(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.
If the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment and Joint Analysis Report were fabricated USIC intel in order to frame Donald Trump, then the JAR/ICA that led to the expulsion of 35 Russian assets was also a fabrication.
2) Using the Durham report, even the Wall Street journal said, […] “All of this suggests that the Mueller probe was as much a cover-up as an attempt to find evidence of collusion.”...
3) Yes. If the ICA/JAR were manipulated evidence (they were), and John Durham confirmed the Robert Mueller Trump-Russia collusion investigation was based on fraud (it was), then what does that say about the status of things?
2) Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.
Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.
Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.
3) We already pieced this together 7 years ago.
Grassley needs to overlay the Strzok/Page text messages to the OIG report and the newly released "Clinton Annex."
SSCI Chairman Cotton is assembling his weapons right now, he has no choice - Cotton accepted the role. Tom Cotton is the "hand" of the Intelligence Community.
2) It's going to be bloody, brutal, vicious and one of the most consequential counter attacks in modern political history that few Americans will appreciate.
It's way over there.... on the beach.... far from view... far away from the crowd.... and it's going to be ugly.
3) She's doing this. But few, very few can actually see and understand what Tulsi is doing. I wrote the roadmap possibilities a year ago.
Compare what you see now, to this 👇. You will understand.
1) You guys know the background. You know the context. You know the history. You know all the nuances and Machiavellian manipulations that have brought us to this very specific moment.
2) Now, you are President Donald Trump and you are in a conversation with Vladimir Putin; a geopolitical ‘adversary’ whose current status was created by the same intelligence system operators that created your defined ‘enemy’ status within your own country. You and Putin were both targeted by the same intelligence system, the CIA.
3) Vladimir Putin does not view Americans as his enemy. Vladimir Putin views the CIA as his enemy.
President Putin is essentially ambivalent to your targeted position, but defines his adversary as your Central Intelligence Agency.
You want to cut the Gordian knot, change the geopolitical world, create a strategic alignment; but to do that you need Putin to accept you do not view him as the enemy. You also need to prove you have control over the apparatus he views as a threat.
How do you prove you have control over the agency?
♦ chased down intelligence community leakers,
♦ released the JFK files,
♦ released Joe Biden’s domestic terrorism surveillance plan,
♦ intercepted an NIC plot to impeach President Trump (confirmed by Rubio),
♦ taken control of the Presidential Daily Briefing,
♦ and more recently begun to confront the weaponized corruption within the IC Inspector General organization.
These are actions, not words, and those actions speak boldly. Suffice to say, her effectiveness has placed a target on her back.