This is the gang that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden and Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) flat refuse to condemn.
Think about that as you prepare to cast your vote.
…and there’s voter suppression. A poll taken two days after the first Presidential debate and run by The Wall Street Journal and NBC has Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden opening up a 14-per centage point lead over incumbent President Donald Trump.
However.
Aside from the fact that the poll sampled registered voters, rather than more accurately sampling likely voters, the poll oversampled (Progressive-)Democrat registered voters by eight per centage points (and thereby undersampled Republican registered voters by the same amount), which greatly biased the results.
On the other hand, a Daily Express poll, taken after Trump’s diagnosis with the Wuhan Virus (but which methodology is not described) indicates a different status of the race:
68% said the illness would not affect their vote while 19% said they were “more likely” to support Trump and only 13% “less likely”.
And these poll results:
National Popular Vote
Trump (Republican) = 46%
Biden (Democrat) = 45%
Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 3%
Hawkins (Green) = 1%
Undecided = 5%
And
Battleground States – Popular Vote
Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
Trump (Republican) = 47%
Biden (Democrat) = 43%
Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 4%
Hawkins (Green) = 1%
Undecided = 5%
Aside from having Trump in the lead in this poll, the other takeaway suggests that, despite low Libertarian support (in 2016, there was somewhat stronger Green support), a third party candidate could seriously affect the election’s outcome.
Which raises the question: is such evident bias in the WSJ/NBC poll an attempt to discourage Republican and Conservative voters from voting? It’s hard to believe these two news outlets could run such an incompetently done poll. In truth, though, they’re not alone. News outlets typically run such oversampled/undersampled polls.
Which makes the bias widespread, and the suppression, to coin a term, systemic.
…will be a disaster for our economy. Here are some examples of the damage Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s tax plan will inflict.
Earnings reductions are directly translatable into jobs reductions—higher unemployment.
And this bit of cynicism from “a campaign employee” that’s all too typical of Biden himself:
There is no reason that an economic plan that asks everyone to pay their fair share while doing more to reach full-employment quicker with more jobs and stronger growth should not help everyone from essential workers to investors.
Notice that: the campaign, along with Biden and his—I am the Democratic Party—Party, steadfastly refuse to say what their fair share is, besides more.
Progressive-Democrats, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) demand absolute acceptance of and fealty to their position and elimination of any other position. The meek meekly surrender to that.
Activists blast the institution as immoral, whether because of capitalism, racism or something else. Leaders of the institution, hoping to calm passions, concede the moral point. But instead of buying political absolution, they undermine their authority and give the left more ammunition to assail them.
That has been pattern at universities, artistic groups and media companies….
Now she, and they, are after private enterprise.
Last year the [Business Roundtable] delighted liberals by ostentatiously revising its mission statement from serving shareholders to include “all stakeholders.” That’s innocuous if all they meant was trying to do right by employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate in the course of also trying to make money for shareholders.
It’s also not good enough. Warren has proposed legislation—and if the Progressive-Democrats get control of the Senate, she’ll succeed in ramming it through—that would eliminate the rights of the business’ owners, those shareholders.
Warren’s legislation would require that 40% of seats on major corporate boards be chosen by employees, which would typically mean union leaders. The companies would have to get approval of 75% of shareholders to make political contributions, which could handicap them in future anti-business campaigns. They could be sued for not pursuing the goals of local nonprofits or Black Lives Matter. Politics would control the purposes of corporate capital.
Her legislation dovetails nicely with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s promise of union jobs—and he promises only union jobs—together with his promise to do away with right-to-work laws.
That’s not all. Warren put an op-ed into Fast Company in which she required that the
Roundtable must fully commit to the principles they set out in the 2019 ‘Statement,’ act on them, and publicly report on their progress in the coming year.
This is the autocratic government favoring only the Party preferred among us—the only stakeholders of note—to which we can look forward if Biden is elected.
Nice business you got there. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.
In late July 2016, US intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
Despite this lack of certainty, it was clear that
former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan created handwritten notes showing he “subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.'”
The intelligence community became sufficiently concerned that
On 07 September 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server[.]
They, as we know, chose not to pursue the matter; and Strzok, as an initial member of Mueller’s “investigation,” was able to mis– redirect that investigation onto other paths.
The article at the link has a link to the report itself. The rest of the press is burying this news, if not spiking the story altogether.