Tag Archives: right

Current Events

Legitimacy of Biden Win Buried by Objective Data –

6 Comments

Emerging information from the states render his victory less and less plausible.

What does all this evidence mean? IMHO — NOTHING. The fix is in, and has been for the past year. We are doomed to become a third world shit hole. Having just celebrated number 80 this past Friday, I’m almost to the point I don’t care anymore. If that POS Biden and his globalist’s cronies do end up where they should never even have come close to being, they can’t hurt me. However, my heart goes out to my children  and grand children. Likewise to all those Republican lower income families who will find themselves struggling even more having to pay for all the extravagant benefits everyone will lavishing enjoy on their behalf. For all you globalist progressives who made it all happen;, suck it up. My Trump Nation Flag will conti8nue to fly proudly under my American Flag on the pole. If that POS does end up in the Oval office, and all goes the way I fully expect it to in months or years, I want everyone who passes my house to know I had nothing to do with it.

From the American Spectator

David Catron

 

by 

During the weeks following November 3, innumerable election experts and statistical analysts have pored over the voting data upon which former Vice President Joe Biden’s purported campaign victory ostensibly stands. A growing body of evidence ranging from straightforward ballot audits to complex quantitative analyses suggests that the tabulation of the votes was characterized by enough chicanery to alter the outcome of the election. Consequently, a consensus has gradually developed among the auditors of publicly available information released by the states, and it contradicts the narrative promulgated by the Democrats and the media. The more data experts see, the less convinced they are that Biden won.

Among the analysts who question the legitimacy of Biden’s victory is Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a cybersecurity expert whose technical expertise was touted by the New York Times last September and who has been described as a hero in the Washington Monthly. It’s unlikely that either publication will be singing his praises for his work pursuant to the recent election. His damning analysis of the electronic manipulation of votes that occurred in the early hours of November 4 appears in a sworn affidavit included with C.J. Pearson v. Kemp, a lawsuit filed by Attorney Sidney Powell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. His nine-page affidavit (Exhibit 26) describes how it is possible to manipulate votes, where this occurred, and sums up his findings as follows:

I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

Dr. Keshavarz-Nia is by no means the only expert to reach the conclusion that widespread vote-tampering occurred. This examination of the election results, for example, uses quantitative analysis to identify some very odd anomalies in the 2020 vote patterns. But it isn’t necessary to be a sophisticated statistician or cybersecurity expert possessed of arcane knowledge of how voting machines operate to see that enough ballot fraud occurred to change the election results in several states. That Keshavarz-Nia provides his findings in a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, renders him highly credible. Still, his conclusions are rather opaque to anyone without an enormous amount of training and experience in his field. This requires many of us to take what he says on faith.

Bearing this in mind, Matt Braynard of the Voter Integrity Project (VIP) approached the 2020 results in a far less arcane fashion. His team analyzed publicly available data on absentee ballots, and he explained his findings in a way that any intelligent voter can understand. VIP looked at suspicious ballot activity in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Among the most significant VIP findings involved people who changed their state of residence, yet voted absentee using their prior address. In Arizona, which Biden “won” by 10,457 votes, there were 19,997 questionable votes. In Georgia, which Biden “won” by 12,670 votes, VIP found 138,221 such votes. In Wisconsin, which Biden “won” by 20,608 votes, there were 26,673 such votes. As Braynard told the Epoch Times:

This election, it appears to me, has been decided by ballots that are highly questionable.… I can give you the list of the people who voted in this election, who filed National Change of Address cards in Georgia, moving themselves to another state.… I can also show you the subsequent state voter registrations of these individuals in other states, who then cast absentee ballots back in Georgia.… I have no confidence that Joe Biden is the deserved winner of this election.

Braynard has been asked to present the findings of the Voter Integrity Project to Monday’s hearing with members of Arizona’s legislature. Moreover, as Braynard tweeted Friday, “The VIP findings have also been included in court filings in PA, GA, MI, WI, and AZ, including declarations we collected.” Sunday, another tweet by Braynard revealed that the FBI has proactively requested VIP findings that may indicate illegal ballots.  Meanwhile, no discussion of 2020 election skulduggery is complete without a discussion of the Democrat precincts that record more votes than registered voters. Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) tweeted the following on that perennial topic: “According to an affidavit in the MI lawsuit, one Michigan precinct/township had 781.91% turnout. How does this happen?”

Good question. No fewer than six precincts listed by Rep. Posey experienced turnout exceeding 120 percent. Another 10 allegedly enjoyed 100 percent turnout. This is an insult to the electorate’s intelligence, and it happened in Democrat precincts all across the nation. From World War II through 2016 average turnout in a presidential election was about 56 percent. Yet we are expected to believe that, in 2020, the national turnout was 66 percent. It simply does not pass the laugh test. This looks to be the result of widespread Democrat chicanery facilitated by high-handed flouting of federal, state, and county election laws. Joe Biden’s victory is no more legitimate than his plagiarized rhetoric or working-class credentials. His Potemkin presidency would be no more authentic than the man himself.

Have a nice week — if you can.

Originally posted 2020-12-14 10:47:39.

Current Events, Recent Posts

David Petraeus –

5 Comments

– A Prefect Avatar for America’s Corrupt Ruling Class

Remember this guy? He’s a bud of Mattis, they called them Warrior Monks. LOL. That’s a joke. They are nothing more than high ranking retired military officers who climbed the ladder of success by BS-ing folks with their bravado and secretly sucking down gallons of Kool Aid. Neither of these “Warrior Monks have ever pulled a trigger except at the range. Before or after reading this post please go to my post of 19 June entitled “Mattis & Petraeus – Warrior Monks?” and read about what this scum did and was caught.. He should be stripped of his retirement and spending the rest of his life, in prison for what he plead guilty and got a p-lea bargain. If any of us did what this POS did, guess where we’d be? Unbelievable. Our country does not hold these high ranking scumbags accountable for anything — absolutely nothing. As I have said before, Lady Justice no longer wears a blindfold.

Below is a Warrior Monk, do you honestly think either of these hotshots ever looked like this Warrior?

General David Petraeus, for many years (decades?) lauded as the greatest and most successful soldier of his generation, just insulted, in terms paradoxically both implicit and vicious, the men who made both his military renown and his post-military success and wealth possible.

“The most significant terrorist threat in the United States is not actually from Islamist extremists, it’s from right-wing terrorists in our own country,” he recently said to a gathering of elites.

This assertion, in a sense, is unremarkable given that it has become a common ruling-class talking point. It’s a lie, of course. Your own senses tell you so. When was the last time you even heard of a “right-wing” terror attack, much less one that actually inflicted mass casualties?

Sure, the ruling class and its propaganda arm tell you that they happen all the time, but they’re lying. They don’t lie merely by predicting waves of rightist violence that never materialize—though they do predict that, often.

Remember all those “warnings” of right-wing terror that would rock America in the event of a Trump loss? Allegedly violent Trump supporters have an even stronger case than mere loss to be angry, given the fishiness of the election and their belief that it was stolen. And yet none have so much as broken a window, much less committed any acts of terror. The one major demonstration in Washington, D.C. was entirely, not “mostly,” peaceful—that is, until leftist thugs showed up to beat on the marchers. Beatings which the same people who, naturally, never apologized for being wrong about imminent right-wing violence just as naturally never mentioned.

Nor does the ruling class merely lie by saying that every act of violence by the melanin-challenged is somehow connected to Nazism—though of course they do say that, daily. They also insist, risibly, that violence manifestly committed by people who are neither white nor on the Right is nevertheless perpetrated by the white Right. Witness, in only the most recent and egregious example, the repeated attempts to attribute 2020’s Antifa-BLM riots to “white supremacists.”

Don’t trust your own eyes and ears? How about “data”? Terrorism expert Timothy Furnish has found since the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Islamic terrorists have murdered just under 28,000 people worldwide. The global death toll over the same period from every act of violence even plausibly—that is to say, not necessarily—connected to “white supremacy” is 346. Or 1.5 percent of the Islamist butcher’s bill. This is the “grave, urgent threat” that David Petraeus insists poses the greatest danger to our country.

Petraeus may be lying from conviction. Certainly, all his peers in the ruling class believe, or profess to believe, that native-born whites are uniquely evil and hell-bent on killing their fellow citizens. And it can be hard to tell genuine ruling class belief from merely useful cant. Yet there’s no doubt that this particular lie is useful—to them. It’s one of the key ways in which the ruling class libel and smear dissent against their rapacity and misrule. So Petraeus has an interest in saying what he said, whether he believes it or not.

Who Does Petraeus Think Made Him a Success? 

Who is David Petraeus? Currently, he’s a partner at KKR, one of the world’s two or three most important private equity firms. What is “private equity”? The charitable way to describe that activity is the buying up of failing or underperforming companies and making them more profitable via a ruthless imposition of focus and efficiency. The less charitable description is “vulture capitalism”: hunting down value, wherever it may be, and stripping it out of even successful companies by closing facilities, laying off workers, outsourcing production and any other move that might reduce costs and (further) enrich the firm’s new owners.

Whatever you may think of private equity—salutary driver of market discipline or greedy despoiler of the American heartland—the fact remains that David Petraeus is not a private equity investor nor an analyst capable of restructuring even the smallest company. He’s a former military officer—a capable one, by all accounts—now getting rich from the profits of private equity by trading on his former service and (especially) his domestic and foreign government contacts.

Which is what makes the lie especially egregious coming from Petraeus’s lips. Why is David Petraeus famous? That is, apart from getting fired from the CIA over an extramarital affair and receiving a slap on the wrist for illegally sharing classified information with his mistress? His prior claim to fame, the one that won him his current job and stature, was to have successfully presided over the Iraq “Surge” of 2007, in which a bloody, three-year insurgency was finally quashed.

How was the Surge accomplished? In part by spreading around an enormous number of American greenbacks to buy off local militias. But also, in part, via “COIN,” or counter-insurgency warfare doctrine, a body of thought and practice revived from its post-Vietnam oblivion by David Petraeus. (This is another pillar of Petraeus’ fame; a so-called “soldier-scholar,” he has a Ph.D. from Princeton.)

One tenet of COIN as reimagined, and implemented, by Petraeus is that soldiers attempting to pacify an insurgency must show their “virtue” to the local population by taking risks, i.e., exposing themselves to danger. This is not, to say the least, what soldiers are ordered to do in nearly all other combat situations. But many thousands followed this particular order.

Again, whatever you may think of the Iraq war—nobly-intended tragedy, pointless adventure, deep state conspiracy—or the Surge, there can be no doubt that Petraeus’s success was achieved on the backs of American soldiers—many of whom lost their lives, and many more others, limbs, to achieve it.

Where did those soldiers come from? The overwhelming majority of American service members who volunteer for dangerous combat roles grow up in red, rural, conservative America: the South, Appalachia, the Rust Belt, the Mountain West. The majority are also, not to put too fine a point on it, white—exactly the demographic that the ruling class has in its targeting sights when it lies about the alleged threat from “right-wing terrorists.”

Why the Need to Insult?

It’s no exaggeration to say that, without these proto “right-wing terrorists” and the milieus from which they emerge, the United States military would have no combat units at all. To say the least, woke transsexual gender studies majors from the blue coasts are not showing up in droves, or even singly, to Officer Candidate School or basic training. Neither are the children of the upper, upper middle, and increasingly the middle classes.

The military, at least for its combat missions, is more reliant than ever on that part of America that the ruling class openly despises. What would it do without them? Stop fighting constabulary wars? Either that or scour the rest of the country to recruit men far less committed to the mission, and probably less good at their jobs, than those who volunteered to fight the post 9/11 wars and made the Surge a success.

Why insult these people, then? Why denigrate their families, faith, and communities by insinuating that the places from which they come are breeding grounds of terror, violence and hate? For, from where else may we assume this alleged “right-wing terrorist threat” originates? Portland? Santa Monica? The Upper West Side?

Either Petraeus really believes what he said or he said it because he knows it’s what his ruling class paymasters want to hear—and especially want to hear from professional talking heads like David Petraeus. We can assume Petraeus knows the latter; he’s not a stupid man. Is this, therefore, a case where interest and belief coincide? Or was he, perhaps unthinkingly, selling out the brave men he used to command and whose success made his reputation and caused his great good fortune and wealth?

I don’t know the answer. Either way, the incident is revealing—not about what the ruling class thinks of us; we already knew that. It is instead revelatory of how insincere is their unctuous, ubiquitous praise of our men in uniform, of the sentiment behind all those incessant repetitions of “thank you for your service.”

There are many reasons to wonder how long the ruling class can keep recruiting stalwart young men to fight its wars—not least being our best-and-brightest’ s inability to win seemingly anywhere or even to define victory. Expressions of contempt such as the one uttered recently by David Petraeus are, however small by comparison, another such reason.

Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a former national security official in the Trump Administration. He formerly wrote under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus when he was a senior editor of American Greatness. The is the author, most recently, of The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return.

Originally posted 2020-12-07 09:37:54.

Current Events

Fair and Balanced?

Video 8 Comments

Received this from an Marine brother, Ed “Mac” McCloskey , an 8th & I Alum a few years before me. He got it from a retired US Army LTC. I am in total agreement with Mac and his LTC friend on their  assessments  of the current state of FOX News.  Personally, I gave up FOX earlier this year when it was apparent the Murdoch kids were going to the left. No more “Fair and Balanced  – You Decide,” that’s all gone except for Tucker Carlson, who I still watch. And who knows, they may drop him soon?

What a shame, the last of the holdouts finally gives it. Change the channel, or best just shut the damn TV off, there are none left worth watching. 

I’m going to use his letter as a basis and send one myself, how about you? Or better yet, see who sponsors FOX News, that may be the best approach — money talks.

LOS ANGELES, CA – OCTOBER 21: Political commentator Tucker Carlson speaks during Politicon 2018 at Los Angeles Convention Center on October 21, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Chelsea Guglielmino/Getty Images)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Fox and Friends and Fox News:

Please pass this to your corporate bosses.

Like many of your viewers, I think, it is my perception, especially this year, that your news organization has been drifting to the left on the political spectrum.

When Fox News started reporting the news and with evening commentary shows, your motto was Fair and Balanced … We Report, You Decide.”

You have moved from that mission statement.  In particular, your polling, your reporting during the 2020 election campaign has been anything but “Fair And Balanced.”

I did not become a regular viewer and then become a conservative; I became a regular viewer because I am a conservative.  Likewise, I have written to the Republican party over the years that I support the party because, as a conservative, I have nowhere else to go and to have my views respected on the nature of our political system, the role of government at all levels, the importance, in particular, of the Bill of Rights, to the preservation of individual liberties in the face of an ever-expanding Federal Government.

This year, especially, you have participated in and reported on polls that were clearly out of line with the general mood of the Republic.  Your polling, like in 2016, was wildly inaccurate.  Rush Limbaugh informed us on his Friday radio show that he had had a communication from Brett Bair that Mr Bair had been told that Rush said that President Trump had lost the election.  Rush addressed this immediately at the beginning of the next segment of the show.  He said that he had told Brett that that was untrue and warned Brett against joining the other main stream media outlets in calling the race for Biden.  Rush stated on the show that the reason that CNN and MSNBC were begging Fox to call the race was to complete the humiliation of the President and of Fox News for supporting Conservatives all these years.

About 24 hours later, Fox News did exactly what Rush warned you not to do.

A Roger Ailes-led version of Fox News, with so many eye witness allegations of potential voter fraud, would never have done what you did on Saturday, November 7th.  That Fox News would have been pursuing those stories to determine the truth of the situation.  The Sons-of-Rupert-Murdoch-version of Fox News happily jumped on the “steal the vote” bandwagon and called the race for Biden.

Specifically,

  1. You called the state races for Biden using apparently entirely different standards that for Trump.
  2. When it became readily apparent and easily proven that there were many ballot issues in the battleground states, you called AZ for Biden and left that call in place even in the face of knowledge that there were many ballots to be counted from areas of the state where the President is wildly popular.
  3. You left in place your decision to call MI and PA for Biden when it is clear that there were “shenanigans” underway, including, but not limited to, legally certified Republican poll watchers being denied access to precinct counting areas, the counties in battleground states using a particular counting software were reporting “glitches” involving thousands of ballots in each county, that had been marked for Trump and down-ballot Republicans, were switched to Biden and down-ballot Democrats.
  4. In Democrat controlled county after county, counting of ballots received in early voting and on election day, counting was mysteriously stopped for hours at a time, at the same time that Republican poll watchers were being denied their legally certified opportunity to observe the counting.  Magically, in those jurisdictions, previously unknown ballots were found that, unlike the rest of the state, broke along the same percentages as the previous Trump vs Biden votes, were entirely marked only for Biden.

I could cite many other instances.  However, my deepest disappointment is the general arrogance of the main stream media, which you have joined, to believe that it is your duty to determine who wins and loses these elections.

I am, therefore, declaring my independence from you for the foreseeable future.  I will get my news and commentary from other, less biased sources.  I may be the only viewer you lose because of your conduct this year but I doubt it.  I have already seen on line that there is a growing backlash against Fox for how you have done your job in the run up to this election.  If and when someone advised me that you have returned to your previous standard of “Fair and Balanced … We Report, You Decide,” I may return.

Sincerely,
Ron Kohl
LTC, US Army (Ret)
Former Fox News Viewer

Originally posted 2020-11-09 14:47:23.

Current Events

Critical Race Theory

4 Comments

A very well written piece, albeit there are some words the left may need a dictionary to understand what he saying. LOL. A mostly retired trial lawyer who began as a Marine JAG Officer 1975-1982.

He poses a great question we all should be asking today, and does a great job answering it. Worth the read! Thank you Michael for sending it to me.

“What is wrong with critical race theory?”

Once the exclusive domain of deep thinking university professors, critical race theory became a part of our national conversation when the Trump administration ordered federal agencies to stop conducting workplace training based on critical race theory and opened an inquiry into the City of Seattle’s use of it.  The training is in fact political indoctrination and the public ought to know what it is and why it should be resisted.

Critical theory sprung largely from the Marxist scholars of the Frankfurt School in 1930’s Germany.  In 1848 Karl Marx had introduced the world to an analysis of social relations characterized by oppression when he argued in The Communist Manifesto and Capital that working class laborers were oppressed by those in power, the owners of capital. He argued for class consciousness, and in advocating radical change, he famously argued the workers had nothing to lose but their chains.  The dilemma facing the Frankfurt School scholars was why after the Russian Revolution and the wide dissemination of Marx’s invitation to a workers’ paradise was it not being realized?  Industrial organization and mass communications seemed to divert the oppressed workers from their liberation.  Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School is credited with arguing a theory is “critical” if it seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them”, and critical theory was applied to interrogate how power was used to perpetuate oppression.

Critical race theory is a variant of what began in the 1970’s as critical legal studies.  Critical legal studies looked at our laws with the assumption that law oppresses people, especially minorities, and examined how power was used to create and enforce the law.  Restrictive racial covenants in property deeds was an example of the use of law to perpetuate racial oppression.  Denying women the right to vote and prosecuting women like Susan B. Anthony in 1872 when she defied the law and cast a vote was an example of the use of law to perpetuate gender oppression.

Women gained the right to vote in Washington in 1910, Wyoming before that, and the US Supreme Court declared restrictive racial covenants were illegal and unenforceable everywhere in 1948.  Nonetheless, and not withstanding adoption of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments and a web of state and federal legislation outlawing discrimination based solely on race or gender, critical legal theorists concluded that the power of the oppressors was  embedded in our political structures and infects our laws today to perpetuate bias and discrimination against minorities and other marginalized communities.  As Samuel Gregg puts it in “Liberalism’s Civilization Problem,” Law and Liberty, September 7, 2020, the left’s “insistence that most of the West’s achievements are primarily masks for endless oppression largely flows from the left’s generally negative view of Western civilization” (emphasis mine).  In this dystopia there is no arc of justice, instead, US history is irredeemably rotten to the core.

Critical race theory proceeds from the fallacy that a binary of white and black, or white and everybody else, is the only appropriate frame of reference for a discussion of race.  Applying Ockham’s Razor to inconvenient facts, this binary ignores the history of racial bias against the Irish, Italian, Jewish people and many others ordinarily thought of as white.  Starting with this assumed racial binary, the critical theorists contend racial bias is embedded not only in our laws, but also our language, media, political structures and culture, and they set out to look for it.  Ignoring all the steps we have taken to eliminate racial prejudice from our laws and institutions, practitioners of critical race theory rediscovered what Stokely Carmichael described as “institutional racism” in his 1967 book, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.

It’s called systemic racism today, and its corollary theory holds that implicit bias exists even among those who deny any bias at all.  Indeed, denial of bias is strong proof one is in fact sick with bias.  This demand to override a person’s reluctance to accept the fact that she is in fact racially biased is one of the most pernicious and dangerous features of critical race theory.  These are not mere thought crimes, they are unthought crimes.  And the unrepentant ominously resemble dissidents in the former Soviet Union or the unruly psychiatric patients in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The Trump administration’s recent Executive Order and inquiry into Seattle’s work place training alleges that only White employees are required to admit to and denounce their racist impulses.  At first blush the required training appears to violate state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination based solely on race.

Aside from the totalitarian impulse to control what people think and the words people speak, two fundamental issues should make us wary of the growth of this ideology.  First, it is no accident these theorists too often are White academics and legislators.  Robin Diangelo is a White academic whose popular 2018 book, “White Fragility,” is a lecture to White people about how they got race all wrong and ignorantly so.

White men legislated poverty programs in the 1960’s that in the end further impoverished Black communities.  So much so that White men led by President Bill Clinton and then Senator Joe Biden legislated welfare and criminal justice reform that was directed against the Black community.  The reform ended “welfare as we know it” as Clinton put it and incarcerated large numbers of Black men, “super-predators” who needed to be brought to heel as Ms. Clinton put it to an all White audience in New Hampshire.  White folks telling Black folks what they need is a not so subtle form of oppression. White folks telling White folks what they shouldn’t think or say is almost as bad.  Isn’t it time for White folk to stop telling Black folk what they need?

Second, the critical race ideology claims all White people are infected with the racism disease and need help regardless of who they are or where they grew up.  In Diangelos’ world there are no individuals, no person is unique; instead, as a “race” we produce and reproduce racism in lockstep in every aspect of our daily lives whether we know it or not.  All notions of freedom are illusory.  The chains that bind us are no longer mere economic shackles, they define our very being which is, not coincidentally, not capable of redemption.

It is by definition a racist ideology, it divides our communities, and gives cover to those who want to destroy our history and institutions.  No leap of imagination is required to draw a direct line from the claim that systemic racism infects our institutions and must be pulled out by its roots to the destruction of civic monuments, attacks on the police, looting of stores and burning buildings in our cities today.

As Galatians 6:7 taught us, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Michael J. Bond
Copyright 2020

Postscript: I’ll be off the net for a week, going fishing. Need a break. Meanwhile,let’s all pray for President Trump and his bride!!!

Originally posted 2020-10-03 15:51:40.

Recent Posts

Who Won?

13 Comments

Okay, I gave it a day to think about the debate as I was not in any mood to write anything yesterday. Some of you may not agree with me and if so, please feel free to say so in your comment. I’ve read all the BS coming across the internet for two days, and feel I must say something now.

Winner? Well, if there was any one of the three debaters, I would say it was a draw. Yes, I said three. Wallace was the worse mediator I have witnessed since debating began years ago. Several times it appeared the debate was between the President and Wallace. And I have to say, I expected that when I discovered who would be the moderator. Like the saying about apples falling from the tree, he is his Dad’s son.

Our president showed off his bullying. He appeared pissed when he walked onto the stage, and it got worse as the debate went on. Why did he have to get personal about Biden’s son? Yes, I know he is a dirtbag, but Biden’s reply was surely accepted by the left.

There is much empathy out there for Biden and his mental problems among his side of the aisle, and all Trump did was increased it. Trump needed to shut up and let Biden talk. The more he talked the more his mental condition was coming out. I feared that Biden would be wearing something that would allow him to expose his mental issues. And I saw this on the internet this morning:

Some have said this is fake; I don’t think so. Numerous times when he was quiet it appeared he was listening to someone. And it was then that he looked into the camera instead at the moderator and gave his “Vote” speech. I’m suspect he was signaled to do that.

But is sum, I was mad at Trump and his bullying, and his constant interruptions. But I will say that questions were asked of Trump when it was his two-minute turn, Wallace would ask Trump more questions interrupting him talking time away from his two-minutes which used up his time. I believe that was Wallace’s plan. Also, I thought some of the questions were way off base and dealt primarily with the past. He’d set the stage for the question by bringing up things Trump (and Biden) had said, then ask a question. Of course, this caused Trump to attack the past issues he used to set the stage before he got to the question and that’s when Wallace would interrupt him.

Overall, the whole event sucked big time with no obvious winner! Our president needs to act presidential dammit! A woman said it best on a Facebook page. She said—paraphrased—I don’t like the way Trump acts and his constant bullying, but I do not elect a president based on his personality, I vote for a person because of his agenda and his plan for America; that’s why I will vote for Trump again.

And I too do not cast a vote for a personality; how stupid is that? However, many folks do just that. I may be pissed at Trump, but I will still vote for him!!!!!

Your turn—let me have it!

Originally posted 2020-10-01 12:48:51.