10/30/2020 - 1 SCOTUS and Election Law Rulings

It seems to me a lot of people don't understand the US Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) role in our judicial system. I see complaints about inconsistent decisions being made by SCOTUS. "They ruled this way in Wisconsin, but that way in North Carolina?" Now, I'm no legal scholar, but I think this short explanation is where it's at. I'll address Justice Amy Coney Barrett not participating in some of these cases as an aside at the end.

SCOTUS will rule on cases regarding elections in states which come before it on two basis:

First, is what the state is doing in conformity to the U.S. Constitution? If what a state is doing isn't contrary to the Constitution, then that test is passed. The court might, on the other hand, strike down some action by some state if that action is unconstitutional, for example, denying persons the right to vote based on race, religion, or gender.

Second, if SCOTUS finds the action to be constitutional, then they can look and see if what the state is or is not doing is following the state's own constitution. It could be that a Secretary of State (or whichever other state official oversees elections) is doing something clearly contrary to state election law, or more commonly, that a judge has overstepped his or her authority, and is ordering state officials to act in a way that is not in compliance with the state's laws or constitution.

We only have one U.S. Constitution, but we have 50 different states, each with its own Constitution, and each with its own election laws. Those documents are not standardized between the different states. So something one state does might be perfectly legal, and the next one may try to carry on in exactly the same manner, but in the second case, it conflicts with the state's laws. SCOTUS would find the first acceptable and exactly the same issue unacceptable in the second. And because the state's guidance documents differ, you might be happy about how they ruled in North Carolina, but perturbed about the Wisconsin ruling, or vice versa. Blame the state's Constitutions and their dissimilar election laws, not SCOTUS.

Now, as for Justice Barrett. I've seen some frustration that in two election law cases currently being heard by SCOTUS, that she has recused herself. Some are glad to hear that, others, likely Trump supporters, are unhappy. It's not her job to make Trump supporters happy and or to rule in Trump's favor on a damned thing. She's there to do her job and to do it right. As near as I can tell, the cases in question were already underway and Justice Barrett couldn't play catch-up and do justice any service by rushing into these cases without all the facts. We should be glad, not mad, that she is placing doing her job with integrity and thoroughly above rushing in because a case has dire political implications.

And, finally, what the heck, people? No, all rulings don't go our way. That doesn't necessarily make Justices who don't rule the way we like the bad guy. It may mean they've determined some law or act is unconstitutional or contrary to state law. Be mad at bad laws and bad election officials. More often than not, that's where the problem lies.

10/30/2020 My Wall Street Journal Home Subscription - Cancel It

Once upon a time I was happy to be able to get the Wall Street Journal delivered to my home. Local papers had gutted their staffs and picked up more and more syndicated material, with less and less locally written, local news. 

 In recent years I saw the Louisville Courier Journal implode, the quality of every page of the rag these days is an embarrassment under Gannett's ownership. Editorial bias is a given with most print papers, and the C-J, as Louisvillians often refer to it, is no exception. I could live with that, and did for a long time. But over time the C-J let writer after writer go, and eventually the paper was nothing more than a political editorial in a hollow shell. For a while we kept the C-J just for the coupons in the Sunday edition. But even those, over time, we found weren't often for the products we use, and wound up pretty useless to us. I ditched the C-J for good 8 or 9 years ago, before we moved to Florida.

I tried the USA Today for a while, before we moved. Other than the free copy the give away in a hotel lobby, the USA Today is a truly worthless, shallow, empty comic book pretending to be a newspaper. In the long list of things that are "not worth the money", USA Today is prominent. I do like the puzzles, and the TV section was helpful in a hotel when I was on a trip to see what was on to kill an evening.

When we moved to Florida, for the first year or so we were here we took the Charlotte Sun. Everything I said about the C-J is also true of the Sun except the ownership. If anything, the Sun is inferior to the C-J, and that's saying quite something. If it was delivered here for free, I'm not sure I'd ever look at it. In fact I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd call and have then cancel to save me the nuisance of throwing it away every day.

I like my NY Post. Funny, I remember as a kid, my dad used to commute from Staten Island to mid-town Manhattan to work each day. He took the Staten Island Rapid Transit to the Staten Island Ferry, then took the #1 train to Rockefeller Center. I think he used to hop off the #1 and onto the express at Chambers St., then hop off the express at 42nd, and back on the #1 for a couple of stops. And on the way to work he read the NY Daily News, which in those days was the more conservative of the two major New York City tabloids, the other being the New York Post. Sometimes on the way home dad would grab a NY Post, too. I remember it was the afternoon edition, which had all the late sports scores, which was great. I didn't care about the news, or the editorials, or the puzzles. I like the Daily News and the Post because they had awesome coverage of the Mets, Knicks, and Giants, my main sports interests as a boy and as a teen. Still to this day, I guess. I get the N.Y. Post here in Florida. I read the editorials, work some of the puzzles, and when the Mets, Giants, or Knicks don't totally suck, I like to read about them. Most of the time that's sort of depressing, and I don't bother. that will change when one of them has a good squad.

Of the other two New York papers that I can get locally, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for me there's been nothing to the decision: the Times has sunk to a nadir so low, I don't know if it will ever recover. It's pure political propaganda. Unabashed, unashamed, and untethered to truth, it's a joke of a publication, something sad to see from a once proud paper.

Today's WSJ

 And that brings me the the Journal, the WSJ as they say. Right of center, with a focus on business and economic issues, I have really enjoyed the Journal for most of the time I've taken it. But here, in the era of Trump, I've come to a crossroads. The Wall Street Journal has joined the rest of the mainstream media, with the exception of Fox News (of which I am no big fan at all, really), not a one of them is doing any diligent investigation or reporting on the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden stories. Sure, it's been touched, barely, on the Editorial pages, but I've see no investigative or journalistic content about it otherwise in the WSJ since the story broke. I've heard rumors that the Biden Campaign has let all outlets know that if they give service to this story, that they'll be blacklisted by a Biden White House. I can't presume to know if the WSJ has acquiesced to those threats, if they're just full on never-Trumpers at this point, or what. All I know is to me it's unacceptable. Totally and completely unacceptable. I'm cancelling my subscription to the WSJ. If this is what they've become, then I need the WSJ in my house no more then the Louisville C-J, USA Today, the NY Times, or Charlotte Sun: i.e. I don't need it. Useless to me.

From Today's NY Post

Funny, the one paper with the balls to break and cover the Joe and Hunter Biden corruption story is the NY Post. Founded by Alexander Hamilton over 200 years ago, and now with a conservative editorial leaning, the Post is locked out of Twitter for having the audacity to cover this scandal. The Post. Silly, catchy headlines. Pictures of celebrities. Almost always a swimsuit babe somewhere in it. Gossip. The goddamned NY Post are the only major print entity in my sphere with the balls to cover this. Cancel my Wall Street Journal. I get the Post.

10/29/2020 - 1 Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

 

1) Let's count votes up to 9 days after Election Day.

2) Let's not require a legible postmark showing the ballot was mailed in a timely manner.

3) Let's not require a verifiable signature that can match the voter to their registration.

4) Let's not require the ballot to have a witnesses signature.

5) Let's not require voter IDs at the polls.

I see a trend here, a disconcerting pattern. Luckily, voter fraud is just a figment of my paranoid imagination. Who told me that? The same exact people who said the 5 things I listed above. Feel better now? I don't. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

10/29/2020 Girl Scouts Bullied By Leftist Mob For Recognizing Fifth Woman on SCOTUS

 

The Girl Scouts took down this supposedly political tweet.

 

Black people: DO NOT think for yourselves! Thou art black, and thou shalt conform in thought and in deed to the expressed opinions and mindset of your masters, the Democratic Party. You will vote for Joe Biden. If you don't, "You ain't black!"

Women: You, too, will conform to the will and whims of the Democratic Party. Women who do not do so are unworthy of praise and admiration! Justice (perish the thought that the title be real!) Amy Coney Barrett, for example, in adopting her Catholicism and incorporating it into her lifestyle, in growing a large family, can not and will not be celebrated for her so-called successes and achievements. She is but a puppet of backward thinkers, an anathema among women to be detested, de-legitimized and undermined at every opportunity. Eschewing reasonable thought, she is a danger and must be stopped!

Rapper 50-Cent (about whom I freely admit, I don't know jack shit) recently endorsed Donald Trump in his reelection bid. His ex-girlfriend, Chelsea Handler (who I don't know shit about, either), seems to have talked him out of it, though. It's a good thing! We can't have black men, especially black men with pop culture followings, toeing other than the company line. Candace Owens, Leo Terrell, Larry Elder, and other black conservatives? They're disregarded as "Uncle Toms", disloyal and to be ignored. Meanwhile, how in the fuck have Democrats made life better for black Americans, especially in our biggest cities? I reject the movement that presumes we are still the United States of Slavery, that presumes the Civil Rights Act of 1968 didn't happen, that assumes every problem and travail has it's "roots" in racism. Black people, I urge you: don't think my way. Don't think their way. Think for yourselves! Assess and form your opinion free from thoughts you're conditioned to have.

The Girl Scouts of America put up a tweet the other day, celebrating Justice Amy Coney Barrett as just the 5th woman to be elevated as a Supreme Court Justice. The angry mob of thought controllers assaulted the Girl Scouts with a short but relentless barrage of complaints that they had the nerve to take the political stance they did, celebrating someone as loathsome as Barrett. Barrett, after all, is pro life, pro family, and naming her to the court could threaten abortion. Acquiescing to the mob, the Girl Scouts took down the tweet and apologized. Similarly, I read reports over the last two days of leftists who were dismayed that Justice Barrett was moving into what had been Justice Ginsburg's chamber. Thankfully, Justice Barrett didn't heed their anguished cries. Instead she moved in, just as justices have always done.

I do not believe that conservatives have every answer, every solution, and stand forever righteous in all things. Far from it. And I will be goddamned if I will allow conventional conservative 'wisdom' dictate my opinions and political preferences. I tell you what, though. Give me more independent thinking black Americans, and more liberated women, women liberated from the women's movement, liberated from the control of men, and liberated from then right and the left. Give me more Amy Coney Barrett's and Candace Owens's,

And as for the so-called cancel culture, the cultural and societal forces that police blacks and women to prevent independent thought and opinions that oppose the 'accepted' norms and positions of the left's masters? Smarten the fuck up. Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason the people you loathe and chastise see the world differently than you. Find out why. Come to understand why their opinions differ from yours. And then, so me a favor: think critically, think constructively, and most importantly, think for yourselves!

10/18/2020 Polls and 2020 Things to Watch, Predictions 2 Weeks Out

 

2016 Electoral College Final Results

 

Why Presidential Polls are inaccurate (not just this time around, but in general, plus factors applicable just this time around, too):

1) It's really hard to develop a model that will predict which registered voters (RV) and likely voters (LV) will actually vote, and then predict on top of that how they'll really vote. In a given state, "suburban, high school educated males" might vote one way in the suburbs of the biggest city or cities in a state, but maybe not so in smaller cities and towns, etc. Same goes for "Hispanic females", or college educated women, etc. To predict Hispanic females in Florida, for example, we have sizable Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican, and Venezuelan populations, distributed unevenly in terms of geographic distribution, and each of those four groups of Hispanic women is liable to have it's own predominant turnout and voting habits. So, take all the variables, and each state's population and employment nuances, a model that will accurately predict the overall result is very complicated. If the model's no good, the prediction may not be very good.

2) Assuming a reasonable model is developed, it's a lot of time and expense to collect a big enough sample to accurately model all the complexities laid out in #1, above. 500 voters isn't going to cut it. Financial and time constraints, even coming from big named pollsters means that corners get cut. If the sample isn't adequate, then the result may be a best guess, rather than something the pollster feels certain of.

3) I read that 98% of people who pollsters attempt to survey decline to participate. You've got to ring a lot of phones to get a sample of 5,000 or 10,000 or more. A lot! Then you have to wonder if those who do participate represent the whole of the voting public very well, or if they don't. If the participants aren't reflective of the voting population at large, oh well.

4) People lie to pollsters. "Shy Trump voters" and people who will simply get a kick out of being dishonest with a pollster are really out there. If a pollster doesn't craft their questions carefully to elicit reliable responses, fuggedaboutit.

5) Pollsters often have their own political motivations in conducting a poll. Whether it's their own bias or the desires of their client, often a poll's purpose is NOT to accurately predict the outcome as best as the pollster can, but it is to influence the electorate. I believe we have been seeing a LOT of that thus far in this election cycle. The pollsters working for big named media entities, New York Times, Fox News, ABC, CNN, and other big names like Sienna, Trafalgar, Rasmussen, etc., are not immune to this. What I've often observed is that the numbers move in the week or two preceding the actual election, this is an attempt by the big polling entity to move away from the influence polling numbers they've been releasing, toward something more accurate to protect their reputation as a pollster for posterity, and the next cycle. Watch the polls the next week and the following. Are the numbers changing? Why? Most everyone in this cycle has their mind made up, and has for a long time. Big changes tells you that they weren't being straight with you to begin with.

6) National numbers are nearly meaningless. Saying one candidate leads nationally by 4 points is damned near useless information. We have an electoral college. That's how it works. Ignore national numbers unless the margin in the day or two leading up to the election is huge, like 10+. I've got news for you, it won't be. If a pollster is telling you it is, which of 1-5, above, is the reason?

So, what does Good Ol' Matty P recommend you watch if you want to get a feel for how things are going? Pretty simple. Biden is going to win NY, CA, IL, MA, HI, and several others. Trump's not competitive in them, and you can chalk them off already. Trump is going to win a lot of smaller southern and western states. A lot of them: AL, MS, LA, KY, TN, etc.  Probably the easiest thing to do is to look at the 2016 final map, which I posted, above, and think, "Which states has Trump got a realistic chance of flipping to red that Clinton won in 2016? Which 2016 Trump states does Biden have a realistic chance to flip blue?" If you take the sure bets off the map, there aren't near as many to think about.

Me? I think it will be close. Of the states that come in early, if Biden wins Florida, Trump will have a long uphill battle. Spoiler: Trump is going to win Florida by 3%, maybe more. And if Trump wins Florida, watch North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. If Biden sweeps them, it'll be a long night for Trump. If Trump wins 2 of those 3, in about any combination, it's going to be a bad night for Biden. If Biden wins Florida AND Georgia (he won't), Trump is toast.

As the evening unfolds, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, and Nevada may be interesting. Good Ol' Matty P thinks Biden will need all of them to win to win it.

Things that would surprise me? Biden winning Ohio, Iowa, or Texas. Trump winning New Mexico, Colorado, or BOTH of Arizona and Nevada. I think he wins one of the two, but not both.

 

Polls that I'm watching now?  Florida, but mostly because I live here. PA, MI, WI, MN, AZ, NV, NC: I think  the race will be won or lost there.

Pollsters I'm paying attention to? Big Data Polls (People's Pundit on Twitter and YouTube), Trafalgar, and Rasmussen.

One last word: all of the above is meaningless if we don't exercise our rights and vote. So, no matter who you like or don't like, who you support or don't support, which way you lean, get out and vote. It's too easy not to. And remember: Republican Election Day is November 3rd, and Democrats, your polls will be open and ready for you on November 4th. Just kidding. But if you fall for that, you don't deserve to vote, anyways.

Have a great evening friends! God bless.

10/17/2020-2 Confirm Amy Coney Barrett! A Most Impressive Person.

Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas. Brett Kavanaugh.

 

Please, let's not add Judge Amy Coney Barrett to that list. At a time when it's easy for me to be critical and jaded about nearly everyone who pops up into public view, this woman stands out to me. I find her to be the single most impressive person in the news 2020. She is extremely intelligent. There was no doubt in my mind at all that during the Senate Confirmation Hearings this week, she was the smartest person in the room. Answering all questions extemporaneously, without notes. She was poised and kept that poise, even when asked nonsensical and offensive questions about white supremacy and sexual misconduct.

She is a woman of family and of faith. While both of those things cut against the grain these days for a segment of our society, for me they don't. Instead, I see them as speaking to a woman of virtue and integrity. Sure, some apparently religious family types are in reality creepy jerks, but I got no sense that this lovely, charming, intelligent woman is a jerk of any kind, including creepy.

I heard testimony from a sight impaired woman who was a law student at Notre Dame who was not only effusive in her praise and endorsement of Judge Barrett, but who told how when faced with obstacles related to her vision impairment in law school, how the Judge, then professor, took ownership of her problem and quickly facilitated a solution.

A mother of five children by traditional means, Judge Barrett adopted two kids from Haiti and is giving them the advantages of a good family. Some people questioned her motivation in doing so. Ridiculous but true.

Amy Coney Barrett is a person everyone can wish to see their kids and grandkids grow up to be. Teachers can look at every student and hope they can someday be the next Amy Coney Barrett. I'm a huge fan. She is an excellent nominee to follow the beloved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She should be confirmed this week without delay.

10/17/2020 You're Either Part of the Solution, or You're Part of the Problem

In 2016 the media told us of a massive scandal of Russian collusion. They never showed evidence, but told us incessantly, Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. On and on and on.

 

In 2019, President Trump was impeached for asking the Ukrainian President about Biden corruption on a telephone call. At the time of the impeachment the FBI had this hard drive, which shows the specific Biden corruption that Trump was asking about, but they were either inept or corrupt and did and said nothing. Wray should be fired today.

In 2020 actual evidence of Biden corruption is out in plain view. It’s played off and ignored by the same media that hyped the Russian hoax. They’re not even curious about this scandal. And gullible viewers watch the news networks that aren’t covering it, and hear their leaders say that it’s “been debunked” and just buy off on it. Russian money. Ukrainian money. Chinese money, all going to Hunter who kicks it up to pop, like a mob captain kicking up to “the boss”. Who debunked it, dumbass? Who? Facebook and Twitter’s highly partisan fact checkers who blocked it before they even checked it?

 

More and more is coming out. It ain’t done coming out yet, either. One of Hunter’s former business partners is independently corroborating the veracity of the Hunter emails. As in, I’m a party to this email chain and I confirm it’s true. And the emails weren’t hacked, either, by the way. The computer containing them was left unclaimed at a repair shop past the date on which the repair shop notifies customers they will at that point take possession. Customers at shops like that give their password to the technicians so they can work on the device. People whose laptop it wasn’t don’t have their lawyer contact the shop to try to retrieve it after the proverbial shit has started to hit the fan.

 

If you’re not curious about the Communist Chinese paying Hunter Biden $10,000,000 (seven zeros, if you’re counting) just for introductions, and allegedly in return being granted access to the Obama White House, why aren’t you interested?

You should (yes you, damnit!) be curious enough at least to look past the names of the news sources and people (Guliani) bringing this forward, to actually peruse the documents and decide for yourself.

 

You may decide you think they’re fake because the Biden spokesperson on Rachel Madow’s show told you they’re fake, and that’s good enough for you. If you actually look at them yourself and you think they’re fake, for whatever reason, I at least respect you’re taking the time to at least look into it on some level.

 

Or you may decide they look like they might be real to you, but that you hate Trump so much you welcome Biden corruption into the White House. You’re a fucking moron.

 

Or you may decide they look real and you actually love your country enough to speak out about this to other, more brainwashed, less open minded citizens.

 

But if you’re so partisan, and you’re so uncurious because of what and who the sources of these revelations are that you don’t care to look, you are the bad guy. You’re a rubber stamp on possible massive corruption and you blatantly and you proudly could care less. You’re the fucking problem.