.

My second–and last–political post.

.

I’m voting for neither one.

.

For why, use the DOOR.

.

[MORE…(or Why?)]

.

   A further clarification: I’m not voting for Gary or What’s Her Name either. (I’m putting down these words on Oct.23, 2016, by the way.) I have serious questions about the top two candidates. If either appeared on my porch and I saw them through the peephole¹, the door would remain shut.

   But I am voting.

   First, I’ve watched hours and hours of news and political commentary on television. I’ve seen and heard all four debates, and hours of discussion that followed them. I’m almost embarrassed to say that. These comments concern what occurred after the Dems and the Repubs picked their candidates and the primaries were over.

   I’m voting not “for” but “against.” Against the one I’m convinced has worse set of baggage to run our country if elected. Why? Because a lot is at stake.

   As to the “news,” here’s my perception:

   Fox News²:  60% news details have favored the “Man³,” 40% leaned toward the “Woman.” Not quite “fair and balanced,” but pretty close, given the competition.

   ABC News and NBC news:  90% of what was covered favored the Woman, and 10% leaned toward the Man. Often key policy issues and “positive points” developed and offered by the Man were totally ignored as if they never occurred, or were considered very secondary compared to sensational personality attacks mainly against the Man, with hardly any about the Woman who was by no means guiltless.

   As to “commentary”:

   Commentary, of course, can be aimed wherever a commentator desires, but the best kind rests upon reliable facts and also recognizes and considers points of the “other side.”

   Fox commentary:  90% favored the Man, 10% leaned toward the Woman. Maybe the heavy bias for the Man was because that mainline television virtually ignored anything positive about his campaign except the size of his crowds. One could learn things about the Man on Fox that could be learned nowhere else–on TV. If you’re essentially a “news watcher” (which may not be the best way to go after what’s happening) and you never watch Fox, the Man is simply poison. End of discussion.

   ABC commentary and NBC commentary:  95% favored the Woman, 5% leaned toward the Man.

   When I first started watching, I knew something strange was going on when the Man mentioned that he could see “thousands of Muslims” outside his office window cheering after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. When this possibility was checked out, and nothing of the sort had happened, and the Man adamantly refused to admit his error, I caught–at least for me–the first incidence of lying, or to be kinder, extreme hyperbolic deception. I soon discovered this occurrence would be the modus operandi of much of the debate stuff that followed–for both candidates.

    Add to this the gross distortions of the television media, making minor things major (the Man would really disregard the Constitution and cause insurrection if he questioned the election results? Come on!) and ignoring major things: the skyrocketing national debt, cyber insecurity, impotence in facing ISIS, blatant misuse and destruction email with classified data, etc.

   I refuse to say I’m voting for the Man, but rather I’m voting against the Woman. (And that will probably brand me as a woman-hater–it’s sound bite size. One has to carefully choose language…)

   My sound bites for my checking the box beside the Man:

   • The risks of attempting real change are less than the risks of staying with the status quo.

   • The Man can do things, and so he has. The Woman can skillfully talk, and so she has. Quickly name one concrete thing she has done in the past 30 years. Can you?

   • Our national debt has doubled to 20 trillion dollars during Obama’s 8-year rule. If the Woman is elected, her rule will be essentially “same old, same old.” Can we afford this? It’s not right to pass this burden on to our children.

   • Election of the Woman will lead to an imperialistic, 9-person old-time royal dictatorship (the Supreme Court) that will suck away much of what’s left of our personal rights and will rewrite our “outdated” Constitution. And this royal band of dictators serves without term limits until death.

   • Taxes will skyrocket, even if a few of the pandering promises are fulfilled.

   As to the Man: He is a myopic, egocentric horse’s rear and when he opens his mouth he often brays. But in private he seems to gets along surprisingly well. He would have to have gotten along surprisingly well with many kinds of people, rich and poor, to accomplish what he’s done. I have no fear about his hand on the nuclear trigger. He’s too smart for a misstep here, but the rest of the world doesn’t know that. That’s to our advantage.

   Elect him now, and run him out of town the next time around if he screws up. Elect her and, I fear, you’ll lose your chance to make another serious change four years down the road. Too many, with an explosion of immigrants, will be on the take–more than Romney’s famous 47% that sank his ship.

____________________________________________________

   ¹ I don’t really–yet–have a peephole.

   ² I’m fascinated to find so many who hate Fox News, especially those who haven’t listened to it for 5 years, but have been told by their friends that it’s “bad.” Two of their three poll analysts have Democrat backgrounds and at least one says he supports the “Woman.” The most rigorous debates and arguments on TV appear on Fox. ABC, NBC, and the other mainline news organizations seem to be little more than “love fests” for the Woman, and are unbelievably selective about news they report and news they ignore.

   ³ I refuse to identify these candidates by name. My apologies to Gary who is an exception to this.