People often reach conclusions based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Let me
illustrate by commenting on current events. You can draw your own lessons on
thinking, as you read.|
A good example of the "conclusions based on
unsubstantiated assumption" method is how people participate in these sham
Amazingly, over 90% of voters suspend reality, logic, and basic brain
functioning to go along with the idea that, somehow, the "contest" for:
- Misrepresentative in the House is between two unqualified morons
selected out of the sizable population of your CONgressional district.
- Senator is between two unqualified morons selected out of the entire
population of your state.
- POTUS is between two unqualified morons selected out of 310 million
While there are some exceptions (for senator and misrepresentative), the
above characterize these shams in nearly all cases. Does that even pass the
smell test? How much more can the folks running these freak shows insult your
And why only two inDUHviduals? What about a second party candidate? For
example, Gary Johnson, who is bright and highly qualified, is running for POTUS
on the Libertarian ticket. Which means that, unlike his D/R counterparts, he at
least claims to respect the law.
Of course, The Party won't let its fake candidates debate Mr. Johnson. That
would mean exposing them for the scofflaws they are. That would also mean
bringing up actual issues, instead of the nonsense that misdirects attention
away from anything that actually matters.
If it's true that a D or R will be "elected" regardless of how you vote, and
whoever it is works for the same bosses as the D/R guy who is pretending to run
against him, does that mean these "elections" meaningless?
That depends upon your viewpoint and whether you've actually thought about
The "election" is meaningless in terms of any sort of democratic process.
It's not an election, it's a test. It has NOTHING to do with putting someone in
office, and that will be true until such time as enough voters in each state
vote for a second party and that party doesn't need to pay through the nose for
Many people aren't aware how much their vote can change things, in that regard.
Sometime, look up the requirements for getting on the ballot in your state. Your
party needs X % of votes in the previous election, or it needs buckets of money
to pay people to get petitions signed. And even more money to bail them out of
jail when they are arrested on pretense in an effort to stop the petitioning as
they were in Oklahoma in the 2008 "election."
The "election" is extremely meaningful in regard to its actual purpose. It
tests how many people DO NOT THINK and thus mindlessly select one of the two "I
approve of crime" boxes instead of voting.
Anyone who puts any thought into what's going on can see quite easily that
you aren't choosing between two real candidates. Out of 310 million people, the
two D/R "candidates" on the 2012 ballot for POTUS are the best we can come up
with? Does that seem even remotely logical?
- One guy has spent the past four years aggressively devastating the
economy (with measurable results), isn't even Constitutionally qualified for
the job, and has managed to be the second most damaging POTUS in our
history. And yet, the Democrats didn't pick someone else? Were they doing
serious drugs, or is it not actually up to them? Four presidents failed to
be nominated for a second term; Obama should have been the fifth.
- The other guy believes that if you wear magic underwear and meet a few
other requirements, when you die you will be the god of your own planet. But
only if you are a white male. This is based on "scripture" that an
illiterate conman dictated to another person, twice. The wife of the scribe
destroyed the first copy, and the second one turned out to be untrue to the
first. The discrepancies get worse from there.
One must ask why the Democrats didn't find a competent (or at least not
America-hostile) candidate, and also why the Republicans couldn't find someone
other than Mr. Magic Underwear to oppose that candidate.
The answer: It's a farce.
These fake elections have been farces for over a century. This becomes quite
obvious to anyone who has even moderate awareness of what has transpired over
the past 40 years (50, 60, etc.).
You can quite easily see it does not matter if the Ds "control" the federal
gangsta govt or the Rs do. The result is ALWAYS the same: war, inflation,
unemployment, corporations getting away with egregious crimes, international
crimes subsidized by CONgress, unlawful conduct in the extreme, IRS abuse, lies
and more lies, idiotic legislation, Constitution ignored, freedoms squashed,
kangaroo courts, no balance of power, no checks and balances, etc.
Is that really what we want? If not, why does anyone check the box by a D or
Answer: Not looking at the reality and then not thinking.
Some people cling to the delusion that the "election" is a choice between
ideologies, as if the Ds are "liberal" and the Rs are "conservative." Fine for
the rhetoric, but not at all what the reality is about.
It's not a choice between ideologies. The only ideology is crime. Choosing
between the Ds and Rs is like choosing between the Crips and the Bloods. Does it
really matter what colors they wear, when either way the result is the same?
Some people cling to the delusion that they are choosing the better candidate
(lesser of two evils theory). But at the egregiously low level of competence and
the even lower level of knowledge on the part of the voter as to actual
qualifications, it's not a choice between qualifications, resume, experience,
competence, etc. A choice made by mere speculation is gambling. A choice based
on propaganda and lies is even worse than that.
Any moron can be POTUS and a moron usually is. Ditto for being a senator or a
misrepresentative in the House.
The idea that you're picking the "better" candidate is irrational in the
extreme. A simple look at how we hire people in a real competition, by
comparison, illustrates why.
In a business situation, you would choose among several qualified, but
imperfect candidates. You might not even choose the best person for the job,
but any choice you do make would probably be good. If you've done the
standard due diligence, you will be hiring a competent person.
Suppose you're hiring a CFO. Your candidates all have an MBA and a
Master's or undergrad in finance, plus significant CFO work experience and
no prison record. All of your final candidates have distinguished themselves
with some pretty remarkable achievements.
All of your candidates were presented to you by a recruiter. So they are
already screened and you don't even look at any morons or criminals. Nor do
you need to consider someone who hates your company. Or whose driving goal
is to become a millionaire by year three at your company on a salary of
Starkly different from how candidates for POTUS get on the ballot.
In elections for city, county, and state offices this same "real world"
dynamic is fairly typical though not as rigorous. It's fairly easy to get on the
ballot, so qualified people can and do. Not the same as hiring a recruiter to go
out and find someone, but still people usually aren't screened out simply
because they have morals or actual qualifications for the job.
This self-selection process can (and does) produce some bad apples, folks not
even remotely qualified. I suppose that's why we have elections for these
offices. We get to choose from who got on that ballot without signing a contract
with Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, etc.
For the federal farces, look at the resumes of the folks in "elected" office
today. Mostly lawyers. Not that lawyers are necessarily bad, but a bunch of
lawyers who became millionaires after only a few years of public "service"
hardly represent the population and can't possibly understand the reality most
of us live in. They CAN understand shady deals, extreme corruption, malfeasance
as standard operating procedure, and stealing with impunity.
Few of these useless idiots have done anything significant with their lives
(look at their lawyer career track records, and mediocre is an accomplishment
among their ranks), other than be a political prostitute.
Sure, you have a few doctors (including that crazy Bill Frist) and some folks
who've run a business or worked in the real world in some way. But most of these
lawyers have never held a real job or if they did they weren't very good at
it--that's their resume.
So for the federal farces, you're presented with unqualified candidates
nobody in their right mind would hire. That is not by accident. If you had
reasonable ballot access, the situation would be entirely different. You'd have
highly qualified folks running for federal offices. Maybe even the cream of the
crop, instead of the turd that floats best.
I think our last competent POTUS was Grover Cleveland. TR did great things,
but was more like a manic-depressive POTUS than one handling his office with
competence. And he had his share of screwups. Hoover was almost competent, but
not quite. The others since GC were obviously retards, psychopaths, or both.
Then you have your members of CONgress, such as Chuck Rangel who managed to
accumulate millions of dollars offshore while his only reported source of income
was his salary as a CONgressman. The Department of Injustice gave him a free
pass on this egregious criminal conduct, as did the Institute of Reprobates and
Consider carefully whether it makes any sense whatsoever to check the D or R
box on the ballot. There is only one correct answer. If you get it, your brain's
In the above discussion, we used several elements of critical thinking. These
include comparative analysis, basic fact-checking, and deductive reasoning.