(1) A brutally honest review of the 2022 midterm election.
(2) As the political discussion centers on the 2022 wins and losses from the midterm election, one thing that stands out in similarity to the 2020 general election is the difference between ballots and votes.
(3) Insofar as electioneering is concerned, where votes were the focus, the Biden administration suffered losses. However, where ballots were the focus, the Biden administration won.
(4) Since the advent of ballot centric focus through mail-in and collection drop-off processes, votes have become increasingly less valuable amid the organizers who wish to control election outcomes.
(5) As a direct and specific result, ballot distribution, assembly, collection and return has become the key to Democrat party success.
The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.
(6) It should be emphasized; these are two distinctly different election systems. Ballots -vs- Votes
The system of ballot distribution and collection is far more susceptible to control than the traditional, now arcane, system of votes physically cast at precincts.
(7) A *vote* cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area. However, a *ballot* can be printed, distributed, completed and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual.
(8) 'Votes' and 'Ballots' are two distinctly different things.
Votes require people, difficult to manage and costly for electioneering. Ballots require systems, easier to manage and more cost effective.
(9) While ballots and votes originate in two totally different processes, the end result of both “ballots” and “votes,” weighing on the presented election outcome, is identical.
(10) The controversial 2020 election showed the result of making ‘ballots’ the strategy for electoral success.
Under the justification of COVID-19 mitigation, mail-in ballots took center stage. Ballot harvesting was one term for collection process but don't get hung up on it.
(11) Now that ballot collection has been shown to be a much more effective way to maintain political power, Democrats in a general sense are less focused on winning votes and more focused on gathering ballots.
(12) When ‘ballot organization’ becomes more important than ‘vote winning,’ you modify electioneering approaches accordingly.
It might sound simplistic, but inside the distinct difference between ballots and votes you will find why refusing debates is a successful strategy.
(13) If you are trying to win votes you could never fathom campaign success by refusing to debate an opponent. However, if your focus is centered around ballot collection, the debate is essentially irrelevant.
(14) You can vote at any scale you want, but when ballots are more important than votes – the election will always favor the former.
Michigan and Pennsylvania voters are likely very unhappy today, while Michigan and Pennsylvania ballot providers are smiling.
(15) If Democrats had to win individual ‘votes’ to gain election success, they would be at a disadvantage. It would be unfair.
However, as long as Dems only need to gather ‘ballots’, they have a path to winning elections. The process of electioneering is modified accordingly.
(16) Campaigning, advertising, promoting, debating, hand-shaking, crowd attendance and venues for rallies, along with physically meeting people and convincing them of your worth, are only important if you are trying to win votes.
(17) Fortunately for Democrats, modern electioneering does not require these arcane voting efforts. So, in the larger picture of what you see in election outcomes, they have stopped wasting time and doing them.
Who cares about votes, modern elections are the result of ballots.
(18) It’s time for those in the voting group to start seeing the difference between elections decided by votes and elections decided by the ballot group.
They are two entirely different election processes.
1) Let me bring FU type clarity to the "reasonable reforms" argument.
I have talked to everyone in DC about this. They are idiots. Not making mistakes, just plain allowing the IC to tell them nonsense. So, let me be clear.
2) Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified April 27, 2023, more than 3.4 million search queries into the NSA database took place between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Nov. 30th, 2021, by government officials and/or contractors working on behalf of the federal government.
3) These search queries were based on authorizations related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and 702 search authorization.
1) There are two general flaws in this type of analysis.
While likely accurate that ISIS did not originate the planning of the attack. Two elements stand out that appear to point away from Galloway's supposition.
2) First, the suspects are alive. Meaning, there was no mop up operation behind them to remove the fingerprints of operational control.
Example (mop up): They didn't jump in the car after the attack and have the car explode with them in it. Essentially eliminating the trail.
3) The absence of the clean-up (could have been anything - not just my example) implies the people who organized the attackers wanted the attackers to be captured.... and therefore, talk about their prior instructions.
1. Let me be very clear, I have talked to congress about everything involved in Spygate, far, far, far, beyond the @shellenberger generalities and provided over 600 pages of verifiable info documents to prove the events as they took place. THEY DON'T CARE.
2. I also talked to J. Durham and W. Aldenberg about the specific info that proves the IC was coordinating with the Senate (SSCI) on all the Trump targeting stuff. I have been vetted, researched and investigated for providing the docs. Again, they don't care.
3. The apparatus of our govt, has made it perfectly clear they intend to do nothing except cover-up all of the activity because the institutional damage is too encompassing for them to deal with. QUOTE: "The IC activity was too big to cope with," the system is not designed...
1. The J6 pipe bombs were the fedsurrection insurance policy, in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would be the emergency to shut down the process.
2. Literally 3 minutes before 2 reps issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. This effectively halted the Chamber Process.
3. Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber.
Once capitol police & other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and 3 other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress.
Now that I'm really thinking about this, meaning I've finally stopped laughing,... the only possible explanation can be that in an election year Main Justice is threatening almost the entire U.S. Senate, specifically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee writ large.
THINK BIGGER. The USA led "western" sanctions against Russian interests were not designed to keep Russia isolated financially, they were designed to keep USA and Western banking customers walled in.
[To create a dollar based CBDC (writ lg) you need a captured base.]
BRICS+ was creating a non-dollar-based currency alternative for trade.
Then comes.... western financial sanctions, under the auspices of Ukraine conflict. But, think "stopgap."
The sanctions didn't block Russia, they walled-in the WEST.
Now you start to see it.
I did not realize the scale of this, until I sat in multiple banks in eastern Europe and listened carefully to the very real and practical process of avoiding western sanctions. Then, after meeting with people specifically to discuss the conflicting reality, it made sense.