RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2020/10/08/rejected-mail-ballots-projected-major-factor-2020-election/3576714001/

Rejected ballots in the 2020 election battle between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden could become the post-election focus.

In a normal election year in any given state, hundreds or even thousands of absentee ballots get tossed for everything from late postmarks to open envelopes. 

North Carolina rejected 546 ballots for missing witness signatures in the 2012 presidential race. Virginia tossed 216 ballots in the 2018 midterms because they arrived in an unofficial envelope. Arizona discarded 1,516 ballots for nonmatching signatures the same year.

The 2020 presidential election will not be normal.

Absentee ballot rejections this November are projected to reach historic levels, risking widespread disenfranchisement of minority voters and the credibility of election results, a USA TODAY, Columbia Journalism Investigations and PBS series FRONTLINE investigation found.

At least 1.03 million absentee ballots could be tossed if half of the nation votes by mail. Discarded votes jump to 1.55 million if 75% of the country votes absentee. In the latter scenario, more than 185,000 votes could be lost in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – states considered key to capturing the White House.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/eyes-ears-50

Do these idiots think that after watching this criminality for five months, any sane American will vote for a Democrat?
Last March brought us the results of the caucus and primary votes of the Democrat 2020 contest for the U.S. presidency. Out of a U.S. population of about 330 million—some stats include 40 million illegals, which brings the total to 370 million—the best Democrats had to offer was about 15 unimpressive candidates who the public saw through and sent packing. Left in the contest were:

Senator Bernie Sanders, an energized 78-year-old white, Jewish Marxist from Vermont, a keen admirer of Fidel Castro and Mother Russia—who represents his constituents as an Independent—who had recently survived a heart attack. 
Joe Biden, a 77-year-old, white, pro-abortion Catholic, former senator from Delaware for 36 years, VP of the U.S. for eight years under Barack Obama, and, even last March, clearly in the early-to-mid stages of dementia. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/elements-revolution-are-all-place-don-feder-0/

In a recent poll, 61 % of Americans said we’re on the verge of civil war. What’s coming is cataclysmic, but there are better ways to describe it. Instead of civil war, think revolution.

Some believed the proletarian revolution was coming in the 1930s, during the Great Depression – others, during the rise of the New Left in the 1960s.

But they were only sparks that never ignited.

What was kindled decades ago, now has burst into flames.

The pieces are all in place: rioting without end, war on the police, government complicity with anarchy, one party firmly in the grasp of revolutionaries, ongoing efforts to erase our history, radicals with a death-grip on the culture and an election from which there could be no turning back. To view any of these elements in isolation would be a tragic mistake.

The riots following the death of George Floyd have been anything but spontaneous. They were planned and organized by Black Lives Matter, Antifa and others. The founders of BLM describe themselves as “trained Marxists.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/ditch-commission-presidential-debates-bruce-thornton/

The first presidential debate, a raucous display of decidedly “unpresidential” behavior, called forth the usual bromides and analyses. Hands were wrung over the threat to our “democracy” and the loss of “civility,” complaints that were missing when in 2014 Joe Biden bullied Paul Ryan. Many pundits on both sides confessed their depression over the spectacle. As usual, most voters didn’t have their minds changed by this glorified reality-television show.

Maybe it is time to just ditch the CPD sponsored debates.

Televised presidential debates are an artefact of the television age. As a creation of an entertainment medium, the debates have never been about informed questions, answers, and rebuttals over policies or governing philosophies. They are political ads and gotcha tournaments, with the audience keeping score over who makes a gaffe, misspeaks, blatantly lies, avoids the question, or personally attacks his opponent. Like professional wrestling, each contestant has his or her fan base whose minds will not be changed, and whose estimation of points scored will be mostly subjective.

And don’t forget, superficial appearances are very important too. Remember poor Dick Nixon, whose five o’clock shadow, translucent skin, and lack of cosmetic skills may have lost him the presidential debate in 1960? I recall a poll (later challenged) that found radio listeners thought Nixon won, but television viewers thought JFK did. Even if the poll was flawed, there’s no question that appearance counts. Remember Hillary complaining about Trump “looming” over her during their debate? And of course, good looks and physical presence, as filtered through a television camera, add another subjective and irrelevant element to the spectacle.

More revealing is the fact that the “moderators,” as the hosts of these shows are called, nearly always come from television news shows. That is, from the ranks of professional readers of other people’s words. I can’t figure out how a job based on such an ability, a pleasing voice and demeanor, and the knack for not looking like an oaf on television, equips anybody to be a critical analyst of the policy prescriptions of professional politicians.

https://dianebederman.com/social-justice-tikkun-olam-and-the-democrat-party/

Judaism teaches that social justice includes leaving grain and produce during the harvest for the poor to glean in order to provide all people the dignity of work. A hand up and not a perpetual hand out.

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the corner of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest.  You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.” (Leviticus 19:9-11)

Our Jewish ethic teaches us that we have moral agency; free will; that we are the subject of our destiny and not the object of our fate. We are not the victims of circumstance because we choose our path, no matter the road blocks put in our way.

Yet, I watch and listen as Jewish people support a party that places multiple road blocks in front of those in most need of uplifting by promoting a welfare state: free stuff; free education, free health care, subsidized housing. It all sounds lovely, but for those whose hand is always out, there is no dignity; there is no moral agency.  I agree there is no dignity in homelessness or hunger but socialism is not the answer. We know this from history watching what happened in Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela, rich beyond belief, from oil, whose people are now unable to buy toilet paper. Socialism is evil. It is debilitating. It undermines dignity turning citizens into generational victims.

Dear Jews, listen to those less fortunate. Listen to the Latinos and Hispanics whose families fled socialist countries to come to America for the freedom to rise up and to fall down, knowing you could rise up again. Listen to them as they warn against socialism as preached by Bernie Sanders and shared by AOC.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-10-1-the-debate-strengthens-the-case-for-a-libertarian-to-vote-for-trump

Back on July 22, I participated in a debate hosted by the Soho Forum on the question of which presidential candidate a libertarian should support — Biden, Trump, or Jo Jorgensen (the candidate of the Libertarian Party). I argued the case for Trump. You can watch the July 22 debate, including my presentation, by going to the Soho Forum website.

Later today, at the request of the Soho Forum, I will be recording an update to my July 22 presentation. Not much has happened to move the needle since July 22, particularly given the dearth of public appearances by both Biden and Harris, and the flat refusal of those two to respond to any remotely unfriendly or probing questions from reporters. That leaves mostly just the debate of September 29 in the category of new information. Trying to do my job conscientiously, I watched the whole thing. If you did the same, I pity you, and I also strongly suspect that you found the experience unpleasant, as I did.

As a general matter, I found Trump’s aggressive approach off-putting and unhelpful. On the other hand, Biden’s approach was to make wild and unsupported statements and promises, often inconsistent either with his website or other statements he made in the debate itself, with seeming complete confidence that the moderator would give him a total pass. And on that he was right — time after time, moderator Chris Wallace gave him a total pass. The underlying concept was that in a Biden presidency, the government would provide perfect solutions to all human problems and bring justice and fairness to all through the magic of government spending and programs. Does anybody really buy this? Unfortunately, I think a lot of people do buy it.

I’ll focus on just a few issues that arose in the debate. I have used a version of the transcript found here to try to get as close as I can to the exact words used.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/30/trump-wins-round-one-barely/

There was no clear winner in Tuesday’s presidential debate and the country was the loser. 

President Trump could have won decisively if he had just followed Napoleon’s famous advice not to “interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The moderator, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace, did an excellent professional job largely without bias, and undoubtedly more fairly than those who will conduct the next two debates, but he didn’t come down hard enough on the interruptions. If Trump had just allowed Wallace to follow up on his questions of Biden, the former vice president would have stumbled badly. Trump’s irritating interruptions created an incoherent cacophony that enabled Biden to escape severe embarrassment. 

On balance, Trump almost certainly won, but a very few viewers would have had the perseverance to listen carefully enough to note that Trump defended his own record quite capably, and Biden was very shaky and imprecise both in criticism of his opponent and in explaining why he should be president. As was expected, the fact that he got through 90 minutes in the ring with Trump without becoming incomprehensibly muddled, empowered his supporters to claim that in limping out intact, he had won.

For those who followed it carefully or replay it, it will be clear not only that Trump is a much more forceful and articulate man than Joe Biden, but that he also clearly won the argument, insofar as it could be perceived within the tumult of interruptions.

The Democrats can claim the partial victory of their candidate having survived to fight another day, but the Democratic campaign—which has consisted exclusively of nonstop defamation of the president with a new false allegation every week—was discredited by Biden’s failure to make any of his accusations stick, or even sound like he believed them himself.