Utopianstates Blog

A thin majority — a 50-50 split — is a decision that only shows perfect indecision and confusion. Any so called democracy that makes decisions based on a vote where the winning margin is less than twenty-five percent is foolish.

The DNC should use their convention to actually decide the election rather than to try and pimp a candidate with slim credentials. The “Madison Avenue” approach to using marketing techniques to spin up a candidate is actually sinister.

In Peru, the field is narrowed to two candidates, then the WHOLE country gets to vote on the two remaining candidates. I would vote differently if I had another vote.

There are a lot of other potential methods for selecting a candidate. Perhaps there should be two times through the gamut.

Perhaps we should have a shared presidency. Perhaps there should be two spokespersons/presidents, one for each party.

Making a decision based on a 50-50 vote is a fallacy. A vote of 50-50 does not make a logical or meritorious decision. Making a decision based on a 50-50 split would be like the computer engineer deciding to determine whether a bit was a logical one or a logical zero by taking the average of a few million bits. Ha. In computer circuits a logical zero is below 1.2 volts and a logical one is above 2.4 volts. Everything in the middle is rejected.

Reject the close decisions. Design our nation correctly.

A good conservative approach is to find and eliminate or correct the flaws and defects of government and society.

A good liberal approach is to firstly to improve human rights of ALL the people and secondly to propose valid and well engineered plans and programs.

Republicans are not good conservatives and Democrats are not good liberals. The concepts of conservative and liberal, as stated, are good. However, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have diverged from healthy approaches to government and society.

Liberals aren’t just for blacks or women, they are supposed to be for human rights. Liberals are supposed to be for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, not just blacks and women! Where is the white man in their scheme of the future world?

Liberals aren’t just for the poor, they are supposed to be for human rights. Liberals are supposed to be for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, not just for handouts to the poor. The wealthy have the right to low taxes just as the poor have the right to food, shelter and clothing.

Liberals aren’t for the children, they are supposed to be for human rights. Liberals are supposed to be for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, not just children. Grownups have the right to jobs, justice (free from police and court brutalities) and the pursuit of happiness just as the children have the right to food, shelter and clothing, education, medical care and a decent family.

Liberals and democrats should stand for human rights for ALL. The democratic party seems to miss the barn if they do not stand for the rights of ALL. It is not a trade. Democrats seem to be trading the rights of the adult male for women, children and minorities. What is this simplistic marketing venue?

Get a life Democrats, you should make the point that you are for human rights. You know, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That type of stuff. You fail if you take sides. You cannot be for human rights and for only one sex, race, or income level.

Do Democrats understand the human race?

A vote that has a nearly even outcome is not a decision – it is indecision. A 50-50 vote represents the ultimate doubt. There can be no greater doubt than a 50-50 decision. It is the perfect uncertainty.

Polls show that the American government, at least the part that’s in Washington, does not even have an approval rating of 30 percent. More than 70 percent of the people polled suggest that the American government is NOT doing a good job. That is decisive! I’ll bet more than 30% of Americans would approve of the job the lowly maggot is doing!

Perhaps if two candidates split the vote, they should also split the job. A 50-50 outcome is NOT a good thing.

The Gore-Bush election decided nothing. It made people mad. The Obama-Hillary election likewise decided nothing. It has also made people angry. For good reason too! The outcome was the ultimate democratic uncertainty: a 50-50 split.

From the 2008 Draft Al Gore Campaign site:

Publicly, we remain dormant, but we are carefully watching the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, Obama is ahead in delegates, but both candidates continue to split the available delegates in such a way that neither may have enough to be nominated on the first ballot at the convention in August. The next (and last) major state as far as delegates go is Pennsylvania. Depending on what happens there in April, we may decide that it’s time to swing into action again.

If Clinton and Obama continue to do damage to each other’s campaigns, if they continue to split the delegates, if it appears that the Democratic Party will be divided rather than united going into the convention, it may become evident that the party needs someone who can unite the Democrats, and most importantly, someone who can beat John McCain in November. To our way of thinking, the obvious someone is Al Gore.

We’re not the only ones entertaining this notion.

See the site by clicking on this link: The 2008 Draft Al Gore Campaign

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a LAND that’s free,
Let us all be grateful for a LAND so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Bless America,
LAND that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Ya’ll note that it says LAND that I love. It says nothing about government.

The following quote is from Wikipedia. The discussed information can also be found in more original sources throughout the net.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[1]

This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of “talking points,” which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.

The technique is described in a saying, often attributed to Lenin, as “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”, [2] although the user may not be intentionally promoting a lie and may just believe an illogical or faulty proposition.

Political parties use this fallacy to redefine words such as Liberal and Conservative. They repeat their definition so often that people think their redefinition is true.

The association of the redefined word is made with the opposing party and the opposing candidate. This clusters all candidates together not only as the same, but of having the characteristics of the altered definition.

More later. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I will follow this post with many other examples of how Americans are brainwashed and provide further clarification.

The following use of the words conservative and liberal refers to the previously given definitions for those words. Both major political parties are thought to be an eclectic mix of liberal, conservative, dysfunctional and punishing ideas.

Today, a conservative approach to building Utopia is probably necessary because people are afraid of sudden changes. People fear change will result in expanded government spending and regulation. With our government debt over 9 trillion dollars, who can blame them?

A conservative approach to building Utopia:

1.) Identify national problems.
2.) Fix each problem without incurring further expense.

The suppositions are:

1.) Reducing defects leads to perfection.
2.) Utopia is perfection.

As an example of how this approach worked, consider the evolution of the television. In 1950, televisions had no transistors. Vacuum tubes were the technology of that era. The televisions were hand wired. The wiring on the bottom looked like a dish of spaghetti. The printed circuit board was developed. This replaced the wiring. The televisions became more reliable and cheaper to make. The cost reductions and reliability improvements were passed on to the consumer. Transistors and IC’s were integrated over the years to further improve reliability and cost.

Understand that this approach was possible because of the free market and capitalism. Understand too, that government is currently a monopoly.

If the conservative approach worked for American industry, then it should also work for the American government.

The problems are plausibly identified by:

1) Asking the people what is wrong in their lives.
2) Asking people what is wrong with the laws.
3) Asking the people what is wrong with government programs.
4) Asking the government employees what improvements need to be made.
5) Asking the elected what is wrong with America.

Note that #1-4 are not currently used. When has government asked you about your problems in government? Where is the on-line database of the answers/data?

The political parties send you questionnaires.. However these questionnaires are designed to get your contributions. They are not worded fairly, nor are they complete. Dissect one of these political questionnaires in a class on logical fallacies and the whole class laughs at the broken logic. One to Four above are not currently done. One to Four above ALL need to be done to produce better (more Utopian) government.

The problems should be fixed by:

1.) Research.
2.) Communication.
3.) Planning.
4.) Study of cost effectiveness.
5.) Study of what is fair and just.
6.) Study of all options.
7.) The application of policy that favors all people.

Currently, problems seemed to be resolved by a determination of how many votes will be gained.

Washington must improve if America is to improve.