So the 2024 General Election is upon us…
We have spent the last four years,
no, wait, the last eight years,
no, wait, the last twelve years,
bickering and arguing over what is least bad for our country, the piss side or the poop side. If you have been following along. I know some of you have, you just cannot help yourselves when it comes to this bullshit. People just love to have opinions over which they have very little controllable input on.
This goes back to past blogs on subjects like:
• Codependency
• Clichés
• Delusionalism
• Due Diligence
• Existentialism
• Hubrisism
• Macguffin(s)
• Narcissistic-Sociopathy
• Nihilism
• Pseudo (anything)
• Rhetoric
• Semantics
If you are not sure what these actually mean, not the made up or pseudo-meanings, but the actual conceptual meaning of these words one should look up, read, and re-look up, and re-re-read because that is where most of us either get lost or have full on fights over why this concept, word, do not match up to the action they are supposed to represent.
In this General Election we are voting for a few things besides just the next President of the United States. We have two Justices of the Supreme Court, five Judges for the Sixth District Court of Appeals, a Country Court Judge, a US Senator, a Congress-person, a State Senator, a Supervisor of Elections, a County Commissioner and six new amendments in the Florida ballot for the General Election.
Since most people tend to be very loud at who they support, a good portion of that group also do not know why they are voting for, against these things. While most will stamp their social medias with what they stand for, I am taking it step a further. I am going to share every vote I made and explain why I voted that way. I do not know how many actually research any of this stuff. I can tell you from what I see others do, not a whole lot of critical thinking went into it. Most did the usual, scroll through Google and hope for the best. Some even used AI, like ChatGPT. We really cannot trust what comes from Google anymore. Privacy Concerns, Bias in Search Results, Monopolistic Practices, Content Filtering and Censorship, Commercial Prioritization are now a common place for the company. While they are still the PC standard, one has to use good judgement with using it. The same concerns pop up for ChatGPT. ChatGPT is not a credible source of information and should not be used for academic writing without doing heavy fact-checking and advanced knowledge on engineer-prompting. ChatGPT can give inaccurate responses. ChatGPT’s responses are based on patterns, not facts and data, so it can often get things wrong. ChatGPT’s output is correlation-based, so it’s not possible to verify it against actual sources. ChatGPT’s information is limited to what it was trained on, which is mostly data from before 2021. ChatGPT in recent years has been labeled by most computer engineers as biased that leans more liberal than non-partisan. ChatGPT is a machine and doesn’t have the ability to empathize with users. However, if one knows how to prompt, fancy word for query, or ask it a question, one can circumvent some if not most of these limitations. I used it to simplify some of the wording in the amendments.
There are resources out there to simplify a lot of this but that takes time and energy. People in 2024, with their dumb-as-fuck-smartphones do not really practice due diligence when it comes to researching facts. The tendency is to believe whatever shows up on your device as fact, by default, without any further research or knowledge on the subject. Yeah, let me know how that mentality works out for you. No, I will not wait. I will be dead, before that logic actually works in one’s favor.
Now, with that said, it’s time to get real about how I’ve approached my voting decisions for this election. Instead of falling into the same traps of blind partisanship or relying on mainstream video and sound bites, I made sure to actually research each candidate, judge, and amendment on the ballot. Many would think this is a hard and long process. Yes and no, depending on your ability to navigate the internet and its many sources. For me it took less than a half of a football game where the game was flying by as both teams were run heavy, so the clock didn’t stop much. Maybe an hour and twenty minutes to make my choices. I can navigate the internet for research at a pretty high level. Just so it’s clear on my voter registration card it says NPA, ‘No Party Affiliation.’
• It does not say ‘Democrat’ on it.
• It does not say, ‘Republican.’
• It also does not say ‘Independent.’
• Its NPA…
• For a Reason…
I’m not here to tell you how to vote, but I am going to break down how I voted—and more importantly, WHY… Maybe you’ll agree with me, maybe you won’t. That’s fine. It does not really matter. What matters is that my choices are mine, deliberate, intentional, and informed. I didn’t just vote to fit in with the "piss" or "poop" side. I voted based on what I believe will keep the government from overstepping its boundaries into our personal freedoms while also making this country safe for all its legal citizens. For instance, when it comes to hot-button issues like abortion, I aligned with the liberals because they give more freedoms to women rather than putting limitations on them. Do I agree with everything they stand for in their argument? Absolutely not. But I chose the side that, in my view, “minds their own business” more, which is what matters to me. This logic applies to all of my votes—whether on amendments, candidates, or the system itself—it’s about minimizing government overreach and preserving individual liberties for me, personally. And no, I did not think about other people and how this effects other people. I never have been that way in my personal life. I make decisions for myself and the few in my circle. The rest can suffer for all I care. Besides; suffering is good for the soul. In Christian theology, the notion of suffering leading to spiritual growth is often emphasized. Saint Augustine, for instance, wrote about the idea that trials and tribulations can bring people closer to God. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," In Buddhism, suffering (dukkha) is seen as an inherent part of life that, when understood, can lead to enlightenment and inner peace. So do not give me that; “I am a selfish prick,” shit. I have my reasoning and if anyone at any time wants to know why, you are free to ask. I am also free to give you the finger and smile…
And with that, let’s get into the details. Here’s a look at every vote I made and why on the State of Florida’s General Election ballot.
1) Five Judges for the Sixth District Court of Appeals:
On the ballot there are choices to either vote yes to retain or no to not retain these judges. I did a light browse over their career marks. Where they come from. What they have done to this point to be where they are. I voted YES for Paetra Brownlee, Roger Gannam, and voted NO for Joshua Mize, Jared Smith, and Keith White.
I voted yes for both Paetra Brownlee, Roger Gannam because of their age, background and where appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis. I feel like both people stand for common sense beyond the politics of a given situation. Granted, even though they are partisan they have exercised less of that and more non-partisan, common sense, critical thinking and logic. I also voted no for Joshua Mize,
Jared Smith, and Keith White. My reasoning is for voting no for these Judges are two main topics: 1) Religion and 2) Interfering with women’s rights with abortion. I will only explain in brief here as abortion is a hot-take that will be later discussed in the amendments. I do not believe religion or religious values should govern people in general. It is ok to love Jesus, but don’t tell me I need to or else. That is a good way to never gain my cooperation. In-fact, I will react spitefully and intentionally the opposite of your expectation. I really do not care if one cares about God/Jesus or not but it should not be in our legislation, whatsoever, be it at the state or national levels. The second point on abortion that isn’t anyone’s business what a woman does with her body, which also includes any life growing inside of her. It is ok to shun her, call her names, look down at her but to tell her she can’t is beyond the scope of what any government should be permitted to do to anyone. It is simply no other person’s or agencies business what people do with their own bodies, PERIOD… These three judges consistently make their judgements on their religious beliefs and refuse to understand it isn’t any of theirs or the state’s business.
2) Two Justices of the Supreme Court:
On the ballot there are choices to either vote yes to retain or no to not retain these justices. Same parameters as above. I voted YES for both Renatha Francis, Meredith Sasso.
I voted yes for both Renatha Francis, Meredith Sasso due to their track record while in office. They have more hits for freedom than misses and tend to align with Governor Ron DeSantis’s conservative values for the state. I just think if the current landscape doesn’t need a change, why vote for it?
On the ballot there are choices to vote for a United States Senator. The choices were: Rick Scott – Republican, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell – Democrat, Feena Bonoan – Libertarian Party of Florida, Tuan TQ Nguyen – No Party Affiliation, Ben Everidge – No Party Affiliation. I voted for Ben Everidge.
My reasoning is pretty simple. Ben Everidge is a Veteran, writer, master’s degree in Government and is not well associated to a political party. He is labeled on the ballot as NPA (No Party Affiliation). I do not care for Rick Scott as both a leader or a person. I always felt he missed way more than he hit for us, so I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t vote democrat because on the outside chance a democrat ran for office that didn’t follow how the democrats do their business doesn’t really exist. If one did and I agreed with them, I’d vote for them. None exist, no I didn’t vote for a single person that is labeled a democrat on the ballot, so no there… As much as I might agree with Libertarians more than disagree, they are still part of a system that is inherently broken. They believe the system is fine, we just need more choices. That Libertarianism is some sort of savior is part of the problem. So as long as they parade around acting like that with their mentality, I won’t vote for them. I didn’t vote for Tuan TQ Nguyen because I am not voting for a refugee from Vietnam to be equipped to run even local politics. Even if he was a Canadian refugee I wouldn’t vote for him. Not American born, raised and not living that life. I am not voting for someone that learned that life not lived it. So, that just leaves Ben Everidge.
4) Representative in Congress, District 17:
On the ballot there are choices to vote for a United States Representative in Congress for District 17. The choices were: Greg Steube – Republican and Manny Lopez – Democrat. I voted for Greg Steube – Republican
As I stated above I didn’t vote for any Democrats in this election. My main reason is because there were no Democrats in this election that made me believe that another term is all they need. Yeah, no thanks… Pick up your participation ribbon at the door. I voted Republican because all other choices were Democrats all painting the Republicans as wrong, and evil. Instead of taking accountability its always pointing the finger at the other side. The Republican side does this just as much, but it is the Democrats that have had the control for four years and did nothing but hurt everyone in the process. I am picking piss or poop where I have labeled the Republican Party as Urine and the Democratic Party as literal pieces of Shit. Onto the next category of bullshit.
5) State Senate, District 27:
On the ballot there are choices to vote for the Florida State Senate for District 27. The choices were: Ben Albritton – Republican and Phillip R. Carter – Democrat. I voted for Ben Albritton – Republican
As I stated a few times now, I didn’t vote for any Democrats in this election. Pretty much what I said above holds strong here.
6) Florida House of Representatives, District 75:
On the ballot there are choices to vote for the Florida House of Representatives, District 75. The choices were: Danny Nix – Republican and Tony Dunbar – Democrat. I voted for Danny Nix – Republican
See reasoning responses three and four.
7) Supervisor of Elections and County Commissioner, District 5:
On the ballot there are only one choice each for Supervisor of Elections and County Commissioner, District 5.
Supervisor of Elections, Leah Valenti and County Commissioner, District 5, Joseph Tiseo. Unless I wanted to dig deep to write on in that is what I chose. Since there were not any other choices on the ballot I didn’t bother to research them. I mean no one seemed to care to do the work to go up against either of them so, I guess that is that then.
8) County Court Judge, Group 1, Charlotte County:
On the ballot there are choices to vote for the Charlotte County Court Judge for Group 1. Sean Lux or Kathryn Wallace. I voted for Sean Lux.
I voted for Sean Lux for a few reasons I will list here. Like myself, he’s a computer nerd, a veteran, helps local vets in our area, works with non-profits. Specializes in economic and sexual crimes. Hey, that’s enough for me to gain my vote, as far as locality goes.
As mentioned above there are six new amendments to be voted on. We will go through each one here but know I am not posting the amendments word for word here. If you want to go find them then Google will actually be your bestie on that front. I did pump these through ChatGPT along with some advanced prompting to get ChatGPT to do this. Most of the time when you ask ChatGPT for guidance with politics its bias rears its ugly head. It will also play dumb and act like it cannot respond to our political queries. Oh, but it will, oh but it will. One just needs to know how to do this. Like I said earlier, due diligence is something people do not do regularly by default when using these tools.
1) Amendment 1 – Establishing School Board Elections as Partisan:
In layman’s terms this amendment would amend the state constitution to require school district board members to be elected in a partisan election instead of the nonpartisan elections we have now. Voting yes would make school board elections partisan, meaning parties could nominate their own candidates for the elections and require that candidates list their political affiliation on the ballot. Voting no would leave school board elections nonpartisan. I voted No…
Over the past four or five years, I have seen so many videos of parents losing their minds at school board meetings because the school boards want to play politics with our kids. I do not want more politics in positions of power within the school board. I want less. I want more regular, you, me, like-minded, logical folk who are not looking to build their political resumes by pretending to be Emperor of how our local schools are run. Just about every political take that tends to suck gets forced onto the children, and the FBI labeling parents as domestic terrorists isn’t just low-class; it’s not even logically founded. It’s just a buzzword to make parents out to be crazy and the leaders, sane. Parents often find themselves in heated debates over curriculum content, including controversial subjects like Critical Race Theory, sex education, and LGBTQ+ topics. They’re fighting against book bans and censorship, arguing for academic freedom while some push to remove materials they find inappropriate. COVID-19 policies like mask mandates, school safety issues, and debates over equity and diversity programs also fuel these tensions. Ultimately, it’s a battle between parental rights and school autonomy, and it’s gotten ugly. Look, when it comes to school board elections, why would we want to drag party politics into it? Non-partisan candidates are actually focused on what matters—like, I don’t know, our kids’ education—without worrying about climbing some political ladder. They’re less likely to get distracted by national hot takes and more likely to care about what’s actually happening in local schools. You vote for a non-partisan candidate, you get someone who’s making decisions for the community, not for some party agenda. Plus, who really wants their kids’ math curriculum decided by someone playing party games? Get rid of critical race theory and gender identity politics and bring back shop class, home economics, automotive and electrical classes. Hell, put a boxing gym in a school and teach kids the “sweet science” and discipline that is boxing…
2) Amendment 2 – Establishing a State Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish:
Florida’s Amendment 2 seeks to “preserve forever fishing and hunting” as a public right. So far, there haven’t been any bans or restrictions on hunting and fishing in Florida. Florida is trying to make fishing and hunting as much as a protected entitled right as owning a gun. I voted yes.
While there should be “some” regulation for fishing and hunting, anyone should be able to exercise this right with as little red tape from the state as possible. I live in Florida. I don’t hunt or eat fish but if I lived out in the woods this would be a necessity to survive. I just want to see that right be available to all and not abuse fishing and hunting to such a level that we need further regulation from the state to protect wildlife as much as we protect the right to fish and hunt that very same wildlife.
3) Amendment 3 – Marijuana Laws for the State of Florida:
I am sure this will be a hot-take. This is also where I heavily used ChatGPT to analyze the amendment in full and break it down so I could both understand it and search for logical fallacies inside the amendment. Many times lawmakers will write bills with vague wording that the public doesn’t really understand and even though on the surface the definition will be obvious to us it may hold a more significant meaning in walls of a court room or law book. More over amendments tend to give up freedoms in some other way while gaining more freedoms for the specified amendment. Meaning if you want something, you have to give something up. We see this a lot in politics from both sides over the past decade. It is hysterical how often this is happening now. This could be a blog all its own. I voted NO on Amendment 3.
I began a dialog with ChatGPT. I prompted it with a question here:
“Please analyze this amendment. I am looking for logical fallacies that may be inside the document. Ultimately, I am happy with the medical marijuana laws as they are. If they are going to make changes that need to give up more personal freedoms rather than wanting to restrict, and control the flow and potency of marijuana. Ultimately, a monopoly. I want less government restrictions, not more. And using the fentanyl crisis, as the main reasoning for the added control is in poor taste. Based on this amendment and my feelings above. Should I vote for or against this amendment based on my particulars? Also explain your reasoning.”
[Insert CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FULL 1,847 words here]
Based on the amendment text you provided and your personal concerns, here’s an analysis of some of the key elements:
• Potential Monopolization and Corporate Control:
The amendment allows “Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers” (MMTCs) and other state-licensed entities to handle the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana for personal use. This framework continues the heavy involvement of regulated, often large, businesses. This may pave the way for “corporate monopolies” in the marijuana industry, which you seem to be opposed to, as it limits smaller growers from participating. Your concern for fewer restrictions and a more open, small-scale approach isn’t addressed, as “personal cultivation” for adults is not explicitly mentioned or permitted in the text. This could continue to restrict individual freedom to grow small amounts for personal use, aligning with your fear of monopolization.
The amendment does set specific “possession limits” (3.0 ounces of marijuana and no more than 5 grams of concentrate), which introduces a “limit on personal freedom.” The text allows for further “legislation” to be enacted in a manner “consistent with the amendment,” meaning additional laws could further restrict or regulate how marijuana is accessed and used, potentially favoring large businesses over personal freedom.
• Fentanyl and Overregulation:
Although the text doesn’t mention fentanyl explicitly, if the “fentanyl crisis” is being used as a justification in the broader conversation to tighten marijuana control, it might be an example of a “false cause fallacy” (connecting two unrelated issues—fentanyl and marijuana). If this argument is being used in public discussions or as a primary motivator for the amendment, it could be considered disingenuous. The amendment itself is about marijuana use for adults, and trying to tie it into the fentanyl crisis could be seen as “fear-mongering” to justify tighter controls.
The “language of regulation” in the amendment emphasizes controlled distribution through licensed entities and compliance with existing federal law. This doesn’t align with your desire for “less government involvement” and more freedom to manage marijuana use independently. The repeated mention of “Department regulations” suggests that government oversight and control will remain central, which contrasts with your preference for deregulation.
• Fallacies or Inconsistencies:
a) Slippery Slope: While the amendment doesn’t explicitly state that further restrictions will come, the “open-ended phrasing” around “consistent legislation” leaves room for more government intervention, which could be a concern for you.
b) Appeal to Authority: The amendment relies heavily on licensed Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers and state agencies, assuming that they are the only entities capable of safely handling marijuana distribution. This may ignore other viable, more decentralized models for marijuana use.
• ChatGPT’s Recommendation:
Given that this amendment does not address your primary concern for “less regulation” and personal freedom to cultivate marijuana, and instead focuses on state-controlled systems that could contribute to monopolization, it seems to go against your desires. The lack of provisions for small-scale personal growth, combined with the possibility of more control and restrictions, suggests that “voting against” this amendment might align better with your principles. You are happy with the current medical marijuana laws and would prefer changes that “expand” freedom rather than create more regulation, which this amendment does not seem to provide.
And that folks is how you should use ChatGPT for political queries. You do not ask it direct questions. You phrase your questions in the prompt in terms of logic and what you personally seek. All ChatGPT did here was take the amendment in its full text and analyze it for faulty logic, double-talk, concessions taken away and given in return and semantics of the phrasing (what the phrases actually mean), not what we think they mean based on our understanding of the English language. There is English and then there is English as defined in a court of law… Vote No on 3 if you have any aspirations of growing your own marijuana in your backyard, legally without regulation.
4) Amendment 4 – Limit Government Interference with Abortion:
“No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.” See Full Amendment Here… I voted Yes…
I am sure I will get some hate on this topic. This for me all comes down to one concept. It isn’t mine, yours, or anyone’s business what any person does with their body once they are an adult. I will never knowingly vote for anything that limits personal freedoms. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says about abortion. The Bible is not the, or a, bill of rights. I personally do not like abortion but I also respect the personal right of what isn’t your business, even if and especially if I do not agree with it. Call a woman a whore. Say things like baby-killer. Believe whatever you want to believe. But what we cannot do, ever, is dictate to a woman, no, you must give birth to this child. What in the living fuck are you all talking about here? Why do you care? Why is it your business? I get the money aspects, tax payer dollars funded this and that. Hey, fine. You don’t want taxes to pay for it, fine. No worries, just don’t tell them they can’t if they can come up with the funds. Its their baby, their body, not yours, in any respect and if you are one of those people that thinks it is, this is the part where you will see pictures of yourself under the label of delusionalism, hubrisism, and Narcissistic-Sociopathy. You are not as important as your likes, follows, subscribers and dead accounts you collect on insta-book or whatever platform makes you feel like you are the most popular person at a circle jerk.
Look, I get it—this is one of those topics that stirs people up. But when it comes down to brass tacks, who on earth should be telling an adult what they can or can’t do with their body? Seriously, if it’s not your body, then it’s not your problem. I don’t care what label you throw at a woman, or which parts of some holy text you cherry-pick to justify your stance. Last time I checked, we don’t legislate morality based on someone’s personal beliefs or the Bible (the idiots guide to living a bland and shit-stain life). Don’t like abortions? Cool, don’t have one. But this amendment isn’t about you—it’s about ensuring that women have the right to make their own healthcare choices if they need to. Let’s keep things simple: their body, their choice. Keep your righteousness out of their doctor’s office. Mind your business and leave people alone…
5) Amendment 5 – Homestead Exemption Inflation Adjustment:
Florida’s Amendment 5 seeks to require an annual adjustment for inflation for the value of current or future homestead exemptions. It would create an inflation adjustment for the second half of a property owner’s $50,000 reduction from the taxable value of their home. Voting no, Florida can raise property taxes. Yes would create an inflation adjustment for the second of those two exemptions. I voted yes…
I voted yes for the simple reason that these storms lately in South West Florida have changed the way we all live. We are still getting repairs done from Hurricane Ian. Just got hit with Helene and then Milton. That if inflation is going up and we have to pay more into the system we should get more from the system. I probably have this all wrong. I always felt like these insurance companies care not for the homes and people they take money from. More times than not people have to take them to court. Its to a point now where we won’t even ask the insurance company. We’ll get an independent inspector and adjustor and take the company to court. That is all they understand. Voting in favor of Amendment 5 aligns with more with my logic that homeowners deserve some protection from skyrocketing costs—whether that’s from inflation, home repairs, or increased tax burdens. If anything, my experiences with storms and dealing with insurance companies adds a layer of context that reinforces why people may need these kinds of inflation-adjusted exemptions, even though the amendment won’t directly tackle insurance issues.
6) Amendment 6 – Repeal of Public Campaign Financing:
The Florida Constitution currently has any candidate running for a statewide office, and they’re willing to agree to certain spending limits, the government will throw some public funds your way. This helps lessor known candidates who may be good for office but lacks the financials of a person with the deepest pockets a chance to be seen by the public to address their message. This amendment scraps that. If candidates with lessor financials cannot get public funding they will never be seen and people will not know to vote for them if they agree with their ideas or not. It should be an equal playing field and let the best person for the job win it by the public’s votes. Not who is the most seen person, everywhere, including all forms of media. I voted No…
Honestly, why make it harder for anyone with less money to run for office? Why remove a system that tries—however imperfectly—to level the playing field? Do we really want to hand our political system even more too rich assholes with misanthropic tendencies? If you’re like me, and you don’t want the millionaires and billionaires being the only voices we hear in campaigns. There’s a glaring logical fallacy in our society where wealth and or celebrity culture is equated with intelligence or competence, especially when it comes to politics. The assumption that just because someone is rich or famous, they are inherently more qualified or better suited for leadership, all based on their richness and them being famous. Yeah, this is flawed. Yet, here we are. Money doesn’t automatically translate to wisdom, critical thinking, or good decision-making skills. In fact, wealth often stems from privilege, inheritance, or a set of skills that may be entirely unrelated to governance. So, if two candidates are running—one wealthy and the other reliant on public funding—what mechanism truly supports the idea that the rich candidate is superior? There isn’t one. This belief likely stems from societal conditioning where success is measured by material wealth, ignoring that public funding candidates may be more in tune with the actual struggles of their peoples and neighborhoods. It’s absurd to assume that wealth alone should validate a candidate’s intelligence or capacity to lead when the measure of a good leader goes far beyond their bank account or ability to say one word out of context, over and over again. Careful, David, we’re treading on word-salad territory. Keep the public financing system in place. We need fewer rich clowns in charge, not more.
The Presidential Election:
On the ballot there are choices to vote yes to a president and their vice president. The candidates and their party affiliations are:
• Donald J. Trump and JD Vance – Republican
• Kamala D. Harris and Tim Walz – Democrat
• Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat – Libertarian Party of Florida
• Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia – Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Randall Terry and Stephen Broden – Constitutional Party of Florida
• Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak – American Society of Political Scientists
• Jill Stein and Rudolph Ware – Green Party
I voted Republican and here’s why.
While I appreciate Stein/Ware and the Green Party trying to lead. They simply would not be able to sustain how this country operates at the moment. Maybe in the 1920s this could have worked but not now and not with them in this way. I do feel like they should have a place in the Country’s policies. They ultimately could do a lot of good if used in the right places, but not at the top.
I did not vote for Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak from the American Society of Political Scientists because their affiliation suggests a cold, analytical approach to politics that lacks the essential spiritual and ethical considerations needed in governance. In a time when many are seeking genuine connection and empathy from leaders, their focus on political science as an empirical discipline seems detached from the human experience. I believe effective leadership requires more than rational analysis; it must also engage with the deeper moral implications of our choices. Therefore, I couldn’t align my vote with candidates who don’t fully embrace these values.
The Constitution is a very important document. Till it’s not… That is the world we live in. Something is super important till it’s not. The second we stop respecting that piece of paper humanity is probably over. However, I still didn’t vote for Randall Terry and Stephen Broden of the Constitutional Party of Florida. I cannot support a ground that prioritizes legalism over the evolving needs of society. While the Constitution is an important foundation, a solely literal interpretation fails to address the complexities of modern governance and the diverse needs of our communities.
I didn’t vote for Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia due their strict very communists viewpoints. Even if their policies made sense I would never openly vote in communism of any kind. I also did not vote for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat of the Libertarian Party of Florida. Hey, they sound great on paper but their virtually broke to a point no one really took their bid seriously. If people rallied, they were few.
So I guess that brings us to Kamala D. Harris and Tim Walz of the Democratic Party. I did not vote for her. I have said so much in my blogs about how the left has polarized this country and its citizens it makes me sick to death. So much so, this blog is only being written due to it being on my “to do” list months ago. I knew I was going to write something like this for this purpose. So many think I am just another Trump supporter. I am not, really. I just accept the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I know how that works. The main reason why I didn’t vote for any the other parties is because, who are they? I honestly only vaguely heard the names on the list of candidates before looking them up. I was all in with RFK. When he dropped out my vote was set. I didn’t vote for the left for four years of hell and no real plan or action to fix anything. During her campaigning she cannot answer a simple and single question about her plans. "Bidenomics" is a failure. The green energy deal killed this country as well. The utter and complete shitshow that is the border crisis. She has been in office for four years watching it crumble and did and said nothing. No you do not get my vote for that. As Doctor Phil would say. I am not rewarding bad behavior. Her laundry list is just as long as Trump’s.
People think she is smart, but I have not seen it. I went down the rabbit hole again with ChatGPT and ask it to craft me a short paragraph that is English but uses words not knowing the contextual meaning of those words. Now, when you read or hear this, do you not hear a similar thing? Kind of sounds like Kamala Harris doesn’t it?
“Opportunity free equal should all, future our protect action urgent matter. Inclusivity strength is hate, never voices love heard not be embraced. Justice for human the, rights must always, diversity together united bring we. Kids education must quality, access healthcare profit for everyone to not. Need marginalized uplift, all embracing should ever. The press is here. I have the vocabulary. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?”
Only the last two sentences are actual quotes from her but yeah, that woman actually thinks she can lead. So, yeah, based on all you know of me, how I operate, how I think, how I value authenticity and substance this actually was not a very difficult decision but I am sure the ones that disagree will find some hole in my logic, but so what. It is that presumption that devalues your expectation of me. You shouldn’t have any if you truly mind your own business and leave people alone. I went from ultra-extrovert to introvert in a very short period of time. I value my freedoms. I value my solitude. Why in the fuck would I vote for the government to take those freedoms away or put limitations on them or disrupt my solitude? You do not poke bears. You also don’t fuck with snakes for the same reason…
I voted for Donald Trump for a couple of reasons but the main one is I know what I am getting from him as President of the United States. You can say what you will about his character, frat boy mentality even being a misogynist and now convicted felon. None of that effects his ability to be a leader. Sure it could, but did it four years ago and does it? There were more reasons not to vote for the others than were reasons to vote for Trump. Let that sit in for a moment. It isn’t what Trump did to win my vote but what others didn’t do to gain it. Trump literally wins by default, not because of choice. He is the least worst of the bunch. Not the best candidate, just less bad than the others. This is why I do not want to play the politics game anymore. People make assumptions all the time. Sometimes for very warranted reasons and then some reasons not so warranted. I have gone on now for 6,428 words of why I voted the way I did. It is not supposed to make sense to you. It never was supposed to. Like always I do this for myself. To gain insight on these things. I have gone on quite the spiritual and emotional journey this year. About what I want from here on out and it isn’t what liberals tend to advertise about themselves or their beliefs. I do not hate anyone, but I look at people now with a little less curiosity than I used to. I use words like:
• Codependency
• Clichés
• Delusionalism
• Due Diligence
• Existentialism
• Hubrisism
• Macguffin(s)
• Narcissistic-Sociopathy
• Nihilism
• Pseudo (anything)
• Rhetoric
• Semantics
Because these words represent concepts I see in people’s behaviors. I see so many talk about manifestation but they really lack the understanding of how it works. Specifically in the macro world. Think about how the media bombards us with the same negative headlines over and over. It’s like when everyone in a group starts talking about how a movie is bad, and even if you haven’t seen it, you start to believe it just from hearing the chatter. That’s how these media narratives can create a negative feedback loop. A negative feedback loop is a process in which the output of a system feeds back into the system in a way that diminishes or reduces the effects of the original input, often leading to a cycle of decreasing performance or worsening conditions. Now imagine that energy being directed at a person or thing. Now we have a situation getting worse due to its own consequences, creating a cycle that’s hard to escape. The more they push the negativity, the more it sticks in our minds, and before you know it, you’re questioning someone’s character or the validity of an idea without doing your own digging. It’s a weird manifestation-loop, where the negativity gets so loud that it drowns out any positive or neutral perspectives. So next time you hear something trending negatively, ask yourself if it’s really the full story or just a catchy headline designed to keep that loop going.
First off if it makes one interested at all they should take some time and look into it. In this specific arena it can be soul sucking. It is everywhere. TV, the Internet, all the platforms and apps. It is all over what is left of terrestrial radio stations. There really isn’t a way to escape the negativity. You have to unplug completely and live in a van down by the river. Except here in South West Florida where the Hurricanes can now be yearly; your van won’t last long in a flooding river. It is hard to find good data these days that one can trust is real.
Not much has changed about my opinions since 2018; “what you consider to be offensive; your everyday man or woman for that matter, gives zero shits and fucks about your perception of what is going on in our country. Stop bashing and perhaps offer some “helpful” insight over just hating because you do not agree. More Importantly ‘stop’ insulting others because they do not agree with your perception of what is seen and inferred upon. It is alright to not agree, but to sit there, hate over anything you yourself cannot even verify if it is real or not and at what level of that real actually affects mine, yours, reality. People know what awareness is now, some still do not but you cannot save everyone let alone anyone or any one. People are aware, they are bombarded with images, videos, articles, Google Searches, College Degrees, Professors and their own experiences. They are aware. They just don’t care. They really don’t. Their actions say so, not their words, remember that shit…
I am all about the “perhaps…” Perhaps we need change. Perhaps we need more from our leaders… Perhaps we need more than we can actually handle. Perhaps…
Electio Generalis 2024
(Latin for “2024 General Election”)
by David-Angelo Mineo
10/22/2024
7,084 Words
