777Valerius

Why voting based on your feelings is undemocratic.

This video shows the "fbimaga" marching to the Capitol Building. It doesn't make sense, here's why...

This one is really short but important none the less. People use the argument that the separation of church and state means getting rid of anything religious. But this argument is erroneous. The separation of church and state simply mean that the church cannot tell the state how to act. Conversely, the state cannot tell the church how to act. Meaning, the Church cannot force the citizens of the United States to go to church every week or follow a religious structure of life. Likewise, the state cannot tell the church when or how to act. It does not mean that every political person must hide their religious point of view. It doesn’t even mean that politicians cannot act based o their religious beliefs. All it means is that neither the State nor a religious faction can dictate the other. So, lets say, I’m the president. I can publicly pray, I can celebrate Christmas, I can make judgments based on my beliefs. But I cannot force the people to do the same. The separation of church and state does not mean getting rid of religion. It simply means that the state cannot control religion and religion cannot control the state.

In this video I’m going to talk about the electoral college. I’m going to define democracy, republic and tell you why governments fail. I’m going to share why our Constitution is so important and why the Constitution helps our style of government last. I will also explain why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election according to the electoral college system. As I said, in this video I want to go over the Electoral College as I understand it personally. While admittedly, I am not an expert, I know enough to understand, as others will not, that the electoral college is important. I am making this the topic of this video because I think that too often people assume that because it’s this obscure thing in our voting system that it doesn’t matter. But it does matter. It matters a great deal. As I’ll explain later, the electoral college is kind of a catalyst of sorts for our union. It’s the voting glue that keeps this country of colonies together as one whole. It’s very important, it should not be tossed as some of our elected officials would like us to believe. Now I’m going to define some things. I’m going to define what a democracy is, what a republic is and what our Constitutional Democratic Republic means. Lets start by going over what everyone assumes. That the United States is a Democracy. According to Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language of 1785, Democracy is “One of the three forms of government; that in which the sovereign power is neither lodged in one man, nor in the nobles, but in the collective body of the people. The majority, having the whole power of the community, may employ all that power in making laws, and executing those laws…” In simple terms, the populous runs the country. The popular vote wins, all eligible voters of a society are counted equally, and you run your merry little country based on the popular vote of all voters. So, all people vote, the popular vote is in charge. If you are thinking to yourself that sounds like us, you’re only kind of right. We are not solely a democracy. Because Democracies alone, fail. As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Fortunately for us, our Founders were wise enough to examine history. They, like Plato and others, feared and discovered that Democracy alone will result in tyranny and subjugation. Meaning, that Democracy as a form of government will fail. Horribly. All forms of government are doomed to fail. I believe this to be because of humans. Human nature is like the Freudian infant ID. The ID, according to Freud is driven by the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification of all desires, wants, and needs. While it is the theory that individual humans grow to contain and restrain this, to me, it seems like human nature and the human race, as an enduring thing through time, never will contain or restrain their desires. This will result in humans ceaselessly destroying anything and everything because of their willful inability to control themselves. It's a dark thought to be sure. It means that governments fail because humans are a part of the equation. People are corruptible and will always work to benefit themselves above the whole. Humans will always put what they want above lasting goodness and success. For this reason, societies will crumble given time. This is why we are not a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Democratic Republic. The reason I mentioned that bleak opinion about failing societies was because I believe that that nightmare of failure had to have been in mind when the founders formed this nation. In order for them to build something unbreakable, they had to know what broke countries before. Democracies are easily broken. We, being a Constitutional Democratic Republic, have extra lines of defense against human nature. Our government was designed to withstand human corruption for as long as possible. So, let’s go over these pieces. I’ve already defined democracy. Now, I’m going to define what a republic is. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a republic as “a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them”. In simple terms, in a Republic, people are elected to represent citizens. So, you vote for people, those people represent you. They are beholden to you. They work for you as We the People. Now, throw a Constitution in there. The Constitutional bit simply means that those elected or otherwise employed, even to the highest of offices available, (Supreme Court, Presidency, Congress) are still below the Constitution. Meaning these offices, as with all offices, must adhere to the Constitution and must protect it. Officials, I don’t care who they are or what they say, Do NOT, nor will they ever, supersede or become more powerful than the Constitution. It CANNOT happen. Think about it, this document created these elected positions of power and gave those positions their duties AND their limitations. How much sense does it make that those positions would then be above that which gave them their power? How much sense does it make that that which gave them limitations, can be overridden? That’s like saying elected officials can be above the law if they choose to be. This is super important. Super important. And really should be stressed in everyday life. Having leaders answer to a document, written during the most central of times, rather than to their own selfish, erratic, and impulsive wills, was a brilliant idea. Why, because the Constitution was written during a time when men could still remember the feel of tyranny and the battlefield where they defeated it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were a flourishing dream hard won. During that time, nothing was more important than building this new dream country. Meaning that those intense feelings and dreams are enshrined forever in our Constitution. And because we can never supersede it, those feelings and dreams will always be the driving force of this nation. That’s why the Constitution is so important. And that is why we answer to it before we answer to ourselves. It may not be perfect, it may even be remiss, but it is still far better than us. The Constitution remembers what it felt like to suffer under tyranny. It remembers the blood spilt. But most importantly, the Constitution remembers what The United States was meant to be. Its not just some old dusty forgotten relic. It is law. And it is still, to this day, capable of leading us into the future. Now even though I got a bit carried away in the middle there, All of this is to say that because the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, the function of our voting system must operate in a specific way. Obviously. This is where the Electoral college comes in. Remember that the ultimate point of this video was to explain why the electoral college exists and why we should never get rid of it. And this is why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. The electoral voting system ensures that every part of this Union is counted and heard. Never forget that the United States is a union of colonies. And each of those colonies, or in this case, states, gets a vote. If we were simply a Democracy only the most populated states would matter when voting for anything. Why? Because they have the most people. But does having the most people in one area mean those people are a fair representation of the whole? No. It absolutely does not. Do you think that the voters who work on wall street will have the same concerns as voters who work on farms? Do, you think that one of those opinions supersedes the other? No. We are all important. We all contribute to what this country is and will be. We need everyone’s vote. Ok, that is why its important. Lets talk now about how it actually functions. In this section I’m going to transition into how the electoral voting system works and how Clinton lost. For this part, I’m going to use some numbers and facts. If you’re not down for that, just take a nap or something. Ok, how did Hillary Clinton win the popular vote, but lose the election. Clinton campaigned in the most populated states she assumed she could win and disregarded all others. While she got the most votes in general, she failed to get the most electoral votes. What is an electoral vote. In an extremely simplified way, an electoral vote is a representation vote of your area. Electoral votes are equivalent to the number of representatives in each state, and the number of representatives is based on the population of the state. Loosely, the more populated a state is, the more electoral votes they have to give away. Currently, there are a total of 583 electoral votes. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. This is where I’m going to get technical. Did you know that the top 10 most populated states account for over ½ of the US population. So, here’s a hypothetical. let’s say that you are running for president and you focused on, and won all the votes from the top ten most populated states. Those are CA (55), TX (38), FL (29), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), OH (18), GA (16), NC (15), and MI (16). Obviously, they would never all vote the same but go with me. The population of all those states together is 179,199,880 or 180 million. Again, this is over half of the us population. So, you campaign in all of these states, and every single person who can vote, votes for you. You win all of the electoral votes for these states. That means you wins 256 electoral votes. Remember, you need 270 votes to win. Thus, even winning all the votes from the top ten most populated states, the states with the most electoral votes to give, you have not made the threshold for winning the presidency. This is what happened to Hillary Clinton. Clinton, even winning the popular vote, did not win the necessary electoral votes. She lost the election, I believe, because she disregarded states that she did not value as important. The most important thing to keep in mind thus, if you plan to run for president, is not simply getting the most votes but rather getting the most votes from all 50 states. That was how the electoral college works. Now I’m going to tell you why it is necessary. As if that has not yet become obvious. The reason this is a necessary form of voting is because it makes sure all votes, from all states, are counted. Remember earlier when I said that wall street won’t vote the same way as farm country. They have different values and concerns. The electoral system hears them all. A candidate who ignores this system, ignores US citizens. They attach value to popularity and selfishness, and care little about each of us. Here in the US, it shouldn’t matter if you are the richest person on the planet or the poorest. We are all equal. We shouldn’t let presidential candidates choose who to represent based on anything so shallow and archaic. We don’t want candidates who only care about the popular. We need candidates who are looking to lift up the entire country as a whole. Every vote is necessary because every vote is a producing and valued piece of us. Everyone brings something to the table, so why would we want to elect a candidate who only focuses on their favorite people at that table? We are meant to be a joining of states. Each with a certain amount of necessary sovereignty. But no matter how big or how small, each state has a voice and a vote. We all get to decide how this country looks. No state is more or less important. But beyond this, the electoral system is a part of the Constitution. You CANNOT get rid of it. Our constitutional democratic republic was designed with democracy, geography, phycology, physics, mathematics, and theology in mind. And we want to screw with it because the willfully ignorant say it’s not fair? That’s ridiculous. So, a recap for those of you not paying attention. In this video I spoke about the electoral college and why we need it. We need it because it makes sure that each state, no matter how small is still heard when it comes time to vote. The electoral college is important because it protects the peoples votes from candidates that only care about the few. It holds us together. The electoral College assures a true vote. I defined democracy, and republic and told you why governments fail. They Fail, because humans are unstoppable in both intelligence and corruption. I told you why the Constitution is so important and why the Constitution helps our style of government last. The Constitution is important because it is law. It helps us last because it holds us to a standard that human nature can’t corrupt. I also explained why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election according to the electoral college system. She lost because she didn’t care about all the states, just the most popular ones. And while what she did was bad, she is still a necessary example. You guys, We need the electoral college, like we need every state in this country. Don’t get rid of it.

Recently Nancy Pelosi was asked in an interview if she had ever engaged in insider trading. This is my analysis of that video. I am looking to see if she is telling the truth. Video Notes: Video 1) Pelosi Audio and Video Dissection Recently the Pelosi’s made quite a bit of money in the stock market. Under normal circumstances this would be fine, however the issue that people are having is with how they made that money. The claim is Speaker Pelosi gave her husband insider information that led to their fortune. During an interview with Speaker Pelosi, the question was asked: Reporter: “Over the course of your career has your husband ever made a stock purchase or sale based on information he received from you?” Pelosi: No [loud breath out]. Absolutely not [pitch goes up on the word not]. Ok [pitch is several octaves higher than at the onset] Thank you [pitch remains high than lowers on the word you].” ---- Okay, for this video analysis I am going to use the SCAnS method. This is basically a way of cataloging information that you observe. It roughly works by analyzing what is referred to as channels and the PINs within each channel. Channels could be things like body language, voice, or face. Pins are subcategories of each channel. For example, PINs for voice are volume, tone and pitch. This is a technique I learned from the Emotional Intelligence Academy. Thank you E.I.A., while they gave me the tools and knowledge, it is important to note that this is my analysis and does not reflect the opinions or beliefs of E.I.A.. I am responsible for everything I say and analyses here. This analysis is my perception of Pelosi, and mine alone. Finally note, these observations are made from looking at one sample of data. They have potential for being wrong due to a lack of, inaccurate or misjudging the data available---- Analysis: Interactional style, what is it? It is how we communicate. The words we use, the sounds we make, the utterances, things like that. Interactional Style (PINs: Flow [the Disfluency, the whole thing seems uncomfortable and rushed. Avoiding Contractions, “absolutely not” rather than I didn’t] Evasiveness [avoiding direct denial personally, saying “absolutely not” rather than I didn’t] The next channel observed was the voice channel. Voice encompasses things like volume, pitch and tone. All of which I noted here. Voice ( PINs: Volume [drop when saying “no”. Could be because of a different PIN. It also sounds like the volume rather, the intensity at which she is pushing out sound from her chest increases when she says “thank you”, this could be because of an increase of a felt emotion. Like anger maybe] Pitch [there is a sudden raise when saying “Ok” and is still high when saying “thank you”] Tone [Pelosi’s “no” is very breathy, her “thank you” sounds pushed. The breathy “no” is interesting because it has no base. No confidence. If you are being accused of something that you are innocent of, especially if you are a leader of the USA being accused of something so serious, you’re not going to be pathetic and timid, you’ll be firm and confident. You’ll say, NO, I didn’t do that, instead of that weird half laughing avoidances, zero confidence thing she did] Now she could make the argument that it was so ridiculous that she found such a question light, easy and comedic even. But, I say it’s odd. The next area I want to analyze is her face. Face (PINs: Lips [tightly closes her lips after “absolutely not” and “OK”] Head [almost does a half circle when she says “no”. This is significant because it is a possible slip in behaviour. When you say yes, you nod, when you say no, you shake your head. So, what does a circle mean? I would say it kind of backs up what we observed in the voice section. There is little confidence in her “No”. Her body is, in essence, publicly disagreeing with her words.] Eyes [turn down, do not make contact, and stop blink rate. After the question is posed, she looks down, which is change in behaviour because she was making eye contact. She looks everywhere else and her blinking changes. Where she blinked a bit, she now doesn’t blink at all] Forehead [seems like there may be a crease to start, goes away when she says “no” and returns for the remainder of her time at the podium. With this one I would say a few things. First, the video is really grainy. It is hard to see. It may be nothing. But especially with facial expressions, I like to try and get the expression on my own face. Because, a little psychology trick, when you force a facial expression, your brain will remember the last time you felt that and bring up emotions that lead to the organic expression. Thus, when I put all the possible expressions of my own face to see what emotion makes that same crease on my forehead, I get possible fear.] Mouth [fully closes after “absolutely not” and “ok”. She starts with her mouth and jaw open, then closes teeth, then closes her lips. Think for yourself, when you remember doing this, maybe your husband or your wife, brother, sister, friend, boss, or someone said something stupid and you were just like mmmmm. You were stopping yourself from speaking. This is a thing. You close your moth when you don’t want to talk. You tighten it closed when you’re feeling that “don’t talk feeling” more intensely. My guess is that she doesn’t want to say something] Body (PINs: Possible Gestural Slip [when half circling the head at “no”. Again body saying what the mouth is not.] Proactive Tension [pushing the mic away after “absolutely not”. This is something you do as an offensive strategy. She is actively pushing away the object that projects her words.] Reactive Tension [she pushes away from the stand at “no”, steps away at “absolutely not”, and then walks away while pushing away the mic. Reactive tension is the opposite of proactive tension. Instead of trying to “fight” that which she wants to avoid, she “runs” from it. It is a defensive action. In this case she legitimately “runs” off the stage.] Eyes [Again turned down, blink rate changes. She avoided the questioner. ] Psychophysiology (PINs: Respiration [ Sudden exhale of breath when saying “no”. You always want to pay attention to breath rate. A sudden increase or decrease means something potentially. In this case the question made her lose her breath. Why?] Opinion: I thought that this was a really fun one to go over, which is why I did. It is a great example of how you can analyze behaviour scientifically. These are actually studied tactics and behaviours, so it goes beyond seeing the idea and thinking, “oh that was weird, but I don’t know why”. Hopefully, now you might have a bit more to tell you why. Note: I’m sure I missed some things, but I was not trying to get everything. If I had to make a decision, based off of that video, about Speaker Pelosi’s response, I would say she is being less than totally honest. I think she is probably lying. I observed several interesting points, across five of the six channels, in less than seven seconds. At the very least, I would say she needs to be questioned further in this area. -Have a good day.

Au 2022 The Whitehouse is redefining, as in re stating, recession. Why anyone would feel the need to do this, without the symptoms of a recession being present is beyond me. Why bring something up if it is not a problem. They just woke up one day and said, “I think it’s High time we redefined the word recession, for no reason at all”? No, there is a reason. The reason is it’s too close to, if not actually true. It’s like when vaccine companies said vaccines don’t cause Autism. Perhaps it was not developing the same way or use the same malignant mechanisms as the name brand disease, but if you have all of the symptoms, then what it is called is just a technically. What’s in a name and all that. So, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… It’s a recession. Guys, If you have to tell people that a recession is not happening because it does not fit the absolute technical definition of what a recession is, than you have already lost. Further, your redefining it tells us that enough people believe that they are in one, likely because they themselves feel it. But fine, White House if you want us to stop calling it that because it lacks minutia, fine. In which case I’d like you to explained why we just shut down the country for an inaccurately hyped Virus. Have a nice day.

This video just shows the danger with the thinking behind “believe woman”. I quickly take apart this MSNBC article to show one example of bias in the main stream media. I am taking apart this article specifically. That does not mean I am on the side of Depp or Heard. I hope to continue making videos that analyze possible biases from many different sources. If you would like me to analyze something, send me a link. It could be Left, Right, Democrat, Republican... I don't care. Bias lives everywhere. Video Notes Not edited (there will be errors) ------------------------------------------------------------- MSNBC Amber Heard and Jonny Depp article: “No Matter Who Wins the Jonny Depp-Amber Heard Trial, America Has Lost” by Liz Plank “The jury has the final say. But I’m less interested in whether amber heard is a liar, and more interested in why so many people are interested In the idea that she might be.” The piece starts by defending something it ultimately does not believe in upholding. For example, the judicial system has the knowledge, the facts and understanding the practice. to make the final judgment in this case, but this opinion does not care about that knowledge, the facts, the understanding, or the system. Instead, this article asks why the truth is important. Actually, they ask why simply desiring the truth is important. Well let’s look at other akin questions. Why should we ask ourselves, or God forbid, our fellow countryman, if someone tried to steal an election, or why someone might feel the need to overturn an election. Why question anything that happened on January 6th? Why look into rape allegations or assault charges? If the truth is less important that the loudest voice, than why do look into anything at all? This article kicks itself off by saying, I’m less interested in the truth and more interested in why people want the truth. Plank comes at this trial with an interestingly backwards and detrimentally insidious philosophy that goes beyond mere domestic dispute claims. The author is vilifying those who ask questions, who seek knowledge. Simply because the answer may be uncomfortable or unpopular. She is teaching people, students, inventors, investigators, etc. to stop progressing if it does not fit the current popular rather loudest opinion. Why is this dangerous. Because it teaches people that thinking is unimportant and even criminal. You may think that this is an overreaction. But imagine this philosophy gaining ground. Progress, ingenuity, invention, medical advancements, morality … would collapse. It’s already starting. You can see it around you today. Other countries passing us by because we are too afraid of what we might find. Because we are too afraid of what people may think. That is foolish and it will ruin this country. But let’s move on to the rest of the article, because we are only two sentences in. We are going to skip down passed the campaigning and get to the point of the article. The first bit is really just priming the reader to be on the side of Amber heard. It is a type of manipulation but its really the most important part of the article. So, we are going to skip it. “The trial …. … their humiliation” “supposedly progressive culture” stop there. What does she mean by this. I would define progressive using the 1780s definition, as one who is intellectually improved, who has advancement in knowledge, and continues to do so. So, by this definition, she is right we are definitely progressive. Knowing history, I don’t think you could argue that. Although she gives it the old college try here in a second. But before we get to that, I want to mention that I think her definition differs from my definition in my opinion. I think her operational definition of progressive is more closely related to loud opinion than advanced thinking. Meaning the loudest voice is the right voice. I think this because she mocks the US population for asking questions. To be fair, she does believe there is a reason for this, Ill explain why I think she does this in a minute. But she is mocking us for asking questions. But to me, here is where it gets tricky, how could one possibly advance, move forwards, seek enlightenment or progress, if they are not open? If they don’t ask questions or seek truth? It’s not probable. So why does she believe she is right to mock our tendency to question? She gets to that when she asks why “our seemingly progressive culture is suddenly obsessed with old school, misogynistic tropes about lying harlots”. There are a few things to unpack here. 1) The author is asking why we concerned about old school themes or instances of women who lie? What I assume this boils down to is her questioning, why is this trial so popular. And why are we using past, possibly unfair and sexist history or context to create our first judgments of this trial? In other words, the author assumes that we are letting a flawed past as sexist humans colour our intrinsic opinions today. Suggesting that the only reason one might question Amber Heard today, is not because they want the truth but rather because they are inherently biased towards woman. Now we get to it. The first thing to unpack, is that the author is saying people are inherently sexist against woman, and that is why they question Amber Heard. Not because any human being, male or female, could be a liar. Certainly not that. No the reason is, we are all sexist against woman at heart. 2) Having figured that out number one, and going further, it seems that this article is self-proclaiming bias to begin with because it assumes that Amber Heard isn’t lying. How does it assume that. The author says that today we are relying on” old school”, “misogynistic tropes” to make judgments. Meaning Plank believes that we are not using facts or anything provable to damn Amber Heard, we are simply saying “in our sexist history a trial like this would deem a woman a liar, so she must be wrong in today’s world”. But the fact that there is a trial at all and that it is so serious and controversial, already contradicts that opinion. Watching the trial shows that we are looking at evidence rather than past precedent. 3) This opinion goes against the very first sentiments of this article, that chide the media for prematurely making up their mind about the truth. Yet here she is, say that there is no good reason for this trial because Amber Heard is not lying. We’ve in essences been lead in a circle by the author. At the start of this article, the reader is in trouble for having already deemed Amber Heard a liar, all the while the author herself has deemed Amber Heard innocent. Now, unbiasedly, I agree that the media tends to create lynchers of us all. We, that are not a part of a publicized trail, don’t know the facts or evidence or truths or lies. Yet the media perpetuates and manipulates opinion like its their job. This is bad. It is a good idea for everyone to be mindful of themselves and their judgments as well as their possible biases. Lest we forget what could happen if we do not police ourselves. Just look at what happened to Jonny Depp’s career at the simple allegation. What the author does wrong in this article so far, is that she tells us we are wrong for something she does quite obviously in front of us. This piece has nothing to do with believing woman and everything to do with ignoring possibilities. Let’s move on. The next bit of the article brings in the dangers of overly apathetically popularizing a trial of this nature. Suggesting that is could damage further cases. It then gives evidence of how Heard the victim may be while casting a shadow on Depp. Go as far has profiling Depp’s body language to suggest “odd behavior”. “I’m less interested in whether Heard is a liar and more interested in why so many people are gleefully invested in the idea that she might be. Millions of people seem suddenly interested in domestic violence- but only because there is a chance that a scorned and vengeful woman might be lying about it”. Again, the author does not care about the truth but wants to know why people want the truth. Further still are more examples of the author assuming Heard’s innocence when she says there is some type of agenda to get back at woman who speak up, that lead to this trial and indeed this type of behaviour, being so popular. The article goes on to state the statistics of rape allegations, how often they are wrong, and how often men are innocent. I can only assume this is to manipulate the reader into using inductive reasoning to conclude Depp’s guilt. It further suggests the dangers of this case by suggesting that it could lead to victims not coming forward. The article then speaks about “mutual abuse” effectively deleting any culpability Amber Heard may have had. Suggesting that such a thing does not and not cannot exist. This just abandons possibility further. The article wraps by saying this trial will scare away victims form getting help or justice and states that America has lost. But what it fails to understand is it’s own biases. Which will indeed lead to our collective loss. This article is the paragon of dangerously flippant and transient thought. If we are to indeed simply believe woman, or anything for that matter, we have lost. We cannot allow ourselves to abandon reason for madness.

Declaration of Independence in Modern Day English Part 1

Declaration of Independence in Modern Day English Part 2