please remember that even though these are not the same people, one party was ELECTED to REPRESENT the other.
I suppose you mean that there is some actual difference between the political parties, besides their names.
Let me rephrase: You go to a restaurant, where they tell you that they have two dishes to serve you and they ask you to choose which one you would like to be served. What if neither of those two choices you have been given is what you really want? Will you force yourself to order something you do not really want to eat? Or you will you tell them, "Thank you, some other time perhaps" and go to another restaurant that might have the dish you would like to have? After all, you will pay for it --either you liked it or not...
Well, it is the same in politics: You are expected to vote for one of the parties that have been
pre-selected for you to choose from. Whichever your choice will be, THEY win; because they give you ONLY the choices that serve their interests. They will never risk letting someone they do not control get elected.
Citing myself:
[...]
Speaking of politicians, they are nothing else that theatrical actors! Theatrical actors of the worst kind, I might add, because people are unable to realise that what the politicians really are is company agents, in reality: They are payed to get elected in order to modify every country's legislation framework in favor of those who pay them; in favor of those who they really work for; in favor of those who actually pull the strings, safely hidden in anonymity.
I am sorry, but this is the ugly truth... To prove my assertion I will refer you to our recent municipal elections, where an incompatible person (Spiros Hatzaras) was simply deprived from his right to be elected, since he was becoming popular due to his stance against the banking cartel. They could not risk to have real opposition (someone they do not control) in power...
[...]
Emphasis in bold is mine.
Do you want more proofs that ALL the parties serve the same master (which is anyone BUT the people)? Just tell me please if you can see any difference during their duty in office AND in the aftermath of any of those six(!) prime ministers we had after 1974 (Karamanlis, Papandreou, Mitsotakis, Papandreou, Simitis, Karamanlis Jr., Papandreou Jr.):
Chart of the Greek National Debt from 1970 to 2010.
Please, note that the period 1998-2004 is not depicted accurately: The debt was NOT reduced. This is the outcome of the "creative accounting" trick our PM Simitis pulled with the help of Goldman Sachs, to make Greece deceptively meet the requirements to join Eurozone. And, ten years later, we are called to redeem this
Odious Debt (please, search the latter
term; it is more that just a smart choice of words: it is an international term).
Well it is obvious that ALL of them had
instructions from above (from those that authorised them to be able to be elected) to skyrocket our national debt. And they managed to do it successfully.
"
You can have any leader you want, as long as he is approved (from us)."
That is exactly their game: They will make sure that whoever gets elected will serve their interests instead of the interests of the people.
And, please, do not get me started again on the
euphemistical "Democracies" because I have done my homework.
Have you?
By the way, Vertigo, please excuse my boiling blood; I was not meant to be personal or direct on you. I am just frustrated by the easiness most people will swallow whatever they will be served by the authoritative so-called "news."
Does "
Divide and Conquer" ring any bells?
-George
[EDIT]: Please, excuse me for the multiple editing of my messages; I believe that it is obvious that English is not my native language...