I don't think much of binary choices for complex problems. Better to ask "who would you vote for and who would you vote against." I would vote for Trump if I was given the choice between him and an overt fascist. But given the choice between a non-fascist (Harris) and a covert fascist (Trump) I will vote for the non-fascist. That's not an endorsement of Harris, as that is a different question. If it was just a question of whose program was the better of a slate of acceptable choices, I'd vote independent.
I don't know what that means in detail, but I suspect it was average. With respect to vote counting, I presume it was also typical. I've seen no evidence to believe otherwise.
Lincoln, I agree! Binary choices don’t work well for complex problems. And most of the people I know agree with that. So, I’m wondering how you handled the 2024 election situation—we were all stuck in the same boat, as it is with most elections. We like some things about each candidate. And there are things we don’t like about each candidate.
It still sounds like you voted for Harris, but without endorsing her, which is confusing. Or did you find/write-in an independent with a better program?
At this point, I’m not trying to get you to tell me who you voted for. I’m just wondering how you handled the non-ideal situation. Maybe you didn’t vote in the last election? I know some people that took that approach.
David Martin has a perspective I think you share. He points out that some of our innate senses are being ignored. If individuals can gain increased awareness by opening up all senses and “live fully” then society will be better off. Seems that he’s a bit free and easy with cranial nerve physiology (unless I’m not understanding completely), but I think most would agree with his basic idea of recognizing innate capabilities and showing individuals how to optimize them. Here's the URL in case you or others are wanting to check this out: https://rumble.com/v5jzesa--alert-dr.-david-martins-election-wake-up-call-for-america.html
It takes a smarter approach, not a harder approach. More thought, not more action. The system is too complicated to expect that just breaking things fixes anything. It may create opportunities but that's not the goal. There are many layers of simultaneous progress (like science and freedom of information) and infection (like the banking system, the corporate/gov't revolving door, an isolationism). I'll vote for awareness over anger, patience with engagement over belligerence and indifference. If that's confusing, I agree.
I don't think much of binary choices for complex problems. Better to ask "who would you vote for and who would you vote against." I would vote for Trump if I was given the choice between him and an overt fascist. But given the choice between a non-fascist (Harris) and a covert fascist (Trump) I will vote for the non-fascist. That's not an endorsement of Harris, as that is a different question. If it was just a question of whose program was the better of a slate of acceptable choices, I'd vote independent.
...and thanks for the support! It feels a little hysterical, but justified.
I don't know what that means in detail, but I suspect it was average. With respect to vote counting, I presume it was also typical. I've seen no evidence to believe otherwise.
Lincoln, I agree! Binary choices don’t work well for complex problems. And most of the people I know agree with that. So, I’m wondering how you handled the 2024 election situation—we were all stuck in the same boat, as it is with most elections. We like some things about each candidate. And there are things we don’t like about each candidate.
It still sounds like you voted for Harris, but without endorsing her, which is confusing. Or did you find/write-in an independent with a better program?
At this point, I’m not trying to get you to tell me who you voted for. I’m just wondering how you handled the non-ideal situation. Maybe you didn’t vote in the last election? I know some people that took that approach.
David Martin has a perspective I think you share. He points out that some of our innate senses are being ignored. If individuals can gain increased awareness by opening up all senses and “live fully” then society will be better off. Seems that he’s a bit free and easy with cranial nerve physiology (unless I’m not understanding completely), but I think most would agree with his basic idea of recognizing innate capabilities and showing individuals how to optimize them. Here's the URL in case you or others are wanting to check this out: https://rumble.com/v5jzesa--alert-dr.-david-martins-election-wake-up-call-for-america.html
It takes a smarter approach, not a harder approach. More thought, not more action. The system is too complicated to expect that just breaking things fixes anything. It may create opportunities but that's not the goal. There are many layers of simultaneous progress (like science and freedom of information) and infection (like the banking system, the corporate/gov't revolving door, an isolationism). I'll vote for awareness over anger, patience with engagement over belligerence and indifference. If that's confusing, I agree.
Lincoln, I'm trying to get a sense of your political mindset: Is it safe for me to assume that you voted for Harris?
Thank you for writing about this!
Hi Lincoln, Just have to ask: Do you think the 2020 Presidential election was free and fair?