Ray9
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2016
- 2,707
- 4,489
- 1,970
- Banned
- #1
This is truly a bizarre election. One on side we have the first woman candidate which is a big deal but she is so tainted with political corruption that she has more in common with Ma Barker than Margaret Thatcher. On the other side we have a womanizing television reality star with an ego so much bigger than his brain that it sometimes gets to his mouth first. These are the choices folks, pick your poison. Of course we can always stay home or go for one of those bargain basement candidates as a protest but that goes against conventional wisdom that says we’ll never get what we want if we don’t vote. The feeling here is that we’re going to get what we deserve either way.
We’ve just gone through eight years of a president who struggles to speak in complete sentences without a teleprompter so the two candidates we are faced with now are no real departure from the confused period our country and the world appear to be in. The choices on the surface appear to be just plain evil against just plain stupid. It’s a little more complex than that and explaining anything complex to the American voter is a tall order but you have to put it out there in the simplest terms possible and hope for the best while expecting the worst.
No doubt there are millions of Americans who have a timid, sheepish dependency on the status quo and the fear of change is like a yoke around their necks. They will almost automatically accept the worst to avoid a change because a change involves risk. This election is being written on the technological tablets of the information age and the histories of both candidates are like acts in a play that has a moral lesson. Never in the tenure of the United States has there more information available to more people in the political process that elects our leaders.
But unfortunately copious information is effectively useless if it is not intelligently absorbed and understood. A similar development was witnessed decades ago during the OJ Simpson trial where jurors were so overwhelmed by what was essentially over-complicated junk evidence that they defaulted to the easiest finding because they were too afraid to acknowledge what was right in front of them. They were “played” by the “experts” they relied on. They like many contemporary voters had become so bewildered by propagandized data that they ignored their own experiences and common sense allowing their independent observations to be swept away by irrelevant intimidation.
The moral lesson here is that we are in a state of affairs where the contenders represent “might makes right” against “playing by the rules”. What makes this state of affairs so dangerous is that the American press has largely abandoned objectivity and is effectively acting as an attorney for the status quo. This is where information becomes hugely important because it is how that information is presented that could be the deciding factor.
One side has succeeded in infiltrating, politicizing and compromising the IRS, the DOJ and the FBI, agencies built on trust. Once trust in these organizations has been eroded, cooperation will cease in ways that no one can forecast or predict. The reasoning will be why should average people cooperate with these agencies if a politician can escape justice by using them to get elected?
The other side has risen to prominence on the wings of a candidate who uses populist hyperbole because the party he represents abandoned the voters and caved to the other side to keep themselves safe and secure in their insular ivory towers. The press has mostly succeeded in precluding the ability of many voters to see past the hyperbolic tendencies of one candidate to convince less than careful citizens that the danger of saying something is more harmful than the documented damage of actually doing something by the other candidate.
Change is never easy. If voters are content with no job security, no pensions, no affordable health insurance, onerous education expenses, violent crime and volatile cities then no change is necessary. If they want change they’re going to have to take a chance
We’ve just gone through eight years of a president who struggles to speak in complete sentences without a teleprompter so the two candidates we are faced with now are no real departure from the confused period our country and the world appear to be in. The choices on the surface appear to be just plain evil against just plain stupid. It’s a little more complex than that and explaining anything complex to the American voter is a tall order but you have to put it out there in the simplest terms possible and hope for the best while expecting the worst.
No doubt there are millions of Americans who have a timid, sheepish dependency on the status quo and the fear of change is like a yoke around their necks. They will almost automatically accept the worst to avoid a change because a change involves risk. This election is being written on the technological tablets of the information age and the histories of both candidates are like acts in a play that has a moral lesson. Never in the tenure of the United States has there more information available to more people in the political process that elects our leaders.
But unfortunately copious information is effectively useless if it is not intelligently absorbed and understood. A similar development was witnessed decades ago during the OJ Simpson trial where jurors were so overwhelmed by what was essentially over-complicated junk evidence that they defaulted to the easiest finding because they were too afraid to acknowledge what was right in front of them. They were “played” by the “experts” they relied on. They like many contemporary voters had become so bewildered by propagandized data that they ignored their own experiences and common sense allowing their independent observations to be swept away by irrelevant intimidation.
The moral lesson here is that we are in a state of affairs where the contenders represent “might makes right” against “playing by the rules”. What makes this state of affairs so dangerous is that the American press has largely abandoned objectivity and is effectively acting as an attorney for the status quo. This is where information becomes hugely important because it is how that information is presented that could be the deciding factor.
One side has succeeded in infiltrating, politicizing and compromising the IRS, the DOJ and the FBI, agencies built on trust. Once trust in these organizations has been eroded, cooperation will cease in ways that no one can forecast or predict. The reasoning will be why should average people cooperate with these agencies if a politician can escape justice by using them to get elected?
The other side has risen to prominence on the wings of a candidate who uses populist hyperbole because the party he represents abandoned the voters and caved to the other side to keep themselves safe and secure in their insular ivory towers. The press has mostly succeeded in precluding the ability of many voters to see past the hyperbolic tendencies of one candidate to convince less than careful citizens that the danger of saying something is more harmful than the documented damage of actually doing something by the other candidate.
Change is never easy. If voters are content with no job security, no pensions, no affordable health insurance, onerous education expenses, violent crime and volatile cities then no change is necessary. If they want change they’re going to have to take a chance
Last edited:
