THE REAL LOSERS [Post # P2411]
November 20, 2024
Honestly, it would be very unfair to blame the vice-president for the election defeat. After all, she was no more than a made-up candidate, brazenly thrown into the presidential arena like a puppet in the hands of the mainstream media and powerful politicians, eager to find a way out of a hellish scenario, when they realized they couldn't continue to cheat the world, pretending that their Commander-in-chief was in great shape.
Then, a relatively young lady, Black and South Asian, always smiling and always able to put together a mix of attractive words (e.g., "let that [spirit] inspire us by helping us to be inspired") might indeed be perfect (the perfect trick!) to achieve their objective.
The plan seemed to be flawless: most American people would believe any lie, as well as they had been duped into thinking that the Commander-in-chief was a magnificent, almighty leader. Just a few voters would cast doubts on the arguments put forth by progressive networks. Almost everyone would be ready to listen to the wise words of liberal gurus and left-wing pundits.
Thus, a low profile politician who could only boast a failed presidential bid in 2020 (or, more precisely, in 2019!) was easily turned into a superstar.
After major donors had strategically stopped funding the Commander-in-chief 's campaign, millions of dollars started to swell the coffers of the new candidate. Interestingly enough, small donations suddenly became an important element of a huge sum of money, whose total amount eventually exceeded a record-breaking $1bn, as reported by several news networks.
Far beyond the most optimistic expectations, the well-oiled propaganda machine of the politically correct elite was working like a dream. Lots of voters had been mesmerized by the magic of passionate debates, social media influencers and surprising (maybe phantasmagorical...) surveys. Even the followers of the new goddess who were not very wealthy, felt morally obliged to give their contribution to save America, save democracy, save the planet.
As if by divine intervention, the Democratic Party had found the winning candidate, while it would have surely lost the White House if the Commander-in-chief had not withdrawn from the presidential race. All at once, Donald Trump, who would have easily crushed the incumbent president, appeared to be locked in a neck-to-neck race.
MOMENTUM was the keyword of the moment.
The campaign news was getting better and better every day. Polls, inevitably based on strong scientific evidence, started to show a near tie in the so-called swing states... even better, the Democratic nominee was leading in Michigan and Wisconsin... guess what?, Florida, too, was likely to become a swing state... and the country's beloved candidate, some sort of bionic woman, was leading among likely voters in Iowa, 47% to 44%... not to talk about the popular vote: there was a nice 4-point national lead!
Note that the surprising (😂😂😂) health conditions of the incumbent president, which unexpectedly (😂😂😂) became public at the end of June, were a serious blow to the Democrats, BUT the US administration had already been plagued by deep-rooted structural problems (perhaps due to those health conditions), such as
➤ inflation
➤ hordes of illegal migrants
➤ widespread criminality, especially in blue enclaves
➤ questionable strategies developed to save the planet... and, more likely, to boost the Chinese economy!
Given this context, the establishment had the brilliant idea to propel a candidate who
👉 had been forced to abandon her presidential bid by the end of 2019
👉 had been chosen by the Democratic nominee in 2020 as his ticket-mate, probably with the only aim of appeasing some angry Democrats after Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's defeat
👉 had never had a chance of showing her ability to explain her political project and secure the support of Democrat voters in an open primary contest, before dreaming of fascinating Independents and Republicans
👉 had been claiming (or had been induced to claim) that the Commander-in-chief was "a very bold and vibrant president" and "an extraordinary leader"
👉 felt a strong need to confirm "she couldn't think of anything she'd have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years"
👉 was totally unable to face a press conference, but perfectly apt to stir confusion when she started to insist she was "not Joe Biden" without explaining how she'd govern differently from her boss after winning the White House
👉 in short, did confess she would continue to make the same mistakes, maybe fuelling more criminal activity and increasing the number of drug traffickers at the southern border
👉 systematically refused to take a clear stance on the Middle East and each comment on this subject seemed to depend on the circumstances, the audience, the mood of the day
👉 turned a possible friendly interview into a scrapped interview, when she declined to talk about "the Gaza conflict" and ended up with "an awkward conversation about bacon" (bacon!!!) with a Muslim influencer
Then, a relatively young lady, Black and South Asian, always smiling and always able to put together a mix of attractive words (e.g., "let that [spirit] inspire us by helping us to be inspired") might indeed be perfect (the perfect trick!) to achieve their objective.
The plan seemed to be flawless: most American people would believe any lie, as well as they had been duped into thinking that the Commander-in-chief was a magnificent, almighty leader. Just a few voters would cast doubts on the arguments put forth by progressive networks. Almost everyone would be ready to listen to the wise words of liberal gurus and left-wing pundits.
Thus, a low profile politician who could only boast a failed presidential bid in 2020 (or, more precisely, in 2019!) was easily turned into a superstar.
After major donors had strategically stopped funding the Commander-in-chief 's campaign, millions of dollars started to swell the coffers of the new candidate. Interestingly enough, small donations suddenly became an important element of a huge sum of money, whose total amount eventually exceeded a record-breaking $1bn, as reported by several news networks.
Far beyond the most optimistic expectations, the well-oiled propaganda machine of the politically correct elite was working like a dream. Lots of voters had been mesmerized by the magic of passionate debates, social media influencers and surprising (maybe phantasmagorical...) surveys. Even the followers of the new goddess who were not very wealthy, felt morally obliged to give their contribution to save America, save democracy, save the planet.
As if by divine intervention, the Democratic Party had found the winning candidate, while it would have surely lost the White House if the Commander-in-chief had not withdrawn from the presidential race. All at once, Donald Trump, who would have easily crushed the incumbent president, appeared to be locked in a neck-to-neck race.
MOMENTUM was the keyword of the moment.
The campaign news was getting better and better every day. Polls, inevitably based on strong scientific evidence, started to show a near tie in the so-called swing states... even better, the Democratic nominee was leading in Michigan and Wisconsin... guess what?, Florida, too, was likely to become a swing state... and the country's beloved candidate, some sort of bionic woman, was leading among likely voters in Iowa, 47% to 44%... not to talk about the popular vote: there was a nice 4-point national lead!
Note that the surprising (😂😂😂) health conditions of the incumbent president, which unexpectedly (😂😂😂) became public at the end of June, were a serious blow to the Democrats, BUT the US administration had already been plagued by deep-rooted structural problems (perhaps due to those health conditions), such as
➤ inflation
➤ hordes of illegal migrants
➤ widespread criminality, especially in blue enclaves
➤ questionable strategies developed to save the planet... and, more likely, to boost the Chinese economy!
Given this context, the establishment had the brilliant idea to propel a candidate who
👉 had been forced to abandon her presidential bid by the end of 2019
👉 had been chosen by the Democratic nominee in 2020 as his ticket-mate, probably with the only aim of appeasing some angry Democrats after Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's defeat
👉 had never had a chance of showing her ability to explain her political project and secure the support of Democrat voters in an open primary contest, before dreaming of fascinating Independents and Republicans
👉 had been claiming (or had been induced to claim) that the Commander-in-chief was "a very bold and vibrant president" and "an extraordinary leader"
👉 felt a strong need to confirm "she couldn't think of anything she'd have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years"
👉 was totally unable to face a press conference, but perfectly apt to stir confusion when she started to insist she was "not Joe Biden" without explaining how she'd govern differently from her boss after winning the White House
👉 in short, did confess she would continue to make the same mistakes, maybe fuelling more criminal activity and increasing the number of drug traffickers at the southern border
👉 systematically refused to take a clear stance on the Middle East and each comment on this subject seemed to depend on the circumstances, the audience, the mood of the day
👉 turned a possible friendly interview into a scrapped interview, when she declined to talk about "the Gaza conflict" and ended up with "an awkward conversation about bacon" (bacon!!!) with a Muslim influencer
👉 pretended she had never had "the lead role on the overall border and regional issue" (i.e., refused to take any responsibility for the only job she could have bragged about!!!) and, in so doing, implicitly acknowledged a major failure of the current administration—BUT, OF COURSE, "she couldn't think of anything she'd have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years"!!!
👉 and so on...
Despite many warning signs, the mainstream media kept moving forward like a bulldozer, sure to break down any barriers. Without fail, the average American citizen would be beguiled by undisputed experts and respected gurus.
The stage effects were fabulous and hundreds of celebrities were glad to jump on the bandwagon (maybe encouraged by the eye-popping amount of money in the hands of the Democratic candidate).
From pop singers to sports stars, from Hollywood legends to top influencers, a string of big names did not hesitate to offer their endorsement in the presidential race. No-one could have any doubts. Lots of followers would follow in the footsteps of their heroes: after all, it's in the nature of followers to follow their idols!
The atmosphere was enthusiastic and there was no reason to waste time in irrelevant comments about a key difference between the alleged followers and the really rich people they were supposed to blindly follow.
Words like inflation, high costs, security and job crisis didn't set off any alarm bells. In those moments of euphoria and triumph, it was almost impossible that the elite would bother thinking of the problems of the many followers who couldn't afford to face a financial crisis and guarantee their own safety by paying for private guards.
This is exactly the reason why some readers might have bumped into the amazing comments of a (certainly very rich) pop star, who still needed to get her "head around" (😂), devastated by the fact that Donald Trump had won the presidency just "because he's good for the economy"!!!!!
Despite many warning signs, the mainstream media kept moving forward like a bulldozer, sure to break down any barriers. Without fail, the average American citizen would be beguiled by undisputed experts and respected gurus.
The stage effects were fabulous and hundreds of celebrities were glad to jump on the bandwagon (maybe encouraged by the eye-popping amount of money in the hands of the Democratic candidate).
From pop singers to sports stars, from Hollywood legends to top influencers, a string of big names did not hesitate to offer their endorsement in the presidential race. No-one could have any doubts. Lots of followers would follow in the footsteps of their heroes: after all, it's in the nature of followers to follow their idols!
The atmosphere was enthusiastic and there was no reason to waste time in irrelevant comments about a key difference between the alleged followers and the really rich people they were supposed to blindly follow.
Words like inflation, high costs, security and job crisis didn't set off any alarm bells. In those moments of euphoria and triumph, it was almost impossible that the elite would bother thinking of the problems of the many followers who couldn't afford to face a financial crisis and guarantee their own safety by paying for private guards.
This is exactly the reason why some readers might have bumped into the amazing comments of a (certainly very rich) pop star, who still needed to get her "head around" (😂), devastated by the fact that Donald Trump had won the presidency just "because he's good for the economy"!!!!!
[cf., e.g., https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/trump-election-madonna-instagram-president-b2643699.html]
The same remarks can be made regarding Harvard University, where someone might still be trying to "recover from the eventful election night and process the implications of Trump's victory", since the election outcome "definitely takes a toll on people's mental wellbeing". Needless to say, what apparently happened to the mental health of many young guys and girls is heartbreaking, but, again, it is quite likely that many Harvard students come from families which have NEVER had to face financial problems.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to claim that the real losers were the mainstream media, whose arrogance and insolence made them believe that their words would be fervently interpreted as pillars of a new golden age... and, to put it straight, we should not forget a similar attitude of the starlike celebrities who took part in the show.
In this post, so far, pollsters have just been the subject of some ironic comments, but have not been included in the number of the losers or, because of their mistakes, in the subset of the big losers.
It might look strange, but the point is that I have no idea of what really happened. Frankly speaking, I still wonder if most pollsters or would-be pollsters simply did what they were supposed to do—no matter if they were condemned to play the role of sacrificial victims or innocent accomplices of powerful networks, sooner or later. In actual fact, it may well be that they only needed to embellish the big show, which (perhaps!) was also promoted by friendly social media platforms.
In any case, if we want to describe pollsters as losers or big losers, we should distinguish between the many pollsters whose (wrong) predictions were given publicity and the few pollsters whose (correct) predictions were scientifically ignored. Indeed, don't forget that there were polling professionals who actually "saw exactly how the electorate would turn out".
So, what do I feel?
First of all, I'm afraid that mainstream media and political pundits had to make it clear that the outcome of the elections was uncertain. As a matter of fact, had most of the people believed that the Democratic or the Republican candidate would easily win, their interest in panels, town halls, discussions, warm appeals, chatterboxes and donations would have dramatically dropped.
Then, I am firmly convinced that there was an important psychological component. It was mandatory for long-time Democrats and potential Democrats to believe in what they had to believe!!!
No doubt, I might be wrong. Indeed, there seems to be a polling expert who has a completely opposite opinion and, undeniably, she might be right.
I am thinking back to Ann Selzer's Iowa poll and its surprise three-point lead in favor of the Democratic candidate. Note that Iowa has traditionally been a Republican-oriented state, where Donald Trump won in 2016 with a 9.41% margin and in 2020 with an 8.2% margin! Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that a pollster, in front of a 3% margin for the Democratic candidate, should have behaved like a meteorologist in front of model results about freezing temperatures in the Death Valley during the month of July. Probably, this hypothetical meteorologist would have thought about a bug in the computer program or possible errors in the input data...
Well, the pollster's opinion about her Iowa estimates is quite different. Her point is that "the findings from this last poll could actually energize and activate Republican voters who thought they would likely coast to victory"... and, as matter of fact, Donald Trump has won Iowa with a 13.2% margin (with about 99% of votes turned in).
[cf., e.g., https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ann-selzer-trump-iowa-poll-b2643335.html]
As said before, she might be right, BUT the interesting theory about energized Republicans is likely to raise eyebrows for at least two reasons:
❶ There appeared to be much more excited Democrats than energized Republicans, as suggested by some enthusiastic reactions reported by the media:
♦ 'It's a signal': What a poll out of Iowa can and cannot tell us about the election
♦ 'Canary in the Coal Mine!' Joe Scarborough Goes All-In On Ann Selzer's Shocking Iowa Poll Showing Trump Behind
♦ Iowa poll shows Harris with a three-point lead over Trump, Steve Kornacki reacts: 'Wow'
♦ 'Canary in the Coal Mine!' Joe Scarborough Goes All-In On Ann Selzer's Shocking Iowa Poll Showing Trump Behind
♦ Iowa poll shows Harris with a three-point lead over Trump, Steve Kornacki reacts: 'Wow'
[cf. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/-it-s-a-signal-what-a-poll-out-of-iowa-can-and-cannot-tell-us-about-the-election-223534149521,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/canary-in-the-coal-mine-joe-scarborough-goes-all-in-on-ann-selzer-s-shocking-iowa-poll-showing-trump-behind/ar-AA1ttibl?ocid=BingNewsVerp,
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/iowa-poll-shows-harris-with-a-three-point-lead-over-trump-steve-kornacki-reacts-wow-223419461815]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/canary-in-the-coal-mine-joe-scarborough-goes-all-in-on-ann-selzer-s-shocking-iowa-poll-showing-trump-behind/ar-AA1ttibl?ocid=BingNewsVerp,
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/iowa-poll-shows-harris-with-a-three-point-lead-over-trump-steve-kornacki-reacts-wow-223419461815]
❷ If the Iowa poll did "energize and activate Republican voters", what about the hundreds of stimulating polls that were emphatically made public by the mainstream media to predict a clear lead for the Democratic candidate at national level and (maybe in the worst-case scenario!) a tight competition in the so-called swing states?!?!? Are the mainstream media to be held responsible for the Democratic candidate's landslide defeat because their polls "could actually energize and activate Republican voters"?!?!?😂😂😂
In the end, as typically happens after disastrous failures, there's a blame game going on and, in this writer's opinion, the most ridiculous comments are coming from the people who blast the Democratic nominee for claiming that "she couldn't think of anything she'd have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years".
Since she was (formally) the second-ranking member of the US administration and had often assured that her boss was a great president (IN FULL HARMONY WITH the mainstream media and the most inspiring political pundits!!!), how the hell could she ever give a different answer?!?
Again, if there was a problem concerning the Commander-in-chief, the mainstream media, always eager to gossip when something is going on at Mar-a-Lago or in New York courts, should have been the first to raise that problem. After all, there were plenty of alarm bells, including very serious ones, that started to sound in early 2021, as humbly pointed out even on this website (click here).
Instead, the most influential networks kept quiet and did not hesitate to play a leading role in a systematic cover-up. Still today, even the progressive gurus who criticize the Commander-in-chief for his second presidential bid continue to insist that he has been a fantastic leader and will leave a wonderful legacy—AND YET the vice-president should have pledged to do something completely different from what had been done by a fantastic leader who will leave a wonderful legacy!!!
Bluntly speaking, in all conscience, even the most desperate and nervous experts should acknowledge that the path to victory would have been far from smooth for any Democrat. Namely, had the Commander-in-chief given up the idea of participating in the presidential primaries, it would have taken a titanic effort to please the voters of a party that is certainly loved by a large number of traditional American citizens, but is also driven by people who are dreaming about a Communist country or an Islamic emirate—of course, in the name of diversity and inclusion!!!
After so many words about the losers, it is probably worth spending a minute to talk about the winners.
Surely, no-one will forget Donald Trump and all the major players in his successful bid, as well as no-one should fail to remember the governors, senators and representatives (Democrats, Independents, Republicans and Third-Party members) who have been elected.
As far as I am concerned, I certainly do not intend to downplay the importance of the election results and the merits of all the candidates who have won their races, but I prefer to focus on a different kind of winner : a winner who didn't try to become a president (nor a vice-president, a governor, a senator, a representative) and yet, in my opinion, is a big winner, even if he has been completely ignored by the mainstream media and, in all likelihood, is still despised by right-thinking people. I'm referring to Jeff Bezos.
He has been severely criticized by the progressive aristocracy, BUT his prophetic words perfectly describe the devastating consequences of arrogance and lordliness: "Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.' None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence."
He was clearly right and saved The Washington Post and the staffers of this paper from the humiliation of being snubbed by an impressive number of voters!
In other words, he was a winner—a big winner. Without question!!!
In the end, as typically happens after disastrous failures, there's a blame game going on and, in this writer's opinion, the most ridiculous comments are coming from the people who blast the Democratic nominee for claiming that "she couldn't think of anything she'd have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years".
Since she was (formally) the second-ranking member of the US administration and had often assured that her boss was a great president (IN FULL HARMONY WITH the mainstream media and the most inspiring political pundits!!!), how the hell could she ever give a different answer?!?
Again, if there was a problem concerning the Commander-in-chief, the mainstream media, always eager to gossip when something is going on at Mar-a-Lago or in New York courts, should have been the first to raise that problem. After all, there were plenty of alarm bells, including very serious ones, that started to sound in early 2021, as humbly pointed out even on this website (click here).
Instead, the most influential networks kept quiet and did not hesitate to play a leading role in a systematic cover-up. Still today, even the progressive gurus who criticize the Commander-in-chief for his second presidential bid continue to insist that he has been a fantastic leader and will leave a wonderful legacy—AND YET the vice-president should have pledged to do something completely different from what had been done by a fantastic leader who will leave a wonderful legacy!!!
Bluntly speaking, in all conscience, even the most desperate and nervous experts should acknowledge that the path to victory would have been far from smooth for any Democrat. Namely, had the Commander-in-chief given up the idea of participating in the presidential primaries, it would have taken a titanic effort to please the voters of a party that is certainly loved by a large number of traditional American citizens, but is also driven by people who are dreaming about a Communist country or an Islamic emirate—of course, in the name of diversity and inclusion!!!
After so many words about the losers, it is probably worth spending a minute to talk about the winners.
Surely, no-one will forget Donald Trump and all the major players in his successful bid, as well as no-one should fail to remember the governors, senators and representatives (Democrats, Independents, Republicans and Third-Party members) who have been elected.
As far as I am concerned, I certainly do not intend to downplay the importance of the election results and the merits of all the candidates who have won their races, but I prefer to focus on a different kind of winner : a winner who didn't try to become a president (nor a vice-president, a governor, a senator, a representative) and yet, in my opinion, is a big winner, even if he has been completely ignored by the mainstream media and, in all likelihood, is still despised by right-thinking people. I'm referring to Jeff Bezos.
He has been severely criticized by the progressive aristocracy, BUT his prophetic words perfectly describe the devastating consequences of arrogance and lordliness: "Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.' None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence."
He was clearly right and saved The Washington Post and the staffers of this paper from the humiliation of being snubbed by an impressive number of voters!
In other words, he was a winner—a big winner. Without question!!!
Before closing, it might be of some interest to address a couple of issues concerned with any election process, all over the world, wherever and whenever a truly democratic system is supposed to be established.
The first topic is about voting procedures. Regardless of the highly debated (and perhaps fake) problem posed by non-citizens or alleged non-citizens, there is good reason to believe that each voter should go to a polling station with an ID card, while mail-in ballots should be absolutely abolished.
Of course, it is quite likely that possible frauds turn out to be irrelevant—quite likely, but NOT impossible!!! For instance, if a dozen people succeeded in voting in place of their grandparents, they would hardly change the outcome of most elections. YET, a few years ago, in 2020, there was a 6-VOTE WIN in a House race in Iowa!!! In consequence, anyone can easily imagine what would happen if a well-organized group decided to interfere with the electoral process: it might well be capable of casting hundreds or even thousands of fraudulent ballots, which could make the difference! In some cases, it could change the name of the winner or significantly increase his/her margin...
Please note that the above comments do not absolutely imply any suspicion of foul play in any race in the United States—neither this year, nor in the past.
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that right now, in Pennsylvania, there is something awkward going on with a Senate race (e.g., because of "ballots lacking a proper handwritten date on the outer envelope"). As reported by the media, "recent court rulings have supported counting these ballots", while "higher courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Nov. 1, blocked their inclusion".
For certain, in the end everything will go smoothly. However, in a similar context, no matter who wins, one candidate and his/her campaign might have an excuse to cry foul, WHILE such an event should never occur (AND CAN'T OCCUR without mail-in ballots!) in a democratic country: in a truly democratic country, which has nothing to do with the self-proclaimed Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the former self-proclaimed German Democratic Republic !!!
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that right now, in Pennsylvania, there is something awkward going on with a Senate race (e.g., because of "ballots lacking a proper handwritten date on the outer envelope"). As reported by the media, "recent court rulings have supported counting these ballots", while "higher courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Nov. 1, blocked their inclusion".
For certain, in the end everything will go smoothly. However, in a similar context, no matter who wins, one candidate and his/her campaign might have an excuse to cry foul, WHILE such an event should never occur (AND CAN'T OCCUR without mail-in ballots!) in a democratic country: in a truly democratic country, which has nothing to do with the self-proclaimed Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the former self-proclaimed German Democratic Republic !!!
Next, there is another problem, which is caused by a widespread feeling that democracy means either think the way I think or vote the way I want you to vote.
No doubt, this is the only logical and unavoidable conclusion for anyone who had a chance of hearing politicians and politically correct firebrands talk about "deplorables" or "garbage" or election results that turned out to be "shocking and even horrifying". Their message is clear and the expected role of democracy is even clearer!!!
[cf., e.g., https://news.sky.com/story/is-bidens-garbage-comment-another-clinton-deplorables-moment-depends-where-the-apostrophe-is-13244470,
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/snl-was-always-trump-cast-members-insist-rcna179481
To some extent, this matter is addressed in Jihad Al-Kuffar (the diary of a fictitious al-Qaeda fighter), which was published almost fifteen years ago. Hence, there is nothing about Donald Trump and today's events. However, since history tends to repeat itself, we find characters who interpret the word democracy in a special way: exactly as it should be interpreted according to the politicians and politically correct firebrands who like to talk about "deplorables", "garbage" and "horrifying" election results.
According to the story, in June 2001, the radical militant was in Gothenburg, Sweden, when violent riots occurred during an European Union Summit (Chapter 12). He was together with an anarchist from Italy, where a new center-right government had just been sworn in.
Here follow some words of the anarchist, as reported by the alleged writer of the diary:We'll continue to stage joyful anticapitalist rallies until we topple the new pro-American government, which looks like an illegitimate fascist squad. It's taken power by winning elections, but the polls were illegal, since the majority of voters didn't cast their ballots in accordance with the spirit of revolutionary justice.
COMMENTS
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/snl-was-always-trump-cast-members-insist-rcna179481
To some extent, this matter is addressed in Jihad Al-Kuffar (the diary of a fictitious al-Qaeda fighter), which was published almost fifteen years ago. Hence, there is nothing about Donald Trump and today's events. However, since history tends to repeat itself, we find characters who interpret the word democracy in a special way: exactly as it should be interpreted according to the politicians and politically correct firebrands who like to talk about "deplorables", "garbage" and "horrifying" election results.
According to the story, in June 2001, the radical militant was in Gothenburg, Sweden, when violent riots occurred during an European Union Summit (Chapter 12). He was together with an anarchist from Italy, where a new center-right government had just been sworn in.
Here follow some words of the anarchist, as reported by the alleged writer of the diary:We'll continue to stage joyful anticapitalist rallies until we topple the new pro-American government, which looks like an illegitimate fascist squad. It's taken power by winning elections, but the polls were illegal, since the majority of voters didn't cast their ballots in accordance with the spirit of revolutionary justice.
COMMENTS
Remark by David, CA on 11/25/2024 at 03:14:07 PM
Subject: Mail-in ballots
Content: You focused on the Senate race in Pennsylvania, which is now over: the problem had to do with undated and misdated ballots.
That's fine. Now, we're even supposed to "know that precedent by a court doesn't matter anymore in this country and people violate laws anytime they want", as stated by a County Commissioner.
More critically, though, I would pay attention to some House races, whose results are going to be decided by a few hundred votes. This is yet another proof that small margins should be taken into consideration. Then, the smaller the margin, the higher the chances that someone can succeed in cheating!
Last updated on December 2, 2024