Two days ago I wrote about a
brazen propaganda piece published by the socialist-loving assholes at the Washington Post. It was by a law professor / propagandist who claimed to have assembled a panel of "experts" to examine the likelihood of continued street violence after the election.
Of course anyone with half a brain could immediately see that it was a hit-piece cuz the "experts" she chose were all hard-core Democrats or RINOs. (Click on the link above to see who she picked for the panel.)
Amazingly (sarc), her panel of "experts" concluded that the current wave of Democrat-sponsored and Dem-encouraged street violence would continue--
unless Harris/Biden won by a landslide.
Now, the problem with propagandists trying to construct a convincing "alternate reality" to bullshit people is that the propagandists often don't think everything through. As a result, their bullshit either contains internal contradictions, or else shoots their own side in the foot.
In this case, consider that the propagandist claimed that if
Trump won by a landslide, the current, massive violence would continue. But if Harris and Biden won by a landslide, no violence. Hmm...
That tacitly admits what rational Americans well know: that the current wave of violence is NOT being driven by Trump supporters (since the experts predicted no violence if Harris won by a landslide), so the current wave of arson, looting and battery must be being driven by Democrat supporters, including Antifa and BLM. Again, everyone knows that, but the Democrats and their media allies have continued to feed you the bullshit that what you're seeing are actually "peaceful protests." Or "mostly peaceful."
Of course that's a lie and everyone knows it. But the Dems and their media allies have kept trying to make you believe that lie--even as their reporters are standing in front of huge fires, still claiming "peaceful protest."
SO...I'd like to walk you through what I predict are the likely results of the election, in just 58 days.
First is the likely result of the vote. Right now virtually
every poll claims Biden is ahead. But look closely: If the poll says "nationally" they're spewing propaganda. Reason is that the two big shithole states of California and New York--overwhelmingly Democrat, and with huge populations of illegal aliens--vote Dem by a huge margin. For example, California tallied 7,362,490 votes for Hilliary and 3,916,209 for Trump.
New York tallied 4,143,874 for Hilliary and 2,640,570 for Trump. So those two states alone gave 5 million more votes to Hilliary. (Hilliary ended up winning the total vote by 1.3 million, meaning that the rest of the country other than NY and CA voted against her by a wide margin.
So unless the pollsters take the trouble to correct for that (and do you think they do?), they end up over-sampling Democrats significantly. So be very skeptical of "national polls."
But of course as every American should know (but far too many don't), presidents aren't elected by the winner of the popular vote, but by the winner of the "electoral vote"--in which each state gets a number of votes equal to its members of congress. Obviously Trump won that. But what you may not know is that in every presidential election, all the drama comes down to just six or seven states.
Reason is that in most states voters are heavily for one party or the other, so the outcome in those states is rarely in doubt. But a handful of states are so closely balanced that they can tip either way. These are called "swing states" or battleground states, and they're the ones that decide most elections.
If you're a college-age American here's another thing you probably don't know: In 2016 a shift of less than 107,000 votes in just three crucial swing states would have swung the election to Hilliary.
Specifically, Hilliary lost Wisconsin by just 27,000 votes, lost Michigan by 11,600 votes, lost Pennsylvania by 68,000. Historically, all three of those states had voted Democrat by comfortable margins. In fact Hilliary was so sure she had Wisconsin in the bag that she didn't go there even once in the entire campaign.
Those three states have a total of 46 electoral votes. Had they gone Democrat, as they always had before, Hilliary would have won.
But things are better for the Dems in Pennsylvania this year, because Biden was born there. And although he left the state when he was young, and couldn't tell you his address in that state to save his life, the connection should be worth some votes. Also, the state elected a Democrat governor. He's a corrupt moron but the state had enough Dems to elect him, so that doesn't look good for Trump.
Michigan also elected a Democrat governor--the ghastly Gretchen Whitmer. So clearly there are more than enough Democrat votes to pull the state into Harris's column.
If every state breaks the same way as 2016 except that Harris wins Pennsylvania and Michigan, the electoral vote would be tied, in which case...if you're a parent of a high school or college kid, ask them if they know how the Constitution says such an election is supposed to be decided.
Of course YOU know, right? Sure ya do, sparky! Article 2 section1 of the Constitution says the president shall be decided by the House.of Representatives. That works in Trump's favor because instead of all the members voting (favoring NY and CA) each state only gets one vote. Wow.
But if Trump can win Wisconsin and Michigan, and other states don't change, he can lose Penn to Harris and still win the electoral vote 286 to 252.
In which case you can expect Antifa and BLM to scream that "Trump STOLE the election," and then go nuts (more nuts?) and burn cities all over again.
Ironically, if Trump were to win by a huge margin--something I don't expect--Antifa and BLM would also go into arson/looting mode, still claiming Trump stole the election--even if the margin is huge. Now, this may not make sense to you and me, but remember that these are the morons who gulped down the whole ridiculous story that Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election. When you ask one of 'em whether he/she/it thinks Hilliary--who famously loathed our military--would have been tougher on Russia and more supportive of our military than Trump has been, you get that blank stare. "Whu...?"
Of course when we use the phrase "the result of the vote" we have to recognize that there's likely to be a huge difference between the legitimate vote and the official results, due to vote fraud. And yes, despite the constant scream from the mainstream media that there's no such thing, there IS
always vote fraud. The question is, are enough votes fraudulent to change a state result?
Remember those totals for the three swing states above? If Biden's birth state pulls PA over to the Harris column, the Dems only need to create just 11,800 votes in Wisconsin to win the election.
As I wrote a week ago, there are some telltale indicators: If a precinct reports more total votes than the number of registered voters in that precinct, your alarms should go off. Similarly, precinct workers are required to know the total number of in-person voters who signed in to vote, and that should match the total votes cast. So if a precinct refuses to report that total, or claims not to know it, or refuses to allow those sign-in registers to be examined, it's almost certainly an indicator of fraud.
But here's the real problem: Suppose all those indicators of fraud are triggered, and in large enough nunbers to change a state's results. What would the Trump campaign
do with that evidence?
Okay, someone said "take it to the Supreme Court." Okay, but there are two HUGE problems with that: First, if the Dems can tie the GOP up with motions in the lower courts, such that no actual investigation is allowed until, say, late December, the justices are highly likely to ignore even the most obvious proof of fraud, for what they will claim is a plausible reason: That delaying the decision on who is the rightful president could jeopardize national security, since in an emergency there could be confusion by the Chiefs of Staff as to who had the right to give orders to the military.
Now, you should know that's a bullshit excuse: Even in a normal election the outgoing president is commander in chief until noon on inauguration day. But Team Harris would whine that the court had to decide RIGHT NOW in order to give them time to plan the inauguration. Of course that's bullshit too (you make
contingent plans), but they'll still make that claim.
The second reason is more disturbing: The Washington Post propaganda piece linked at the top of this post argued that violence by BLM and Antifa was likely to continue if the election was close. Thus the media would be warning the two swing justices on the court every day that IF they voted to allow the evidence of massive vote fraud to be investigated, the country would be torn apart by massive violence, in all major cities.
Twenty years ago the court would likely have said "If that happens, that's a matter for local police to handle. You can't actually think you can threaten the Supreme Court to sway our ruling on such a crucial matter, do you?" But in the last three years we've seen endless examples of corrupt decisions from courts that should never have reached those decisions legally. (See "Kelo v. City of New London" among many others.)
But wait...what happens if instead of Trump losing, the
Democrats lose by a few votes? Won't their argument explained in the two 'grafs above work just as well against them as against Trump?
Gosh, it should. But obviously the Dems won't claim fraud if they won. Duh!
So will the Republicans be ready with the same argument? I don't think so, because it sets a ghastly precedent for the nation--which is, if a party is brazen enough to use massive fraud in a presidential election, the Supreme Court will ignore it.
Yep, that is one hell of a horrible precedent. Which is why the GOP won't make that case.
So I expect an extremely close election, with lots of fraud. Hope I'm wrong.
