Get Out the Get Out the Vote

“Get Out the Vote.” Remember that? It came about a few election cycles ago. The idea was to get as many people to the polls as possible. Now, at first glance that seems a great idea. But when you give it a little more thought, like me, you discover it is not such a good idea. Especially when it comes to this current election.

I've joked that my Twitter feed seems to be all liberal and my Facebook feed seems to be all conservative. My social networking is a bit bipolar. And since I'm the same guy in both networks, the algorithms seem to be a bit . . . off.

Now, in both the emphasis is the same: you have to vote for one candidate to make sure the other candidate doesn't win. And if you are thinking of voting for a third-party candidate, you are guaranteeing the other candidate will win. In all cases, I see very little convincing for you to vote FOR a candidate, only AGAINST the other one. This tells me that people really don't like the candidate they are voting for, but the other candidate is so much worse and needs to be stopped.

As I've written previously, this is a job interview, and we are the potential employers. We are trying to find the best person for the job. When you hire someone, you not only look at their background and opinions, but you look to see what their job qualifications are. You don't have to go much further than the last three Presidential debates, to know that the emphasis of this particular job interview has very little to do with qualifications.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone only in order to vote against someone: DON'T VOTE!

If your intention is to blindly vote along party lines: DON'T VOTE!

“J.P., are you seriously telling us not to vote?” Yup. Absolutely. What's more dangerous than a wasted vote? A vote made in ignorance.

I don't care how many women Trump may have groped. I don't care how many emails Clinton may have deleted. I don't care if Johnson can't find Aleppo on a map. If you can't honestly say you are voting FOR someone because you AGREE with MOST (not necessarily ALL) of what they have stated their POLICIES are, DON'T VOTE!

Now, you'll notice I did not say to stay home. Go! Vote! There are usually local issues and candidates on the ballot, and those you need to vote for. Oh, and as in the above, if you can't honestly say you agree with most of what the candidate's policies are, you don't for them either.

Here is what I do: I read the ballot carefully. If I do not know enough to make an informed decision on an issue, I skip it. A non-vote is not counted as For OR Against. If I cannot say I agree with a candidate based on their policies, I skip them too. I do NOT vote along party lines (to be honest, I'm a registered Independent, so I don't HAVE a party line to vote for). And that includes those situations when there is only one candidate running for a position.

I hear that voting is one of the most important things an individual can do, outside of running for office. I say that is wrong. INFORMED voting is one of the most important things an individual can do. UNINFORMED voting is one of the most DANGEROUS things an individual can do.

So, get out and vote, or get out the get out the vote. This is too important for an emotional decision.

Our democracy depends on it.

©Emittravel 2016

Is the Game Rigged?

Donald Trump has been all over both (so called) main stream and social media shouting that the whole election process is rigged. You know Donald Trump: the guy who didn't pay taxes in about 18 years. Or did he?

Now that I have your attention, let's try to decipher both of those accusations.

First off, is the election rigged? I've written quite a few posts where I go into the election process ("Does the RNC WANT Me to Vote with the DNC?"; "I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?"; "What's a Reagan Conservative?"; "Independent Influence"; "Thank You Obama?"; "Stuff My Brain Says #77"; "A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice"; "Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9"; "Stuff My Brain Says #78"; "Repeat After Me"; "What Are You Afraid Of?"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10"; and "It Just Doesn't Matter!"), so you can take some time and read those. One aspect I haven't given time to is the “early voting" process. I mentioned previously that I didn't know much about it, but I've done a little digging since. And what I've found seems to support Donald's cries.

Several states have the option to vote early. Those votes are not counted UNTIL election day along with all of the other votes (not including Absentee Ballots). So, what's the point of early voting? Polls, my dear friends. Polls.

Once people have voted, whether via early voting or on election day, pollsters like to ask immediately to whom did a person vote. They are then able to report this information as “news". This is helpful in that people tend to vote for those whom they believe are going to win. If they hear that a certain candidate looks to be winning, they tend to vote for that person (so they can say they supported the winner). Or, if they were going to vote for another candidate, they don't vote at all ("What's the point?")

This is especially an issue on election day, as those in the Eastern Time zone tend to close their polls earlier than those in the Pacific Time zone. Reports of those results have the ability to have an effect on voting results in other states voting later. And the polls don't have to close to be impactful, as pollsters report on what the trends are based on those leaving the voting stations say they voted for.

(Personally, I believe that it should be illegal for any results reporting to take place until AFTER the last state has closed their polls. This would eliminate such voting influence on election day.)

Hillary Clinton has been pushing promoted tweets on Twitter encouraging people to vote early in states that can. The (so called) mainstream media report the polls of those individuals asked after voting early whom they voted for. Why is she pushing the early vote? Because a lot of the reporting says that she is the one winning in those states who vote early.

Now, as far as Donald Trump paying, or in this case not paying, taxes goes…

Donald Trump reported a very large loss about 18 years ago. According to tax LAW, that loss can be written off over subsequent years, especially if the loss amount is far greater than the amount paid in taxes in any given year. And since the U.S. government won't give a refund covering that loss (the government hates having to return any of OUR money), the loss is divided over the number of years it takes in “paid" taxes to cover the loss. More like credit than "cash back".

Hillary Clinton used the legal polling system to show herself the winningest candidate that you should vote for, and Donald Trump used the legal tax code to not pay taxes. Both functioned within the law.

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the (so called) mainstream media who uses polls as news, and be mad at those very leaders in our government who WROTE the tax laws that people can use to not pay taxes.

Is the game rigged? That depends on your perspective. Are you playing the game?

©Emittravel 2016

It Just Doesn't Matter!

Every time a politician calls for voter IDs, screams erupt over the possibility of disenfranchising people from voting. “It's not fair!” “Poor people won't be able to vote!” “Keeps blacks from the polls!” “Dead people won't be able to vote!”

(Oops. Sorry. That last one was from the DNC.)

Anywho. Having to prove who you are in order to vote should not be something to be alarmed about. You need identification to get a library card for crying out loud. Try taking money out of your bank (from a real teller, not the ATM) without showing an ID. Can't do it.

Whether or not your representatives agree with voter IDs, you have to wonder where are their concerns when it comes to this:

Ever see one of those? I get these every election cycle. And it drives me almost as crazy as the AARP mailers! Want to know why these bother me? Because, unlike voter IDs, Absentee Ballots really DO disenfranchise voters.

The only votes that count are the ones placed at the polls on voting day. (Okay, I may not be 100% accurate about that, as I don't know how “early voting" actually works.) If you vote Absentee Ballot, you might as well have NOT voted.

Regardless of being a fan of the Electoral College or not, a single vote really won't sway the election. Now, getting out there and voting on local elections and issues DO and CAN sway, but not so much when it comes to the Presidential race. Yet, if you vote Absentee Ballot, realize your vote won't get counted at all.

And here's why: The only time Absentee Ballots are even counted are if the total number (100%) of ballots are considered going to the candidate with less votes, AND that number of ballots would change the outcome. If not, those ballots are not counted. Period.

Let's assume Candidate A has three million votes and Candidate B has two million five hundred thousand votes. For those of you keeping score, that's a difference of five hundred thousand votes. Now, in order for the Absentee Ballots to be counted, the total number of Absentee Ballots have to be more than five hundred thousand AND be considered 100% for Candidate B.

For starters, you KNOW the chances of the Absentee Ballots being 100% for Candidate B isn't going to happen. So, the number of them has to considerably larger than the count difference.

Back in the Bush / Gore Florida election fiasco, a number of Absentee Ballots were contested because they came without being postmarked, or postmarked AFTER the election. So, even IF the difference between candidates was small enough to count the Absentee Ballots, a number of them would STILL be disregarded! How many of those were “operator/equipment mismatch" (the person mailing the Absentee Ballot erred) and how many were U.S. Post Office incompetence (got through WITHOUT a postmark or with the wrong date) is unknown. Regardless, if it wasn't for the fact that the election was that close, those Absentee Ballots would not have even been considered.

So, the next time you hear someone get upset over something like having to have identification to vote, ask them if they vote Absentee Ballot. Then tell them this:

https://youtu.be/Ze-r1zJpiZU

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8

It's broke . . .

Every four years we go through the same thing: A bunch of rich people spend all kinds of money running advertisements, traveling all over the country giving speeches, and holding massive conventions, all to convince the populous that they are regular people like you and me, and to convince us to go into a small booth and choose them for President of the United States. And each election cycle the amount of money spent - nay WASTED - could be invested for far more beneficial ends; like, say, the very things they want to spend money on once in office.

I’m a Clevelander. I love this city. And not just because the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals this year (breaking a 52-year curse over the town) either. This year we are to hold the Republican National Convention in our town.

And it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

With all of the recent shootings by and of police in the last few weeks, one thing we in Cleveland don't need is a bunch of Trump hating protesters coming to town and possibly stirring up trouble. And why? Because the GOP chose to allow Donald Trump to run in the primaries as a Republican, and now regrets that they did it. They want a do over. They call "mulligan"!! And frankly, if something doesn't happen soon to correct the Good Ship "Grand Old Poopheads" they will be handing over the election to Hillary Clinton.

Though, from what I remember, Hillary Clinton may be the cheapest to elect anyway. After all, doesn't she already come with a bunch of (stolen) White House / Air Force One towels and cutlery?

I've been thinking of voting for a third-party candidate this cycle. Why? I can't stand either of these yutzes. I think these guys got it right: Everybody Sucks 2016.

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you will throw your vote away."

Or -

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you might as well vote for Clinton (or Trump), as you will give her (him) the election."

For one thing, you have to realize that your vote means squat. And if you vote absentee ballot, your vote means less than squat (as absentee ballots don't get counted anyway). As much as Americans want this to be American Idol (vote early; vote often), electing a President is not a popularity contest. Just ask Al Gore, who had more popular votes, but still lost to George Bush.

And for another thing, I am not only registered as Independent, I'm also independent of thought. I don't tow the party line. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat because my daddy was a Republican or Democrat and voted Republican or Democrat and so did his daddy and so did his daddy. There is more here at stake than the pride of whether or not your state is red or blue!

If you are reading this and are a U.S. citizen of voting age (and "hello" to all of you not from 'round these parts), you are also a tax payer. That means you pay the salaries of all of those yahoos in government. Which means, you are the President's EMPLOYER. He (or very possibly "she") works for YOU, not the other way around. Which means you are actually in the hiring position right now.

Let that sink in for a minute.

What do you do, as any good employer does, when needing to fill a position? You interview candidates for the position and look for the best.

So, as an employer, you find yourself with two individuals vying for the position that are morons. They are self-serving, rude, lying, and unscrupulous - you know, perfect politicians. So what do you do? Do you chose the lesser of two evils?

NO!

You look for other candidates. You tell both of those to hit the road and you keep looking.

Or, you look at third-party candidates.

So, my voting for a third-party candidate would not be a wasted vote. As a responsible "employer", I'm voting for the person I think is the best to do the job. If the rest don't, and my vote is over-ruled, so be it. At least my conscious is clear.

But to pull this into the title of this article: What we need to do is have all candidates submit a thesis of what they plan to do in office and why they think they are the best person for the job. And NO NAMES. That way all we voters have to work with is legitimate facts and no bullsh**.

Then maybe. Just maybe. We will stop this cycle.

And save a little of this wasted money while we're at it.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice

As a short addendum to my "Who Told You That?!?" post, I wanted to address another example in recent social media:

"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I want to be a part of history electing the first woman President."

Let me make this perfectly clear: IF you vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are sexist. IF you vote FOR Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are ALSO sexist.

So what's an open-minded, 21st century person to do? You are to vote based on criteria that directly pertains to the position. In other words, if you feel that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the JOB, that you agree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then vote for her. If you don't think she is the best person for the JOB, and you disagree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then DON'T vote for her.

You do NOT vote FOR or AGAINST Hillary Clinton based on whether or not she has ovaries. THAT is sexist.

And lest you think I'm only talking about Hillary Clinton, the same voting criteria pertains to whether or not you vote FOR or AGAINST Donald Trump, or any other candidate.

The President of the United States is considered the most important and powerful position in the entire world. Why in the hell is the election process treated like we're choosing the next American Idol?!? (Which, by the way, is the reason Donald Trump won the GOP primary: he treated it like a reality show, and he knew he could win a reality show. Shame on us!)

So which is it? Is the President 'The "Leader" of the Free World' or not? You need to choose the what.

And then you need to choose the whom.

©Emittravel 2016

. . . Or Press "3" for Annoying

This is sort of a sequel to the blog topic 'Press "2" for Polish' that I wrote about a year ago. The reason for it? Today, November 6, 2012, is election day here in the United States. Not only do we get to chose our next President (okay, THAT is another topic in itself - "Why You Don't Chose The President"), but we also get to vote for various elected officials, tax levies, etc. And that means voter ballots.

For me, the ballot was three long, double-sided pages. I got to read the item presented and then fill in the appropriate oval with a black pen, designating my choice/decision. The ballot was then fed into a double-sided scanner. And you know what? The ballot could have been half the size. Why? Because half of the ballot was in Spanish. Again, as I said in 'Press "2" for Polish', we are a largely Eastern European family here in my neighborhood. Though there are individuals where Spanish is the language of their roots, it doesn't seem to be prominent here.

Now, what follows may really annoy some of you. But as I state in my blog bio, get thicker skin. My intention is not to offend, but offences do come.

Up until several years ago, if you came to live in this country, and wanted to make something of yourself, you would learn the English language. For well over two hundred years, this has been the norm. People from all over the world, and backgrounds and cultures completely foreign to each other, came here, learned the English language, and made something of themselves. I admit, sometimes it was the second generation immigrant who really mastered the language, but not exclusively. When I was in the Navy, I would meet people in other countries who were so proud of their ability to speak English. And they WEREN'T living HERE!

So what happened? Why the shift to everything being in both English and Spanish? Sure, there are theories out there that sound "reasonable", but you know what? I'm thinking that the reason for the push for Spanish is that there is a belief by various individuals and groups in this country that Spanish-speaking people are too stupid to learn English, and therefore must have everything in their language. Understand, I don't personally think that is true. I'm thinking that learning English is easier today than ever - just look at all of the technological advances in education formats. But I can't help but believe that this MUST be a (viable) reason for the dual-language phenomenon over the last several years. And if I were you, I'd be VERY annoyed and insulted by that.

Of course, there IS the whole voter block thing . . . but that is for another blog topic . . .

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #26

If you vote for or against a candidate because of race, sex, or whatever, you have PROVEN that we have not progressed as a people. I just heard commentary where the Republicans are alienating the Hispanic base. You know what? I'd LOVE to hear a candidate say that they don't give a FLIP about race, sex, or whatever, and that we are ONE American family, and they want what is best for America. THAT candidate will get my attention.

If you voted AGAINST President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST. If you voted FOR President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST.

We will not have progressed as a people until we look past race, sex, or whatever, and have actually listened to what comes out of a person's mouth. In other words, and I'm dating myself here, the ideal candidate will be the Unknown Comic!

© Emittravel 2011

Press "2" for Polish

I voted today. Yup. Got the sticker and everything. But I walked away confused, because the ballot was in English and Spanish. Now, I have nothing against those who speak Spanish (lovely language), but I’m scratching my head over the ballot.

You see, I live in Seven Hills, OH – which is REALLY close to Parma. One of the benefits to living here is the food! Nothing like ordering a steak and getting a choice of potatoes, rice, or pierogies. That’s right: pierogies. There is a large Eastern European population in my area and the menus reflect it. Funny, the voting ballot – or Lowes for that matter – doesn’t reflect that. The local Lowes home improvement store has signs in both English and Spanish, but I’ve NEVER heard anyone speaking Spanish there. Polish, yes. But Spanish? Ninguno.

I don’t hear the Polish people complaining that they don’t have signs or ballots in their language. Why? Because they ALSO speak English. No disenfranchisement there!

So, would someone explain to me why we pay more to have things printed in two languages?

© Emittravel 2011

Stuff My Brain Says #20

How about a new amendment to the Constitution:

No one can campaign for public office prior to 30-days from an election.

This is a real winner for a number of reasons:

• No one remember sanything said the two-years prior to the actual vote.
• Think of all the money that could be saved and used for more valid purposes (insert silly ideas here).
• We won't have to listen to all of the mudslinging.
• No chance for flip-flopping on issues.
• More advertising space for Cialis commercials . . . er . . . maybe not . . .

I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons. Any suggestions?

© Emittravel 2011