The map above just about sums it up. It shows the 2016 presidential election results if only women voted.
To be fair, I think the map is skewed just like the other election predictions at Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com. It’s hard to believe that consistently red states like Alaska, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas would all swing to Democrats.
FiveThirtyEight was biased for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and the bias continues. The data is based on polls that are biased. And polls are not the election. Silver obviously hates Donald Trump, so it’s not surprising he’s willing to use his platform to give Clinton an advantage:
Stuck on the tarmac for an hour while Michigan State lost. Thought it couldn’t get any worse? Then saw this. pic.twitter.com/njoywn89Do
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 18, 2016
This is the map of election results if only men voted. I’d give up my vote if we could get this kind of outcome!
If Idiots Voted . . .
To be honest, I don’t really think women shouldn’t vote. Only women (and men) who are this stupid:
We already have a test, albeit not a hard one, to become a citizen of the United States. We need to implement a test registered voters must pass every four years in order to keep voting in local and national elections.
Some have suggested requiring a minimum IQ score to vote, but there would be more cries of “discrimination” over that than a test. Others have suggested going back to requiring all voters own property. But there are plenty of intelligent young people, working families, and elderly people who don’t own property who are informed enough to vote. Such a policy would also set the stage for Democrats to sell off half-inch plots of land in order to boost their voter turn-out. Keep in mind, it wasn’t until the early nineteenth century that property qualifications for voting were eliminated.
In addition to a test covering basic economics and reading comprehension, no one who is receiving benefits from the state should be eligible to vote. In keeping with the founders’ original intent, this ensures that only those with a “stake in society” will have a say in its policies and that there will only be “representation with taxation.” Those receiving Social Security and Medicare will still be eligible to vote, since they paid money into those programs. If the fraud and abuse of Social Security Disability is eliminated, those individuals could vote as well.
Democrats’ Ulterior Motives
In Adios, America, Ann Coulter details how Democrats encourage massive immigration from non-European countries in order to build up their voting base. Their claims of compassion are just a ruse.
Democrats push for amnesty, which could turn the solid red state of Texas and its 38 electoral votes (the highest number after California) into a blue state. California used to be a red state (until 1992 when it went to Bill Clinton). Colorado has been a red state except for the elections of Clinton and Obama. Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Vermont all went to both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush:
Democrats know what most Americans don’t talk about: That although white Americans are diverse in their political persuasions, Hispanics, blacks and Asians are Democrats by wide margins:
And the more people Democrats can get into public housing and on welfare, the more voters they have:
These trends can be seen in the map going around social media about what the electoral map would look like if only various groups of white people voted:
Muslim Refugees Also a Way for Democrats To Get More Voters
Given that more refugees can be helped if they’re settled in the Middle East, you’d think Democrats would want to resettle them there. The Center for Immigration Studies has an excellent report on “The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees.” It reports:
For what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years, or 61 refugees can be helped for one year.
But for Democrats, refugee resettlement isn’t about helping the most people. For politicians, it’s about increasing their voter base and their power. For Democrat voters, it’s about increasing the voter base, as well as just stupidity and virtue-signaling.
For example, in the 2000 presidential election, 72 percent of Muslims voted for George W. Bush. But by 2004, 93 percent of Muslims voted for John Kerry. More recently, this year the Pew Research Center found Muslims are more likely to identify with the Democratic Party (70 percent) than the Republican Party (11 percent). Muslim Americans also say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68 percent) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21 percent).
With immigrants and refugees, Democrats get a double-win. Not only are non-whites and Muslims more likely to vote Democrat, but immigrants are more likely to receive benefits than native households, which means they’re more likely to be Democrats:
And Middle Eastern refugees have staggering uses of government programs:
If Trump doesn’t win, it may be the last presidential election that Republicans have a chance of winning. And as Democrats slowly take over more and more states and local governments, it means an end of the middle class and an end of the American dream—for Americans of every race and creed.