The Washington Post’s and CNN’s resident anti-American liberal and ISIS apologist…, Max Boot.  

It’s true.

Max Boot is as about as disgusting a liberal tool as they come.

awapo 1

But he’s the perfect writer and contributor for the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

averitas 3

According to Brian Flood and Joseph A. Wulfsohn of Fox News, “The Washington Post is under fire over Al-Baghdadi obituary headline.”

awapo 6

“The paper’s obituary called the ISIS leader an ‘austere religious scholar!’”

Sure…, just like Adolph Hitler was an austere political scholar!”

awapo 4

Can a newspaper be any more confused and propagandistic than that?

Where do people like Max Boot come from and what are their ultimate goals?

What exactly is he trying to achieve here with his ISIS friendly words?

I’m serious.

Is he married to Osama bin Laden’s niece?

Does he have a vacation home in norther Iraq?

Or is he just your standard anti-America liberal.

I’m going with “he’s just your standard anti-America liberal.”

awapo 12

“The Washington Post columnist Max Boot was forced to backtrack after initially declaring that President Trump was wrong to label dead ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi a coward.”

awapo 5

“[President] Trump announced on Sunday that al-Baghdadi killed himself as U.S. Special Operations forces raided his compound in northern Syria. Trump said the terror leader – who set off a suicide vest, immediately killing himself and three children – ‘[ran away, whimpering and crying before he] died like a coward.’ Boot, who is also a CNN analyst, was apparently offended that Trump criticized the ISIS leader.”

‘“The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up,’ Boot wrote in a widely criticized column.”

No, Mr. Boot, and I’m reluctantly using the term “Mr.” here…, Al-Baghdadi taking his own life, along with the lives of three of his children was either the ultimate act of cowardice or the ultimate act of selfishness, if he really did believe he was going to join Allah.

Al-Baghdadi definitely chose the coward’s way out.

“Boot became a trending topic on social media as critics lampooned his theory, but the Washington Post columnist eventually changed his tune and deleted the bizarre sentence.”

‘“An earlier version of this column included a sentence questioning whether Trump was right to call Baghdadi a coward because he blew himself up. The line was removed because it unintentionally conveyed the impression that I considered Baghdadi courageous,’ Boot wrote in the updated edition.”

These people crack me up.

Revisionist history.  It’s a common tool in the liberals’ bag of tricks.

You’re a professional writer!

I don’t think anything you write “unintentionally conveys” anything!

I think your writing conveys exactly what you want it to.

And if that’s not the case, maybe he should go into a different line of work…, perhaps American public relations liaison for ISIS or Al Qaeda.

“But Boot’s gaffe wasn’t the only odd moment in the Post’s coverage of al-Baghdadi’s death.  Columnist Greg Sargent said Trump’s announcement featured ‘deeply sick and twisted’ rhetoric.”

awapo 2

Ah, excuse me…, but I heard President Trump’s announcement, live, from beginning to end, and I didn’t find anything he said “deeply sick,” “sick,” or “twisted.”

In fact, I feel the only people who might have been bothered by his words were friends of Al-Baghdadi, his ISIS comrades, your general Muslim extremist, or just your standard anti-America liberal.

So which are you Greg Sargent?

Again, I’m going with “just your standard anti-America liberal.”

None of the anti-America and anti-President Trump propaganda should be taking any of us by surprise anymore, however…, especially from the liberal propagandists at CNN or The Washington Post.

awapo 13

 

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.

 

The Washington Post…, “Democracy dies on its pages.” 

I’m responding to a recent article in The Washington Post titled, “Sarah Sanders Watch: ‘Mouthpiece for fascism’?”

The article is by Erik Wemple, a media critic for The Washington Post, whose tag line is “Democracy dies in darkness.”

It must be getting pretty “dark” over there at the old Washington Post.

sanders 4

In the article, Mr. Wemple whines about the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, not having had a traditional White House briefing in quite a while.

Do you really wonder why that is Mr. Wemple, or are you just pretending not to know?

Well…, in case it is the former, I’ll clue you in.

First of all, it’s not written anywhere that these press briefings have to occur at all.

Second, most of the media that attended these briefings were not interested in getting briefed.  They were only interested in attacking President Trump, his administration, and Sarah Sanders.

Is it any wonder this is one tradition The President isn’t too concerned about honoring?

Mr. Wemple then continues to whine that Sarah Sanders seems to prefer to discuss her talking points with more “sympathetic” Fox News interviewers.

sanders 3

I don’t think “Sympathetic” is quite the right word here.  I think I would go with the term “fair and balanced.”

It wasn’t too long ago that I can remember Obama’s press secretaries avoiding the reporters from Fox News as opposed to any of the remaining horde of truly “sympathetic,” liberal propaganda reporters.

I can also recall the Obama administration actually spying on reporters who didn’t play by his “swampy” rules…, but I digress.

Mr. Wemple then proceeds to dredge up the tired “obstruction of justice” topic…, again…, claiming, “The Mueller report documented close to a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice by President Trump,” while claiming Mueller “did not charge any crimes in deference to Justice Department policy toward sitting presidents.”

If I’ve said this once I’ve said this a hundred times…, IF ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, BELIEVE ME, HE WOULD HAVE.

IF ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED CHARGING PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, BELIEVE ME, HE WOULD HAVE.

Mr. Wemple then continues to cry about Sarah Sanders “hitting back” at charges made by various democrats, and actually defending The President and his administration.

You do understand that is precisely what her job is don’t you Mr. Wemple?

sanders 2

He then refers to a tweet by Alec Baldwin (that wise old sage and ever on duty guardian of democracy…, cough, cough), where he referred to Sarah Sanders as a “mouthpiece-for-fascism…,” a claim Mr. Wemple obviously supports.

Fascism?

Fascism, Mr. Wemple?

Ok…, let’s talk about fascism and fascists a little bit.

Have you heard of The Poynter Institute, Mr. Wemple?  I’m sure you have, but most other people haven’t.  It’s kind of a well-kept and camouflaged secret.  In a nutshell, The Poynter Institute is a boot camp for liberal, socialist, fascist, “journalists.”  It’s the kind of “journalism” school that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, could really appreciate, and a school that is well represented by many members of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” who make Washington D.C. their home.

Oh…, and by the way…, was it Sarah Sanders who was pushing the false narrative of Russian collusion for the last 2 years, or was it the “liberal propaganda,” “mainstream” media?

Who again are the fascists attempting to control the media?

In addition…, who in “the media” are the ones accounting for over 90% negative articles concerning President Trump?  If you take out the positive stories (or at least the non-negative ones) by Fox News, that means the rest of “the media” is basically 100% negative 100% of the time.  And saying that doesn’t even cause me to flinch.

Who again are the fascists attempting to control the narrative through negative propaganda and by omission?

Your cover has been blown Eric Wemple.  Just like the cover has been blown for all of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” since President Trump ran for president.

The “mainstream” media being anywhere close to fair and balanced is the problem here, not Sarah Sanders.

sanders 1

WINNING!

 

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.

My reaction to some recent headlines about the Electoral College, AOC and the 22nd Amendment, DNC Chair calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” Joe Biden’s behavior with women, and did the NY Times and The Washington Post help elect President Trump!?

There are so many topics I’d like to offer my insight on, but so little time!

Welcome to my first crack at the “MrEricksonRules headline buffet line!”

Pick your favorite(s) or have some of each.  It’s totally up to you.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Senate democrats introduce measure to abolish Electoral College.

“Would election by popular vote be better than the Electoral College?”

“A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.”

“According to NBC News: ‘Leading Democratic senators are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College, adding momentum to a long-shot idea that has been gaining steam among 2020 presidential candidates.’”

“…changing the Constitution is seen as virtually impossible today. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House (about 290 votes) and Senate (67 votes) and requires ratification by 38 states.”

As is usually the case with the democrat party, what we have here is either disingenuous political grandstanding, uninformed ignorance, or a combination of the two.  I’m going to give them some credit and say it’s disingenuous political grandstanding for the most part, since actually amending the Constitution would never happen, mostly due to the requirement of having 38 states go along with it.

So…, in the grand scheme of things, it’s kind of like “The Green New Deal,” a bunch of noise that ain’t never going to happen.

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney disagree over knowledge of 22nd Amendment, Constitution.

“[Liz] Cheney, R-WY, took issue with a comment [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, made during a recent MSNBC town hall event in which the freshman congresswoman talked about Democrats being in control of Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.”

‘“When our party was boldest, the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on, we had, and carried, supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,’ she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.”

‘“They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt did not get reelected,’ Ocasio-Cortez continued.”

“In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, Cheney tweeted: ‘We knew the Democrats let dead people vote. According to AOC, they can run for president too!’”

“The New Yorker then fired off her own response. ‘Hey Rep. Cheney, I see from your dead people comment that you get your news from Facebook memes, but the National Constitution Center + Newsweek are just two of many places where you can clarify your misunderstanding of the history of the 22nd Amendment,’ she wrote.”

“Roosevelt died while in office in 1945 and the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947.  The Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some of other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

I think we can safely score this:

Representative Liz Cheney………..ONE

Representative Ocasio-Cortez…….ZERO

Kathleen Joyce of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

DNC Chair Tom Perez calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” says they will be “judged harshly” by history

“Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez launched a stunning attack on Republican lawmakers, saying history will “judge” them for supporting President Trump.”

What’s so “stunning” about that?  I hear much worse on a daily basis directed at President Trump, republicans and various conservatives.

‘“The reason why we [Democrats] are winning, and we won at scale in 2018, is because our message is clear. Our message was: we are the ones who actually have your back on the issues that really matter. Healthcare, education. He said he had your back, but actually he had a knife in your back,’ Perez said.”

The truth is the democrats under performed in the 2018 midterms, and by any measure we can say the democrats do not “have our back.”  The democrats, most recently led by Barack Obama, sold America and Americans out.  They gave away our jobs, our wealth, our respect around the world, and our American soul.

“The DNC chair continued that President Trump found success in 2016 by putting ‘fear on the ballot,’ and that Republican lawmakers who have supported his policies over the last three years are ‘cowards’ who have allowed damage to be done to their part.”

That’s a good one Tom!  The democrats are historically the party of fear.  How many times have we heard “the republicans will gut social security,” due to the republicans, millions will die without healthcare, our children will starve and grandma will be left out on the street!?

We didn’t need President Trump to “put fear on the ballot” in 2016, we were all scared already that our country was going down the drain. And rightly so.

‘“I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly. It will judge Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refused to stand up to this president and allowed the party of Lincoln to die. They will be judged harshly because whatever he says goes right now.’”

I feel more correctly, “history” will judge these times as the times of the great liberal lies.  The times of liberal propaganda and the times of the corrupt and biased media who backed them up rather than do their jobs as watchdogs for We the People.

Anna Hopkins of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Pelosi: Biden didn’t know “the world we’re in now.”

“House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most high-profile Democrat to come to the defense of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ‘affectionate demeanor,’ Peter Doocy reports from Washington.”

Ha! “Affectionate demeanor!?”  Is that what we’re calling “Uncle Joe’s” creepy behavior now?

And according to Politico (a news journalism company), “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not think the allegations against Joe Biden of unwelcome contact are disqualifying for a 2020 run, but that the former vice president should be more aware of others’ personal space. ‘I don’t think it’s disqualifying,’ Pelosi said… ‘He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it.’ … Pelosi pushed back against the tone of former vice president’s apologies. ‘It is how it’s received, so to say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,’ the California Democrat said. ‘‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ What’s that? That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication.’”

I’m a little confused.  Is she coming to Joe’s defense or is she scolding him?

National Public Radio (NPR) noted, “On the most obvious level, complaints of this kind renew the criticism of Biden’s past performance on issues affecting women and people of color, the two constituencies likely to matter most in choosing the next Democratic nominee.”

As usual with the democrats, us poor white guys are treated like second class citizens.

“Perceptions of Biden as ‘old school’ or ‘old fashioned’ are not just liabilities to be shed. They are also the basis of his appeal to many older, white, working-class Democrats and independents.”

The democrat party can say what they want about the new breed of democrat-socialists out there; Joe Biden leads in the polls for president, and he hasn’t even officially declared yet!

“Biden’s advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats…”

No kidding.

That basically leaves one guy…, and I can hear ‘em now, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

New York Post: How the New York Times, Washington Post helped get Trump elected.

“If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump, then Clinton would never have been the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.”

headlines 2

True.  And actually, “If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump,” she would be in jail, along with a lot of her friends.

“So, in a different scenario, if the Times and the Washington Post probe Clinton, alert the public to all of her ‘problems’ then the Democrats are forced to pick someone else as their candidate.  In that case, Trump might not have won.”

In reality, Mr. Crudele, anything “might” have happened.  It really annoys me these days when reporters say, “this might happen,” or that “could happen,” or this “may” happen.

Here’s some news for all of you journalism majors: ANYTHING “MIGHT,”  “COULD,” OR “MAY” HAPPEN!  THAT’S NOT NEWS!

John Crudele of The New York Post contribued.

headlines 1

 

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.

 

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” strikes again!

“We should be outraged by FOX and its apologists,” according to The Washington Post.

Another liberal “rag” magazine, The Nation, recently pronounced that, “Fox News has always been propaganda.”

Sounds like just another coordinated, fake news narrative being spun on multiple fronts.

The sheer and utter hypocrisy of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” just never ceases to amaze me…, and they just have NO shame.

fake news

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” turned its collective head and looked the other way on countless occasions during the Obama years, or when it had to, they “reasoned away” many concerns or dreamed up excuses as they deemed necessary.

Their behavior during Obama’s reign was the definition of being an “apologist.”

Any fair minded people know that the “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” does not even make an attempt anymore to appear fair or balanced with their coverage of President Trump, the republicans, or conservatives in general.

So I’ll tell you what Washington Post…, you and your friends go on and be outraged at whoever you want and the rest of us will be outraged at whoever we want…, ok?

We all know what causes your “outage.”  It’s the fact that FOX and FOX News does not walk in lock step with your liberal agenda.

fakenews 0724 resized

What causes our “outrage” is the fact that the mainstream media has become a propaganda arm of the democrat party and along with liberals and socialists everywhere.

The trust and the reputation of the mainstream media is gone and I don’t think it’s ever coming back.

Congratulations.

 

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.

 

 

The hypocrisy of “the left” knows no bounds!

According to Paul Farhi of The Washington Post, “The Democrat National Committee (DNC) has decided to exclude Fox News Channel from televising any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle …”

Is this even legal?  Isn’t this a violation of the freedom of the press?  It surely is at least un-American.

You can’t say the democrats aren’t consistent.

Consistently hypocritical.

Consistently unconstitutional.

“In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump’s agenda. The article, titled ‘The Making of the Fox News White House,’ suggested that the news network had become a ‘propaganda’ vehicle for Trump.”

(Please see my other blog today on this very topic.)

“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” said Perez in his statement to The Washington Post.

Soooo you “expand” your electorate “and reach all voters” by excluding certain news coverage?  You “expand” the reach of your party by excluding the most watched cable news channel on TV?  Is this what they call liberal common sense?  It sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You’re a democrat alright!

‘“That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News.  Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates,’ Perez added.”

Oh, you mean they won’t be fair and neutral and allow the DNC to provide debate questions to your candidate of choice before the debate, like what happened last time at a CNN debate?

tom perez and brazile

We are all also painfully aware of how “fair and neutral” the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is towards President Trump and the virtually 100% negative reporting around the clock.

But that’s okay?

It sure is okay…, in the whacky world of irrational and hypocritical democrats.

“Hours later, Trump responded to the decision by suggesting he might seek to retaliate.”

“Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate,” he said in a tweet Wednesday night. “Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!”

Nice retaliatory strike Mr. President!  The DNC obviously didn’t consider what the repercussions of their “stupidness” would be.  That’s what happens when all of these idiots get together in a room and bounce dumb ideas off of each other.

“Numerous networks, including Fox, have submitted proposals to the DNC to televise one of the 12 scheduled debates, which will start in June.”

12 debates?!  And that’s only amongst the democrats!  By the time we get to the twelfth debate there won’t be anything left that the democrats and their socialist government can give away “free” that the democrat candidates will be able to promote.

“So far, the organization has only awarded rights to the first two, to NBC (along with sister networks MSNBC and Telemundo) and to CNN.”

Telemundo?!  Really?

Well, I suppose the DNC does have to be careful to consider the tens of millions of illegal immigrant voters who can’t speak English.

I’m sorry…, I’m bad…, I know it…, but I just couldn’t help myself.

“In a statement, Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said: ‘We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democrat presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters.’”

We shouldn’t be surprised by these turn of events.  The DNC is just the logical extension of the liberal fascists we see all of the time attempting to silence conservative voices on college campuses around our country and at other public events and public protests.

We are well aware of their “playbook” by now.

In the Socialist democrat world, the freedom of speech only applies to those who believe like they do.  Everyone else must be shouted down, silenced and labeled as racists, misogynists, homophobes and Nazis.

 

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.

tom-perez-35030444

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 ↑