Voting as cultural issue

our photo when the saguaro yields its fruit for the birds, eventually animals, and insects-- in the fullness of time.
 

Following along with the theme of the last blog, this one is again about what is happening in our country and how is it portrayed by the internet. The difference is I want to explain a bit about my background, something we rarely know about those giving opinions.

I've mentioned before that I was a registered Democrat from the time I was allowed to vote until 2018 when I left the party over issues where I simply didn't like how it was going. I didn't see a way to be a Republican either for the same reasons-- hence unaffiliated, which means I can't vote in Oregon primaries. It was worth it to me as I am an issues voter and always have been, though I've seen how partisan groups use these issues in ways I just don't get.

So, why get into this now? Two big ones arose within the last week. One a presidential debate and its aftermath and the second a Supreme Court decision, also impacting the Presidency of the United States. The fall out has been great and not yet really decided; but to me, the big thing is how what happened has been presented, especially to those who get all their news from one side or the other of whatever happens. 

First, I did not watch the debate. I do not watch political speeches and debates are all about rhetoric. I did though see the first answer Biden gave. I saw no sign of the cold they later claimed he had. I also saw the answer as vague and again political spiel. I turned it off before Trump spoke.

The political rhetoric the next morning was not surprising to me. They did accept that Biden did poorly and lost his train of thought frequently, but their big point was Trump lied a LOT. What they never tell is what were the lies and also who declared them to be lies. Might two people, on different sides of the political divide see truth differently? I guess if you are on one side or the other, you don't care. 

Now, it's been a week since the debate and the excuses for Biden's performance have grown. Who believes them? Pretty much those who want to.

The question asked was one debate a big deal. Probably not if there hadn't been so much talk before it about what was going on with his cognitive reasoning. Where powerful people often get others to cover for them will we ever know the truth? We sure know the spin if we care to look. 

Biden has evidently declared he'll have no events after 8pm. So what if it's an emergency?

Second big issue was the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This one went right along party lines-- despite Roberts saying earlier that the court is not partisan. Maybe only he believes that. 

Afterwards, the panic started from the left. Maddow fears seal teams sent after political enemies. She also said she wondered if she could be sent to a concentration camp? Apparently no concern if Biden stays in power or Harris, which is the latest question brought up. What about her for President if he passes on running. It depends on how much attention you have paid to her political career as you probably see it.

The fear of Trump for wars or worse determines a lot of how someone sees all of this. The fact that he avoided wars when in office does not prove the future reactions, and frankly what he did after his loss is not reassuring to anybody-- or should not be. 

A big question also involves the Heritage Foundations 2025 Project and how much will it impact what Trump tries to do. If you don't know what that is, you might want to look it up. Do we want a religiously controlled country? Earlier citizens did not. What about today? I have read Trump does not agree with it, but these days how do we know what we can trust?

If Biden resigns as a candidate, then who picks up the mantle? Supposedly, most likely is his vice president. How do voters feel about that? I keep coming back to a quote that she has used many times with great pride. "what can be, unburdened by what has been." What the heck does that mean? I also resent how the Democratic party would not do debates earlier to avoid all of this coming out right at the last with little time to look at other options.

I think the Supreme Court decision made sense with the limitations it imposed. For immunity, it had to be a part of the presidential duties-- not personal issues. I've listened to those who claim it could be anything, but that's not what they said. It will be further defined probably and likely satisfy no one.

Does any of this say anything about how I will vote in November-- and I always vote? Not really, I am an issues voter and I haven't written about those this time around. It's a disturbing time, and I just want to be sure voters are informed and not just propagandized.