Washington Post op-ed predicts "violence" *unless* Harris/Biden win by a landslide

If you're a young American you may not know that the Washington Post is 100% Democrat/socialist.

And you're probably saying, "So what," right?

So this:  99 percent of everything they say is either a flat-out lie, or pro-socialist propaganda.

Of course you don't believe that, but eventually you'll figure it out.

Latest example:  Last Thursday the Post ran an "op-ed," written by a "law professor" at George Washington University, Rosa Brooks.  (You should know that op-ed is short for "opinion/editorial" and they're pure propaganda.)

The author of this propaganda piece predicted "violence" beyond the November election UNLESS Harris and Biden won a "landslide" victory.

Professor Brooks co-founded a thing called the "Transition Integrity Project," conveniently established barely one year ago to look for "potential disruptions" after the 2020 election.

Let's see here:  law professor.  GWU.  Yeah, not a smidgen of bias there, eh?  What horse shit!

Brooks said she convened a group of "civil servants" [wait, is that the same as "politician"?], media experts, pollsters and strategists" and asked them to imagine what they’d do in response to various election results.

And I just know you'll all be really shocked at the results of her vaunted team of "experts."\

Her team of "experts" predicted that a Trump win--whether a landslide or a squeaker--or a narrow win by Harris/Biden, would result in...violence.  The ONLY scenario that offered peaceful results was a landslide for Harris/Biden.

That is, a Trump win would create street-level violence and political crisis," she said.

Oh, you say you think this is fiction?  Fake news?  That even the shit-eating, socialist WaPo wouldn't be this crazy?  Take a look at their tweet, from their verified account:

Perspective: The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis.

In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically. https://t.co/E3tugZBuBj

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 3, 2020

 
 
"With the exception of the 'big Biden win' scenario, each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe, with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse," Brooks wrote. "In two scenarios ('Trump win' and 'extended uncertainty') there was still no agreement on the winner by Inauguration Day.

If that's not distressing enough, that uncertainty would also mean our armed forces wouldn't know which candidate was authorized to give orders to the military, or receive the nuclear codes.

In the 'narrow Biden win' scenario, the Post published--as though it was certain--that Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents."

The only nominal "republicans" on the panel of "experts" were RINOs like Michael Steele and Bill Kristol--BOTH of whom have declared they support Harris/Biden.  The rest were hard-core Democrat/socialist attack dogs.  All were asked to guess how their respective parties would react to the various scenarios.  Brooks summarized the results

"In each scenario the players assigned to simulate the Trump campaign [were] ruthless and unconstrained right out of the gate, and Team Biden struggled to get out of reaction mode.  In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets. Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests, while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence, then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to 'restore order,' leading to still more violence."

Critics blasted the "irresponsible" article for suggesting violence is inevitable unless the Democratic candidate has a clear victory.
Senator Ted Cruz summarized the piece with the old Mafia line, "'Nice country you got there.  Be a shame if something happened to it....'”

Give the huge amount of violence--physically battering Republicans, massive arson, looting, vandalism--in scores of American cities, Brooks's op-ed can only be interpreted the way Cruz did:  It's a threat of what the Dems will do unless Harris and Biden get a landslide win.  But there are several other messages too:

• The Post is preparing Americans to accept the idea that it won't be possible to know the result of the election for weeks--a scenario that gives the Democrats time to create hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes;
• By predicting violence if Trump wins, then if Trump were to lose the electoral vote when the evidence of Democrat fraud was obvious (like 30 percent more votes tallied in dozens of precincts than registered voters), the article is a warning to the Supreme Court not to let Trump claim the results were due to vote fraud;  
• The Post is preparing Americans to accept the NEED for "righteous" violence by BLM, Antifa and other Democrat mobs if Trump wins;

But here's a ray of sunshine: a look at how the NY Times--which has the same politics as the WaPo--predicted the results of the 2016 election just two weeks before that election:


https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-violence-biden-landslide?ocid=uxbndlbing

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-trump-election-violence-vote-wapo-miranda-devine-nypost