Was the 2020 Presidential election fair, or was the outcome engineered in a way to all but guarantee the election of the Democratic Party’s nominee?
That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.
I want to start off by saying that I am convinced that any actual fraud was not sufficient to have swayed the election. Having said that, it does seem clear there was a fair amount of under the table activity designed to tilt the results. All of which was denied. And it goes without saying that none of it was self reported.
Self reported? Who does that? Well professional golfers, for one. And sometimes with millions of dollars at stake. The rules of the game, and they are honored, call for the player to self report an error, a foul, no matter how small, no matter how costly. It’s called the honor system. Conversely, in the NFL and NBA, we see repeated attempts to both deny having committed a foul, and to act in a way to influence officials that a foul was committed against them. Let’s call this the blame/duck the blame system. Q. What would it take for politics to be run by the honor system, not the blame system? A. It would take us living that way ourselves, and demanding that our politicians follow our lead.
So, Will, if the election was not determined by voter fraud or electronic count cheating, was the election fair? No. Here’s why.
To start with, the pollsters were clearly dishonest, not simply grossly incompetent. They were shockingly wrong about the 2016 election; at the time I thought they were just really bad at their jobs. But when the same pollsters made the same deeply wrong predictions again four years later, it dawned on me that the polling companies were working together to influence the election. Polling is a mature industry, staffed with seasoned professionals, supported by powerful computers and decades of data. There is no way the same polling companies could have made the same massive mistakes two presidential elections a row. They wanted to 1. Convince us that we are a center/left nation and to 2. Discourage Republicans from voting; why bother, there is no hope.
The MSM (mainstream media) were–and are–in on the deal. Trump does indeed deserve criticism for his many foibles and faults, but the constant drumbeat of disregard and scorn was not only uncalled for, but reveals a “whatever it takes” anti-Trump agenda. Both the pollsters and the MSM are there to report facts and events; that is clearly their job. And they pretend that’s exactly what they are doing. And both the pollsters and the MSM are dug in to be opinion influencers, not fact reporters. They both see their jobs as promoting their causes, and both embrace a “Whatever it takes.” philosophy of achieving their ends. Whatever it takes is another way of saying that the end justifies the means. Conveniently forgetting that all means are ends in and of themselves. Big Tech, e.g., Facebook, Twitter and Google, are in league with the polling companies, the MSM and the Democratic Party.
Today’s Key Point: The Goal of the Gang Four, pollsters, MSM, Big Tech and the Democratic Party, is to manipulate elections in a way that no Republican is ever again elected to national office.
The most subtle, yet the most powerful, way for the Gang to succeed in its mission is to support and encourage the less concerned, less involved, unmotivated and generally unknowledgeable voters to take a few minutes every four years and cast a ballot. These are the voters who know little or nothing about either our unique purpose or history as a nation. Few of them could answer basic civics questions, or even identify key political leaders. Most importantly these voters grab onto appealing cliches and sound bites instead of doing any checks-ins with opposing opinions and policy recommendations. The Gang works to create the false impression that if anything in life is hard, is not what is wanted or is merely inconvenient, then it is unfair and needs to be remedied by government. And the Democrats will provide those remedies for you through the government, while Republicans won’t.
And that claim is correct; the Dems will and the Reps won’t. What they don’t tell you is why. Life is indeed hard, and it is correctly designed to be that way. We do others a great disservice if we try to sell the idea that life is designed to be easy, and if it is not easy, then something is wrong. But “Easy” is a lot, well, easier, to sell to the uninvolved and unmotivated than hard. And the Gang knows it. That is why they deliberately and callously push and keep pushing to attract more and more of the unmotivated and poorly informed to register to vote, then make it as easy as possible to cast a ballot every two or four years. There is no conversation about balancing the right to vote with the responsibility of being a well informed voter. In fact, there is the opposite conversation. The right to vote is emphasized, while the responsibility is trivialized–reduced to as near zero as possible. (BTW, the Gang emphasizes rights everywhere, while demphasizing the attendant responsibilities.)
There are many ways the Gang of Four adds these kinds of voters to the rolls; let’s take a look at an obvious and easy one: Not requiring a photo ID when voting. Here is a list of common places where you must have that kind of ID:
- Cell phone
- Applying for
- Bank account
- Food Stamps
- Social Security
- Hunting or fishing license
- Get married
- Buy a gun
- Adopt a pet
- Rent a hotel room
- Pick up a prescription
- Donate blood
If a person is so uninvolved, so unconcerned as to be okay with living every day without being able to do any one of these things, then the Gang of Four will be eager to have them vote. I do not want voters like this influencing the future of America. Do you?
Tell me what you believe. I and many others want to know.
As always, whatever you do, do it in love. Without love, anything we do is empty.
As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, @willluden, Facebook, facebook.com/will.luden, and LinkedIn, www.linkedin.com/in/willluden/. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts.
If you liked today’s episode, other episodes or the revolution2-0.org site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.
Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.
- Ending Gun Violence: Punish The Criminals (EP. 405) - July 15, 2022
- How To Get Good Government: The Formula (EP. 404) - July 1, 2022
- The Candy Bomber Lives: Is It You? (EP. 403) - June 24, 2022
Some famous person back in the 19th century noted that in a democracy, the people get the government that they deserve. I agree, however, that encouraging the uninformed and uninvolved to vote is a questionable pursuit. Do I want my fate decided by someone who actually pays extra for blue jeans that have holes in them? When I was in the Air Force, I managed to vote in almost every election by submitting my ballot request a couple of months early then filling out an mailing my ballot in sufficient time for it to get to Jefferson County by election day from such far flung places as The Philippines and Omaha. It wasn’t that hard, and I would not have felt disenfranchised had I failed to follow the directions. Here in the PRH (Peoples Republic of Hawaii), the Democrat run elections required ID’s in order to vote until the national party declared (without proof) that to be a Republican plot to deny voters. There is no doubt that poll taxes, tests and ID requirements have in the past been used to deny certain classes the vote. The question then is “What should the criteria be to qualify a voter?” I would submit that a minimum requirement would be the ability to plan a couple of months ahead at least once in one’s life and register ahead of time.
The PRH went to all-mail balloting this year, and from my perspective the process was no more prone to rigging that old-fashioned ballot box stuffing.
As far as the most recent election, I’ve got to say that at no time to my knowledge has a national election been rigged by anyone other that those in power. If it was rigged, it was only one more demonstration of The Twit’s incompetence.
One thing has become apparent. The so-called Make America Great Again crowd, when the chips are down, seem to be willing to undermine confidence in the electoral system and destroy our democracy rather than admit defeat over issues less divisive than those between the Federalists and Democratic Republicans in the early years of the republic. They should change out their ball caps for ones that say “MAFA” (make America fall apart). I’m sure many Democrats are already referring to them as MaFa’s, if you catch my drift.
BTW, I recently found a news outlet that seems not to have the East/West coast bias of the MSM or the agenda (left or right) of the other cable news channels. It’s WGN NewsNation originating out of Chicago and seems to do their best to present news, not opinions.
The sources of news are cacophanous, left and right. Dems say no “widespread” fraud. It means (not significant enough, etc), but it sounds like there was some fraud, just not pervasive. And while MSNBC / CNN have been promoting no foreign impact on election (Trump CSA czar said so), we learn that Russian hacking pervasive. Which was precisely what the ’16 election was viewed as fraudulent and went for Trump despite his hating Gold Star families and proclivity for porn stars. So which is it — Russian hacking INFLUENCED election? Or it was pervasive (again) and had no effect.
Civil litigation is also an oxymoron because it is often not civil. And decisions are made by people (juries), with the same type of ignorance and resistance to evidence that has been evident by millions of Americans.
People can change and be inspired but someone (many) have to lead the way.
To my good friend Will. one can say @ least this about 2020: it’s been an interesting year./ )
On pollsters, I believe that here as elsewhere, the principle of charity,* should be invoked. It’s not in the interest of
pollsters to be proven wrong. Yet they largely were, in both 2016 (as to the Presidential outcome) & in 2020 (as to the closeness thereof). The easiest explanation in each case is the response rate. Given the MSM & those durned pollsters, why should a Trump voter reveal hir preferences? A certain fraction of Trump voters may not so choose, esp. as in light of President Trump’s, shall we say occasional, misstatements.
* From philosophy, as @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity.
Cheers, Thom Meeks, RVA.
As always, well thought out, Thom. Cheers, Will
Praying for a good 2021…:).