“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 ↑