You Asked For It. I Hope You're Sitting Down!
Allow me to start by saying I've always said I do not like to talk about politics. However, I receive numerous emails each week asking me to discuss certain things regarding politics. Therefore, I decided to discuss this as an overview of politics and not take sides. Honestly, both sides share the blame for the political system we have today. With that said, you don't have to agree or disagree with me. I am just stating the reality of politics, like it or not.
WHAT IS POLITICS:
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. The deals that are made between representatives, such as; if you back my bill, I'll back yours. Also, each side will always blame the other. Frankly, we will never know who is actually at fault because neither side tells the full story. Politics are no different than issues between people in life. No matter which side you listen to, they each sound right. However, somewhere in the middle sits the truth. Therefore, I blame both sides of the aisle. The real question is, are our representatives doing what is best for the people they represent? I think we can all agree that the basics of politics are about negotiations. No one ever gets it all their way. Indeed, for many, that might be a matter of opinion. The news media adds to the problem by being biased. They selectively report what they want and who they choose to align themselves with based on who they like and dislike. That causes a big problem. As a society, we have now reached a point where we do not trust the media. Therefore, is it reasonable to think that journalists, commentators, media networks, and our representatives have collectively forgotten their purpose? I think the answer to that question is clear. They most certainly have. The local stations do a great job of reporting local news, but they are affiliated with larger news networks, therefore, they could be bound by what their larger network will allow them to report on when it comes to national news.
We rely on all our elected officials to do what is best for the people. Therefore, is it best for the people when millions of people are in desperate need of financial assistance, and tens of thousands of cars each week are lined up in food lines to get food for their family's? Somehow, I do not see those two examples as something that is best for the people. If you do, or you do not care because you are not in that group, I must say, that is sad. We have representatives that are supposed to be intelligent men and women. Yet, in the last three months, they cannot agree on a stimulus package. Negotiations methods are standard. In almost every negotiation, people end up somewhere in the middle. The only difference being, where the decimal point falls, but the concept of negotiating is the same.
When people of this great nation are suffering, there is no time for personal agendas. When it comes to the welfare of the people in our great country, there should NEVER be personal agendas in politics. I could care less if Nancy Pelosi hates Donald Trump. However, for the Speaker of the House, who by the way has an approximate reported net worth of 34 million dollars, I could care less about her personal feelings towards Donald Trump or the Republican party. Trying to sway an election by making him look bad while people are suffering is unacceptable when there are clear alternatives. That also applies to any politician, not just Nancy Pelosi. In the meantime, suffering people have to listen to each side blame the other rather than finding a solution. The biggest farce is that the media reports that they talk for 90 minutes, or an hour and a half on a particular day about it. Really? Is that all the time you have during the course of your day in your feeble attempt to try to solve one of the biggest problems that so many of our citizens are facing? Am I missing something? I don't think so.
WHY DO WE ELECT THESE REPRESENTATIVES?:
Our representatives are elected to these positions to do what is best for each one of us. Not what suits their personal agenda. Is that what's happening? I realize the lines and opinions can get blurred from time to time. However, when everyone sees so many people in need of assistance, there are no blurred lines or opinions. Oh yes, they will tell you it's all about what is best for us, when in fact, it's about their own political agenda. The worst part is, it's as evident as the nose on anyone's face. Trust me, when the time comes to vote, NOT one of these representatives making the American people suffer this long will get my vote. They are doing NOTHING to earn it.
As I have said many times before, many people blame the President. It makes no difference who the President is. In this case, it is NOT the President's decision. These types of bills need to pass through the House and the Senate before the President can sign the bill. The President has NO power to force that to happen. All any President can do is make recommendations. Therefore, when it comes to a stimulus package that so many people, businesses, schools, and others need so desperately, BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT. Nancy Pelosi will NOT agree to standalone bills to get those who need the help now. Why, and I get it, although I do not agree with it because she would lose her leverage on the things she wants from the bill. The Republicans will also not go up to the 2.2 trillion she wants. So here we are in a continuing stalemate. 2.2 Trillion versus 1.8 million. For God's sake, meet in the middle at 2 Trillion and decide from within the budget in each category what will be cut to make that number work. It's not rocket science. Our taxpayer dollars should not be helping states for non-COVID-19 related issues. We should not bail them out for their fiscal mismanagement prior to the pandemic. They need to figure that out for themselves. Like many of you, I pay taxes. Do you want your dollars to help other states with non-Covid related debt? This certainly does not include helping for disaster relief or other federal money they already receive for other programs.
Instead, I believe that Nancy Pelosi is gambling on Joe Biden winning the election, and the Senate becomes under Democratic control. Well, here is a wake-up call. For her to get a 2.2 trillion dollar deal, the House and the Senate will need to be under Democratic control, and I doubt that will happen. At that point, it wouldn't make a difference who is President. If this is true, that's a heck of a thing to gamble on when people's lives are hanging in the balance while Nancy Pelosi sits back with her 34 million dollar net worth. How about counting the cost in taxpayer dollars to call all these representatives back to Washington to vote? Do you think they pay for that travel out of their salary? Talk about a financial waste of money. However, to be fair, Nancy Pelosi does have some strong points that I do agree with, regardless of whether or not standalone bills are passed. This why the word negotiation is so important. Ladies and gentlemen, that is where both sides of the aisles are failing.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE OTHER THAN STUPIDITY FOR THIS TO BE GOING ON THIS LONG WITHOUT A RESOLUTION.
Anyone who watched the Town Hall specials could see that the way ABC handled Joe Biden, and the way NBC handled Donald Trump, was completely different. Could it be the difference in commentator styles? Bidden enjoyed a nice relaxed comfortable interview. Trump was attacked, and his commentator asked 40 questions as compared to the 10 from the audience. A Town Hall style interview is supposed to be a chance for THE PEOPLE, not the commentator to speak to the candidate. Bidden were NEVER asked about the scandal with him and his son. Was that right? Trump was hit with the same lame question right out of the gate. DO YOU DENOUNCE WHITE SUPREMACY? The man has made the statement that he does in at least 12 interviews I personally verified. You can view that game any way you wish.
WHAT ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA?:
This was the most recent topic I was asked to talk about. Certainly, you can form your own opinion. I am simply bringing you the facts in a simplified manner. In recent days, there has been much controversy about social media sites removing certain posts, and banning either temporarily, or permanently, certain people because of posts they shared that COULD be interpreted as censorship or siding with one political party over another. Personally, as a side note, there is so much porn that goes over social media that is NOT removed or censored, I think that alone gives social media a bad name, but who determines what falls under freedom of speech? Also, if that is going to be allowed, why should political views or articles be challenged? The reasoning that no one knows if the articles are true or false, heck, no one knows if the majority of what people post on any social media platform is true or false, therefore, does that merit censorship only on certain topics, politics for example? In no way is this passing judgment on any particular social media site, it's simply a matter of what is fair and equal. Personally, I would rather see a political post and be responsible for reading it's associated article and decide for myself if it's true though further research, than receive friend or follow requests from people who send me a picture of their naked body, or what they are doing to please themselves sexually. For the record, when I get them, I block those users.
These are questions each of you needs to judge for yourself. However, there are some facts involved. You also may have heard about SECTION 230. Here is a link to an article that deeper explains it.
It covers a great deal of information, but basically, it protects social media sites and or internet entities from being sued by their users. Something that is not afforded to the news media, therefore, the news media must take different measures to validate the stories they report versus what is required by social media sites. By the actions certain sites have recently taken against certain users brings to light the possibility that these sites COULD be in violation of Section 230, therefore, if they are going to continue this practice, should they enjoy the luxury of being protected by Section 230? Also, I can tell you first hand that as a writer, in order for me to advertise a post that deals with social issues, I must first be verified. That makes perfect sense, however, try to get it. I have tried three times, submitting every piece of documentation required to prove who I am in order to advertise on such topics and certain books I've written on these topics, yet, each time I NEVER received an approval or denial. I have emailed them and spoken to them by phone, and never get an answer as to why the delay or why I am never receiving an answer. I will continue to try simply because it is allowed for some, but clearly not for others. Why is that? Who is dropping the ball? Is that fair and equal treatment? Again, it could simply be coincidental because I believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, and information oftentimes gets lost as lob positions change, etc. Social media and the internet are a great resource, however, these big tech giants should and are obligated to exercise fairness and equality to all.
Those are the facts. Let me give you my opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours.
Social media, news networks, and any other form of reporting should be fair, equal, and unbiased. PERIOD!
Many people who work use these mediums to get the latest news and information. Do they not have a responsibility to not take sides and report fair and equally in an unbiased manner? You decide.
There is a great deal at stake this Presidential election year. Who you vote for is your choice as it is mine. However, remember. You don't vote for someone because you like them as a person, they are soft-spoken, or you like their smile. You don't eat dinner with them, you don't socialize with them, and you certainly don't sleep next to them.
YOU VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO HAS THE BEST POLICIES THAT ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU WANT AND BELIEVE IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE COuNTRY. PERIOD!
Over the past election years, campaigns have lost some meaning. Campaigns used to be about the issues. Issues that were intelligently debated. That seems to be a thing of the past. Over the past few election cycles, the candidates have spent so much time bashing each other, they often do not answer, talk around the critical questions, or avoid them altogether causing the issues to get lost. Joe Biden stated we do not deserve to know if he plans to stack the Supreme Court. Well, I hate to differ with him, but we do deserve to know. For those who do not understand what that means; if any President expands the size of the Supreme Court, otherwise known as packing the court, to add Judges they want that fall in line with their views, the Supreme Court will eventually lose its non-partisan mission. The Supreme court is to NOT be part of any political affiliation. It MUST remain non-partisan to be considered a fair court, and that makes the choice of judges critical.
I actually found it hysterical during the Senate hearing for the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, that so many asked her to state her opinion on certain issues, and she would not answer those questions. Why the heck would we want a judge on any court to provide their personal opinion on any topic. Wouldn't that lead us to believe they would be biased? No judge in their right mind would answer those types of questions or ever has, because a judge MUST hear both sides of an issue, look at case history, as well as the law and other issues before they make a determination. These are trap questions. If any judge did answer them, they would be accused of being biased. Let's not forget the fact that it is unethical for a judge to do that. It's a no-win situation. In my opinion, Judge Barrett's response, when asked those types of questions, was correct and speaks volumes about her character as a judge.
I get it, the Democrats feel that if Joe Bidden wins, he should pick the next nominee, but again, he refused to answer whether he would pack the court until a few days ago when he stated in an interview during his Town Hall special, he would prefer not to but is open to it depending on what happens with Any Coney Barrett. So now we have a presidential candidate answering a question by inferring an ultimatum. Also, he refused to submit his list of nominees. In addition, the constitution is quite clear on this issue. The President has an obligation to fill the court when there is an opening. As the late Judge Ginsburg stated, the President is the President for four years. The Democrats may not like it, but President Trump has every right and an obligation to make a nomination at any time while he holds the office.
BEFORE SOMEONE SAYS THIS IS A BIASED OPINION, IT IS NOT. THESE ARE FACTS, AND NOT OPINION.
There is always a winner and always a loser. Not all things will go your way, but being a sore loser is also not being professional. If Joe Bidden wins and expands the Supreme Court, that will start a trend. Meaning, when we get the next Republican President, they will do the same. Before you know it, in years to come, the Supreme Court will be the size of Congress. Not literally, but I believe you get my point. Therefore, yes, Joe Bidden, as well as any candidate, should answer the questions before them, and in this case, tell the American people definitively what he would do. It was inappropriate for him to say we do not DESERVE an answer. How can he expect people to vote for him without knowing his intentions as a candidate for the President of the United States?
In the interest of full disclosure, this next sentence is my opinion. For me, this alone would stop me from voting for him. As a candidate for the President of the United States, or as President, you better know you are accountable to the people of this country each and every day while you hold the office.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the game of politics, a game we know little about, but a game that affects the lives of many, as well as a country. The post with the exception of the one-sentence I pointed out, is about the facts. We don't have to like them. or agree with them, but they are still the facts. For the record, my comments are not in defense of President Trump. These facts would apply to any presidential candidate or any president. Nancy Pelosi is a great negotiator and a highly intelligent individual, but making her personal feelings interfere with her job, is unacceptable. If true, the current reports of her wanting to start to attempt to impeach President Trump again are absurd. On what grounds? His choice to nominate a Supreme Court Judge is within his rights. However, that has seemed to fall by the wayside. As I write this, it is being reported she is losing the support of some in her party due to her comments, and lack of willingness to move on a stimulus package. Remember, many of the people in her own party as well as the Republican party, are up for re-election as well. Isn't it in everyone's best interest to strike a deal?
This is how politics works. Not just for the stimulus package, but for everything. This all leads to millions upon millions of wasted taxpayer dollars. Yet, no one seems to care about that. Why should they? We pay for them to travel, probably for lunches, and God only knows what else. Much, by the way, as it should be, but I wasn't born yesterday and I'm sure there is much that is wasted. Try to remember this. It is never what we know that bothers us, it's the things we don't know or suspect that bother us because when it comes to politics, there is much we do not know due to the lack of transparency, and the way individual media networks report it or spin the story.
I cannot say if the recent reports on the Biden family as written in the New York Post article are true or not, however, I can say this. Any news media station that is known to lean towards the left, you rarely if ever hear them talk about it, and if it is mentioned, it is very limited, and not detailed as compared to other media networks. However, when Trump was being accused of having ties to Russia, that's all they talk about. Simply put, the sad fact is, some of the news media networks are NOT a trustworthy source of true and accurate information. They clearly did not learn their lesson when people lost confidence in them during the 2016 election cycle.
I always vote based on one basic rule. I will NOT vote for those who do not help the people or have policies that do not align with what I believe is best for the people, and the country. Instead, I would take my chances with someone new when it comes to state representations or even a President. Nancy Pelosi is only one link in this chain. The rest of the chain is made up of our elected state and local officials. If they stepped up to the plate and insisted on putting a stop to this type of politics, especially with making a deal that would help Americans, we still have a President in office who will sign the bill. Think about that.
So many small businesses rely on Christmas sales to carry them through the following year. They are already hurting, many have already closed for good. Amazon is doing gangbuster business, and the small businesses affiliated with them make money, however, Amazon takes a huge cut of the sale, and most of your local businesses are not affiliated with them. Without a strong holiday season of sales, smaller businesses will close their doors. That is a shame. More airlines will soon be laying off, and the ones that have will be laying off more. However, when the people making these decisions are worth millions, does it matter to them? This post was a bit more lengthy than my others, but this is an important topic, and I tried to cover the different topics I've been asked to discuss. Stay safe and be well.
Thank you ... Caesar Rondina
VIDEO PRODUCTION WORK:
We produce video book trailers, business ads, and speaker introductions.
You can subscribe to receive an email notification when a blog is posted by clicking this link. SUBSCRIBE. We do not share or sell your email.
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: LET'S GET CONNECTED!
Facebook - Caesar Rondina Author
Twitter - @caesarrondina
Instagram - caesarrondinaauthor
LinkedIn - Caesar Rondina
YouTube - https://cr-author.news/YouTube-Channel
Udemy - Udemy.com