senate rule that deprives the vice president of that tie-breaking authority is a violation of the constitution. The intent is self-evident, even if the language isn’t explicit. The intention is.

 

The entire fiasco of the parliamentarian deciding anything is predicated on the senate rules that have deviated from majority vote, and from constitutional compliance.

 

The filibuster and the reconciliation process are both byproducts of allowing a senate rule that is unconstitutional.

 

If the senate respected the majority vote intent, the mutated filibuster theory and the need for a reconciliation process following the “Byrd Rules” would no longer even be relevant.

 

All of this procedural nonsense is based on ignoring the constitutional intention that law is made by majority vote. Imagine if the government started requiring more than majority votes to defeat incumbents in elections. It would be the same principle except with candidates instead of law. It’s outrageous, either way.

 

Violation of intention.

 

Why would you require more than a majority vote to pass a law? I’ll tell you why. It’s because those that write the law like things just the way they are, or serve people that do, so they “misinterpret” the law. And that is an antidemocratic conspiracy, whatever the motive.

 

The constitution supersedes codes and rules.

 

Again, there can only be a tie in the senate if the votes are 50 to 50. Every state has two senators so a tie is always possible. The idea the senate can set the count differently for certain votes, by rule, is a conspiracy of misinterpretation that violates the constitution and enables the twisted filibuster argument. In reality, the filibuster, as practiced, is an unconstitutional theory that changes the majority of 100 senators from 51 to 60, which aside from being indefensible, it removes the vice-presidents constitutional powers of tie-breaking.

 

Which is unconstitutional.

 

If they wanted, the senate could restore their rules to constitutional compliance by changing them back to the way they were, by removing the revisions to their previous rules, such as, restoring the move to previous question rule, which would allow senators to end debate with a simple majority, all valid filibusters aside. It’s the right thing to do. The democrats are a few votes shy of doing the right thing, as usual, so the faulty theory will likely be sustained.

 

The senators can’t declare their rules to supersede the constitution, or pretend they don’t when they do. Yet, that’s what they’re doing. They intentionally misinterpret their rules as compliant, when they’re not. Which is the same as violating them, for all practical purposes. The rule changes are unconstitutional and the reporters should be embarrassed to report otherwise. This intentionally dysfunctional and unconstitutional process should be ended.

 

And another thought about the minimum wage. Money is representation. Voting against the minimum wage is a vote against representation. It's a vote for increasing inequality. The minimum wage is another inadequate bandaid law that distracts from the fundamental democratic reforms that are necessary to remedy the root problems preventing a civilized economy and society, for everybody.

 

The government needs to step in and provide jobs to anybody who wants one and establish a minimum baseline of compensation and security for everybody, or the public will pay an eternal price for the dysfunctional byproducts of the conflict-based economy.

 

Economic security needs to be a human right.

 

The Health based-economy as could be legislated by a representative government would change our society for the better for everybody. It is what the public needs now and into the future to prevent the conflict and social chaos from getting worse.

 

I hope to get much deeper into all that, time allowing. To visualize the destination for alternative comparisons.

 

And a quick heads up to Lawrence for the narration and the expertise. Some topics can be difficult, like the filibuster. Even though I assume we disagree on some interpretations, his expertise has been appreciated, by me, for many years.

 

They would say they don't have the votes, but the democrats can fail because the public doesn’t have an adequate seat at the table to complain, except for the next election when they get to choose another big money campaign slogan.

 

Hope for Change