Between now and the November election, the daily news cycle peppers us with breathless updates on “undecided” voters.
Anyone who claims to be undecided at this point is a liar. Whether people are willing to admit it, they vote based on what the outcome means to them financially. They’ll lie and say their vote is based on a candidate’s platform; i.e. the environment, education, health care, abortion rights, gun laws, or their fears for the circumstances of others.
Selflessness sounds great as a mission statement, even when it’s steeped in self-delusion. Survival is paramount for everyone, so in one’s heart of hearts, it all comes back to a personal financial outcome. “What will I get?”
People vote based on their potential tax rate, fears of reductions in medicare or medicaid, access to prescriptions, union benefits, an ability to work the tax code to their advantage, their 20-years-and-out pension plan, their social security draw, welfare, etc. It all comes down to “What will this candidate do to my revenue stream?” or “What can I get for free?”
Of course, nothing is really free. Each person’s “entitlement” is provided by all the other people generating tax revenues for the U.S. Treasury. Everyone, rich or poor or somewhere in between, uses the government as their sugar daddy to either get paid or dodge higher taxes.
And because we are a nosy people, our financially motivated vote is also lathered in what other people are getting or missing.
Each of us has beliefs about who needs help and who is just a lazy bum. These very personal determinations vary wildly among the population. But when it comes to identifying with a political message, no one is caught in the middle. Either you are a fan of government checks, or you think there are too many people riding on the hay wagon while others do the pulling.
Americans vote with this undercurrent gurgling in their brains: Who among fellow citizens, based on certain life conditions, should receive government money and for how long? People know how they generally feel about these questions right now and are spiritually aligned with whichever candidate best mirrors their sentiment.
Some live to hate the rich while others fight to join their ranks. Some think the rich don’t pay their fair share and that the government should redistribute their wealth among lesser earners. Some think the wealthy should be demonized for hoarding assets while others struggle in low paying jobs. Some have forgotten that a few of their friends went on to graduate school for advanced degrees in medicine, science, and law. Meanwhile they instead opted to drop out, work at menial labor, smoke weed, and/or withdraw from society’s duty roster of service. And now they demand “fairness” of asset distribution although they didn’t apply themselves academically like those higher paid people.
Life isn’t equal. Neither is motivation. America guarantees a “Pursuit of Happiness.” That “pursuit” word literally declares that action must be taken, that happiness is not granted without effort. True happiness is in the pursuit, regardless of outcome. Trying is living. Risk must be rewarded and rewards must not be rescinded. Otherwise, why take risks?
The latest poll has the presidential candidates deadlocked at 46.3% vs. 46.4% for a total of 92.7%.
The disingenuous 7.3% of willy nilly “undecideds” get more attention than a Kardashian on a team bus.
Either you’re a believer in “job creators” or you think Lebowski level lethargy is an acceptable contribution to society. Campaign activists will declare that you’re either a maker or a taker, a miser or a moocher, independent or dependent. Just stop it with the “undecided” lie. Your hands are either pulling the rope or upturned for help.
All that’s left to decide is whom to back in 2016. It could be a rocky financial ride getting there.
The universities of Louisville and Kentucky renew their annual football rivalry on September 2nd at Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium. These shots were from the early morning TV pep rally for WHAS-11’s Good Morning Kentuckiana show.
Yahoo! News’ Washington bureau chief David Chalian was fired yesterday after a hot-mic blunder during an online broadcast from the RNC in Tampa. Referring to the simultaneous occurence of the GOP convention and the hurricane floods in New Orleans, Chilian made an off-the-cuff remark, picked up by an open mic, saying that Mitt Romney and his wife Ann were “not concerned at all” and “happy to have a party with black people drowning.” Audio of the incident quickly made its way online, posted by media watchdog NewsBusters. Yahoo! released the statement: “David Chalian’s statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended.” Chalian issued the following apology: “I am profoundly sorry for making an inappropriate and thoughtless joke. I was commenting on the challenge of staging a convention during a hurricane and about campaign optics. I have apologized to the Romney campaign, and I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Gov. and Mrs. Romney. I also regret causing any distraction from the exceptional coverage of the Republican convention by Yahoo! News and ABC News.”
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, defends the scientific concepts of evolution. Heathen.