Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part IV-Vote Harvesting

" It's not voting multiple times. It's 'ranking' your votes. Leftists always change the names to protect the guilty.." Christopher Maider.

".. One man, one vote.." George Howell.

Wikipedia:
In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases in the 1960s.[5][6][7][8][a] Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures needed to redistrict in order to have congressional districts with roughly equal represented populations. In addition, the court ruled that, unlike the United States Congress, both houses of state legislatures needed to have representation based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.[10]

That a State Senate was to represent rural counties, as a counterbalance to towns and cities.... Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/14/ballot-harvesting-became-new-way-steal-election/


In California, by contrast, Democrats exulted as they credited a quietly passed 2016 law legalizing ballot-harvesting with their recent sweep of House seats in the former Republican stronghold of Orange County, thereby helping them win control of the House.
     Ballot, or, vote harvesting is a sly move by pollsters. Basically pollsters collect any absentee ballots, ballots collected door to door by shut-ins, military and (of course) questionable ballots. Basically, any ballots collected from any one who cannot physically appear on election day. They are stored until election day. They are suppose to be kept safe, un-opened and delivered to the proper precinct on the proper day. Only that is NOT always the case.

     Election after election counties too close to call are repleat with ballots that have been suddenly found in a closet, car trunk, van. Absentee ballots are lost. Military ballots are lost or (somehow) filed too late. Every election year counties count ballots exceeding the actual number of actual registered voters. In virtually every case the ballots found are all (miraculously) Democrat. They don't even pretend to keep it all balanced. According to John Fund in his book 'Stealing Elections' Republicans account for less than 3% of all voter fraud. The vast majority of that 3% is in local elections. The other 97% is all Democrat and it runs all the way up to Presidential elections. The hijacking of Bernie Sanders in 2016 is a prime indicator of this cabal.

     Rank Choice Voting not only DOES NOT address low voter turnout in their algorythims. It DOES NOT even attempt to solve the issue of ballot harvesting or massive Democrat voter fraud. Rank Choice Voting is a Democrat's dream come true. Vote ...err.. Rank as many times as you want from best to worse until you manufacture the winning 51 plus 1%. Couple this with Motor Voter Laws, registering Illegals, same day registration, the dead and no ID required and you have a perfect formula that allows RCV to flourish.

Again from the link above:
In Orange County, an estimated 250,000 harvested ballots were reportedly dropped off on Election Day alone. County Republican Chairman Fred Whitaker claimed the 2016 law "directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later."

One interaction caught by a Santa Clarita family’s doorbell camera suggested how harvesting can work in practice. A harvester, identifying herself as Lulu, asks for Brandi, and says she is there to collect her ballot, explaining that there is "this new service, but only to, like, people who are supporting the Democratic Party."


North Carolina absentee ballots require a "witness," or second signature, to verify the voter’s identity.

...in the Tar Heel State. WBTV, a Charlotte station, reviewed 796 official ballot envelopes of votes cast in Bladen County. The review identified 110 that were signed by two women who are listed as having been paid by a PAC connected to the North Carolina Democratic Party.

    I wonder how many volunteers were paid by Arnold or The Chamberlin Project to harvest, or witness votes and petitions in Maine? St. Paul and Minneapolis are Rank Choice Voting cities. Who harvested those votes for entire Democrat controlled disticts? Who funded the PAC's?

     In the Jones/Moore election massive voter fraud and vote harvesting took place. How does RCV solve this issue?

Then there is this disturbing video..

This from The Federalist website.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/14/ballot-harvesting-became-new-way-steal-election/

America’s electoral obsession isn’t Russian meddling anymore. It’s ballot-harvesting, a long-disputed practice implicated in fraud that’s come to the fore with the nationwide embrace of absentee voting in recent years — and especially in last month’s midterms.


With ballot-harvesting, paper votes are collected by intermediaries who deliver them to polling officials, presumably increasing voter turnout but also creating opportunities for mischief.

     RCV solves NONE of these issues. It excaserbates them. With voting...err..(sorry) Ranking your votes you have multiple times to get your candidate to win. Then, when (SUDDENLY!) a box is found in a school janitor's closet three days later and all of the first or second ranks are for the original second place loser; that person becomes the winner!

     Now, let us introduce Single Transferable Voting. Another form of Vote Harvesting and Rank Choice Voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

The single transferable vote uses small multiple-member districts, with voters ranking individual candidates in order of preference. During the count, as candidates are elected or eliminated, surplus or discarded votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred to other candidates according to the preferences. STV enables voters to vote across party lines and to elect independent candidates.

     How is voting across party lines electing 'independent candidates'? What is a 'surplus vote'? Discarded votes? Who determines this? If a vote is surplus (not on the voter ID registration or a dead person) or is discarded why then does STV or PR or RCV take their rankings? If the vote is discarded, shouldn't all the rankings be discarded as well? The vote is surplus, discarded, not valid.

Oh, Contraire' Mon-ami'!

     Rank Choice Voting depends on these discarded and surplus votes. It will claim to deny a ballot because a voter filled it out wrong (no help to make it right at the polling station) but it will harvest the loser/discarded candidate's ranked votes. As I said in the earlier segment of this expose'; Yes, you are being used and yes, you ARE voting multiple times.

     Transferable Votes, Proportional Voting, Approval Voting. The names change to protect the guilty. These are all variations of a Euro style form of voting which our Founders emplored upon us to reject. Our system of plurality voting ensures a stable form of government. If parties change (as they are now) then the states and people themselves will decide which to recognize. Many states already recognize other third parties. Those third parties actually DO throw elections one way or the other. They are suppose to! Our system demands participation. Jefferson spoke about the people steering the ship of state correct. That ship can only be guided by Americans showing up at the local polling station regardless of party. The construct of RCV is that these third parties are spoilers. They screw up the system by swinging votes. The implication being that Greens, Libertarians, Vermin Supreme, etc should NOT run. But under RCV they should... So they can discard their paltry numbers but harvest their ranking votes... Thank you..

　
Primaries
     I had a great conversation with a Libertarian friend of mine at meeting last week. He told me my position on RCV was completely correct and he could not understand why other Libertarian and Tea Party members were against me. He asserted that Primaries ARE a form of Rank Choice Voting. Basically voters get to choose who will win their state. Loser candidates have the ability to throw their votes to the third or second place loser to advance them into the next state. The actual winner just moves on anyways but this system allows for open competition. Primaries are a shoot out. My grandfather once said the electoral process in      America is the second greatest show on Earth next to Barnum and Bailey. It is this knock down drag out fight that ensures we have the best person from both parties going head to head into the final round. Out of 17 Republican Candidates Donald Trump emerged victorious and won the nomination. Out of three Democratic Candidates Hillary Clinton won the nomination. It was two years, multiple debates, events, primaries, interviews, advertisements, rinse and repeat.

     How can any one say we then chose the 'lesser of two evils'? Both parties poured heart and souls into their message. The astounding numbers of over 150 plus million Amercans voting for either party as well as third parties is a testament to the validity of our system of voting. Over 54 people ran for President under various banners in 2016. I interviewed three of them. I have interviewed two so far for 2020.
    In a May 4th Politico Magazine article by Ohio U. Law Professor Edward B. Foley describes how RCV could be implemented in various swing states WITHOUT implementing a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/04/electoral-college-reform-2020-226792?fbclid=IwAR2nvmGhgkZJZc9Ie6JLzEe150cEbjspylw-rieVE9XIcXmrKFbWuHvj9Ic

    There is, however, an achievable short-term solution.... It does not require a constitutional amendment. It does not involve an interstate compact. Reformers should focus on a select group of battleground states and get them to adopt ranked-choice voting—or, if they prefer, a conventional runoff—in presidential elections....  five “toss-ups”: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If ranked-choice voting were employed in these five states, but nowhere else, the Electoral College winner would be highly likely to be the same candidate who would have prevailed if a ranked-choice national popular vote were held. In fact, it’s possible that this could hold true if even a single pivotal state adopted ranked-choice voting.."

   
    So the only way around a complicated and unlikely Constitutional Amendment is to get states to alter their voting systems. Each state has this existing right in how they decide the time and place of voting. This is how RCV can 'back' their way nationally into adopting multiple voting. Already these swing states are being targeted by the RCV PAC's funded by Arnold and Soros. Ironically, Democrat controlled states like California, New Mexico and Massachusetts have not seriously taken up the RCV torch. They don't need to. They already run party hegemonies. RCV only works where states are in 'swing'. Maine was pivotal. Now that RCV is firmly implemented in Maine we can expect Democrat wins there to expand.
    In an attempt to discredit the criticism of RCV Columnist Andrew Prozorovsky writes in the March 27th edition of The Daily Illini;
    ".... Opponents’ criticisms have generally arisen from a misunderstanding of how RCV works. One major criticism is it alienates the unspoken democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” But many countries have a democratic majority system with runoffs, namely France and Nigeria, and they would likely debase this criticism in the same way: In the end, every person’s vote has the same weight.     Other opponents say RCV is too complicated.  However, once explained, the system is very easy to comprehend. Even if the voter still prefers the conventional method of voting, they can still list one candidate and leave the other two options blank, bearing the exact same weight as before. Few criticisms against this system actually hold water..."

https://dailyillini.com/opinions/columns-opinions/2019/03/27/ranked-choice-voting-its-as-easy-as-one-two-three/?fbclid=IwAR22ywGj5SfxH6HSJ1w2TpbqY9_igL-pV8j-Mig1aQqgfsfGvMfiw_VNm7Y
   
    France and Nigeria? You can't be serious? I just wrote in the previous segment how Italy has had 65 forms of coalition governments in the past 70 years.  How many has France had? Nigeria? We have had only one! These are the examples RCV proponents use to justify their idea? RCV certainly is NOT complicated either. However my single vote does not hold the same weight as some one who votes two or three times. That's just simple math!
    
    As I have warned about RCV and a Democrat hegemony and as Prozorovsky chillingly concurs in his article; ".... Perhaps in 10 years, all of America will be voting this way and everyone will wonder why voting hadn’t always been as convenient as one, two, three..."
    Well, as Hyland said, " ..it's all perfectly democratic as long as everyone is on the winning side.."

....And That Is The Diatribe....






      

　

Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part III-Follow The Money

    "... It is all perfectly democratic.." Anuund Hyallnd

　
In the runup to the 2018 Maine Elections RCV played a major part in the public discussion. PAC's were formed and money poured in to grease the wheels to adopt RCV. Action Now Initiative was formidable in supplying the grease.


ANI was created by Hedge Fund manager, former Enron employee and the guy who hosted a $10,000 a plate fundraiser for Obama John Arnold. The ballotpedia.org site lists all ANI has backed including the 2016 Maine RCV ballot question and the 2018 repeal of the delay referendum in the same state. However ANI could not just walk into Maine and start writing checks so a second PAC was created locally to launder..err.. fund RCV in Maine.

Enter The Chamberlin Project.

CP was headed up by Cara McCormick who worked as a consultant and researcher for the firm Smart Campaigns (more on them later). McCormick and Smart Campaigns supported such illustrious candidates as Charles Robb (D-VA), John Kerry (D-MA), Deval Patrick (D-MA), Joe Biden (D-Del) and Tim Kaine (D-VA).

Notice a pattern here?

The CP PAC was formed in 2016 to support (cough) Maine's Rank Choice Ballot Initiative. The Chamberlin Project received $50,000 from ANI's John Arnold.

Only, a funny thing happened on the way to the polls.

Maine's Supreme Court put a stay on adopting RCV for the 2018 elections citing conflicts with it's own Constitution that clearly uses the language of 'plurality' in voting. But never let a pesky Constitution get in the way of subverting a state's electoral process. In fact, the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would kill RCV if a Constitutional Amendment WASN'T passed by 2021 allowing for the change in the language.

So The Chamberlin Project went shopping for benefactors to fund a petition initiative to overturn the Supreme Court decision. ANI coughed up another $460,000 along with Jonathan Soros (surprise-surprise) who wrote a check for another $100,000. Evan Falchuk, Fair Vote, Nathan James Lockwood are in the runner up catagory for donations. The list is tabulated on the site below.
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/08/politics/whos-paying-to-convince-mainers-that-ranked-choice-voting-suits-them/



As of 2016 (according to a simple Google search) Maine had over 996,000 registered voters. Numbers were unavailable as to how many signed the petition to repeal the Legislative law and Supreme Court decision but as most petitions go it never takes much.

This demands some interesting questions: If RCV is so Star Spangled Banner then why all the money to repeal a duly voted upon legislative ruling to delay such an awesome idea until the language in the State Constitution was changed? If the 'people' you claim should have a bigger voice then why not let the State Constitution and Rule of Law play out? Who knows? It might swing in your favor!

Maine RCV Adovcates needed a win. It needed to show that RCV is not only effective. RCV can change an entire state to blue. Why did they need this win?

Because also in 2018 RCV made several unsuccessful attempts to change the election process in British Columbia Canada. This, from Fairvote.org 12/18.

"..It might be a cliche, but there’s a reason "the devil you know’" has become such a common proverbial phrase - it’s true.

It was for voters in British Columbia, who decided to stick with the familiar devil, or in this case, voting system. Just over 61 percent of the 1.39 million people who voted preferred the Canadian province’s existing, winner-take-all election system over a form of fair representation, according to referendum results announced Thursday..."

https://www.fairvote.org/british_columbia_referendum_highlights_the_challenges_of_change



..Oh, it gets better!

According to the article the way the 'referendum' was worded and listed voters had to rank three choices in order to decide if they wanted RCV or not. Instead of a simple 'yes' or 'no' (as referendums are normally voted upon);

"....voters who favored an alternative system were asked to rank their choices,.."

....RCV rigged the referendum into.. uhh.. RCV..

Well, as Hylland said in the last segment; ".. it's all perfectly democratic..." And, yes it was. 61% of the 1.39 million registered voters in BC voted democratically NOT to adopt RCV. Despite that, advocates of RCV 'ranked' the votes anyways to a dismal 39%. This did not sit well with author Nancy Levin of Fairvote.org.

"...Reform proponents expressed disappointment at the outcome, while also acknowledging the educational challenges of achieving fair representation through a complex ballot measure...."

Either the voters of Britsh Columbia are too stupid to understand RCV or maybe, just maybe the voters of BC saw this shell game for what it is.


"...Bill Tieleman, of the No Proportional Representation Society, said he was pleased with the results.

"We said from the beginning of this campaign that proportional representation is.... a big risk for British Columbia to consider, and voters overwhelmingly agreed," he said. "Not only did they overwhelmingly agree, they did it for the second time in nine years."
In an article by Nick Eagland of the Vancouver Sun he writes how The Greens Party pushed and politicized RCV;

".. promised... on electoral reform during the 2017 election Premier John Horgan along with Green Leader Andrew Weaver, supported proportional representation. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson argued the referendum was too politically driven.


"This referendum was held because we believe that this decision needed to be up to people, not politicians," Horgan said in a statement. "While many people, myself included, are disappointed in the outcome, we respect people’s decisions."..."

"Today we saw the power of democracy as millions of British Columbians sent a clear message to... the Greens that their self-serving referendum was not going to be tolerated," Wilkinson said.

　
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-s-electoral-reform-referendum-results-to-be-released-at-230-p-m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MvRZiWrZo



Now, the Greens Party is not a Johnny Come-Lately. This is a heavily funded and organized Leftist party. The ten cities of the US where RCV has had a foothold for many years are all Democrat controlled; San Fran, Minneapolis and Cambridge to name a few. RCV isn't working towards a better and fairer election system they are working hand in hand with Leftist parties to ensure a Leftist hegemony wherever they show up getting the lion's share of donations from Democrat leaning activists like Soros and Arnold. RCV certainly does not try the grassroots method by winning on the merits of a good idea. It couldn't even stick to a simple 'yes' or 'no' referendum! It teamed up with powerful Democrat leaning parties in Canada to fund a self serving coup of a Province's election system just as it petitioned and overturned Maine's Supreme Court and Legislature.

In the Youtube video above Maria Dobrinskaya and Bill Tieleman debate the BC referendum. In the opening statements Tieleman makes the case for Italy under proportional representation of 65 forms of government in 70 years. How the hell is this a stable form of elections?

Our Founders were very insistant upon NOT adopting any form of Democracy because of the very thing Tieleman describes. Our Founders rejected European style representation because of this very problem. Dobrinskaya uses words like 'outdated' to bolster her position and how the Canadian system is a hold over from Colonial England.

.... Ya know folks! I grew up with the same refrigerator until I was 20. It was old and outdated. It ran fine, never had to fix it, yes, I wish it had more room (representation) but it never failed me. Eventually my brothers, sister, mother, wife all debated and ranked their votes to buy a new one.

.... One year later it broke down.... Guess who ended up paying for the repair? Guess who pays for a fractured government?


Smart Campaigns
SC is basically a consulting firm. It hires itself out to campaigns and businesses alike.

http://smartcampaignsca.com/



One of its 'Principals' is John Regan;

John Regan


John manages the California office and oversees all of its business operations, client management and research efforts. John specializes in opposition research..."
Ole' John Boy specializes in this! Ya' know? The very same thing that started the whole Trump/Collusion investigation! The website goes on to explain "How" they help campaigns.


They gather information via public records. Great! If information is 'public' then why do I need to pay a consulting firm to find it?
We review new and traditional media sources, analyze results and summarize the themes, facts and other information relevant to the client’s interests

We specialize in the collection and analysis of public records.... civil and criminal court filings, federal bankruptcies, property transactions and ownership, tax liens and payment histories, civil judgments, military records and voter registration and voter histories. We utilize an extensive network of public records databases..."
Why is your lead researcher a specialist in opposition research? Also: Who and Why the fuck is any one recording my private voter information?
Founded in 1992, Smart Campaigns provides strategic research, due diligence, vulnerability assessment reports and consulting services to political campaigns...."

"...Our clients include a diverse array of business, labor, legal and non-profit organizations..."
SC was formed during the 1992 Presidential Election. What was going on then during that campaign?


The Clinton scandals. The Bimbo allegations. Opposition Research was born.

The second player in SC is Cara McCormick from The Chamberlin Project. She just happens to live in Maine. How convenient!

McCormick, a key player in Smart Campaigns. Regan as opposition research. Funding from a Hedge Fund manager and Obama supporter. Launder money via PAC's to overturn a State SC decision AND Legislature. And in 2018 claim RCV in Maine as a more Democratic.. More representative.. More open system of elections.

British Columbia said no to the shell game.

Rank Choice Voting is none of the things it claim's to be. It is a Trogan Horse.

Follow the money..

　

....And That Is The Diatribe....

How To Win Elections with Rank Choice Voting-Part II-The Arrow Theorem

"Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times." Kenneth Arrow

In 2011 a Mayoral race was held in San Francisco. Sixteen candidates were on the ballot. The ballot was designed under Rank Choice Voting. San Fran employs RCV. There is only one problem. Voters can only 'rank' three candidates.

The ballot is set into three columns. All sixteen listed in each column. Voters must 'rank' according to each column. One choice each! Your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice. (yes, you are voting multiple times) according to 'preference'. If you mark it wrong your ballot is tossed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlyL1SEiCLQ

What is wrong here is that there are 16 candidates but you only get to choose three. Under RCV there should be sixteen rankings. Right?

In Cambridge Mass the City Council uses RCV for elections. Cambridge is a staunch Democrat controlled city. So what is it we see in this city? What party controls San Fran?

In both places there exists a system of voting that ensures a Democrat hegemony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTpfHd5BaBE

Can you imagine any Republican running in any of these places? Imagine a Libertarian. Under RCV they would be instanty tossed out due to dismal numbers (but thank you for your rankings).

The theory behind Rank Choice Voting is not at all sound. Frederic Bastiat wrote about such social theories. He premised that (unlike) scientific theories based on trial and error, Social theories are just employed. The outcome being the least of the theorist's concern.
RCV claims to being a better form of voting are far from it. It is fraught with errors as much as the current system it wants to replace. This is Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

The theorem is named after economist and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, who demonstrated the theorem in his doctoral thesis and popularized it in his 1951 book Social Choice and Individual Values. The original paper was titled "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare".[1]

In social choice theory, Arrow's impossibility theorem, the general possibility theorem or Arrow's paradox is an impossibility theorem stating that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a specified set of criteria: /wiki/Unrestricted_domain

From Wikipedia,

That set of criteria is selecting a winner. Not ranking. Essentially you ARE voting multiple times. RCV supporters have told me many times that I am wrong on this premise.

According to Arrow (and what I have posited as well) you are 'manufacturing' the winner by a shell game. The magical 50% you need to win is completely arbitrary. Besides, 50% isn't a majority. It is only half. In a multi candidate race no one is going to get 50% unless they run one hell of a campaign. In the case of Fall River only 13,000 total votes were cast amongst six candidates. The Mayor he won by 35%.
In fact RCV does not even pass Occam's second Razor. Occam said that if there is to be something set forth as fact it must be proven empirically. In addition any deviations, questions or secondary statements of facts must also be meticulously proven. No one from RCV even attempts this. It is just claimed to be better. Politicians who sign onto this shell game use the same script from the various RCV websites. Almost like they are handed to them to repeat.

Two articles come to mind. A March 29th 2019 article on WBUR.org and a March 14th article in Worcester Magazine. Both use the same wording, phrases and misinformation.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/03/21/ranked-choice-voting-mac-dalessandro?fbclid=IwAR2UsK9z6SlsMU8xSR1UBhFB448Cq7CG9bS1d3zw2_7kEFy7VhvbDZ-lvr0

The WBUR article lists several cities that have been using RCV for a number of years.
Massachusetts wouldn’t be taking a leap of faith if voters adopted ranked-choice voting. Almost 4 million Americans live in communities that use this system, including Oakland, California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Closer to home, voters in Cambridge have used a variation of ranked-choice voting for city council and school board elections since 1941.

What is NOT divulged is that those cities have a Democrat hegemony. Cambridge Mass being the worst of them all. Cambridge has been under Democrat control since 1941. RCV loves to tout how Maine has adopted RCV. Maine has shot themselves in the foot with RCV. All the economic gains and welfare reforms from the last Republican Administration have been wiped out. Maine is on course to the tax and spend policy that messed it up in the first place

Nothing is necessarily wrong with that; the decision process can be perfectly democratic, and one person simply turns out to be on the winning side on all issues. (Hylland 1986: 51, footnote 10)

Aanund Hylland

My grandfather used to say, " Everyone one has a Democratic right to be an ass.
Hylland's premise is correct. It is all perfectly Democratic if all you have is one party in power winning on all sides of the issues.

If we further explore Arrow's Theorem we come to realize that RCV isn't choosing better candidates or choosing a better system. It chooses from best to worst.
There are some people whose preferences will inform this choice, and the question is: which procedures are there for deriving, from what is known or can be found out about their preferences, a collective or "social" ordering of the alternatives from better to worse?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In plurality voting voters choose the best person to win. the best candidates rise to the top through meritocracy. They earn your vote. The Primary process literally weeds out the least effective campaigns. I do not suggest that candidates who fall by the wayside are 'bad' candidates. It is just the nature of the process. Elections are very passionate endeavors. People really do vote with their hearts most of the time if the 2016 Presidential race is any indicator.

Intuitively, the result has to be a ranking of the alternatives from better to worse, perhaps with ties. There is never to be a cycle of social preferences, like the one derived by pairwise majority decision in the paradox of voting

Basically, you choose the candidate you want to win first. From then on your second and third choices are simply that. Your second and third choice. I really want a steak but I will settle for the pork? If I don't get the pork I guess I am ok with the chicken? Is this how elections should be decided?

The WBUR article makes this completely inacurate statement, If ranked-choice voting were in place in Fall River, where no candidate had a majority, it would have allowed the votes for Erica Scott-Pacheco, who received just 5 percent of the vote, to transfer to voters' second choice. This would have continued until one candidate surpassed 50 percent. That would probably have been one of Correia’s opponents, based on the recall vote. The wishes of 62 percent of the people would have been satisfied, instead of subverted by the "pick one" plurality voting system.

Only 13,000 votes were cast! How can ranking the votes from candidates who received even less votes somehow reflect the "... the wishes of 62% of the people.."? Fall River has 190,000 people living there.

Now, unless you are using Common Core math Rank Choice Voting should make perfect sense. Pick an arbitrary 50% to achieve and by voting multiple times rank your choices from best to worse until the second, third place loser becomes the actual winner. Stack up the field with multiple candidates that would have otherwise been eliminated in the Primary process. Be sure to limit how many you can rank (like San Fran) the whole time convincing the voters you are opening up the process to let better candidates run better races while deluding them into thinking they have better choices.

....And That Is The Diatribe....

Be sure to check out the next segment on dollar numbers and who is funding Rank Choice Voting

How To Win an Election With Rank Choice Voting.. Or Is It?

　
The interesting turn in the 2018 midterm elections wasn't Democrat control of our House of Representatives rather how many of them came to be by a narrow margin and a lack of voter participation. The recent recall and re-win of indicted Fall River Mayor Corriea underscores this. Then again Massachusetts has a history of indicted, on trial and imprisoned Governors, Mayors and other representatives serving time while serving in government.


The election of Ocasio Cortez is interesting. Only 27,744 out of 214,750 registered Democrats showed up on election day. Cortez won by 4000 votes. This was claimed by Leftist Media as a victory.

Over what? How NOT to win and election? Or, is it?

In Fall River roughly 13,000 showed up to vote for five candidates. Correia won the majority at 35%.

4,200 out of a city population of 190,000 voted for an indicted Mayor. I have no idea how many are registered to vote in FR. That does not matter. Stay focused on the 13,000 number.

Trust me, its gets better.

61% of voters petitioned for the recall. What is not clear is: Was this 61% of ALL voters or just those who bothered to sign the petition? Then, on the same day only 13,000 showed up to select six candidates where the indicted Mayor ends up winning?

Advocates of Rank Choice Voting claim this will be avoided with RCV in elections. How?

Well, that's all well and good if people actually showed up to vote. But RCV does not address this 800 lb gorilla in the room. According to RCV if we 'ranked' the candidates in Fall River then possibly (operative word) Fall River could have elected a lesser known (or liked) candidate who received a more dismal number of votes... Because you 'ranked' them, or (in other words) you got to vote 2-3-4-5 times.

A Democrat's dream come true!

The problem isn't the system. It's not even a 'plurality' of parties. The problem is people couldn't care less. The problem is people DO NOT participate!

Cortez won a very small number from her District. It surely does not represent the majority of voters. It just represents who bothered to show up. We must be clear on this. RCV and their various web sites, Fairvote.com and the Mass affiliation never address this issue.

What is also never addressed is how the votes are tabulated and how the magical number of 50 plus 1 % is determined? Also, how is the number determined to eliminate the candidate who does not get enough of a percentage? And what is disregarded is once that candidate is eliminated RCV takes your rankings. So, YOU lose but your voters who decided they might like some one else (though they don't hold my political beliefs) is carried over.

How does it feel to be used?

Yes, you are used.

RCV claims to welcome all candidates from all affiliations while at the same time speaking out against 'spoiler' candidates. What the hell is that anyways? How is it that some one who chooses to run for office under whatever party they claim to be is some how a 'spoiler'? Are you insinuating that a certain person has no right to run for office? We are a Constitutional Republic. Any one from any party has every right to toss their hat into the ring regardless of party. If people want to vote for that person that is their right.

Voting for a candidate is a vote against another candidate... That's how elections work!

Speaking of Constitutional Republic; On all the RCV sites you will see the word 'Democracy' in reference to our system of voting and our form of government. While local elections do vote by majority we are NOT a Democracy. If RCV cannot get our most basic system of governing straight then how can we depend on them to ensure and institute a fair and equitable system of voting?

If you want to fix the system? Get people to show up on election day.

.... And That Is The Diatribe....

Media- American Style

    TRUMP TO DEPORT VIETNAMESE REFUGEES-THE ATLANTIC

    FBI OBTAINS WIRETAP OF PUTIN ALLY  MEETING WITH TRUMP JR-BUSINESS INSIDER

    SEVEN YR OLD GIRL WHO DIED AT BORDER DID NOT RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR 90 MINUTES-NBC NEWS


    These are just a few of the headlines that have appeared in news outlets over the past couple of weeks. Not a single one of them are true. In fact if you read the entirety of these articles a pattern begins to emerge. A pattern that seems to be working to further the  purposeful misinformation of the American public.
    It afflicts us all. Just the other day I was snookered by a fake Waylon Jennings story. If a vigilant radio host and writer like myself can be bamboozled, just imagined how easy it is for the average John or Jane Q taxpayer?

     Reporters, or wire services (I know, dating myself) are regurgitating what they are told to and or copying from. Editors keen on the knowledge that most Americans today have an MTV attention span will bury the truthful aspects of any story on the back page (again, dating myself). However, considering that actual 'print' news is fading fast and 'column inches' no longer apply Editors must employ a new tactic in the age of internet news.
    I had an epiphany while reading the three articles I posted above. Even though I have known the slants and agendas of Leftist Media for most of my life and as much as I have mentioned on my show that the media openly lies to you it took me a bit to figure out HOW and WHY the American public is so easily mislead.

    The How

    Virtually every one of the three articles above follow the same formula. 1; The headline has nothing to do with the actual article. The headline is designed to grab you. Most readers just peruse headlines anyway. There is no want of opinions on social media based solely on a headline alone. 2; The article itself (lets break it up into 3rds) is designed to wear you out so you have no desire to finish reading it. The first 3rd just keeps repeating the narrative in various paragraphs only it mixes up the wording of the sentences. (ie; Trump Russian collusion, the ongoing investigation into Russian collusion, revelations into the ongoing Mueller investigation on collusion, etc, etc). After a few paragraphs the reader gets fed up and has had enough. Thus the reinforcement of a false narrative is firmly implanted in the reader's mind. 3; In the second 3rd the writer will quote sources backing up the first 3rd of the article or the headline itself. As we have seen most of these 'sources' are always 'anonymous' yet somehow deep within the Administration. They may actually quote a reliable source but even that quote is just some one's opinion. Toss in a prestigious title of that source, or claim they are an 'expert' and it lends the illusion of legitimacy. 4; The final 3rd will contain the actual facts of the story. In many case I have discovered the facts are at the very end of the article but by this time the reader has been convinced and has moved on never realizing the truth.

    Politicians are masters at this formula. They are firmly aware the American public can be convinced of anything if the media says it is so. They are assured the vast majority will not do any kind of fact checking or research into any opposing information. Those that do are easily marginalized by a phalanx of  media false narratives and driven agendas. This is why over 46% of Americans actually believe Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election despite zero evidence.
    In that fantastic press event with Pelosi and Schumer we saw exactly how manipulation of information is key to driving an agenda. Nancy claimed transparency but wanted the press out of the room. Chuck quoted WaPo as his go to source for the 'Pinocchios'.
    That's like asking Bill Clinton how to behave on a date.
    But Trump is far more intelligent than the two of them combined. Hell, my cat is far more intelligent than the two of them combined but I digress.
    The standard Modus Operandi is to go before the media after the closed door meeting to spin the narrative as they wish. Trump sidelined them with a smack down live on national television. It was epic Trump!

    Sensational headlines have been around ever since the birth of print media. Benjamin Franklin was very good at penning a title that drew in his readers. Headlines through history have even taken us to war. REMEMBER THE MAINE! JAPS BOMB PEARL HARBOR! Just to name a few. But at least these had a modicum of truth to them and the reader became somewhat informed. It was also a different time and people spent more time becoming more informed. That is no longer the case. Headlines today have nothing to do with the content.

    The Why

    During the roll out of Obamacare several media executives and anchors were summoned to the White House for a closed door meeting. There is no recording of that meeting but speculation was abound. In the weeks to follow it became apparent. The media was tasked to sell Obamacare to the public. Slick adds on social media and television popped up every day. Regardless of the fact that companies were going belly up because they could not compete with the new mandates, regardless that doctors dropped out by the hundreds, emergency rooms crowded with the uninsured and illegals (Joe Wilson was correct), premiums rising by 100%; the narrative was The Affordable Care Act is the panacea to solve our nation's healthcare woes.
    Well, we all know how that turned out.

    The purpose was to sell a shitty plan to a duped demographic. Who better to sell it than the very arbiters of mass misinformation?  President Obama never thought of hiring Madison Avenue because he is a Socialist and he does not believe in Capitalism. Besides advertising companies are bound by the "truth in advertising laws". The media isn't. Media does NOT to tell you the truth. It tells you what to think.

    It panders in groupthink. The methodology bolsters this and any deviation from that methodology is tantamount to heresy.

    " IN A WORLD OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT TELLING THE TRUTH BECOMES A REVOLUTIONARY ACT". ORWELL

   
    And ignorant we are. As I have said in a past blog  people are relying more on personal feelings about issues rather than an objective analysis. While a constant objectivity leaves one heartless, a constant passionate interpretation leaves one an emotional basket case. But given the reduction of critical thinking required of an educated society that balance of passion and objective analysis has disappeared. Lack of understanding and knowledge reduces mankind to suspicion, doubt and constant negativity about everything.
    The Kavanaugh Hearings were a perfect storm of emotions and misinformation. An entire media circus was created around a fake story. An entire nation was consumed by manufactured agit-prop from the screaming women clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court to the 15 minutes of fame "we believe survivors' nonsense.
    Not one single aspect of that story was true.

    But here is why media pushed the Blasey Ford story forward.

    On the same day Sen. Feinstein whipped out a week old letter gathering dust in her top drawer of political tricks Lisa Page was before a closed door session of The House Judiciary Comm. testifying on the Russian Collusion hoax. She basically spilled the beans that the whole thing was made up. There was no evidence. But the FBI went ahead with the story anyways. In fact the real truth circled back to Hillary and that damned E-mail server!

"...Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. .."

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/23/moon-strzok-no-more-lisa-page-spills-the-beans/

   Had this garnered the same media attention as the Kavanaugh Rape-gate scandal we would be discussing a much different topic here.
    But it did not. It could not. It could not be allowed the same spotlight. It was counter to the narrative that Trump stole the election with the help of Putin. Page (and eventually Blasey Ford) would end up as 'useful idiots' used by Leftist media for its own purposes. The public being no wiser.

https://truepundit.com/fbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bosses-covered-up-evidence-china-hacked-hillarys-top-secret-emails/

     Christine Blasey Ford has since publicly stated the Kavanaugh accusation was entirely made up.

    The Result

    So you have multiple examples of completely false stories almost back to back since the Trump Inauguration. Approximately every ten days to two weeks a new story comes out with Trump being accused of... Oh hell, pick one.
    What is fascinating is the ability of the media to convince an entire segment of society that no matter what they slooge out Leftists will swallow it down like a crack whore short on cash regardless of the facts. Even when the story is proven false, the damage is done and the narrative has been firmly implanted.
    And the stories don't stop! Cohen, the Inauguration itself, Melania's Christmas decoration costs are now being investigated. Trump farted, the sun went behind a cloud during a press briefing.. Anything! Make anything stick!
    Or, at least throw so much bullshit out there the stink alone will drive the public against him.

    Nor is there any consistency. What is said by a news outlet a year ago will be polar opposite of what they say a year later. And the public believes whatever it is they are reading/hearing at that moment.  It manifests itself everywhere. Coffee is bad for you, coffee is good for you, eggs cause cholesterol, eggs don't cause cholesterol,  the planet is cooling, the planet is warming, etc, etc.
    This is how you get people like this:

https://www.facebook.com/GOP/videos/10156156092545090/UzpfSTEyMzU3MTAxNTU6Vks6MjAyMDc4Mzg2ODIxMzc5NQ/

   
    These people are never held accountable because Leftism demands an unwavering lock step to whatever the party line is at the time. Republicans are just as guilty. When pressed the stammering and back pedaling is really quite acrobatic at times.

     "... Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Wednesday why he supported funding an $18-billion border wall in 2013 but is opposed to the $5-billion border wall President Trump has asked Congress to fund.... “I think border security is enormously important, but I think building a wall is a very costly and inefficient way to do that,” Sanders said. “And I’m not alone. I mean, many experts think that given the kind of technology that we have today, we can protect our southern border without building the wall and spending $5 billion.”
“Yes. And senator, in 2013 you voted for comprehensive immigration that included $18 billion for a wall in border security,” Baier interjected.
Baier then asked Sanders why the $5 billion is a nonstarter for him.
“Well, I’m saying that you have $5 billion as part of tens of billions more for a wall. What I’m saying right now, sometimes you vote for things that are part of a broad package,” Sanders said, before changing topics..."
 
ntknetwork.com/sanders
 
    Proving once again, politicians DO NOT read the legislation they pass. But that isn't the point. In 2013 every one who was ga-ga over Sanders were totally on board with anything he said and did. In 2016 everyone who was ga-ga over Sanders flocked to his campaign. In 2018 he can fumble the fucking ball on national television and no one gives a shit.

    Consequences

    The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was inspired by and modeled on the Boy Scout Association, established by Baden-Powell in Britain in 1908.

"...Baden-Powell’s idea was that boys should organize themselves into small natural subgroups of six or seven under a boy leader—the patrol and patrol leader. Their training would consist of such things as tracking and reconnaissance, mapping, signaling, knotting, first aid, and all the skills that arise from camping and similar outdoor activities. To become a scout, a boy would promise to be loyal to his country, help other people, and in general obey the scout law, itself a simple code of chivalrous behaviour easily understood by the boy... " Encyclopedia Britannica

      In 2018 BSA was filing bankruptcy.
    Traditional American organizations, families, value systems, religious participation has practically collapsed. States are becoming 'sanctuaries' for illegal aliens with the elected officials jumping on board for their own political expediency. Everywhere you look churches are flying the rainbow flag of the gay community.
    Society is polarized politically. The tangible hatred of our President is disturbingly omnipresent. The ability to convince 50% of voters to follow lockstep into the abyss of Socialism is secure despite the fact that Europe and Venezuela are collapsing under it. The #walkaway movement is growing and (like Islam) those that leave the fold are threatened, ostracized and ridiculed. In Europe mass protests have swept the continent with millions wearing yellow vest and demanding an end to high taxes, rule from Brussels and a return of Nationalism.
   
    In the meantime media continues it's downward spiral of spin doubling down on the false narratives.

    A few days ago Tucker Carlson was excoriated by the Left for his report on the migrants camped out in Tijuana. Twice he interviewed Genaro Lopez a Delegate from that city. The report centered around what actually was going on now that the migrants have arrived. As I have said on my show many times, the city is trashed. Piles of trash, people defecating in the streets, drunk and drugged out people and now homes and businesses are being robbed.
    Not exactly the picture of immigration we are all told about is it?

    And that is where media reared it's ugly head. The report painted a 'negative impression' of immigrants went the axiom. Tucker's use of the words, 'poorer' and 'dirtier' became the focus of the outrage.  So, Tucker doubled down and interviewed Genaro Lopez again and to no one's surprise the situation in Tijuana has deteriorated.  In fact Tucker mentioned an interesting website that is helping to tackle a problem that comes with unfettered illegal migration. The trash.
    A project called Arizona Border Trash azbordertrash.gov documents the amount of trash left along the trails in the southwest desert.. The AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality estimates the average illegal deposits 6-8 lbs. of trash as they cross the AZ desert. This affects a very sensitive ecosystem and the consequences can be seen for hundreds of miles. This trail of trash can be found on private property as well as preservation areas held by the state or Federal Gov't. 

      It makes one wonder about the validity of the argument that building a wall will damage sensitive ecosystems or that it will cross private property.
    Really?
    I would gladly give my property for the wall if it would stop this madness.

    Finally, as we near another Gov't shutdown the false narratives are  being whipped up like a cotton candy machine with everybody lining up for a sample. The President has firmly said he will "own" this shutdown. Absolutely brilliant! Classic Donald J!
    The Democrats have no idea they are being played. Sen. Schumer even said today (12/21), "..Mr. President, you will not get your wall..". Affectively, the Democrats have literally told the nation they do not want to keep the American public safe. They have abrogated the very Oath they take and the first rule of any elected official to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
    The false narrative is that support for the President is only 1/4 of the nation. His approval rating is holding steady at 45-48% (depending on what poll). His support of registered Republican women is at 93% with an overall Republican rating of 75%. If the Left wants to blame Rush Limbaugh as Trump's only go to source for advice and information he would be wise to do so. According to Pew Research and Media Research Center Limbaugh holds at 99% accuracy rate for his analysis. Are Leftists willing to say that an audience of 27 million listeners are delusional? Well, considering the 65 million who voted for Trump are a "basket of deplorables" I would say they are willing to. Is fulfilling as many promises Candidate Trump made being carried out an example of partisan ship? No. Trump is not a partisan. He isn't even a politician.
    Ask yourself, when was the last time a Presidential Candidate actually followed through on their promises?
    So, go ahead CNN, lie all you want.

    Oh, and by the way Chucky? It is NOT the President's wall. It is our national security.


.... And That Is The Diatribe....
 
 



   

What Have We Just Watched?

The Left (and I am NOT taking about Democrats) is assured of a Blue Wave this November. They site everything they hold true from their paid for WAPO, NYT, CBS, NBC,CNN, hell.. Even FOX that they will take over the House and Senate. The problem with this current generation of Leftists is they promulgate everything based on belief and feelings. And this is why they will be proven wrong come Nov. 6th. In fact? It is this very notion where they will suffer the biggest defeat ever in the history of American Electoral Politics... Ever!

Ask any Millenial about facts and they will look at you like you have six heads. Ask them what they 'feel', what they 'believe' and they will pontificate on the camera with every ounce of politically indocrinated BS you have heard for the past decade.

Every once and awhile this disjointed methodology comes to a head. Kavanaugh was one such example. An entire industry was created based upon innuendo and falsehoods. The fact that this woman could never prove her case was irrelevent. Never mind that others (excluded) came forward to dis-prove her case. Facts no longer matter. Again, because this methodology comes to a head just proves the mental instability of Leftism.

What did we just watch?

What we watched is what I have been talking about on my show for the past year. The Left is becoming marginalized. Not by ignoring them (they are front and center in media), but by their own actions. People pay attention to examples. By example we are judged whether by groups or individuals. According to Leftism we should disregard this as well. Unfortunately (for The Left) Human Nature cannot divorce itself from this simple Darwinian postulation. The more they riot, the more they whine and cry, the more they invade Capitol Hill and 'occupy' offices; the more Americans see them for what they are and the more Americans turn away from them.

Let us look at Nixon 1968: What were we watching then? Riots. Leftists. Anti-Americanism. Usher in Nixon. Before the Bible was put away on his inaugeration the Left went after him (mmm.. sounds familiar). In hindsight, it was no wonder the RNC broke into the Watergate Hotel in order to find out what plans the Left had to destroy the President. I am not defending this but the internet was many years away. Today, all we have to do is click on any site, anywhere. Which makes this more insane.

So, what did we just watch?

Watch we have watched is a general insanity that has become the axiom of the Left. Simply put? Extremism. The Left is now a cornered animal. It has been seen for what it is, what it stands for, we know the indocrination, we have all read Saul Alinsky, we know who Soros is and we are firmly aware of the media control. We have the Left cornered. And, like an animal cornered, this is when they become the most dangerous. The rise of ANTIFA is nothing more than a militant arm of that cornered animal.

Violence is their only recourse.

Unproven Accusations are their only recourse.

Shouting down speakers is their only recourse.

Driving people out of restaurants with mobs is their only recourse.

The Left has lost all sense of Morality and Rationale'

Is it Rational to to deny free speach by violence? Is it Moral?

Is it Moral to create a fake Dossier? Is it Rational?

Is it Rational or Moral to pay people to lie under Oath in front of Congress to deny a person who has served their nation the highest court in the land?

Is it Rational and Moral to come up with anything every two weeks for two years that might stick to discredit a duly Elected President?

Evidence? YES!.. Barring that? NO!

At no point in time does any one from the Left come up with a cogent plan to restore the American economy. At no point in time does the Left come up with a cogent plan to defend the country, restore trade, negotiate with our enemies, balance the budget, restrict Illegals, make America YOUR FIRST reason to be in office! After all, isn't running for office to be a calling? A calling to serve your nation?

No. The entire purpose of Leftism is to destroy everything... Everything.

Leftism demands compliance under law. Law voted in under a Democratic Socialism. Majority Rule. Even though Leftism represents a small segment of our society the Press makes it seem bigger. Given power the Left will exploit that and force upon us that 1-5% of Extremism into Law. They will claim the watchword of 'Democracy' but it won't be.

Because, you see, the term 'Democracy' only works for them. The fact that 10-15,000 people show up organically at multiple Trump events over and over is nothing more than 'Nationalism'. And love of country? Leftist hate that! However, a few hundred Soros paid for protestors represents 'Democracy'.

It is here we must ask ourselves again. What have we been watching? If the last two years are any example we should be wary.

If what we have been watching is any indication: Then, what will happen when they take power once again?

When you go to the voting booth ask yourself one quintessential question that I have been asking thoughout this article:

What have you been watching?

The REAL Trump Presidency. Legacies In The Making.

　

　Despite the constant 24/7 barage of Trump Derangement Syndrome from virtually every corner of the Lame Stream Media, every Democrat in America, the mal-informed, and the Russian Collusion Delusionists something is happening that is transforming America in a tectonic way not seen since Reagan. The return of Brinkmanship has ushered back into vogue traditional American foreign policy that dictates that a new Sheriff is in town and he is not taking any grief.

Subtle things are working in the background as well but are quite intrinsic to the events taking place in the for-front. President Trump's visits to Poland brought out tens of thousands of people not seen since Kennedy went to Berlin. The visit to Saudi Arabia witnessed a sea change in Middle East policy and a commitment from the Saudi's to combat terrorism in a pro-active way. The Press failed miserably in pointing out a key moment that occurred when the President arrived in Riyadh. For the first time in Presidential history since Roosevelt met the King during WWII the now aging King of the House of Saud walked down the red carpet to greet the 45th President not the other way around.

Joint operations between Iraq, Turkey and the US have captured ISIS leaders. Israel pounded Iranian Republican Guards in Syria responsible for launching rockets over the Golan Heights (remember that place)? The US Embassy is about to open in Jerusalem and the square in front is to be named in honor of Trump.

....Cuz, ya know? The guy is soooo universally hated...

Jack Hellner wrote in The American Thinker a few days ago that encapsulates this entire BizarroWorld thinking that has gripped the Left;
".... Democrats are acting as though they are morally opposed to Gina Haspel because of the intensive interrogation techniques after 9-11. Somehow, they weren't outraged when they voted for John Brennan even though he was higher up than Gina Haspel at the CIA at the time. They didn't seem concerned at all about waterboarding when they and John McCain voted for Brennan.

Selective outrage and selective morality indicate that they don't really care. They appear to be sexist because they are willing to vote against an extremely qualified woman while they voted for a man with the same history or worse...."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/big_news_that_the_msm_downplays_and_ignores.html


Regardless of the two year old, $50 million, flailing, spasmotic Mueller investigation there is still no actionable evidence that points to any criminal activity concerning the 2016 election. The Stormy Daniels debacle has been seen as just that, a debacle. Her lawyer, Avenatti, owes the IRS $5 million, has sent letters to Cohen naming him in related suits only there was one small hiccup: In several of those letters he named the wrong companies to the wrong Cohen. What makes this even funnier is that the Lame Stream Media is now claiming every company that DID do business with (the actual) Cohen is somehow de-facto complicit in the Stormy Daniels pay off.

In a May 11th article in Zero Hedge guestions are finally being asked: Just who is this Avenatti guy?
"... After appearing on CNN 59 times to claim the moral high ground over President Trump's alleged decade-old affair with Daniels, skeletons in Avenatti's closet are now beginning to pour out.

Questions have emerged over who's funding Avenatti, how he was privy to Trump attorney Michael Cohen's bank records - and how exactly did he obtain banking transactions for two men also named Michael Cohen, who he wrongly accused in a seven-page "dossier" released this week.

Other questions have come to light over a bankrupt coffee chain Avenatti left in smoldering ashes with $5 million in unpaid taxes to the IRS, an alleged $160,000 owed for unpaid coffee, and over 45 lawsuits filed in connection with the failed venture...."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-10/avenatti-exposed-stormys-lawyer-may-face-disbarrment-legal-action-past-catches

Gotta admit, this guy is having his moment in the sun. What continues to amaze me is how the media is openly ignoring facts of the case. Of course we all know the answer to that question. He is going after Trump and that is all that matters. Hell, he could be a child sex abuser and that would be OK as long as he was gunning for Trump... Oh, what am I saying? The Left ALREADY excuses those people too..


The imagined economic collapse following the newly imposed tariffs never materialized. The correction of the Stock Market just after the announcement has been long forgotten due to record gains since then. Two shuttered steel plants are retooling as we speak. The tax cuts continue to reap benefits and some projected CBO reports forecast record revenues for the Federal coffers. Unemployment has reached a 40 year low of 3.9% and we are soon to see a problem we haven't seen in as long.. Finding people to do the work needed.

Our dependence on foreign oil is dropping as America produces more energy that rivals the days of Standard Oil. The exit from the Iran deal, Paris Accords, TPP and a hard line approach to NAFTA are re-aligning our global partners where the United States is no longer the whipping boy in trade or threats.

John Stone of The Independent (as proof that the Left has absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about) opens his article with this gem:
".... The European Union has rebuked Donald Trump over his move to break the Iran nuclear deal, telling the US president he does not have the power to unilaterally scrap the international agreement.

’In a statement delivered on Tuesday night EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said the US should reconsider its position, but that it was not within the power of the country’s president to end the accord...."


... But it is perfectly within the power of the former President to make a deal unilaterally without Congressional approval? And just where did Obama get those billions on pallets? Does he have a key to the vault? No one asked when he requisitioned an unmarked cargo plane to deliver the money? And where does the EU Foreign Affairs stooge get the idea she can make such a claim?

..Easy...

As long as she is going after Trump she could trip on her own shoes drunk and the Press would love it.. After all, she is telling the world what the rules are and Trump is a bad boy! Trump doesn't give a shit what she thinks.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-tells-trump-doesn-t-082500816.html


　

And this is the REAL Trump Presidency. A President who could care less about the global order of things. The worn out gameplan of constant war and crisis has met the President who wants peace in the world. Senator Shmuck Schummer's shameful statements on the Americans being released by North Korea should give pause to those so sure of a 'Blue Wave' in November... This is what you have to offer? Pelosi and Sanders' pledge to undo the tax cuts if they regain the House and Senate are doing the exact opposite of what the Press (and the Left) is convinced of. This is what you have to offer? More taxes? More regulations? More stagnant economy? And don't forget Climate Change..

And what is the plan if they do impeach the President? None... None at all.. The more misery and more hardship will convince people that Government is the answer. 2019 and 2020 will be two years of hearings, false accusations, more taxpayer money spent on bogus charges while the world descends into chaos, terrorism and an economic stall... But at least we finally got Trump.

The legacy of the Left is well written in history. We see what the Left is capable of every day we open our phones, the internet and CNN.

The Trump Presidency is a legacy in the making and he is making America Great Again.

.... And That Is The Diatribe....