Saturday, June 16, 2018
Manweller vs Einstein
Okay, the title is stretchy, but I think there's a point to be made.
A lot of political "debate" is based on mechanistic assumptions. Groups are treated as soulless automatons, like Einstein's fashionable preconceptions about China.
Supposedly "immigrant hordes" are brought in solely to insure D victory. "47% largesse" is given solely to insure D victory. Felons are allowed to vote to insure D victory.
It never works that way.
I disproved the 47% largesse crap easily.
The immigrant horde crap isn't quite as obvious, but it's fairly clear that new immigrants don't vote, and second-generation immigrants follow local tendencies because they have the same needs as the older locals. No automatons in this group.
Prison? Most prisoners are black, so they are automatically D. The mechanistic assumption is correct at that level. BUT pro criminals of all colors weren't voters before they were arrested, and still aren't voters afterward. Pro criminals have a FAR MORE REALISTIC view of life. They understand that force solves problems. They see that the stageplay of "voting" never makes a difference. So it doesn't matter if they're allowed to vote or not. They're too smart to waste time on frivolity.
Pro criminals understand Manweller's rule. Elections only count when they verify the decisions made by force. Real decisions are made before and above the decorative ceremony of elections.
The same basic point applies to all expansions of the voting population, from women to 18-year-olds to disputes about requiring ID. It doesn't matter who is ALLOWED or ENCOURAGED to vote. ACTUAL voters behave the same no matter how you configure the ALLOWANCE.
¶ 2:00 AM 
