RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/07/22/nancy-pelosi-calls-the-wuhan-coronavirus-the-trump-virus-n670314

ILHAN OMAR’S NEW NANNY…RSK

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a Tuesday interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer that the United States is suffering from the “Trump virus.”

“I think with the president’s comments today, he recognized the mistakes he has made by now embracing mask-wearing and the recognition this is not a hoax, it is a pandemic that has gotten worse before it will get better because of his inaction. And, in fact, clearly, it is the Trump virus,” Pelosi said.

“What do you mean when you say the Trump virus?” Blitzer asked.

“The Trump virus: If he had said months ago, let’s wear masks and let’s not – let’s socially distance instead of rallies and whatever they were, then more people would have followed his lead,” Pelosi replied. “He’s the president of the United States.”

There are a number of falsehoods in Pelosi’s claims.

For starters, Trump never called the coronavirus a hoax. In fact, while Pelosi was distracted by impeachment, the Trump administration was busy addressing the coronavirus outbreak, taking various measures to limit the spread of the virus in the United States, that were quickly politicized by the Democrats once impeachment was over. Trump’s travel ban with China, for example, was described as an overreaction, and Democrats accused him of trying to scare the public. “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science,” said Joe Biden, who (like many others) has since flip-flopped on the travel ban.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/07/20/democrats-the-party-of-science-fiction/

We don’t know for sure but we’d bet most of those we see smugly wearing NASA T-shirts are Democrats, because, after all, they’ve declared theirs to be The Party of Science. But that’s about as true as one famous Democrat’s claim that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

From President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, to the political right’s warranted skepticism of the man-is-overheating-Earth narrative, the Democratic machine, which includes the legacy media and an ever-expanding segment of academia, has peddled the indictment that Republicans and conservatives are anti-science.

According to failed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the Trump administration denied the science and denied the experts when it tossed out a public health crisis “playbook for any administration that followed” that had been left by the Obama White House. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has labeled the GOP as the “anti-science” party. Just a few months back, noted Democrat Barack Obama said Republicans have “denied the science of climate change just as they denied the science of pandemics.”

Before the pandemic, Democrats called anyone who didn’t kneel before the shrine of Al Gore and activist researchers trafficking in climate fear to be a “science denier,” just as they will again once the coronavirus no longer dominates the headlines.

“The Republican War on Science,” written by journalist Chris Mooney, summarizes as well as any other rant the Democrats’ contention that the political right is anti-science. The Publishers Weekly reviewer, no doubt eager to join the charge, said the tome “is the first to put the whole story, thoroughly documented, in one place.”

This is all rather funny, because the “science” the Democrats put their faith in is often little more than a set of baseless theories that fit their policy agenda. They treat their own share of “settled science” as if it’s witchcraft.

For instance, the left is convinced that genetically modified foods are mysterious products that pose a profound health threat. The fanaticism and fear-mongering of GMO crops are much like the 20th century – and the 21st century in Democrat-run Portland – resistance to fluoridated water that has left a trail of harm. 

https://spectator.org/why-the-polls-predict-trump-will-win/

Lately, pollsters and pundits have been nervously pondering the following question: “If Trump is behind in the polls, why do most voters say, in the same surveys, that he will win the upcoming election?” As Harry Enten recently noted at CNN, “An average of recent polls finds that a majority of voters (about 55%) believe that Trump will defeat Biden in the election. Trump’s edge on this question has remained fairly consistent over time.” This is far more than mere statistical curiosity by number nerds. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that surveys of voter expectations are far more predictive of election outcomes than polls of voter intentions.

Voter expectations concerning who would win a given election were consistently more predictive than surveys using only conventional polling questions. 

The polls that appear to portend a one-term presidency for Trump actually predict that the president will trounce Biden badly this November.

According to studies conducted by researchers in the United States and in Europe, any pollster attempting to divine the outcome of an election should pay far less attention to what survey respondents say about the candidate they plan to vote for than the candidate they actually believe is going to win. Professor Andreas Graefe of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LSU Munich), proclaims these citizen forecasts, as they are sometimes categorized, “the most accurate method that we have to predict election outcomes.” Dr. Graefe elaborates on this assertion at considerable length in Public Opinion Quarterly under the title “Accuracy of Vote Expectation Surveys in Forecasting”:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/will-bidens-war-on-the-suburbs-become-a-campaign-issue/?utm_

In remarks Tuesday in the White House Rose Garden, President Trump promised to reverse what is arguably the most radical action of the Obama-Biden administration: promulgation of the rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Trump went beyond his tweet of a couple of weeks ago, when he said he “may” end the rule. Now he says he will in fact “take out” AFFH. This will need to be by amendment or modification, since the Obama-Biden AFFH is actually a wild over-reading of the phrase “affirmatively further” in current law.

The president said that coming from New York, he’d been following the Westchester County controversy for years. As I explain in Spreading the Wealth, the Obama administration ran a test of what would someday become his AFFH rule in suburban Westchester County, New York. The Obama administration effectively stripped Westchester County of its zoning power, forced it to spend tens of millions of dollars on high-density low-income housing, then ordered it to “affirmatively advertise” that housing to non-residents. In effect, the federal government took over Westchester and forced it to suspend its own laws and spend its tax money on non-residents. All this occurred without evidence, or even allegation, of housing discrimination. Westchester was actually one of the most diverse counties in New York at the time. Such demographic “imbalances” as existed there were a function of economics, not discrimination.

After the Obama-Biden administration intervened, Westchester’s local government flipped from Democratic to Republican. Rob Astorino was elected county executive and fought the Obama administration for years, although his hands were largely tied by a legal agreement signed by the previous Democratic county executive. (Astorino is now running for state senate, by the way, in a hotly contested race.) That gives you a sense of how powerful AFFH can be as a political issue. AFFH flipped the county that Bill and Hillary Clinton call home from blue to red. The question is whether President Trump will make AFFH and Biden’s anti-suburban plans an issue in the presidential election. The answer, I think, is “probably.”