Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Apr 23, 10:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yesterday, for the first time, I heard “democracy” mentioned as an
issue in the democratic party’s rules. This was on CNN and concerned
whether or not super delegates should be allowed to have more votes
than delegates. There are precedents, like in the US Senate, for
breaking ties. By most accounts, the race between Clinton and Obama
is a dead heat. If a decision is to be made, someone must break… the
tie. But why is that necessary?

The above comment about super delegates was brought up by a likely
Obama supporter. As the present primary mess plays out—and the August
convention looms—those super delegates are in the position to make the
correct decision: Nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Understandably,
Obama supporters don’t want that to happen. Oh, it’s OK with them
that “democracy” has been raped by not counting the FL and MI votes
(yet?). But it isn’t OK with them to allow super delegates to break
the effective tie. In both cases the anti-democracy DNC rules apply.
Because Obama will likely loose after the super delegates have their
say, his supporters don’t like “that” rule… But the former rule is
quite OK, to “punish” the innocent voters in FL and MI. Is anyone
besides me offended by such “Obama must win at all costs” hypocrisy?

The principle of democracy is simple: One person has one vote—and
regardless of their status or importance to any group. So, super
delegates, indeed, violate democracy. But their votes would not even
be needed, if democracy had not already been RAPED by the DNC’s entire
primary system! I’ll explain:

The simple principle of democracy, above, requires that all votes that
are cast have the same importance! Obama clings to that tainted and
bastardized principle, in the apt case, when he claims to have more
delegates than Clinton. Of course, numerically, he is correct… But
from the moment the Iowa votes were counted AND made public, democracy
was ground up, burned, and the ashes cast into the sea…

Democracy DEMANDS that votes be taken and counted on the same day!
Proxy votes that either are not counted, or are not revealed until
election day probably pass the standard of democracy, too. I’ll make
an analogy for how the present anti-democracy primary system works:

An election is scheduled. Voters line up at the polls and begin going
into the closed voting booths. But as soon as a voter is about to
push the ‘cast vote’ button, the curtain opens and a persuasive
supporter for the unselected candidate comes into your private booth
and argues that you should change your vote. Some of the more weak
minded voters in the lines yield to that intrusion and switch their
votes. Now, the voters go outside and the media descends to poll them
regarding how they voted. Almost immediately, the TVs across America
are telling the later voters how the race is going. And issues that
might sway the outcome are quickly aired in commercials—side against
side. Finally, at the end of the day, the voters watch their TVs to
find out if they… won or lost. Under such a system, anywhere from 50%
to 100% of the voters are losers, and the smug, overly-paid
commentators rejoice that there is so much “news” to be covered… Of
course, the above events are truncated into a single day. But to
allow the media into the voting process at ANY point is a supreme
violation of sound principles of democracy! I repeat: To allow the
media into the voting process at ANY point is a supreme violation of
sound principles of democracy!

If the votes in Iowa had not been counted until after all of the
primary results are in, such a “rule” would… approximate… a
democracy. But it wouldn’t BE a democracy! Why? Because those who
voted for Obama BEFORE his personality and character flaws were
revealed, will have had their votes “locked in”… Surely, many of
those would not now desire to vote for Obama. That’s the sole reason
why Obama remains a “viable candidate”. The earlier voters, simply,
had not yet learned how undesirable a candidate Barack Obama truly is…

Some states have held “caucuses” rather than conventional voting-booth
type primaries. However, ALL caucuses are anti-democracy, and are
thus unconstitutional! It goes without saying that Obama loves
caucuses, because those allow his highly verbal supporters to
“persuade” more of those attending to vote for him… But a true
democracy does not allow the PERSUASIVENESS of any supporter of a
candidate to influence any other voters! Each voter must have 100%
free will—without any last minute counter arguments being allowed—in
the voting booths or otherwise. Democracy shall never allow the
strength, persuasiveness, “power” or “status” of others to change the
private voting decision of any other voter!

The candidates and the media are well aware of the democracy issues
that I am waving. Clinton is correct to now report that more
Americans have voted for her, than for Obama. Apparently, she is
sticking to her game plan that has turned-the-tide for her.
Certainly, her becoming President will be more beneficial for America
than Obama would even have had a chance to be! But if she is “happy”
with the present broken system of government in Washington, and
defends it… by tradition, America will be just as doomed under her
presidency as under an Obama presidency.

My support for Clinton is due to her greater executive self-
sufficiency compared to Obama. Clinton is a “Gets the Big Picture”
person, who won’t over-defend or over-attack petty details in proposed
solutions. Such a generalist will be more open to changes in, say,
science and technology. If the latter is so mired as to continue to
uphold Einstein’s theories of relativity—after I have summarily
disproved them—then there isn’t much hope for science and technology…
And unless Clinton is “open” to consider that America deserves a
government that works—as CNN’s Lou Dobbs often suggests—then, the
unity of our present “81% discontent” won’t have much chance to affect
the necessary changes in our systems of government.

I‘ve talked very little about John McCain. As I’ve said: His IQ is
only 90 or so; he is too old and frail; and he will be, like Bush, a
puppet of the (also) corrupt Republican Party. McCain should be very
easy to defeat in the race! He would do the whole country a great
favor if he would just drop out, now, and let Clinton run unopposed!
Then, there would be a unity of purpose which this country needs as it
adapts a new and improved form of government. If the latter is going
to happen, it will occur under Clinton’s watch. And it will become
part of her proud legacy!

So, as the campaigns and media coverage continue—business as usual—
consider how much better off each of you would be if DEMOCRACY was the
main issue of importance for Americans! With democracy reinstated as
a foundation for this great nation, the economy, jobs, international
relations, and a new national pride for a united USA will be assured—
far better than any political party in power could ever assure!

May the ‘shared discontent’ that we now feel, unite us!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


On Apr 21, 9:37 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For those Americans still deciding which Democratic candidate to
support, last night’s beyond-the-prediction win by Hillary Clinton in
Pennsylvania provides important insights for making up your minds.
CNN filled their studios with commentators and spinners alike.
Campbell Brown moderated those well.  And John King’s analyses of the
demographics of the counties won by the candidate seems most telling
of “the trend”—both in the continuing Democratic race, and in the
likely presidential election in November.

Clinton has had to fight like ‘Rocky’ to win, and in doing so she
shows herself to be an amazingly resilient person and a “formidable
candidate”—as Barack Obama said in his concession speech last night
from Indiana.  Obama spoke before a crowd showing almost as many
smiling faces as if he had won each of the last three big states:
Texas, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania.  Though his speech highlights his
resolve, it also reveals, more and more, that Obama has delusions of
invincibility.

If being the President actually entailed fighting, Obama might be an
acceptable choice.  He speaks with the strong voice and level-toned
inflection of a man with a high testosterone level.  But selecting our
President shouldn’t be about who has the most testosterone.  Those
goals that Obama keeps promising to “fight for” are largely outside of
the range of authority of the Executive Branch.

Suppose that the Democratic Party’s nominee were to be selected by
having a huge tug-of-war.  If one wishes to be on the… “winning team”,
it would make sense to rush to the side having the strongest looking
tuggers.  But a true democracy isn’t about favoring the strong over
the weak.  It isn’t about who has the most stamina.  It isn’t about
“winning” just for the pride of being on the winning team.  What it
should be about is having clear thinking Americans vote for the
candidates who will do the optimum things for ALL Americans, not just
things for “the half” that happens to be on the winning side in a tug-
of-war.

North Carolina and Indiana are now in the spotlight.  NC—where I lived
for years—has been polled to be “leaning” toward Obama.  Such seems to
be the case because of the large Black population, there, and because
of the affluent people living in the Research Triangle area.

It seems that Blacks are supporting Obama primarily because he is
Black.  The unwavering voting percentages for Obama—in light of his
verbal slipups, and his questionable social and religious associations—
supports such contention.  Or, perhaps it is because he seems like a
fighter.  In the past, the too easy road to power for Blacks has been
sticking together, as a voting block, for common objectives.  That is
the tribal mentality not only of Blacks, but of those who believe that
physical prowess should be a factor in determining outcomes.  Sadly,
many Americans “side” where they perceive “the power” to be.  This
country is largely being run by two political parties.  There haven’t
been enough “Reagan years” where Americans have felt good just being
Americans—rather than fighting… as Democrats or Republicans.

The cause of America’s decline is excessive reliance on group power to
gain supposed advantages.  Groups inevitably polarize and
discriminate.  “Fighting fair” isn’t a rule, if winning is the only
objective.  More and more, fighting dirty and dishonest are
acceptable.  If a ball game gets decided by a bad call by an official,
too often the fans of the “winning” team rejoice just as much
afterward.  Should there be any joy felt in winning unfairly?  No,
there shouldn’t!

As I explained, recently, Blacks have discrimination issues that need
to be addressed.  But can that be done by siding with THE most
polarizing man in America, Obama?  The assertiveness that his hormones
cause will surely pique the resolve of those in Congress to resist
him.  Males don’t like yielding to anyone simply because they are out-
talked or out-lasted.  No government nor business would hire Obama to
be a diplomat or PR man—because he enters the room as if ready for
combat with everyone there.  Good diplomats must be more low-key.
They must not offend people by seeming… pushy.  I ask you: Isn’t
Barack Obama… ‘pushiness’ personified?  If you’ve got a pushy boss, do
you like that person?  If for no other reason, Obama should not be
President because he is too pushy!  His “fight for you” attitude will
assure his failure.  Such fights would be more appropriate in Congress—
not within the daily realm of the Presidency.

A huge part of the unfairness in the Democratic campaign is the
“delay” in resolving the FL and MI primaries.  If Clinton’s share of
the delegates in those states had already been appropriately allotted
to her, there likely wouldn’t be that clinging invincibleness that
Obama still has.  For him, his contributors dollars are “votes” to
continue running a win-at-all-costs fight for… them.  Obama has said,
in effect: “To hell with democracy!  I want to be President…”  If he
manages to gets elected, the last bit of air will have been let out of
the balloon that was… democracy.   Never again will there be hope of:
fairness for all Americans; and she will surely fall.

Obama has “smiling faces” like Jamal Simmons and Roland Martin to
reassure those passengers on Obama’s sinking ‘Titanic’ that the
inevitable tragedy won’t happen.  PA Senator Bob Casey spins favorably
for his man, Obama, to increase his own chances of getting a position
in an Obama White House.  Casey is one of the most recent endorsers of
Obama, and surely knows that Obama has rejoiced because democracy
wasn’t being served in FL and MI.  Casey is thumbing-his-nose at
democracy.  He should be considered a TRAITOR to America and to the US
Constitution which he has so lightly sworn to uphold.

Understandably, if selfish interests like: ‘affluent voters desiring
to keep more of what they earn’, are to be satiated, that can best
happen if those affluent people will side with the 81% of adults who
are dissatisfied with the direction this country is headed.  That way,
the groundwork is set for CORRECTING the waste and inequities in
government.  But if the affluent, instead, side with Obama, they are
assuring the continuing group-against-group divisiveness in America,
that has brought this country to the brink of ruin.  Folks, we can
either solve this country’s problems, or we can SINK on Obama’s
‘Titanic’.

Hillary Clinton has an affable personality most close to Ronald
Reagan.  She doesn’t get the rancor up of those she approaches.
Clinton would be a much better diplomat for America than Obama.  In
the area of foreign policy, as in most others, she is prepared “From
Day One” to serve the best interests of this country!

A “new and improved” America shouldn’t require years of long
campaigning to select our President.  The toll being taken on the
candidates demands that the process be streamlined, while still
informing Americans about the candidates’ qualifications.

As those “undecideds” try to make up their minds in NC and IN, please
realize that your hopes and dreams for your futures are valid ones.
Any “new and improved” America should benefit you!  However, it is
URGENT that you all know this: If this country is to survive… it must
part ways with all undemocratic group influences!  Group against group
has been proven time and again not to work.  And that’s why we are in
our present messes.  But a new hope is on the horizon!  Remember,
“United we stand; divided we fall.”

Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United States of
America!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —





On Apr 15, 10:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Heretofore, we humans have tried to find security by siding with a
strong group with a strong leader or leaders.  Often this had been for
the protection of our own physical well-being, not just to gain some
vague economic or sociological advantage.  In the last two centuries
Blacks have rallied together for their common cause of reducing
discrimination against their numbers.  Though they have been hugely
successful, there are areas in which discrimination still exists.  So,
any ‘ideal’ America must address the concerns of Blacks—fairly and
equitably.

There has never been a Black President of the USA.  Jesse Jackson,
Colin Powell, Al Sharpton, and now Barack Obama are smart Black men
who have each been considered for this country’s highest office.   A
recent poll showed that 76% of voters would be willing to consider a
Black candidate for President.  Since Obama is the Black candidate of
the moment, his spinners quickly implied that 76% of the voters want
‘him’.  But his viability as a candidate is being brought into
question because of the recent negative press over Reverend Jeremiah
Wright’s “damn the USA” sermon, and due to Obama’s candid remarks
showing his frustration in trying to appeal to those who have fallen
on hard times in the “small towns” of Pennsylvania, and across
America.

In recent weeks I’ve explained how the apparent unity of the Black
community behind Obama is, actually, an ominous sign for America.  How
could that be?  Obviously, there would be racial pride among Blacks in
finally having a Black elected President.  But is that “pride” a
sufficient justification for electing Obama?

A prudent observer would expect that a candidate’s support would vary
up and down as new revelations about his or her qualifications are
aired.  When negative aspects concerning Obama surfaced before the
Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama’s support among Blacks ‘should’ have
varied,too.

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.