Millions "Taking A Knee" On Presidential Vote. Aren't They Making US Choose For Them?

How will that "don't vote for any
of them" plan work out actually?

I had a rather heated response to this question that I posed when I posed it in a FB post, but I think it deserves to be asked again, and in a more thoughtful way.

In order to frame this question, it's important that I ignore the defense of Hillary because I'm doing my darndest to be more sensitive to those of you who've decided that nobody is worth your vote this time around.

I'm going to disregard that Bush (the son) had 13 embassy attacks resulting in 66 deaths including 3 American diplomats and 22 embassy workers. I'll do the same ignoring of the 10 attacks under Ronald Reagan resulting in 318 deaths including 1 US Ambassador, 18 CIA officers and 254 Marines. I can even forget the fact that Bush never had an investigation as a result of the deaths, and Reagan only had one.

None of that matters when the people telling you that Hillary is a murderer are convinced that she is the reason they are dead. The 13 investigations have taken these Hillary haters off of her email trail for the purpose of finding blame over Benghazi, but they still need a Wikileaks to prove some form of pay to play with their very charitable organization, CGI (Clinton Global Initiative).

Keep in mind that the email Hillary's opponents are seeking for pay to play proof is a connection only made possible because THE CLINTON'S HAVE RELEASED THEIR TAXES AND THE BOOKS TO THE CHARITY.

Let me say this again in another way.

In order for me to believe what you are saying about that evil Hillary and her horny husband Bill, I have to connect some yet to be found email, or yet to be authenticated Wikileaks, to the open books that they've provided for everyone to see, just like most presidential candidates do.

I am suspending belief in all that I've just mentioned about Hillary's open documents, and I will equate this yet to be found open book crime with whatever Donald has told us about his closed books. For the sake of argument, I am trusting what a Russian dictator has shared from people's private files (will it be okay if they release any nude photo's since some of you are okay with the rest of this stuff?) and I am scouring through all of it like the gospel truth, trying to connect it all back to THE OPEN DOCUMENTS THAT THE CLINTON'S PROVIDED TO EVERYONE.

For the purpose of this article, and this question, I am ignoring the obvious differences between these two candidates and taking them to be the exact same Bozo's that some dear friends and family have called them.

Now that I've separated myself from my own distorted reality in exchange for your more realistic one, I am now truly, really and sincerely ready to consider the idea of doing the exact same thing as some of you and not vote for anyone as well.

My question is- before I make protest posters or write up blogs to sell the rest of America on the value and virtue of this approach- what is the value and virtue of this approach?

What would be gained if only me and about 600 more people that I can convince join in the "No Vote" ideology? What happens if every American finally see's the light and bows out of the presidential vote too? Other than the Congress being forced to choose for US, doesn't the process of bowing out allow the remaining voters- whoever they may be- to decide which president the rest of US lives with?

That's not really a question because the answer is obvious. Of course, the people that vote are the people that choose for all of us.  That is not really a debatable topic even though it sounds like extortion if you are as firm about the right to "Not Vote" as Colin Kaepernick is about taking a knee.

I am not debating the right to take a knee on an anthem or an election. I am asking the value of it so that I can decide if I will join in myself.  As it stands, I am willing and ready to sell the benefits of not voting just as I've sold the value of taking a knee and every other protest that came before it.

I'm not personally interested in taking a knee against the flag as my way to improve it, but I appreciate the knee people for the conversations and the situational awareness that must happen every time someone gets into another heated debate over the virtue of saluting the flag versus protesting the ways in which the flag has failed.

Protest is important, and comes in many forms and fashions.
I just don't understand this "Not Voting" protest, very much.

I can advocate for this not voting thing in the same vein of free expression if I could just put into words what this decision expresses. With barely 50% of Americans voting these days, how does reducing those numbers to less than 50% and allowing less than a majority decide for all of the rest make sense? What is the magical percent of lack of involvement that will finally make bureaucrats listen and respond to our frustration?

Like it or not, we are all stuck with the president that the majority (or plurality) selects. voters who sit out might hope for more obstructionist government, but even that doesn't change the impact and direction of the Executive Orders that will ensue or the Supreme Court selections that are still the privilege of whoever wins the presidency.

Should Bashir Al-Assad be removed and what happens with Russia if we do it.
Our next president must soon decide if America will honor the Syrian no-fly
zone that Russia claimed to establish against ISIS.......who has no aircraft. 

No, you do not have to exercise your privilege to vote because freedom provides you that privilege. You will, however, have to accept Roe v Wade if the wrong side wins but you want abortion to become a crime. Conversely, your gay friends who recently got married may have their nuptials annulled by the results of this election, depending on who wins.

You don't have to choose from the best of the bunch or write in your own choice if that seems like too much of a long shot. You don't even need to show up if none of this seems like it's worth your time, but you will live with whoever WE choose for you, so please don't curse and whine at friends and family that choose your next president for you. WE invited you to come to the store with US and pick out the best watermelon available. Sorry if we choose the sour one over the seedy one.

We'll be heading back to the store in four years, just so you know.
 

Congress Conducting Paid Protest Against Abortion

If you  need to understand the reason for the excessive rancor in congress, take this anonymous quote shared today by Chuck Todd (MSNBC's MTP Daily).

One particular conservative congressperson stated to him that they spend half of their time in Washington trying to convince people that they are not crazy, and the rest back at home trying to convince constituents that they are.

Whenever the electorate is found in a fury, they are looking for candidates who will give voice to it all.

This is the wave of dissent that seems to be driving the distorted campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that only receives 3% of its funding from federal dollars.

Poll after poll shows that Planned Parenthood has wide reaching bi-partisan appeal  and not only among the 2.7 million people that used these services last year. In fact, Planned Parenthood out polls every presidential candidate for the 2016 election and Barack Obama as well.  This persistent effort to take on a really old abortion battle by attacking a really popular health organization has way more downside than upside considering the fact that any resolution to defund would only survive the House and would die in the Senate or by presidential veto, but won't be forgotten by those who consider this an attack on the rights of the individual.

Yet, they press on, convinced that the danger of losing a re-election at home is much worse than the risk of a further divided nation.

Planned Parenthood president Cecille Richards, spent today entertaining a crowd in congress that convened another session to convince angry republican voters that they hear them and they are responding, even though this group of voters does not represent a majority of Americans or a majority view on abortion.

Might there come a day when the abortion fight finally turns in favor of those who refuse to let it go?

No!

There is no reasonable expectation that really smart women, who have already decided on their own ability to choose their own health care direction, will suddenly question their own intelligence and hand this decision over to congress.

In fact, there is a really strong expectation that Planned Parenthood, an organization that also funds advocacy and lobbying efforts to further their cause, will coordinate themselves against this opposition taking advantage of their popularity that has NOT diminished even with all of the negative publicity.

The Hyde Amendment itself (the abortion related bill that disallows most federal support of abortions) might be reconsidered since all of this conversation is revealing the lack of federal support that certain health clinics receive as a result of providing abortion services. An effort that began to defund abortions could essentially result in an expansion of fund access to other abortion providers who might seek to display a separation between the funding of abortions versus the funding of other services as Planned Parenthood does to maintain its federal support.

In other words, watch out republican party.  This is not a weak organization without resource or recourse when facing challenges.  Political ads created by this group have typically been powerfully influential and damaging to potential republican candidates.

Given our new found freedom of choice relative to health care, Richards capsulized her argument  before congress into an obvious truth.  If congress has a problem with Planned Parenthood, they actually have a problem with the 2.7 million that choose to use them versus other health care options.

Despite limited hours of availability at most locations, and limited access to certain types of screenings (i.e., mammogram machines), 2.7 million still would rather use Planned Parenthood over the overcrowded clinics that might offer more services but aren't always as clean or capable of meeting the rising demand for health care services.  Whether Planned Parenthood remains or not, America is clearly desperate to meet the growing needs created by expanded health care access from the ACA.

Who a woman chooses as a doctor (and most women seem to prefer their OB-GYN as their primary physician as well) is as personal a decision as is abortion, and as sacred as the right to worship and the right to bear arms.

Stated clearly, there is no potential for a political victory when you threaten to shut down government over an issue that polls so heavily in the other sides favor.  There is only the potential to force out a capable House Speaker in favor of an inexperienced puppet who will soon be in for a sad surprise. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House sits behind the vice-president in line to the White House, yet- because of conservative infighting- few republicans in congress are remotely interested in this once esteemed post.

The impetus for all of this were these anti-abortion attack videos against Planned Parenthood, however, today's committee did not attempt to include the testimony of the video's producer who was not called by the committee chair and was reportedly unwilling to testify alongside Richards.

Fetal stem cell research had its day under congressional review back during the Ronald Reagan days, and it passed as an acceptable scientific practice that is not exclusively done with Planned Parenthood fetal donations.  Only two of Planned Parenthood's 500+ locations do fetal donations and only one sales the parts in order to offset the cost of the program itself. If the debate over stem cell research and abortion deserve to be taken up again in the halls of congress, there is a way to make this happen.

To Hell With Legislation

Is there an excessive amount of unusual waste in the realm of government?

Of course, but it came to be via a legislative journey that had value and purpose at the time, even if only to insure the full maintenance of "use it or lose it" funding attached to certain bill appropriations.

If you ask Senator Rand Paul, he believes that blocking funding should be the backdoor approach that his party should employ to destroy legislation that they don't particularly agree with instead of actually doing the legislative work that congress is elected and paid to do.

The roughly 60 million dollars of federal assistance that Planned Parenthood receives might not be a significant percentage of our entire wasteful budget, but it should be under the same scrutiny of waste that every area of government spending deserves.  Shrinking wasteful spending is noble and necessary, and if Planned Parenthood is truly an unnecessary expenditure for taxpayers, it should be included in our efforts to reduce the size of government.

Yet, by defunding only the things that a majority in congress doesn't particularly like, they render the path and process of legislation as moot and laws as malleable with back end funding fights designed to circumvent laws.

The Freedom Coalition?

What makes very little sense is why would congressional republicans build a coalition to defund America instead of using the same coalition that it will take to be successful in this effort to simply change the laws in the first place?

The reason is, they don't have the numbers (67 votes in the Senate) to get it done, they only have the numbers to be a nuisance.

Paid political protesters if you will, but hardly legislators.