So, there's "equal protection under the law" that suggests that you can't simply investigate people because something doesn't seem right. There really does need to be a reasonable articulable suspicion that a very specific crime is being committed to start an investigation into anyone, even "public servants".
And then, there's this thing known as a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" that suggests that just because you hold office doesn't mean the government can more scrutinize your life because you're simply one of all of us. I know this seems kinda off because you'd think that a "public servant" owes us a better look into their lives, but if we go down that road, what ends up happening is that the government uses these new powers to run fishing expeditions on candidates that THEY don't like, while turning a blind eye to the ones that they do like. I saw one meme that suggested Nancy Pelosi, for example, was corrupt because she makes $200k, has been a public servant her entire life, but is worth like $175 million. Of course, no mention that her husband is a multi-billionaire. I'm sure she's corrupt, but this salary vs. net worth thing is nonsense.
Giving government authority should be scrutinized as much as possible. It will NEVER be used to benefit the people if there is a way that government can use that authority to benefit themselves.
Public servants don't owe us anything because they get paid using tax dollars or government money. Or, at least, the only thing that they do owe us is the time and effort that they're getting paid for. You have a right to privacy whether or not you're a government employee or an elected official.
I would disagree with the last paragraph just because the niggerfaggots that choose to be the "public servants" running for office. If there was a random drawing for government positions, then fine, that would be different, but anyone choosing to go into the public sphere should expect exactly that - public 100% of the time. If not, stay out.
I think every tax dollar should be accounted for, including salaries of all government workers, and in an ideal world, these niggerfaggots would give 100% access to their finances voluntarily to show they are not corrupt.
But the real answer is filthy kikes bribe and extort the politicians to get (((their))) way and now everything turns secret, otherwise the kikes would be exposed too.
The biggest problem I have with the US congress is that they make laws that specifically exclude themselves from laws of all the commoners - like insider trading. Congress can insider trade every day of the week, yet the common plebs - even uncommon ones like Martha Stewart - get years in prison for the same thing.
Explain to me how that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when congress doesn't have to follow the law?
Again, you want "government accountability" but to get it, you'll give them total control over who's allowed into government. Unintended consequences that are easily predictable.
No. A public figure is not 100% public at all times. This is a ridiculous ask. People have a right to a private life, even public figures. A public employee earns a paycheck for doing a public job. He isn't getting paid to be your bitch ass slave or requiring him to give you access to his private life.
Yes. Every dollar that the government spends should be accountable. That's got nothing to do with making every recipient of every government dollar being made to account for their lives and how they spend the money that they were given. If government gives me $100 for a service I provide, they get no fucking say, oversight or input on how I spend that money, whether I'm a public figure or a contractor. Getting paid by the government doesn't make you property of the government.
"Voluntarily required". That's called double-speak. No one is required "to show that they aren't corrupt". That's fucking stupid and impossible to do. It's innocent until proven guilty, not required to prove you're innocent. And, prove it to who, exactly? As if people will ever agree on the what proves someone is NOT corrupt.
Yes. Policians are bribed and extorted, and there isn't a single law, requirement, mandate or demand that you can make to stop that. It's the same argument for gun laws. Criminals are going to break the law. That's what they do. They're Criminals. You think you're gonna make them be honest about breaking the law by passing laws requiring them to show you that they're breaking the law, or prove to you that they're not breaking the law? Not gonna happen the way you want it to. Not even possible. Those criminals will simply use those laws to keep good people out, cause no one is perfect and no sane person would submit to stupid shit like 100% 24-7 exposure of their entire life, just to do a public job.
If you don't like the laws Congress makes, DONT VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PASS THEM! This doesn't seem hard.
As for your interpretation of my use of the term "of the people, by the people, and for the people." You seem to want to suggest that because Congress is making laws and exempting themselves from those laws, that this means that they aren't acting "for the people" and therfore, we should disregard the ideal and make it so that since they are not "for the people" that they shouldn't be "of the people" or "by the people", either. Seems dumb, when the solution should simply be, get better people.
It's like saying "the government doesn't obey the constitution, so we should get rid of the constitution". No. You should get rid of the people in government that aren't obeying the constitution. In fact, if the people who don't obey the constitution think that you'll get rid of the constitution because they don't obey the constitution, they're less likely, not more, to obey the constitution.
You can't pass laws to make people obey other laws. Corruption is illegal. Bribery is illegal. Extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc, all illegal. There is no law that you can make to force people to not break these laws. There is no law that you can pass that will make people show you that they are breaking these laws, either. And, trying to pass laws to make people proven that they aren't breaking those laws are as nonsensical as proving a negative.
A lot of wind that can be easily deflated by this simple statement:
Anyone that has the power to kill me, needs to have extra accountability to ME.
Zogbots can kill people due to their (((legal))) excessive use of force ideas, and all politicians that can make laws that kill me fall into the exact same category.
Take away the politician's ability to kill me and they can do whatever they want. Oh, but wait, if the politicians can't use zogbots to kill anyone who doesn't want to voluntarily obey stupid laws, then the laws are of no use and the politicians have not teeth. See the difference?
"Get better people". LOL - like elections work and aren't in any way rigged.
The only way to get better people is to either a) force 100% accountability, like I am suggesting, or b) make all elected positions into a random drawing, like jury duty, for a set time. Then the filthy kikes can't get their talons into the lifetime politicians and get their way.
Anyone that has the power to kill me, needs to have extra accountability to ME.
I have the power to kill you and you don't even know my name, faggot.
"The government" has the power to kill you. That doesn't mean Sally Congresswoman owes you a fucking thing.
And, I love how you acknowledge the the government is broken as fuck, while demanding that they be given extraordinary power over who gets in and who doesn't.
You have the power to kill me and I have the exact same power to kill you - that is making you accountable and why so many people in gun country are alive. Try doing that to zogbots and let me know how that goes. LMAO. You are who is retarded.
And what exactly is "extraordinary" power? Having a group of DOGE people look at congress financials? How is that anything more than DOGE is doing right now for every government agency?
And Sally Congresswoman actually does. If she proposes a law that all Whites can be killed on sight, and the rest of congress approves it, let me know how that goes for you. I am safe across the waters, but keep deluding yourself.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 08:15:21 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 3 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 08:33:51 ago (+3/-0)
Without an audit, how would there ever be proof of corruption and bribes?
I would audit the average starbucks employee too if they had an annual salary of $40,000 and were a multi-millionaire.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 09:18:48 ago (+0/-2)*
And then, there's this thing known as a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" that suggests that just because you hold office doesn't mean the government can more scrutinize your life because you're simply one of all of us. I know this seems kinda off because you'd think that a "public servant" owes us a better look into their lives, but if we go down that road, what ends up happening is that the government uses these new powers to run fishing expeditions on candidates that THEY don't like, while turning a blind eye to the ones that they do like. I saw one meme that suggested Nancy Pelosi, for example, was corrupt because she makes $200k, has been a public servant her entire life, but is worth like $175 million. Of course, no mention that her husband is a multi-billionaire. I'm sure she's corrupt, but this salary vs. net worth thing is nonsense.
Giving government authority should be scrutinized as much as possible. It will NEVER be used to benefit the people if there is a way that government can use that authority to benefit themselves.
Public servants don't owe us anything because they get paid using tax dollars or government money. Or, at least, the only thing that they do owe us is the time and effort that they're getting paid for. You have a right to privacy whether or not you're a government employee or an elected official.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 09:50:58 ago (+2/-0)
I would disagree with the last paragraph just because the niggerfaggots that choose to be the "public servants" running for office. If there was a random drawing for government positions, then fine, that would be different, but anyone choosing to go into the public sphere should expect exactly that - public 100% of the time. If not, stay out.
I think every tax dollar should be accounted for, including salaries of all government workers, and in an ideal world, these niggerfaggots would give 100% access to their finances voluntarily to show they are not corrupt.
But the real answer is filthy kikes bribe and extort the politicians to get (((their))) way and now everything turns secret, otherwise the kikes would be exposed too.
The biggest problem I have with the US congress is that they make laws that specifically exclude themselves from laws of all the commoners - like insider trading. Congress can insider trade every day of the week, yet the common plebs - even uncommon ones like Martha Stewart - get years in prison for the same thing.
Explain to me how that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when congress doesn't have to follow the law?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 10:47:40 ago (+0/-1)
No. A public figure is not 100% public at all times. This is a ridiculous ask. People have a right to a private life, even public figures. A public employee earns a paycheck for doing a public job. He isn't getting paid to be your bitch ass slave or requiring him to give you access to his private life.
Yes. Every dollar that the government spends should be accountable. That's got nothing to do with making every recipient of every government dollar being made to account for their lives and how they spend the money that they were given. If government gives me $100 for a service I provide, they get no fucking say, oversight or input on how I spend that money, whether I'm a public figure or a contractor. Getting paid by the government doesn't make you property of the government.
"Voluntarily required". That's called double-speak. No one is required "to show that they aren't corrupt". That's fucking stupid and impossible to do. It's innocent until proven guilty, not required to prove you're innocent. And, prove it to who, exactly? As if people will ever agree on the what proves someone is NOT corrupt.
Yes. Policians are bribed and extorted, and there isn't a single law, requirement, mandate or demand that you can make to stop that. It's the same argument for gun laws. Criminals are going to break the law. That's what they do. They're Criminals. You think you're gonna make them be honest about breaking the law by passing laws requiring them to show you that they're breaking the law, or prove to you that they're not breaking the law? Not gonna happen the way you want it to. Not even possible. Those criminals will simply use those laws to keep good people out, cause no one is perfect and no sane person would submit to stupid shit like 100% 24-7 exposure of their entire life, just to do a public job.
If you don't like the laws Congress makes, DONT VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PASS THEM! This doesn't seem hard.
As for your interpretation of my use of the term "of the people, by the people, and for the people." You seem to want to suggest that because Congress is making laws and exempting themselves from those laws, that this means that they aren't acting "for the people" and therfore, we should disregard the ideal and make it so that since they are not "for the people" that they shouldn't be "of the people" or "by the people", either. Seems dumb, when the solution should simply be, get better people.
It's like saying "the government doesn't obey the constitution, so we should get rid of the constitution". No. You should get rid of the people in government that aren't obeying the constitution. In fact, if the people who don't obey the constitution think that you'll get rid of the constitution because they don't obey the constitution, they're less likely, not more, to obey the constitution.
You can't pass laws to make people obey other laws. Corruption is illegal. Bribery is illegal. Extortion, blackmail, fraud, etc, all illegal. There is no law that you can make to force people to not break these laws. There is no law that you can pass that will make people show you that they are breaking these laws, either. And, trying to pass laws to make people proven that they aren't breaking those laws are as nonsensical as proving a negative.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 11:08:17 ago (+2/-0)
Anyone that has the power to kill me, needs to have extra accountability to ME.
Zogbots can kill people due to their (((legal))) excessive use of force ideas, and all politicians that can make laws that kill me fall into the exact same category.
Take away the politician's ability to kill me and they can do whatever they want. Oh, but wait, if the politicians can't use zogbots to kill anyone who doesn't want to voluntarily obey stupid laws, then the laws are of no use and the politicians have not teeth. See the difference?
"Get better people". LOL - like elections work and aren't in any way rigged.
The only way to get better people is to either a) force 100% accountability, like I am suggesting, or b) make all elected positions into a random drawing, like jury duty, for a set time. Then the filthy kikes can't get their talons into the lifetime politicians and get their way.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 11:21:48 ago (+0/-1)
I have the power to kill you and you don't even know my name, faggot.
"The government" has the power to kill you. That doesn't mean Sally Congresswoman owes you a fucking thing.
And, I love how you acknowledge the the government is broken as fuck, while demanding that they be given extraordinary power over who gets in and who doesn't.
It's like you're fucking retarded.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 13:37:54 ago (+2/-0)
You have the power to kill me and I have the exact same power to kill you - that is making you accountable and why so many people in gun country are alive. Try doing that to zogbots and let me know how that goes. LMAO. You are who is retarded.
And what exactly is "extraordinary" power? Having a group of DOGE people look at congress financials? How is that anything more than DOGE is doing right now for every government agency?
And Sally Congresswoman actually does. If she proposes a law that all Whites can be killed on sight, and the rest of congress approves it, let me know how that goes for you. I am safe across the waters, but keep deluding yourself.
[ + ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey
[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey 0 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 05:33:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 0 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 08:04:51 ago (+0/-0)
You faggots gonna learn how reality works.
WWG1WGA Q!
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 09:44:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Peleg
[ - ] Peleg 1 point 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 14:34:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 09:42:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] oyy_veyy_goyy
[ - ] oyy_veyy_goyy 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 08:49:16 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Deplorablepoetry
[ - ] Deplorablepoetry 6 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 03:25:14 ago (+6/-0)
Embarrassment?
They feel no shame for their entitled embezzlement.
Destroy their political careers?
Again, not a big deal when you are set for life.
Arrest, prosecute, imprison the guilty?
Okay, sure, when pig’s fly.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 13:49:36 ago (+2/-0)
Even then you'll simply get a token sacrificial chicken or two.
The only way to fix this is with the ultimate authority.