A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE "EMPTY" ASSERTION, COURTESY OF A FASCIST FLUNKY FROM THE GOP. PART 2: DON'T ASSERT. IGNORE.

 

BELOW IS FROM PART 1.

"EMPTY" ASSERTION-  ANY STATEMENT, (WRITTEN OR ORAL), THAT CLAIMS TO BE FACTUAL, BUT HAS LITTLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR DATA THAT CAN WITHSTAND PROPER SCRUTINY.  In many cases, the act of criticizing the Assertion is discouraged, AND IT MUST BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(YES, I HAVE COVERED THE SUBJECT BELOW IN OTHER ARTICLES GOING BACK SEVERAL YEARS. GUESS WHAT? UNTIL THE LEADERSHIP OF SENATE DEMOCRATS MAKES AN HONEST EFFORT TO FIGHT BACK, I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO SO. I EXPECT NOTHING FROM THE FASCIST GOP AND THEIR DICTATOR-IN-TRAINING DONALD TRUMP. HOWEVER, I NO LONGER GIVE SENIOR SENATE DEMOCRATS, THOSE ELECTED BEFORE 2016, A FREE PASS. THEY HAVE NOT EARNED IT.)

LATELY, THE GOP, AND THEIR CORRUPT STOOGES ON THE SUPREME COURT, HAVE ADDED A NEW DIMENSION TO THEIR GAME PLAN OF DESTROYING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC:

IF YOU CAN'T REFUTE THE OPPOSITIONS POSITION, OR ARGUE REASONABLY ABOUT AN OPINION YOU ARE DEFENDING THAT APPLIES TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU JUST ALTER OR IGNORE WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN TO FIT YOUR DESIRED CONCLUSION. 

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSERT ANYTHING, YOU JUST EDIT OUT WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO CONFRONT. 

THIS OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT TWO CENTURIES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, AND THE INTENT OF THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IS BEST EXEMPLIFIED BY THE REFUSAL OF THOSE WHO ARGUE AGAINST GUN CONTROL TO CONSIDER ALL PARTS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT AS TO HOW IT SHOULD BE APPLIED.

THIS IS WHAT THE GOP AND THEIR HIRED FLUNKIES ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WANT YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

OF COURSE, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXACT WORDING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

THE ISRAEL AND HAMAS WAR; THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED. PART 2.

- Exactly what will each side concede for the sake of a cease-fire?

- Who has benefitted from this Conflict?

As of today, I fail to see how the Palestinian Civil Population of Gaza, or

the IDF, would have welcomed this War, at least in Practical Terms. 

That is, of course, if we do not consider outside sources who ignited a conflict

as a way to create a War Time Environment that seeks to draw in other Nations

and/or Political Entities.

- How should the U.S. Government React? 

Do not treat this Conflict as FAITH VS FAITH. 

We have seen, from recent history, 

that the FASCIST PARTY OF AMERICA/GOP, wants to LEGISLATE

FAITH-BASED MORALITY INSIDE THE U.S., BASICALLY DESTROYING THE 

CONCEPT OF "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" AS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

It is nothing more than a Disguised Version of Hate Speech. Do you really think this Attitude will be any more Defensible if we try to ship it to other Countries? 

THE ISRAEL AND HAMAS WAR; THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED. PART 1.

 

- As you listen to Media Sources, reporting on the Combatants, and possible allies or interventionists that may become involved:

Are they describing a conflict between the Nation of Israel and the Palestinian People of Gaza, or is it between Jews and Muslims? Does the Analysis support the true nature of the conflict?

- Did the Military Capabilities of Hamas, as it exists in Gaza, have a realistic chance of Defeating the Israeli Forces that would be directed against them...

OR

...were the initial Attacks designed to be so vicious and unjustified that it would provoke an Extreme Reaction by Israel, thereby justifying other Nations and Groups joining Hamas in a War that would destabilize the region?

- Does Hamas, as it exists in Gaza, truly Govern the Palestinian People and work in their Interest, or is it an Ideology seeking to destroy all opposition, wherever it may be? Is this a conflict between two Sovereign Nations, with both sides having the Power to Negotiate for all peoples within their Territory of Control?

- Can Humanitarian Aid to all those affected in the Combat Zone be an Effective Strategy in separating the War-Mongers from those seeking solutions that don't raise the casualty count?

SEE PART 2.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PART 3.

 

Now, you might might be thinking: "Well, what about the other States? I bet there were big changes elsewhere, and your just ignoring them."

Keep in mind that I have been focusing on MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN, BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING VICTORY IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.  HOWEVER, I HAVE PURPOSEFULLY AVOIDED 3 OTHER STATES; FLORIDA, IOWA, AND OHIO, JUST TO SEE IF I WOULD GET ANY REACTION. I DID'NT, SO IN A FUTURE POST THE ANALYSIS WILL INCLUDE THESE STATES, BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

However, there are 44 other States. How did the TRUMP "REVOLUTION" AFFECT THEM?

Well, this was suppose to be a resurgence of "CONSERVATIVE IDEALS." In fact, Donald Trump
ran on A Mix of EXTREMIST BELIEFS THAT PROMOTED MISOGYNISTIC, XENOPHOBIC, AND RACIST ATTITUDES AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OFTEN UNDER A MASK OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY. HOWEVER, THESE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS SHOULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP JUST BECAUSE THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL IDEALS. TRUMP WENT FAR BEYOND WHAT TRUE CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE.

To be fair, let us start by looking at the 24 States who voted REPUBLICAN IN 2012 AND 2016.

Now, with Traditionally Blue States like MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN SEEING GIGANTIC SHIFTS IN VOTER SUPPORT, RESULTING IN REPUBLICAN "VICTORIES", TRADITIONALLY RED STATES SHOULD HAVE SEEN EVEN LARGER TURNOUTS AND TRIUMPHS IN THEIR STATE ELECTIONS.

Uh, No.

In the case of the 24 States, TRUMP CARRIED A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE REPUBLICAN VOTE IN 12 STATES, ROMNEY IN 11, WITH ONE STATISTICAL TIE.

This is a list of every STATE that Voted for the Republican Candidate for President in 2012 and 2016.
It is followed by which Candidate, ( ROMNEY- 2012, TRUMP- 2016), Received a higher % of the Republican Vote for that State.

ALABAMA- TRUMP: 62.08%.- 60.55%                               
ALASKA-  ROMNEY: 54.80%- 51.28%
ARIZONA- ROMNEY: 53.65%- 48.67%
ARKANSAS- TIE- 60.57%
GEORGIA- ROMNEY: 53.30%- 50.77%
IDAHO- ROMNEY: 64.53%- 59.26%
INDIANA- TRUMP: 56.82%- 54.13%
KANSAS- ROMNEY: 59.71%- 56.65%
KENTUCKY- TRUMP: 62.5%- 60.49%
LOUISIANA- TRUMP: 58.09%- 57.78%
MISSISSIPPI- TRUMP: 57.94%- 55.28%
MISSOURI- TRUMP: 56.77%- 53.76%
MONTANA- TRUMP: 56.17%- 55.35%
NEBRASKA- ROMNEY: 59.80%- 58.75%
NORTH CAROLINA- ROMNEY: 50.39%- 49.83%
NORTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 62.96%- 58.32%
OKLAHOMA- ROMNEY: 66.77%- 65.32%
SOUTH CAROLINA- TRUMP: 54.94%- 54.56%
SOUTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 61.53%- 57.89%
TENNESSEE- TRUMP: 60.72%- 59.48%
TEXAS- ROMNEY: 57.17%- 52.23%
UTAH- ROMNEY: 72.79%- 45.54%
WEST VIRGINIA- TRUMP: 68.63%- 62.30%
WYOMING- ROMNEY: 68.64- 67.40%

UTAHS LARGE MARGIN BETWEEN
2012- 72.79%, 2016- 45.54% COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY THE 21.54% EARNED BY EVAN MCMULLEN(IND.)
IN 2016.

In the other 23 States, the LARGEST INCREASE in percent of the vote from
2012 ----- 2016: WEST VIRGINIA: + 6.33%.

THE LARGEST DECREASE 2012-----2016: IDAHO: - 5.27%.

REMEMBER THESE ARE "RED STATES." THERE ARE NO CHANGES,
STATISTICALLY, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED BEYOND NORMAL
PARAMETERS. DONALD TRUMPS CANDIDACY CAUSED NO UNUSUAL
CHANGES IN THE % OF PRO-REPUBLICAN VOTERS WHO TURNED OUT
FOR THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

HMMM!