Monday, May 16, 2016

Political Reception

There are 100 people attending a wedding reception. It's only fair and democratic that the people be given some say in what will be served. Notice I said "served" not "what they will eat".

A survey goes out asking everyone to choose from a few basic choices:

Beef - 15
Chicken - 20
Pork - 15
Fish - 15
Baked Mostaccioli in Marinara - 15
Salad - 20

The results come back, not surprisingly, split. There is no majority. It's too close to call. So the guests themselves split into two distinct groups. Meat and Vegetarian (for some reason this includes Fish, I don't know why, maybe one day someone can explain this to me). The idea is if they can convince the other people in their group to band together behind one of the choices they will overwhelm the other guys.

So the meat eaters discuss back and forth and hold another vote.

Beef - 10
Chicken - 35
Pork - 5

Chicken aficionados beg the beef and pork people to just give up and vote chicken.

"I mean, you don't want to be eating salad or pasta, do you??? You may not love chicken, but it's sure better than that non-meat garbage."

On the other side the exact same thing is happening.

Fish - 5
Pasta - 35
Salad - 10

They argue among themselves. They have to stick together or they might end up eating Beef. That would be horrid! The remaining five Fish fans aren't really anti-meat, but they do the "right thing" and back down, throwing their vote behind Pasta. Pasta urges Salad eaters to give up, but they argue many of them are vegan, and the pasta has cheese on top. On principal they can't eat something with animal products in it.

"Why can't we have a pasta with no dairy in it? I mean, it seems like we mostly want the same thing, and that's hardly a huge change to the menu." the Salad eaters say.
"Because cheese is delicious and animals don't suffer giving up milk, you're totally delusional!!! Anyway there are more of us choosing Pasta than there are choosing Salad! You're going to lose no matter what. Your only chance to avoid eating meat is to vote with us. Do the right thing!"

Finally after a lot of back and forth the meat eaters have their act together.

Chicken - 50

But on the vegetarian/vegan side the argument continues. The Pasta people shame the Salad eaters, suggesting they are going to let Chicken win by not throwing their vote behind Pasta. In the end the Salad people relent and throw their vote behind Pasta.

Chicken - 50
Pasta - 50

And so begins the slogging match between Chicken and Pasta eaters until finally one person switches sides, he originally wanted Fish anyway, and the Chicken actually sounds delicious.

Chicken - 51
Pasta - 49

Everyone will be served Chicken and only Chicken. And that's final. Remember, only 20 people wanted Chicken at the start, and 45 people are totally apposed to eating meat (non-fish meat that is).

And so it would go if the American political system planned the dinner at a wedding reception.

The reasonable thing would be to serve Chicken with a side of pasta, so the non-meat eaters could at least get something, and so the meal would have some balance, but no. The vegetarians wouldn't be so kind to the meat eaters if they had won, so why should the meat eaters be kind to the vegetarians?

And now on to deciding desert...


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Replies
    1. This all stems from the Left telling Bernie to GTFO of the race. He knows he has no chance at this point, but why can't he continue to make his voice heard? Why can't the people who support him continue to make a case that maybe having billionaires funding Hillary's campaign isn't good for the country?

      No, GTFO, Bernie! You're making it easier for Trump!!!