Somebody please explain this to me because I find this very confusing. The media constantly says, our leaders did this and that, or the leader of this country did this and that.
Then they say that our politicians are our representatives, and they represent the will of the people... Hmm?
Something is not right here in the logic of it. On one hand you have our leaders doing this and that (by their own will) and on the other hand you have our representatives representing our will.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the bullshit in this logic, everyone with a half brain should realize the absurdity. A leader cannot be a representative, that is illogical.
- If they are our leaders, then they act by their own will, like a tyrant that rules over us. The word
leaderis just an euphemism for the wordruler. - If they are our representatives, then they can't lead us, because they represent the will of the people. In fact they shouldn't even exist, because a direct democracy system would far better represent our collective will, than a few politicians (funded by special interest).
So they are definitely not our representatives, and they shouldn't be our rulers either.
I am just baffled that nobody realizes the logical contradiction in this, and the media substitutes the 2 words frequently without realizing how illogical it is.
Tell me what do your think about this in the comment section!
Image Credits: Rick Wilking / Reuters
