The Pandering to Women Voters in US Presidential Elections - Observations From the 2012 Election

Apparently, the pollsters for the 2012 presidential election had noted that many women voters are still undecided, and a good many of them are leaning left, rather than right. Therefore there is a big fight and charge to pander to these women voters, and address all the issues they feel important. Now then, you must understand that women voters make up half of our country, so they are the largest and most important group for these candidates. Nevertheless the amount of pandering going on between the candidates and their women voters is getting to be laughable. Let's look at some examples shall we?

We noted on the first debate that President Obama came right out and stated it was his anniversary and he'd rather be spending it with his wife, rather than in front of 45 million people, which was the assumed number of people who would be watching the debates, it turned out it was quite a bit more. Nevertheless, that was a planned statement, and it was geared towards speaking to the women voters, it was a political strategy. I find that a little unnerving, even though it is plausibly deniable that the Obama reelection campaign strategists didn't plan it, but sure they did and we all know it.

There were several other attempts to pander to women during the debates, and it is quite evident in all of their stump speeches. It is as evident as the 10s of millions of dollars being spent on advertising to purely Spanish-speaking Hispanic news outlets by the Obama campaign. If we really are a great melting pot, and we are all considered equal, we should all be spoken to as adults, and this pandering needs to stop, it's getting to be pathetic. Indeed, in many regards it's happening on both sides so we shouldn't just pick on the Obama campaign, although they are ahead with the women voters currently due to their focus on this voting demographic segment.

Another thing we notice is many of the commentators on TV who are women and the women anchors are saying that they were offended by the belligerent attitude and debating style that they had witnessed. That's interesting because women in politics have always been rather hard-hitting, and all the women I know who are involved in politics are pretty intense themselves. Are the TV news commentators trying to mold the election and the process, or are they just as tired as I am about turning our national discussion on very important matters into nothing more than a two-minute tit-for-tat cat fight? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

Are Our Elections Free and Fair?

Do our two presidential candidates give us a real choice? If you listen to their words, they seem to; but if you examine the results of past elections, you see that in recent times the conservatives always gain ground. The bulk of all financing for the president and major seats in the congress flow from a small segment of the wealthy, upper one percent of the population. What looks like a battle between two independent parties, Democrats and Republicans, is really a battle between two parties dependent on that same segment of the one percent. What you see is a game of good-cop-bad-cop, being played out to give the illusion that there is real competition in our political system. If, at the end of a president's four-year term, you add up the legislative gains for the citizen vs. the corporate-financial-banking complex, the citizens lose ground almost every time. The only difference is that citizens lose less with the good cop than with the bad, but they lose in both cases. This process has been getting worse with every president since President Clinton's second term. I'm not a politico, so I won't present any naive solutions; my aim here is to inform.

Our country had its start as a confederation of states with the Articles of Confederation as its constitution; the federal government was extremely weak. Each state felt independent of the others: some printed their own money or put in place tariff laws against their neighbors. After freeing themselves from the British, liberty was the overriding objective of the people and politicians. It didn't take long--about ten years--for the founders to see that a system based entirely on states' rights did not work.

The founders then decided to write a new constitution giving the federal government more, but limited, powers; we became a republic. As advanced as this new constitution was in its time, it was written for the white, male, property owner; the only ones given the right to vote. Since then the constitution has been improved with the addition of many amendments: the first ten being the Bill of Rights.

There have been times in the past when various groups have tried to turn back the clock on this country's progressive movement; the civil war being the most extreme case. Now we are again facing a threat from large property owners. They are still trying to turn the clock back, metaphorically, to the time of the large plantation, where the master had absolute control over the slaves. Their weapon now is their vast supply of money: money to propagandize, money to buy people, and money to win elections. Their cry is still liberty: liberty to make a profit on every human need they can get away with.

One of the major advances made by this small segment of the wealthy, is the Supreme Court's ruling in their Citizens United case which allows the use of unlimited money in an election campaign. We also see voter-suppression laws being enacted in many states. I can go on, but I'll end by repeating that neither party represents the people, and the media doesn't have the guts to inform them of the danger. WAKE UP AMERICA! Our elections are not free and fair.

In the absence of a "none of the above" choice on the ballot, I will vote for a third party candidate to show that I'm still and active voter. I must break my habit of voting for the lesser of two evils. The question is whether it is better to throw us "frogs" in warm water or in hot water. In warm water we can sit in the pot and hope something will blow the fire out, but in hot water we will be hopping around trying to get out of the pot.

Burton Becker has just published a new book: My Dream of God, A Call to Action: Justice for All. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1478239611. We must get money out of elections and politics.

For more visit http://www.ideasfrombeyond.org/

View the original article here

Diversity Through Elections

Let's take some time to discuss' a recent Senate race and to contrast the two-party candidates from two individual states. For this, I have selected the following:

States selected: The State of Delaware and its neighbor the State of Maryland.
Election year involved: Both campaigns take place during the 2010 election year.

State one - Delaware (O'Donnell (R) vs. Coons (D)

The first campaign and election I would like to discuss is the nationally televised campaign to fill the senate position left vacant by Joe Biden. Since Biden had progressed to the position of Vice President by law he was required to resign from his Senate seat. The Governor of Delaware had assigned Biden's Chief of Staff to complete Biden's term of office. A special election would than be held along with the 2010 elections to select a replacement for his senate position. What made this campaign remarkable was the involvement of the tea party candidate Christine O'Donnell and her ability to win out in the primaries over long time Republican Party candidate Mike Castle. Although Castle was looked upon as the "Golden Boy", O'Donnell made a respectable showing and won the nomination for the Republican representative.

O'Donnell based her campaign primarily upon the major issues of her pro-life stance, her opposition to embryonic stem cell research, negative support for human cloning, and opposition to increasing taxes. She was in favor of a balanced budget amendment and supported the premise of a simplified tax code. In an effort to reduce American dependence upon foreign oil she supported more refineries being established within the United States. She promoted the use of Delaware agricultural products to create gasoline alternatives and opposed the cap and trade legislation. One of her major oppositions was the Health Care Bill and she vowed that if elected to the senate she would work to have it repealed. Her immigration policies centered upon increased penalties for any employer who happened to hire illegal immigrants as well as support for the raising of the social security retirement age.

Her opponent for the Senate seat was Democratic contender Chris Coons. Coons had been nurtured and groomed by US Senator Tom Carper during his service as Delaware's governor. A few of Coon's political beliefs were revealed during the first debate. These major issues were shown to be raising taxes in order to balance the budget and to cut the militaries C-17 bomber program in order to trim money from the deficit. Chris Coons has stated he is pro-choice, actively supports the stimulus bill, opposes off-shore oil drilling, and believes in providing a pathway for illegal's to achieve legal status. His responses to the issues were in general opposite of those expressed by O'Donnell.

As the debates were convened both parties involved were knowledgeable of the issues at hand. Unfortunately after O'Donnell had such a successful showing in defeating the nine term Castle, the Wilmington Delaware resident lost the November 2010 Senate election to Democrat Chris Coons.

State Two - Maryland (Mikulski (D) vs. Eric Wargotz (R)

Moving to Delaware's nearby neighbor Maryland we encounter their candidates for the 2010 Senate position. In this report we will discuss Democratic representative Barbara Mikulski and Eric Wargotz. Mikulski being the current incumbent had a bit of an advantage over her opponent. Elected to the office initially in 1977, she had been able to accumulate years of experience over her potential competitor.

As far as the major issues were concerned Mikulski had much the same repertoire as most other Democrats such as being anti-abortion, pro-economic recovery packages as provided by the president and increased stimulus proposals. She voted "no" consistently for suggestions towards a balanced budget and believes in prohibiting same-sex marriages. She is for a national energy tax, she supports a no drilling policy but at the same time she is opposed to funding renewable or solar energy projects. She supports providing the illegal immigrants a path towards obtaining their legal status. Barbara is against placing any caps on foreign aid, and of course she voted yes to increase the pay of our congressional representatives.

Her losing republican opponent for the US Senate seat was Eric Wargotz. Eric was a previous Queen Anne's County Commissioner as well as a doctor by profession. Wargotz provided a very limited campaign in this race but he somehow managed to draw the highest percentage of election votes against Mikulski that were seen within the past 10 years.

In contrast to Barbara Mikulski's political thoughts on the major issues, Wargotz provided rather simple responses with little in-depth understanding to questions as they were placed before him. His ideas were that we should demand a balanced budget program and he was against the government bailouts. He provided no stance what-so-ever on issues relating to corporations, crime, environmental concerns or drugs. His concept towards education was that the federal government should only ensure that the requirements are properly met. His energy goals were for developing alternate sources of energy such as wind, solar etc. Worst of all he had no opinion on any foreign policy issues. In his favor as far as the Republicans were concerns was his support of the second amendment which likely won him a few votes. All in all Wargotz was ill prepared to campaign again a seasoned political veteran such as Mikulski.

There really are very little differences between the two states in regards to the major issues. This could be a result of their close location and similarity in industry. Both the democratic candidates supported the general democratic policies and ideals while the republican nominations centered their conversations upon the party's policies as well. Both candidates from the two states agree on supporting alternate energy in the form of gasohol since both are agricultural states. Although illegal's are not as large of an issue in either state the candidates adopted the party platform in both situations, the democrats supported making it easier for them to become legal while the republican members desired to make it uncomfortable for them here in America. Both O'Donnell in Delaware and Wargotz in Maryland supported a simplified tax change indicating one of the major issues which crossed the state lines.

In the majority of the issues it was found that the in-state candidates were usually opposed to each others beliefs while supporting the overall party policies. Little was agreed upon other than changes were required in most situations. Candidates on both sides of the fence failed to offer any solutions to problems which were facing the nation often leaving one to wonder what they would actually do once in office.

Copyright @2012 Joseph Parish

For more information relating to survival visit us at http://www.survival-training.info/

View the original article here

Playing With Job and Economic Numbers Prior to Elections Pondered

Some find it absolutely convenient that the unemployment stats from the Federal BLS came out at 7.8% which would be a 3% drop from the previous quarter. That is highly unlikely and almost inconceivable, or as one former CEO put it; implausible. Indeed, I tend to agree those numbers do not even make it into the category of; plausibly deniable. More like impossible if you ask me. Nevertheless since this is such a heated debate, let's talk about it.

The New York Times had an interesting article on October 5, 2012 titled; "Drop in Jobless Figure Gives Jolt to Race for President," by Shaila Dewan and Mark Landler. The article reported 7.8% unemployment figures coinciding with the early voting opening in the swing states. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric then tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers?"

Interestingly enough, I had predicted that this would happen, why you ask? Simply looking back at how the Administration had played the numbers prior to other events such as the State of the Union Speech, or Mid-Term elections, and then later conveniently revised the numbers back down. In watching this, I've seen it happen 4-other times, but this time was rather curious. Thus, I hope I can expand this thought for a moment if I might.

You see, quite frankly, it is rather obvious that the questions in the 60,000 household survey were asked differently, in a different way, called upon a different skew (i.e. more people in ND than usual), or criteria was slightly altered to achieve this result. Liars figure and figures lie, and well, Jack Welch is correct, something is amiss, and this is implausible. Thus, I charge the administration with playing games with economic numbers just before the election, a typical socialist move, in fact, it is done all over the world with socialist leaders.

Of course, the Democrats now deny anyone fudged the numbers and now wishes to challenge anyone who challenges them, by making us prove how they fudged the numbers, still, no one will make the data readily available or show how the criteria was changed. Okay so, let me give you a different scenario on how hard it is to prove animal abuse as an example. The philosophical line of questioning might go something like this;

I can't prove what you kicked your dog with, but your dog is on the floor bleeding and it is scared of you, thus, with all the evidence available I believe you kicked your dog, and since you've done it before, I'd say that's the most likely scenario. So, please tell me which shoes you were wearing, and we can blame it on the shoes if that pleases you? Now do you see my point here?

The BLS (United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics) has quite often revised their numbers previously, often after coming out with stellar numbers during an event such as EU banking crisis, mid-term elections, stock market pull-backs, etc. It's almost become a propaganda machine for the government, and granted consumer confidence is paramount to a strong economic recovery, but that doesn't make it okay to create false data, especially to save a politician from his rhetoric or piss-poor economic performance.

Since Obama has never run a business and leans left towards socialism in the way he runs the nation; "fair share for all" motif as were his closing remarks in the recent debate against Mitt Romney his challenger we can forgive him, but regardless, I must ask; "Did the Obama Administration put heavy handed pressure on that agency (BLS) to produce the numbers they were looking for to propel the Obama Administration's re-election one day before early mail-in voting and early voting in swing states?"

Indeed, I think that question deserves an answer, and an investigation. If the investigation takes longer than the end of this political campaigning, and if emails, or correspondence are found to suggest what I am asking, then removal from office would be the proper way to deal with it. If he's not re-elected, then at least we will know. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Economic Issues. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Underhanded Politics In Presidential Elections Considered - Case Study

We have rules in our society for corporations which state that you cannot lay someone off unless you give them a 60 day notice (Warren Act) that you might lay them off in advance. This allows them to make changes in their life, perhaps get their finances in order, or even look for a new job. Most workers applaud this new rule because it helps them from an unexpected layoff. Those are the rules, and every corporation must follow them.

Recently, there was a company which was getting ready to issue the 60 day notices and they were a defense contractor. The automatic cuts to the Pentagon budget were approaching very quickly and the Republicans and Democrats had made no effort to stop it. The defense company had no choice but to issue the layoff notices, fearing that it would have to drastically cut its workforce if the government was to stop buying their products and services.

There was an interesting article in the Business Journal Newspaper on September 28, 2012. And another one in Dark Government online the same day titled; "Obama Administration Asking Contractors Again, 'Don't Issue Layoff Notices'," which stated;

"The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration's position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration. The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be "inappropriate" for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts."

A few days later, the Obama Administration and their lawyers guaranteed the defense contractor that they would give them a waiver to the 60 day layoff notice rule, and pay any workers laid off their severance pay for any of the days between the 60 day layoff rule and when they were actually let go in case they were unable to get new government contracts. Now then, I have a problem with this, because now we are playing politics with the rules and regulations, allowing one company a waiver, because the president and his administration didn't want any negative news (massive layoffs) in the newspaper in a swing state, namely; Virginia outside Washington DC.

Now it has become a big political football because the Republicans are crying foul, and rightfully so, while the Democrats are saying that the defense contractor wanted to purposely do this to help defeat President Obama in the 2012 November 6 election. If a presidential administration is willing to give waivers to some companies, while making other companies follow the rules, then in essence they are helping some companies break the rules that everyone else has to follow. Not to mention the fact that it was a Democratic congressperson that brought forth the bill, making layoff notices a requirement, in the first place.

To me, this is just one more underhanded move in presidential politics, and it smacks of crony capitalism, abuse of power, and using presidential executive orders and the oval office as a tool of intimidation. That's not the country I signed up for, and that is not the country that promises equality under the law. I am quite concerned and deeply troubled, and this sort of behavior isn't good enough not for my country. I hope you feel the same, and then vote appropriately.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here