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.
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE.
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.