If you’re still here, with me, I hope there’s no need to remind you:
VOTE!
~*~
That’s what Woodpecker says!
Tag: Politics
THEY WANT YOUR MONEY, DUMMY
There’s a reason the Big Money’s paying for those nasty campaign attack ads – they’re expecting you to repay them through your taxes. Vote FOR the candidate they’re attacking. You’ll nip their greed in the butt.
DIGGING INTO THE REAL DIRT
Woodpecker’s finding worms everywhere under the bark.
Every time Republicans accuse Hillary, the old bird’s find much juicier stuff lingering on the Republican tree.
She’s Little League by comparison. In that way, she hardly measures up to the rot.
Still makes one wonder about the partisan obsession and the witch hunts, all the same. Or Newt Gingrich’s hypocritical envy.
TALLY THE BODIES, NOT THE NOISE, IN THE END
Contrary to right-wing proclamations, today’s Silent Majority runs independent, in the middle, far to left of the GOP. The rabid right wing, in fact, is anything but silent. Just listen to AM radio, if you must, or the Fox News propaganda machine.
No wonder they decry independent survey results that fail to support their fantasies, even while they continue to bray loudly.
(Remember, Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote for president. The Electoral College, however, is the one that counts.)
I remain concerned that in focusing so much on the surveys, the mass media introduced one more variable to the equation. In a multi-party race, if you’re assuming one candidate will win, is there a chance that entice casting a “conscience” vote elsewhere? And if so, how many would it take to sway the actual outcome?
Or, might it even have an impact if you’re assuming one candidate will lose, and if so, might enough “conscience” votes seal the deal?
In other words, it’s a case where the experiment itself might alter the results. I’d love to hear of cases in the physical sciences where this has happened. Meanwhile, back to the social sciences, I’ve long wondered about this, but the current situation magnifies the impact – and potential devastation.
OH MY HEAD, TOO! OUCH!
Let’s just say looking at current political campaigning, Woodpecker has a headache.
How about you?
TAKE IT BACK … TAKE IT ALL BACK
We want our money back.
From the super-rich and their lackeys.
IS THERE A REAL CONSERVATIVE IN THE HOUSE?
When I first started working at what was widely labeled an archconservative newspaper, a reality hit me: I was the most conservative person in the newsroom. Not in what’s considered political conservatism today, but as someone who values and preserves a stream of the Old Ways. For me that’s meant radical Christianity of a Quaker-Mennonite-Dunker vein and practice, frugality and simplicity, acting respectfully and with manners, upholding honesty and learning, an appreciation of high culture, a distrust of the military-industrial-financial complex, a preference for small-is-beautiful economics, environmental and ecological sustainability …
So what do we call those who have purloined the conservative label, at least since the days of Barry Goldwater? The gas-guzzling, loud-mouthed and obnoxious know-nothings? The ones, especially, who act and sound like anarchists or Huns?
CROSSING OVER INTO MADNESS
Facts? What facts? Let’s play pretend.
That’s what we’re getting from Trump’s lie-riddled ranting.
There are serious consequences, of course, when reality hits. Just look at that matter of icebergs and the Titanic.
Or another addled ship captain obsessed with a white whale.
When reality hits, the results can be costly and fatal.
Sanity would side with caution, history, and empirical knowledge.
Trump’s real motto? Let’s sink the ship.
Has anyone checked the lifeboats? Or how far we’ve headed from land?
MOMENT OF TRUTH AND DELIGHT
So there we were, in the kitchen, kissing. My hands wandered and I said, “Gee, I feel just like Donald Trump.”
She laughed before saying, “It doesn’t count if you’re married.”
I didn’t have to add, “It’s so much better.”
SAP BIG MONEY IN THE BUD
There’s one way to stop those nasty campaign attack ads. Vote FOR the candidate they’re attacking. Remember, there’s a reason the Big Money’s paying for the commercials – and they’re expecting you to repay them. Nip their greed in the bud.
~*~
The operative word here, by the way, is nasty. Watch for smear labels that tell you nothing in factual detail.
And be aware, a candidate intent on attacking the rival without upholding his or her own record and thought-out position should be held in great suspicion.
We’re watching a race here in New Hampshire where one candidate is accusing her opponent of failing to achieve changes that she herself stands against. The implication, of course, is that the negative candidate sides with issues that she, in fact, would thwart. I prefer to play straight, rather than twisted like this. You can guess who I’m voting for.
Any examples along these lines in your own districts and states?
