What are the implications of “ballot harvesting?”

First of all, what is “ballot harvesting?”

Luis Gomez of the San Diego Union-Tribune say, ‘“Ballot harvesting’ is political jargon for a practice in which organized workers or volunteers collect absentee ballots from certain voters and drop them off at a polling place or election office.”

Prior to 2016, turning in absentee ballots was restricted to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter.

Since 2016, any person is allowed to collect a mail-in ballot, or thousands of mail-in ballots, from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office.

Can you begin to see the potential problems here?

balloth 1

While critics of the new absentee ballot laws are complaining about the potential for voter fraud, the proponents of the new laws say it allows more eligible citizens to participate in elections.  Ya…, even those “eligible citizens” who had no intention of voting, or better yet…, “eligible citizens” who aren’t “eligible,” or those “eligible citizens” who aren’t even “citizens,” or those “eligible citizens” who aren’t even real, live, people!

balloth 4

The Heritage Foundation calls it the “tool of choice for vote thieves.”

balloth 3

In California, ballot harvesting was used to flip seven Republican seats to the Democratic column in 2018.

According to former congressman and Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, “The indication that ballot harvesting made the difference in California can be found in the vote proportions. Studies of absentee voters have consistently shown they tend to reflect the population or lean slightly to the right. But when ballot harvesting was deployed in California, we saw late ballots break heavily for Democrats.”

“Take, for example, the race between former Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democrat T. J. Cox in California’s rural 21st district. When polls closed, Valadao led Cox by 6,000 votes — or 8 percent. That margin was wide enough for media outlets to call the race for Valadao.”

“However, late ballots delivered by third-party groups broke so heavily for Cox that he ultimately eked out an 843-vote victory. The results after ballot harvesting were very different from the polling before the race and since.”

balloth 6

So the new election game plan is to see how many votes your candidate is losing by after all of the conventional votes have been cast, then go back and produce as many absentee ballot votes as you need to win.

Brilliant!

Too bad it’s also cheating and illegal.

What is the voting scenario going to be if both parties decide to partake of this practice?

First the traditional voting takes place…, then one party produces enough votes to jump ahead…, then the other party produces enough votes to jump back ahead…, then the other party, then the other party, and so on and so on.

When would the voting end?

With this scenario, we could have 500,000 votes cast in a district with only 200,000 eligible voters!

Something needs to be done about this whole absentee ballot situation.

I’d like to refer to a couple of my previous blogs to offer-up some answers.

The first blog is from November 5, 2018, and is titled, “It’s not “just” one vote.  It’s MY one vote!”

If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of our election system, we are one big step closer to our republic dissolving right before our eyes.

We hear about examples of voter fraud, and liberals (And please note: The issue of voter fraud is almost exclusively synonymous with liberals/democrats) are always quick to discount our voter fraud concerns as “not that prevalent,” “inconsequential,” “unfounded,” or “very rare.”  Then they will quickly turn the discussion to the “real” problem, in their minds, of voter suppression, which truly is virtually a non-existent problem.

Anyone who wants to vote in this country surely gets every opportunity to do so.

Can you imagine how quickly the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would jump on any credible case of voter suppression?

balloth 7

I rest my case.

Okay.  Back to the concerns about voter fraud.

The big question is how many fraudulent votes are acceptable?

Who’s going to the first one to stand up and volunteer to have their vote cancelled out by a fraudulent vote?

Not me.

And I’m guessing not you either.

The right to vote in a free and fair election is our most basic civil right, and one on which many other rights of the American people depend.

Our government should be able to guarantee that every eligible individual who wants to vote can, and that no one’s vote is stolen or discounted.

Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented.

balloth 2

According to The Heritage Foundation:

Contrary to the claims of many liberals, the problem of voter fraud is as old as the country itself.  As the U.S. Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law in 2008, “flagrant examples” of voter fraud “have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

Attempts to commandeer election results have been documented dating back to the 1800’s.  In one New York election in 1844, 55,000 votes were recorded even though there were only 41,000 eligible voters. Decades later, these efforts have continued and determined fraudsters have become only more creative in their efforts to fix the outcome of elections.

So what are the different types of election fraud that liberals use in an attempt to undermine our election system?  Well, here they are:

Impersonation fraud at the polls: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, lost their right to vote for some reason, but remain registered.

False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.

Buying votes: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.

Illegal “assistance” at the polls: Forcing or intimidating voters, particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language, to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance.”

Ineligible voting: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.

Manipulating someone’s vote automatically at the voting machine.

Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

So, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our elections?

Each state is generally responsible for the administration of its own electoral systems, including elections for federal office.  This being the case, I feel we open ourselves up to many problems, mostly because the states don’t have access to national databases, which presents the possibility of citizens being registered in multiple states and voting in multiple states.

Of course MrEricksonRules has his own remedy for all of our voting integrity woes!

First, our government needs to establish a new national holiday called “Election Day,” of course.  This would offer everyone every opportunity and ample time to vote.  Especially those people who work for a living.

balloth 5

There would be no “early” voting.  All voting would occur on Election Day.

All voting machines would be identical, and issued to the states by the federal government.

Polling stations would be manned by current federal and/or state employees.  This would give us a level of accountability we currently don’t have.

All votes would have to be cast in person.  The practice of using absentee ballots would be discontinued.  Military personnel would vote at their duty stations and their votes would be routed to their corresponding state based on a military database.  Others unable to be in their “home” state to vote on Election Day would be able to cast a provisional ballot in the state they were physically in, then each state would then be responsible for sending these votes to their respective states.  These votes would only be counted if the total number of provisional votes could potentially change the outcome of the election.

Every adult individual would be required to obtain a Federal Voter Identification Card, if they want to vote.

An initial “national voter database” would be established by cross referencing the IRS database, national military databases, national benefit databases, Social Security databases, along with Medicare and Medicaid databases.

Initial Federal Voter Identification Cards would then be mailed out based on this database.  People not receiving cards by a given date would then be responsible for acquiring a card at designated state or federal locations.

Any person voting who could not be verified on the national voter database would be casting a provisional ballot.

Once you have voted, this would be entered into the national voting database, which would limit you from voting again, in the current election.

There you go.

Problem solved.

Any other problems or issues of national importance may be submitted at any time to Mr. Erickson at MrEricksonRules.com.

“The right to vote cannot come before the integrity of the vote.  They have to go hand in hand.” – Mr. Erickson

Joseph Stalin, who ruled the Soviet Union (Russia) from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953, said, “It doesn’t matter how many people vote, only who counts the votes.”

ballot 20

“We do not have government by the majority.  We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” – President Teddy Roosevelt

The second blog is from August 7, 2018, and is titled, “Voting is such sweet sorrow that I shall say ‘one vote per citizen’ till it be morrow.” ― Will Shakespeare (not to be confused with William Shakespeare)

While there are many groups and organizations out there that deal with the right to vote, there are not many out there that promote our right to make sure our vote counts.

Which is more serious, obstructing someone’s right to vote or negating someone’s vote with an illegal ballot?

I would argue that both scenarios are just as serious in their own rights.

I feel the penalties for defrauding our voting systems should be increased significantly.  The penalties for tampering with votes should be quite severe in any case.

Just as violating someone’s civil rights to cast a vote is a serious crime, with stiff penalties, so too it should be a very serious crime to negate, or steal, the vote of others by casting illegal/fraudulent ballots.

If we as a country cannot be confident in the integrity of our elections, we are on a slippery slope towards anarchy.

Our voting laws and procedures should also strike a balance between the right to vote and the right to have your vote count.

All US citizens should be eligible to vote, of course, along with the following considerations:

There should be no early voting.  Voting should take place on one day.  This one day should be a national holiday, so everyone has time to vote.

There should be no absentee voting or mail-in ballots, except for people serving our military or government overseas, and this should be strictly controlled.

A photo ID should be required.  Either a driver’s license or a state ID card, with an address of residence.

Along with the photo ID, a social security card should also be presented, identifying the person as a US citizen.

A federal election should be covered by federal election laws, not differing state laws.

Just recently I read an article by Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News.  In his article, he points out that, “The names of non-US citizens are increasingly being found on our voter rolls, thanks to covert registration methods, with nothing actually stopping them from casting a ballot in an election.”

In a recent example, Mikelionis relates the story of Elizaveta Shuvalova, a Russian citizen who became a U.S. citizen only last year in 2017, but was oddly registered as an eligible voter in 2012 and added to the San Francisco voter rolls, according to The Washington Times.

“She was perplexed to find herself in the voter rolls, saying she wasn’t an American citizen and didn’t even register to vote.”

“‘I’ve never registered for anything in my entire life,’ Shuvalova told the paper. ‘This is news to me.’”

He went on to explain that, “The woman’s voter log shows that she signed up as a Democrat in July 2012.  In 2016, her registration was canceled after she informed election authorities that she wasn’t eligible to vote because she wasn’t yet a U.S. citizen.”

(Hmm, she was illegally signed up to vote as a democrat of all things!  How unusual…NOT!)

“‘This is definitely a shocker to me.  It is like an identity fraud because this is not coming from me,’ the woman, who identifies as a Democrat, said. ‘Like I told you, I haven’t even been a citizen during that time frame.  So what can we do about it?’”

“But the case of Shuvalova is part of a larger concern some groups have when it comes to the integrity of our elections.  They claim that stories like hers are a common occurrence in many parts of the country.”

“The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a nonprofit specializing in election integrity, found that non-Americans are being added to voter rolls in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia as well.”

“For instance, in 2017, the group found that nearly 5,600 people on the voter rolls in Virginia were deemed as non-citizens, with a third of them voting in previous elections.”

(That equates to 5,600 actual citizens being robbed of their vote by having their vote cancelled out in many cases!)

“‘All of this could have been prevented if states actually verified citizen eligibility upfront,’ said PILF research director Logan Churchwell.”

“John Arntz, director of the San Francisco Department of Elections, told the Times that a signed registration card was submitted to the office to qualify the woman as a signer of the petition.  He added that activists often distribute registration cards along with their petitions.”

“Normally, election authorities should check the registration application with other databases such as the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the secretary of state’s office to ensure the person is a citizen.”

(Yes, Mr. Arntz, checking these databases should be done, but apparently it isn’t being done, and you don’t seemed too overly concerned about it either.)

“The San Francisco election official said that Shuvalova could have easily gotten away with voting in elections before 2016 and she probably would have remained on the voter rolls as an eligible voter had she not informed officials.”

(Just another example of those damn Russians, oops, I mean those damn Democrats, meddling in our elections!)

“But Arntz told the Times that the woman’s story isn’t a reflection on whole the integrity of the election system.  (Of course it isn’t!)  ‘If it was a problem, this would be an issue that comes up every election or something we would have experienced more through time.  But it doesn’t,’ he said.”

(Oh, it happens alright.  You just haven’t been forced to acknowledge it until now.)

“‘I can’t remember forwarding an allegation that someone was a non-citizen who registered to vote or did vote,’ Arntz said.  He added that, ‘Nobody in San Francisco has yet been prosecuted for being a non-citizen on the voter rolls.”

(Yes, Mr. Arntz, and therein lies the problem.)

Tampering with the vote is an insidious crime that is like a cancer attacking the soul of our country.  This cancer must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with harshly and in no uncertain terms.

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of the page which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“Waaaah…, the election was stolen from me…, waaah!” – Hillary Clinton

According to Liam Quinn, a senior editor at Fox News, “Hillary Clinton suggests the election was ‘stolen’ from her, and other Dems could ‘suffer the same fate.’”

“Hillary Clinton suggested she had the 2016 election ‘stolen’ from her during the latest stop of her slumping speaking tour.”

hillary stolen 9

“Taking the stage with her husband Bill in Los Angeles Saturday night as part of the couple’s ‘Evening with the Clintons’ tour, the former Democrat presidential nominee told the crowd she has been warning potential candidates they could suffer the same fate.”

Ha!  An evening with the Clintons!?

More like an evening with a serial sex offender and his scheming, apologist, power hungry, wanna be president, partner in crime.

hillary stoen 10

‘“I think it’s also critical to understand that, as I’ve been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,’ the former secretary of state said.”

Oh really?  Which candidates exactly have been coming to see you, Hillary?  I’m calling bull caca on that claim.

hillary stolen 2

“She’s hardly the only prominent Democrat claiming to have been wrongly kept out of office. On Friday, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams again claimed she won the state’s 2018 gubernatorial race, despite losing to now-Gov. Brian Kemp.”

‘“I’m here to tell you a secret that makes Breitbart and [Fox News host] Tucker Carlson go crazy: We won,’ Abrams said, according to The Houston Chronicle. ‘I am not delusional. I know I am not the governor of Georgia — possibly yet.’”

No, Stacey, you’re not “delusional,” you’re just a bad loser, and a typical racist, liberal, socialist…, and you don’t know how to talk.

Bam!  Ya, I just said that!

“Abrams justified her refusal to accept the result of the election by calling Kemp ‘an architect of voter suppression that spent the last eight years knitting together a system of voter suppression that is unparalleled in America.’”

Ya…, how dare Governor Kemp attempt to suppress the votes of dead people, non-citizens, and fraudulent mail-in ballots!

The nerve of that guy!

“At the Clinton event, the crowd broke out in applause after Hillary Clinton delivered the ‘stolen’ election line, before she continued with a jab at President Trump.”

‘“And that, my friends, has nothing to do with the economy,’ she said.”

No it doesn’t, Hillary…, but “It’s the economy, stupid” was coined by your hubby’s own campaign strategist, James Carville, during his successful 1992 presidential campaign…, stupid!

“So part of our challenge is to understand what it will take to put together not only the popular vote but the Electoral College.”

Wow…, that’s a good idea Hillary!  Maybe you should have thought about that before the last election…, since, you know…, the winner is decided by which candidate gets the most Electoral College votes.  Duh!

“Clinton won the popular vote in her 2016 campaign against Trump, but lost the Electoral College — and with it, the race.”

She not only lost the Electoral College election, but she got creamed, 304 – 227.

It’s pretty hard to “steal” something from someone who never had the thing to begin with!

Fox News contributor Dan Bongino asked, “How can the woman whose team colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign claim the election was ‘stolen’ from her’ [by the Russians]?”

hillary stolen 1

“The former first lady also questioned how Trump could still hold conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin following the release of the information in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.”

Uhhh, maybe because Mueller found no proof of collusion between President Trump and “the Russians,” whatever or whoever “the Russians” means…, or haven’t you heard?

hillary stolen 6hillary stolen 4

“Mueller’s report ‘not only decisively proves, but goes chapter and verse about how the Russians — in the words of the report — conducted a sweeping and systemic interference in our election,’ she said, according to the Seattle Times. ‘And then you wake up and your president is spending an hour on the phone with Vladimir Putin, who was the mastermind of the interference and attack on our election.’”

I’ve said this before…, but Hillary has not read the Mueller report.  All she does is make up whatever narrative she wants and then attributes it to the report, which she know the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” won’t question or dispute.

hillary stolen 5

According to Michael F. Haverluck, of OneNewsNow.com, “The first Clinton event that was held at a Canadian hockey area – which houses nearly 20,000 seats – saw a mere 3,300 tickets sold, and more seat backs than Clinton fans were visible when the lights dimmed and the couple started talking.”

“For their May 19 show at The Forum in Inglewood, California, – which seats more than 17,000 – tickets usually priced at $77 are now going for $35, with $120 tickets discounted to $50, and $175 seats down to $72,” the U.K. daily informed [And tickets were all the way down to $6.50 just prior to the event!]. ‘Despite the site telling customers that ‘tickets are selling fast!’ with ‘limited time remaining,’ it appears that less than 450 discounted tickets have actually been sold.’”

I guess Hillary is about as popular now as she was during the election!

Unlike during the election, however, you can’t pay people to come to your events…, because, in this case, what would be the point?

In conclusion…, let’s be clear…, nothing was “stolen” from you Hillary.

hillary stolen 8

In reality…, you just plain lost…, and conversely…, we know that YOU were the one who cheated during the debates.  You were the one who had your party rig the primary election against Bernie Sanders.  YOU and your partners in crime were the ones who colluded with the Russians in an attempt to dig up dirt on and/or frame Donald Trump.  And YOU were and are the one who has obstructed justice at every turn.

And you just continue to lie misinform the people whenever you open your mouth.

LOCK HER UP!

LOCK HER UP!

LOCK HER UP!

Fox News’ Adam Shaw and Andrew O’Reilly also contributed to Liam Quinn’s report.

hillary stolen 11

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

The democrat party and liberals in general continually like to label conservatives, and President Trump specifically, as racists (anti-people of color), misogynists (anti-women), along with having phobias concerning any other type of personal delineation you can name.

It must be a heavy burden, maintaining this “enlightedness” on a daily basis.

whitemales 6

But we all have our crosses to bear.

I would argue that the liberal “enlightedness” of 2019 and 2020 is racist (anti-white) and misandrous (anti-men).

Approximately 70% of the U.S. population is “white,” which equates to roughly 225 million people, with males specifically accounting for about 110 million of those.

On the surface, that would not seem to be a very wise position for the democrats to be coming from.

But being wise, fair, and tolerant is not their current M.O. (“modus operandi,” or “method of operating”).

Why does everything have to be viewed through the spectrum of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation with the left?

Shouldn’t their goal be to just nominate the best person “to be the face of the democrat party in 2020,” regardless of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

I think Dr. King would be disappointed that democrats and liberals were the ones standing in the way of that dream.

The comical thing, however, is that even with all of this “anti-white male” talk flying around the democrat party, their leading candidates right now are all white males!

Remember, however, in liberal land, what you say is more important than what you actually do.

whitemales 1

The top four I am referring to are: “Creepy Uncle” Joe Biden, “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, Beto “O’Dork” O’Rourke and Pete “Booty-gag” Buttigieg.

Candidates of a more “preferred” race and/or gender are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillebrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, although they currently trail the four “white devils” by a significant amount in the polls.

whitemales 2

One of these “preferred” candidates will undoubtedly be chosen as the vice-presidential candidate to balance out the regrettable white male presidential candidate.

Howard Kurtz for Fox News adds, “… isn’t it also a discriminatory impulse to say perhaps a white male candidate should be denied the nomination on the grounds of race and sex?  Doesn’t that go against what we’ve always heard about wanting a color-blind and gender-neutral society?”

whitemales 4

The New York Times article piece says that “Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field … become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates.”  The article then asks, “What’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and President Trump won?”

Hmmm…, so Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are considered “white swing states” by the liberals?  Interesting.  So even entire states have a racial determination in their eyes.

whitemales 7

Believe me my democrat friends…, there is no “gamble” for you no matter who you nominate.  Who else are the great confused liberal masses going to vote for?

President Trump!?

And those “unicorn” voters who identify as “independents” are even more confused than the confused liberal masses.

If any of these “independents” had an IQ higher than that of a jackass, the difference between President Trump and any of these democrat candidates should be readily apparent.  How anyone could be “undecided” going into the 2020 presidential election is beyond me.

whitemales 3

There is going to be well over a billion dollars spent on this election, trying to persuade about 1,000 “independent” idiots.

Everyone else is spoken for.

That’s about $1 million a vote by the way…, and they’ll probably end up voting for the Green Party candidate anyway!  Or not bother to vote at all because they still couldn’t make up their mind!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world.

whitemales 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“A picture is worth a thousand words.” In these cases…, maybe more.

Here are some of the famous pictures that reflect our American history and reflect events that have changed our history.

aoc history

… although this picture is not one of those pictures!

Let’s continue…

nine eleven

09/11/2001.  Some pictures don’t need any description.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the ensuing investigation, and all of the questions surrounding the assassination, have remained for over 50 years.

1963 – President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline in Dallas, Texas, moments before he was fatally shot.

jfk 2

President Kennedy is hit.

jfk 3

A frantic Jackie scrambles onto the back of the car.

jfk

The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of The President, by Jack Ruby, in the Dallas jail.

jfk 4

In 1986 The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, shocking our nation and the world.

challenger 2

challenger

Neil Armstrong takes the first step onto the moon’s surface, July 20, 1969.  He and Buzz Aldrin were the first humans to land on the moon.  A smart phone, like most of us have, has thousands of times the computing power of the computers on Apollo 11.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” – Neil Armstrong, as he stepped onto the surface of the moon.

moon landing

This picture, taken in New York City, known as “The Kiss,” represents the unbridled joy by all Americans that World War II had finally come to an end.

the kiss

On August 14, 1945, President Harry Truman announced from the White House that the Japanese were unconditionally surrendering.  As soon as the news was announced, spontaneous celebrations erupted across the United States.

But as memorable as the arrival of victory over Japan was, the day was bittersweet for the many Americans whose loved ones would not be returning home.  More than 400,000 Americans had given their lives in World War II, and America would never be the same.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the entire country by pulling off the upset of the century, while not only winning the presidency, but doing so convincingly.  The “forgotten men and women” in our country rose up and made their votes count.  Politics and the way we view “the media” in our country would never be the same.

trump elected

trump wins landslide

I hope you enjoyed this trip through some of our history as Americans, as seen through the camera lens.

Please let me know if you agree with the events I’ve chosen, if you feel I missed any, or if you you’d just like to reminisce or leave a comment.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Is California voter fraud a fraud?

According to Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine, and most liberals, it is.  In a recent article, Mr. Kilgore calls “voter fraud” a “Republican myth.”

voter fraud schumer

Commenting on Republicans’ questioning of the California voting process during the midterm election, “… they professed mystification at the final results. I say “professed” because it’s hard to believe Speaker Paul Ryan is as stupid as he sounds here:”

“The California election system ‘just defies logic to me,’ [former Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan said during a Washington Post event.

‘“We were only down 26 seats the night of the [midterm] election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race….’”

‘“In Wisconsin, we knew the next day. Scott Walker, my friend, I was sad to see him lose, but we accepted the results on Wednesday,’ Ryan said.  In California, ‘their system is bizarre; I still don’t completely understand it. There are a lot of races there we should have won.’”

Kilgore adds that, “All in all, the situation in California was well summarized by the statewide elected official in charge of the system, Alex Padilla, [The Secretary of State for the state of California], in a tart response to [then Republican Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan:”

‘“It is bizarre that Paul Ryan cannot grasp basic voting rights protections,’ Padilla said in a statement to ‘The Hill’….”

But…, “In just [the last] four years, the number of absentee ballots distributed in California has increased by 44 percent. ‘Nearly 13 million voters have received a ballot in the mail, compared to just 9 million in the last gubernatorial election in 2014,’ notes Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.”

‘“In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots,’ Padilla’s statement continues. ‘That is why we have no excuse vote by mail, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and early voting. These reforms helped drive California’s historic registration and a 30 year high in midterm turnout.’”

Kilgore then adds, “This brouhaha might not matter if it did not feed the same myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally. Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Okay Ed Kilgore, and all of your liberal friends…, my turn.

Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud.  They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.

This is exactly the case and the honest to God’s truth.

Let me state this again, “Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud.  They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.”

All I have to say is, “E.T…., phone home.”

The group “Judicial Watch” is currently suing California and Los Angeles County over “dirty” voter registration rolls.

Before I go any further, let’s see who “Judicial Watch” is.

Per “Judicial Watch’s” website:

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Okay, back to talking about unicorns…, ooops, I mean voter fraud.

“Judicial Watch” has filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

“Judicial Watch” argues that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%!

According to “Judicial Watch,” “Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.”

“Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register.  Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.”

Why is this important to note?  Well, besides the obvious concerns about potential fraudulent votes, Los Angeles County is particularly noteworthy because of the number of potential voters it represents.

Here are a couple interesting facts:

There are only 7 states that have larger populations than Los Angeles County!

Los Angeles County has a larger population that Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington DC combined!

 

la county vs 10 statesSo when we’re talking about the numbers of potential fraudulent votes in Los Angeles County, and California overall, we’re talking about millions of votes. That is nothing to sneeze at or dismiss out of hand.

Judicial Watch points out that, “About 21% of all of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as ‘inactive.’”

“California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…, [and] Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.”

Interesting.

Judicial Watch explains that, “Even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on Election Day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same Election Day.”

Judicial Watch has sent numerous written requests for public records pertaining to their voter lists and inactive registrations, but was stonewalled each time. In other cases their requests were just ignored by “The People’s Republic of California.”

“California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.”

Judicial Watch has previously filed successful lawsuits against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls.  Judicial Watch is currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters, and is suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

So, there you have it.

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, how, “Voter fraud is just a Republican myth.”

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how “stupid” we are for even thinking there might be something to be concerned about here.

Please explain to us again, Mr. Alex Padilla, how, “In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots.”

What this translates to is, “In California, we believe in giving democrats access to every opportunity in order to guarantee their candidates get as many votes as is necessary to win.”

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, about, “The myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally.”

Again, we see that President Trump was probably right, again.

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how, “Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Oh…, Mr. Kilgore, you mean like how you and your democrat friends have not only “questioned but denied” Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016?

Is that what you mean?

Again we see that the hypocrisy and shamelessness of the democrats knows no bounds.  They are willing to do absolutely ANYTHING to promote their candidates and their agenda…, ANYTHING.

As patriotic Americans, it is our duty to realize this and to continue to fight for honesty and fairness in the voting process and in our government in general.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

voter-fraud

 

Let the 2020 election games begin!

On one side we have President Trump…, and on the other side, the democrat side, we have an absolute, clueless, hot mess, with the goal of beating President Trump AT ANY COST.

But this may become a three-sided race if prior CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, decides to run for president in 2020 as an Independent candidate.

And Howard Schultz would be an interesting candidate.

What’s so interesting about him you ask?

Well…, let me tell ya.

First of all…, Howard Schultz would be running as an Independent candidate, even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

As most of us know by now…, labeling yourself as an “Independent,” politically, means you’re basically a liberal, and basically a democrat, but you want to set yourself aside to make yourself appear more independent, although really you’re not.

From what I’ve heard, Howard Schultz seems to talk a pretty good game, however.

According to Brittany De Lea for Fox Business, “Schultz called himself the ‘poster child of the American dream’ during an interview with CNN last May, having grown up in subsidized housing in Brooklyn to eventually becoming the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest and most prominent coffee and beverage chains.”

That’s a positive for him.  Americans likes success stories.

‘“You have to ask yourself about the promise of America and the American dream,’ Schultz said.  ‘And if it’s not available to everybody, if people feel as if the color of their skin or their station in life is not going to provide them the same opportunity as someone who is white and who has a better zip code then the country is not going to succeed in terms of its long-term aspirations.’”

Oh, that’s good!  Having the proper amount of “white guilt” is definitely a requirement of the left.  No one is going to argue with his basic point either.  Americans generally like someone with a sense of fairness.

“Schultz has been critical of the national debt, which is currently more than $21 trillion.  He said during a June interview with ‘Time’ the government needs a ‘centrist approach’ to spending. ‘There’s no for-profit business in the world that could sustain itself or survive with $20 trillion in debt,’ he said. ‘And we can’t keep pushing this. … It’s just not responsible.’”

I think most reasonable people would tend to agree with him here as well.

Schultz has been critical of President Trump, and during an interview with CBS, Schultz said Trump was “not qualified” to be president.

“We’re living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” Schultz told “60 Minutes” recently.

This statement is where he runs into some problems.  If President Trump isn’t qualified to be president, then what makes him qualified to be president?

He does quickly tie-in the problem of both major parties “not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” however, which most people would agree with as well.

The “60 Minutes” appearance didn’t go as smoothly as expected, however.  As Schultz began to speak, on another topic, he was interrupted by a heckler, who was eventually escorted out by security.

“Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a–hole,” the protester shouted. “Go back to getting ratioed [“Ratioed” is new social media term that refers to the negative response that a tweet gets.] on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world. That’s not what democracy means.”

That’s pretty harsh, and pretty elitist, with the reference to “Davos” (Davos, Switzerland, plays host to the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of global political and business élites) and the attempt to own what “democracy” means while accusing others of trying to “run the world.”

This wasn’t your average run of the mill heckler.  He was hired and planted there by somebody, I would guess.

Julia Limitone, of FOX Business, reports that, “Schultz is also being criticized by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is also considering a 2020 run as a Democrat.  In a [recent] Tweet, the billionaire lambasted third-party candidates saying they would help re-elect Trump.”

‘“In 2020, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the anti-Trump vote and end up re-electing the President,’ he said.”

So, just in case anybody didn’t already realize this, Mr. Bloomberg is officially sounding the alarm.

“Although Schultz has described himself as a ‘lifelong Democrat’ he isn’t connecting with some ideas floated by members of the democrat party [indicating he has a fully functional brain], especially newly minted house Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan.”

‘“I think I respect the Democratic Party.  I no longer feel affiliated because I don’t think their views represent the majority of Americans,’ he said. ‘I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America and I certainly don’t think we can afford the things they are suggesting.’”

It appears that Schultz, based on what he says at least, is more aligned with the democrats, socially, but more aligned with conservatives, and basic common sense, economically.  He’s trying to walk an ideological tightrope here.

According to Megan Henney, of FOX Business, “Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz [thinks] every American has the right to affordable health care,” but that, “…he wouldn’t feel comfortable running for office as a Democrat.”

Get ready to watch the “barbecuing” of Howard Schultz begin!

Even though Howard Schultz leans to “the left,” and describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” he is now the second most dangerous person in the country, right behind President Trump, from “the swamp’s” point of view.

This is because it is believed he would take votes from the establishment liberal democrat candidate, thus helping President Trump win the election.

Mr. Schultz is putting a big target on his back.

The attacks on him by the democrats and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” will only be rivaled by the on-going attacks on President Trump.

“The swamp” has already started the attack on him by questioning and pointing out how much of his fortune he contributes to charity.

Megan Henney continues by saying, “The 65-year-old billionaire has drawn ire since announcing that he’s mulling a presidential bid for his criticism of wealth tax plans proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced her own presidential bid this month, that are intended to reduce income inequality in the U.S.”

‘“However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that’s not something that’s ever gonna be passed, this is what’s wrong,’ he said during an interview on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition.’ ‘You can’t just attack these things in a punitive way by punishing people.’”

“Schultz, who stepped down as CEO of Starbucks in 2017, would likely be subject to Warren’s ‘ultra-millionaire tax,’ which would create a 2 percent wealth tax on people with more than $50 million assets and a 3 percent tax on people with more than $1 billion.”

So, he’s openly attacking the socialist’s…, ooops, I mean the democrat’s newest rising star, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her sister in mind and spirit, Elizabeth Warren?

He’s got guts…, I’ll give him that…, but he’s putting himself at odds with the PC and socialist “group think” mob who only believes in free speech if that speech agrees with their beliefs and political agenda.

While the horde of potential 2020 democrat candidates compete to see who is willing to give away the most money in order to win the election, Mr. Schultz may actually be the liberals “voice of reason,” and their best chance at defeating President Trump.

But of course, “the swamp” isn’t actually interested about doing what’s right for America.  Their only interested in gaining control and gaining power.

So, they, “the swamp,” will chew up and spit out Mr. Schultz in short order and quickly get back to the business of beating President trump AT ALL COSTS.

If he does officially announce he’s running for president, I’m sure we’ll see the usual playbook pulled out, which will include charges of inappropriate dealings with women, inappropriate money dealings, and charges of racism if needed.

“Vox,” (“Vox” is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media.) recently ran an article titled, “Dear billionaires: stop running for president,” in reference to Mr. Schultz.  It’s funny, but they didn’t seem to have an issue with Oprah running for president when she was out their floating the idea.

You’re only an “acceptable” billionaire if you can manage to check off the appropriate “swampy” boxes.

It’s quite amazing actually, because it wasn’t much more than a year ago, Howard Schultz was the toast of “liberal town,” while, “Investors warn a ‘liberal agenda’ is killing Starbucks’s business,” according to Clint Rainey for New York Magazine.

While Howard Schultz was still at the helm of Starbuck’s, he tried to “mix coffee with social justice.” His refugee hiring plan, which came in reaction to President Trump’s travel ban, ignited a pretty swift conservative backlash and a pretty swift liberal “seal of approval.”

The company’s investors, “Were demanding that Starbucks [Schultz] rethink its ‘liberal political stances,’ and just in general stop the ‘attacks on President Donald Trump.’ They [the investors] argue that Schultz in particular is ‘obviously’ liberal, ‘perhaps even anti-conservative,’ and worry the CEO’s politics have tainted the brand for consumers who disagree ideologically, in turn causing the brand’s public perception to seriously plummet, which surveys show has happened, and which is never a good thing for sales numbers.”

It seems that Howard Schultz should have qualified as being “far left” enough…, but that was over a year ago, and the democrats have moved even further to the left.

So, in the final analysis here, Howard Shultz could have been a pretty formidable democrat candidate, if he wasn’t so reasonable.

It seems that reason won’t get you anywhere in the democrat party these days.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

howard schultz

Liberal billionaire apologizes for funding effort to link Russians to Republicans.  “Well, all righty then!”

Well, all righty then…, as long as he apologized, right?

Wait…, what?!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Democratic operatives created fake Russian “bots” to link “the Russians” to [republican candidate] Roy Moore in the recent Alabama senate election.”

Amazing.

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HOW THIS STORY WOULD BE TREATED IF IT HAD BEEN A RICH CONSERVATIVE DOING THIS?  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have lost their minds.  But, since it was a rich liberal democrat, they just look the other way.  Another example of propaganda by omission or disregard.

Okay, so first of all, what exactly is a “bot?”

A “bot” is a particular type of software that is employed in social media networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) to automatically generate messages or in general advocate for certain ideas, support campaigns, and public relations either by acting as a “follower” or even as a fake account that gathers followers itself.  Currently, it is estimated that up to 15% of active Twitter accounts may be social bots.  “Social bots can generate convincing internet personas that are very capable of influencing real people.

Using social bots is against the terms of service of many platforms, especially Twitter and Instagram.  However many users, especially businesses, still automate their Instagram activity in order to gain real followers rather than buying fake ones. This is commonly done through third-party social automation companies.

Liberal Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman issued an apology for funding a group that falsely tried to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s Senate election against the now elected Senator, democrat, Doug Jones.

Hoffman is the co-founder of “LinkedIn” (LinkedIn is a business and employment-oriented service that operates via websites and mobile apps. It is mainly used for professional networking, including employers posting jobs and job seekers posting information about themselves.

Reid Hoffman is also one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to Democrat campaigns and PACs.  In the last election cycle he donated $7 million to Democrat groups, though his money also pours into non-traditional groups that aren’t mandated to report their funding and often operate in the shadows.

One such group is American Engagement Technologies (AET). According to Mikelionis, AET is a firm run by former Obama appointee Mikey Dickerson, which received $750,000 from Hoffman and was part of the effort to falsely portray the Republican’s senate bid as being supported by the Kremlin.

Oh…, an “Obama appointee.”  Did you ever notice that when stuff like this pops up, these names associated with the miss deeds display the obvious incestuous liberal nature of “the swamp?”

“I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing. For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET, the organization I did support, more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject,” Hoffman said in a statement provided to the Washington Post.

Ya, AET, I am totally disturbed that you would allow yourself to get busted and implicate me on top of it!  That’s what he really means.

“I want to be unequivocal: there is absolutely no place in our democracy for manipulating facts or using falsehoods to gain political advantage,” he added.

Oh, you’re so noble Mr. Hoffman!  So tell me, what are you then, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, or a cheat and a liar?

Ding, ding, ding…, I think have a winner there with “a cheat and a liar!”

“Hoffman said AET went on to facilitate a secret project with a budget of $100,000.  One participant in the project was Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a firm that wrote a report, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, about Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election and its efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.”

So, Mr. Jonathon Morgan, do you know Christopher Steele by chance?  I have a feeling that Mr. Morgan’s report is about as reputable as Mr. Steele’s fraudulent dossier.

Democratic operatives then created thousands of fake Russian accounts on Twitter and began following Moore, prompting attention from local and national media that falsely suggested Russia is backing Moore’s candidacy.

The project also involved creating a Facebook page and imitated conservative Alabamians who weren’t satisfied with the Republican candidate while encouraging others to write in another candidate.

In a statement on Twitter, Morgan denied the project was aimed at influencing the election, which the Democrat won by 22,000 votes. “I did not participate in any campaign to influence the public,” he wrote, saying the project goals weren’t about supporting the Jones campaign.

Deny, deny, deny.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  You can’t deny that this is a strategy that works, especially when you have a cooperative “biased, liberal, fake news media” that will look the other way.

The disinformation campaign was first revealed by the New York Times that obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the internal report said.

The multi-million Senate Alabama race ended with Jones victory over the embattled Republican.  Doug Jones became the first Democratic senator from Alabama in more than 20 years.

Jones has since told Fox News that he’s “outraged” over the reports detailing the efforts to portray his opponent as backed by the Kremlin, calling for a federal investigation over the project (although not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results).

“I’d like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible,” Jones said. “These authorities need to use this example right now to start setting the course for the future to let people know that this is not acceptable in the United States of America.”

Yes, we know Senator Jones, it’s not acceptable, although you’re not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results regarding your own election victory.

The daily hypocrisy, the daily examples of double standards, the almost daily revealing of questionable/illegal activity by liberals and democrats, is really hard to take some days.  But like I have said before, “the swamp” has our (the conservatives) full and undivided attention now, and you can’t just sweep this crap under the rug anymore like you had become accustomed to.

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

putin donating

 

 

 

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑