Finding fake news -- 3 million fraudulent Hillary voters (part 1)

Media are a wreck. In this day of opinion everything and cherry-picked facts, people are searching for ways to find their own information. We need to know how to source our own news, as most outlets aren't doing a good enough job for the nation. This will be a series.

I'm starting with the 3 million fraudulent votes claim, as brought to me by a random twitter user.

.@parentwin DNC-paid contractors were caught on camera admitting to it and three million votes of illegals have already been found ages ago.

— LyleRuderburg (@BetterGemsToday) November 29, 2016

I asked Lyle for citation, and he provided me with several links. We'll take them one by one.

http://sgtreport.com/2016/11/analysis-more-than-3-million-illegal-immigrants-voted-in-the-presidential-election-and-hillary-still-lost/

This is a link from the Sgt. Report, which proclaims itself "The Corporate Propaganda Antidote." The piece is titled: "ANALYSIS: MORE THAN 3 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS VOTED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION… AND HILLARY STILL LOST"

Most liberals stop right here. Because we immediately see made-up news and don't want to waste any time on it. But I want to go all the way through this, from top to bottom, so bear with me.

The piece cites a Tweet from @jumpvote, Gregg Phillips, the founder of the app VoteStand.

Completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations.

Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million.

Consulting legal team.

— Gregg Phillips (@JumpVote) November 11, 2016

It refers to VoteStand as a non-partisan group monitoring voter registrations. It continues by stating that illegal immigrants tend to vote Democrat (uncited). Then it refers vaguely to an interview given by Obama, just before the election, where he apparently told illegal immigrants that there would be no legal repercussions for voting, by saying "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself."

It then asks readers to get more information from The Daily Sheeple.



Let's start with VoteStand.

According to its own website, VoteStand is not a non-partisan group monitoring voter registrations. It is actually an app that allows users to report perceived voter fraud. As per the site: "The process is as easy as taking a picture and filling out specific identifying information about the incident."

It allows citizens using the app to report, via their own observations, voter registration fraud, dead people voting, felon vote fraud, absentee ballot vote fraud, voter intimidation/suppression, electronic voting fraud, voter impersonation, ballot stuffing (multiple voting), electioneering and misinformation.

It states that it "uses a high-level encryption inside the app, allowing information to get to the right people and make reporting voter fraud easier."

Nowhere on the site does it say who those people are, and what they do with the information, or how they investigate the claims.

That said, there is a group behind the app. True the Vote. It was founded in 2009.

It describes itself like this on its site: "As the nation’s largest nonpartisan, voters’ rights and election integrity organization, True the Vote exists to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of America’s electoral process. We provide training, technology, and support to fellow citizens so that they can ensure election integrity in their own communities."

True the Vote founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, told ABC Nightline in an interview that the group was non-partisan, but admitted to heading a Tea Party group in Houston and to making a $5,000 donation to a Republican organization.

This is not "the skewed news media." If you watch the video on the link I provided, you will hear Engelbrecht say these things herself. That is a primary source.

So, the nonpartisan organization's founder is partisan. While the organization may perhaps be partisan (which could be proven through staff and volunteer listings which currently do not exist), there is a conflict of interest at the very top.

All of this leads us back to the question of how a small grassroots organization made of citizen volunteers, and an app to help them photograph people they assume are fraudulently voting, allow Gregg Phillips to state that they'd analyzed 180 million voter registrations and found 3 million fraudulent ones.

Let's start with Gregg Phillips. His @jumpvote Twitter account has this pinned at the top:

So, he's not non-partisan.

He didn't answer my request to clarify how he got his numbers, but did answer another user who asked him to show his evidence by saying this:

"I have been consistent from the outset. I will publish all methods, data and analysis to the public and the DOJ."

The thing is, he hasn't. And when you go with news before you present your findings in a publicly accessible or verifiable way, that is fake news. Others may say they trust him, but in that case, they are using a system of belief over a reliance on facts.

So, there is no verification from Gregg Phillips about that 3 million voter fraud number. Only a vague promise of some later, followed immediately by several professions of him being "just a regular guy."


Randi Kaye, an anchor for CNN's 360, asked Phillips for an interview to review his numbers and make his case to the public, presenting his proof. His reply was that she had already decided, and so he wouldn't go on the air.

So, he's not going to show his proof for these numbers. Now, he says it's because CNN has already decided. Fair enough. And yet, no one has any proof of this claim. Again, people can choose to believe him. But that's a belief without facts backing it up.

But who is Gregg Phillips?

In his Twitter profile, he says he's "Founder: @VoteStand, The Cause, Time for a Hero, Voters Trust & Winning Our Future PAC. Board Member."

The Cause seems to be a curated list of voting related news, everything from The Washington Post to Breitbart. From where I sit, it's not slanted, providing stories of all kinds about voting news from all types of publications.

It also has only one issue (August, 2016) and the forward to that issue is written by a John David Phillips.

Voters Trust is said to be a nonprofit organization, but no trace of it exists other than citations from Gregg and Engelbrecht in conservative news sites like The Blaze. This linked piece describes Phillips' role in the organization that cannot be found, but its intent is to highlight a bounty reward that True the Vote was hosting for someone who could find IRS or Obamacare fraud. That bounty went untaken.

A link to another interview with Phillips was provided and it led to The 405; The Talk Alternative, a talk radio show website, which states it is a "independent and growing talk outlet covering the broadest spectrum of politics as well as pop culture and sports, including written and visual media," but also appears to be linked to the Common Sense Conversations podcasts and radio, which is based out of California according to its mailing address. A phone number and email is listed for the creator, but no last name. She goes by Beth Ann. The show with Phillips in it is two hours long, called Sacks Radio. I listened to it for you.

Within that written piece on the 405 site, there was a link to Phillips' Voters Trust PAC, which is also listed on his Twitter profile, if you recall. The link led to a defunct website.

Infowars' Alex Jones linked Phillips to Vote Fraud, a website that stems from 1996 and looks like it. That page, however, is linked to an up-to-date site, Election Night Gatekeepers. There is no information about who runs this site, although it is a pro-Trump site, which quotes Stalin right up top. There is a call-in option for Thursday, for those inclined: "Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7035, Participant Access Code: 938190#." You can contact them at Action@ElectionNightGatekeepers.com, Phone: 513-741-2095. Again, there is no transparency here. Who are we talking to and what are their qualifications?

Election Night Gatekeepers talks  in-depth about Watch the Vote. The first thing on Watch the Vote USA is a paragraph about how they forced the Iowa GOP to change the winner of that caucus in 2012 from Romney to Santorum. We have now reached the first part of this entire post that can be verified. I don't know if Watch the Vote USA had anything to do with it; but Santorum beat Romney by 34 votes two weeks after the state had been called for Romney by eight votes only. The New York Times has this cached.

There is no link that leads from Phillips to Election Night Gatekeepers aka Vote Watch.

Phillips also lists Winning our Future PAC in his Twitter. This is a super-PAC that supported Newt Gingrich in 2012. It's not been updated since, but the Public Integrity Project (Pulitzer Prize winner) shows top donors gave up to $7.5 million in funds; it had a Full Disclosure rating. That's a good thing. It means we can see all donations. It was created by former Gingrich aide, Becky Burkett.

None of this tells us anything about Gregg Phillips other than he's a staunch, active Tea Party Republican.

If you check his LinkedIn, you see he's the founder of AutoGov, and that years ago, in 1995, he was the Executive Director of Mississippi's Republican Party. In 1989, he was the Finance Director for the Alabama Republican Party. So he's not non-partisan. AutoGov is a company that analyzes data, and its star invention is CaseVue, a program that filters multiple patient data to determine whether that patient is eligible for Medicaid, ranking them as if they were getting a credit check.

CaseVue uses "applicant case information together with hundreds of additional bits of publicly and privately sourced data, then uses predictive analytics to assess the presence of risk, quickly defines the likelihood of eligibility – and delivers answers to desktops of caseworkers – all in real time."

It doesn't mention what the privately sourced data are nor how they are found.

AutoGov's other main innovation is GovBox. It looks to be the same program, tweaked for large government program eligibility--mainly social services. It was said to be used in Mississippi after the State extended Medicaid under the ACA to help hospitals there combat the expense of that program (ignoring that the state got a credit for that).

I said said to be because the press release does not name any hospitals in particular, nor does it state any start date for the programs they say are falling into place there. It's published on a site called Presumptive Eligibility, which is run by AutoGov, as another way to sell CaseVue. It was written by a Taylor Phillips.

Now, if you look carefully at GovBox, you will see that Gregg Phillips is looking for information on residents in states that might use it (I couldn't find any currently using it), specifically: Identity (Social Security Numbers), proof of residency, proof of citizenship, income, and assets.

So, it turns out Gregg Phillips is at least working on collecting data about residents of the U.S. for his day-job.

Since CaseVue is said to be in practice in at least four states already, the information on those patients has, at the very least, passed through Phillips' hands. I say said to be because I can find no news from any health related site or organization actually talking about CaseVue other than AutoGov itself.

Autogov has a Dallas, TX address on the site, and a Birmingham, AL address there. News briefs about the company refer to it as an Austin-based company.

Googling him brings up Give Time to a Hero, a failed crowdfunding attempt to buy a watch for every special op in America. This is touching and kind. He only raised $490 out of his $10,000 goal. He's found, much like everyone else, America gives money to conspiracy theories a lot more easily than they give to other people who do good service for our country.

So, that's Gregg Phillips. A guy collecting massive amounts of data through his private company, an outspoken advocate for the far right, and the self-appointed gatekeeper of voter fraud.

Nowhere do we see how he could have gotten the 180 million voter registration information he claims he has. Nowhere do we see how his app and watch groups found 3 million fraudulent voters.

Because it's not real. If you choose to believe it is real, you are believing, not relaying facts. I could not find any facts that backed up his claim, and I went about as deep as one could go.




Okay, let's just QUICKLY look at the rest of the piece he linked me.

"Illegals tend to vote Democrat" it said.

That would be true, as the Pew Research Center found that 31 percent of undocumented immigrants aligned with the Democratic party where as only 4 percent aligned with the Republican party.

So why isn't it true? Because undocumented immigrants don't vote. They're not allowed to by law, and as we just exhaustively went over, there is no evidence suggesting that undocumented immigrants vote.


How about when Obama told Gina Rodriguez illegal immigrants should vote?

I can see how this is being put across. Check out the interview.

Rodriguez wrongly referred to undocumented immigrants as citizens, then she framed the question around herself, a true citizen (in the conservative sense of the word.)

She asks: "If I vote, will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"

Obama is answering her personally. When he said, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rolls are transferred over and people start investigating," he is using the you are a citizen yourself as the disclaimer, as the clarification that he is talking about citizens who may have undocumented family members that they are afraid for.

I can absolutely see, however, how it could be taken as an if/then cause/effect statement when only part of the question and answer is given.

When a person hears, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself" as the article quoted, that has an entirely different meaning than the full quote. However, I would also posture that those who do not like Obama would also hear the second meaning given the entire interview. But that's not what he said.

So IN CONCLUSION:

I spent hours looking for the proof of voter fraud given to me by this link by a random Twitter user. And it wasn't there.

As of right now, no proven voter fraud.

I'll be back with the rest of the links tomorrow or something.

Thanks, Obama

Government shutdown? You can blame Obama. Sure. Many people do. There's a whole meme about it that I see daily. Thanks, Obama.

You can blame the Affordable Care Act. That nasty bill that provides women and children with the healthcare they need and deserve as a human right.

But the law isn't going away. Not even if every last tea-party Republican stomps around, throws shit, then holds his or her breath until they turn blue and pass out. Because that's what they're doing.

They cannot change the law doing this.

This would be like me wanting them to take all peanut products off the shelves, and they won't when I write them a letter, so I go into a grocery store with a gun and start shooting up the place.

Think about it. The analogy, as petty as it seems on first glance, works.

Innocent victims, no resolution, angry reactions, and no clear goal to the action itself.

Or, how's this one?

My kids have no power in their lives. They can scream about wanting soda at 9 p.m. until kingdom come, and they're not getting soda. We have a no-soda law, if you will. Yes, I love and respect my children, and I understand why they want it, but they're not getting it.

Now picture them flopping on the ground, pulling things off grocery store shelves, kicking, screaming and pitching a huge fit because I will not buy them soda.

What would you have me do?

Buy them the soda?

First of all, that's not going to happen. Secondly, if it did, who's the asshole? That's only going to teach them that they can tantrum whenever they want. (Not that I think you can teach these Congresspeople anything, but just imagine with me for a moment.)

Even if this shutdown could be remotely related to the healthcare law (which it isn't), having Obama gut it after this show of impotent toddleresque bullshit will only show Republicans that these terrorist tactics work.

Shutting the government down because you are in the minority about a law that has passed, its revision having been rejected by the Senate multiple times is not a solution to the problem you don't even have.

We live in a democracy. We voted. It passed. Time to buck up, kiddos.

Go back to my screaming kids in the grocery store. I don't give them the soda. They scream. Sure, many of you will look at me like I'm the asshole. As many people are looking at Obama like he's the asshole. Does not matter. At the end of the day, sure, maybe I could have trained them better, but you cannot train grown-ass adults, can you?

The long and short of it is, my kids' tantrum is going to inconvenience a lot of people. It's going to piss them off. It's going to annoy them. But it's not going to get them a soda.

The difference is, the "inconvenience" of a government shutdown because some people cannot face the reality of our democracy (Elizabeth Warren), is money lost, people out of work, the CDC, FDA, and other important organizations forced to stop live-saving operations, veterans without pay or medical assistance, an economic and stock market shutdown, children without WIC or Headstart, the list goes on.

And the Congress is going to sit back and say, "look what you made me do?"

I don't think so.

You did this. You own it.

Not getting your way doesn't mean you can throw a tantrum. It doesn't work for my kids, and it sure as hell shouldn't work for you.

If you don't straighten up, one can only hope your parents (ie: the American public), will put you in time out (ie: vote you out of office).

Maybe when you're not getting a paycheck, you'll feel differently about this incredibly awful, heartless, stupid show of messy power. But, luckily for you, by the time that does happen, at least WIC will be back in place, so you can, you know, maybe eat.

Thanks, Obama.



 

The War on Women Is Not about Abortion - My Story

Look, I wrote three entries here about the War on Women, and they all sucked. None of them will change anyone's mind. So, here. Have this. It's all I've really got that you haven't seen elsewhere and not cared about.

Here is my story.

In 2008, the economy crashed. I was pregnant with twins. We had just bought a house with 10 percent down-payment. It would cost us more than $235,000 all told.

Two weeks before I had my children, my husband lost his job. We went from a family of two making more than $120,000, to a family of four making $40,000.

We weren't married at the time, so I wasn't on his insurance, which would have been the ridiculously expensive and not-helpful-at-all COBRA anyway. My pregnancy was a pre-existing condition when I had gotten my new job months before, so it wasn't going to cover it. You bet your life I applied for Medicaid, and I will thank God every day that they took me. They saved me.

I had premature twins, and a ten-day hospital stay. A cesarean section. All told, that bill was tens and tens of thousands of dollars. Paid.

Thank you, America. I'm so serious right now. Thank you.

Meanwhile, my husband got in line for unemployment (it was so bad there was a line. A long line. For real.) He couldn't find work. He applied to hundreds of jobs every week in the beginning, then dozens of jobs, then a few jobs.

Not because he was giving up or lazing about.

Because there were no jobs left.

He would check the job boards. No new postings. No. New. Postings.

Medicaid covered the home visits I had to have twice a week for my three-pound children. It covered the girls' health needs for the first two years of their lives, ie: the twenty two months it took my husband to find employment.

I had the option of taking six weeks maternity leave at full pay or three months maternity leave on half pay. My babies weighed three freaking pounds. We had to feed them via tubes attached to our pinkies. I took the three months. And, can I just say, my employer was amazing. That's an amazing maternity leave here in the States. Few are so lucky as I was.

It was still awful. Half of my paycheck each week, combined with the small amount my husband brought in through unemployment, coupled with the massive mortgage that just months ago we could have easily afforded plunged us into poverty and despair with a quickness unmatched by the Flash.

This was supposed to be a joyous time, right? A beautiful time where new life entered our worlds. For me it is marred by stress, disappointment, shame and tears. And I'd look at those gorgeous babies day in and day out and think, what have I done? What have I done? I can't provide for you. I am a failure. We are failures. You deserve so much more.

We went on WIC. Why? Because we couldn't fucking afford food. And it was so amazing to have to stand in the check out line and sign those coupons as everyone else watched me, judging me. There's another one, they thought. There's another freeloader. Probably a single mom, just pulling the strings, using my tax dollars. Mooch.

Well, I wasn't a single mom, but what if I had been? Everyone deserves to eat. Everyone deserves a chance. These welfare queens, you show me one. Because I've never seen one. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am saying that being a single mom, or being poor, doesn't make you one.

I took a job closer to home. For the Catholic Church. I needed something. Anything. I looked to God. I did not find him there. What I saw there was greed and power struggles. Emotional abuse and meanness. I'm not accusing the Catholic Church of being alone in these things. This is the world. Unfortunately, even religion cannot escape humanity.

I had to pay out of pocket for birth control because Catholics don't believe in birth control. I never faulted them that. I chose to work there, I chose to pay for my own coverage. Because I was sure as hell not bringing any more babies into my world of poverty and desperation. But it did add up. My health services cost me $100 a month that I didn't have. Awesome.

And you could say, well, why didn't you just stop having sex then? Legitimate question. And in my opinion, the legitimate answer is that I didn't want to. But, if you want to get more in depth, how cruel is it to tell two married people that they cannot have intimacy because the economy collapsed? Pretty cruel. And with everything against us, my husband and I were strong and depended on each other throughout. And we deserved the whole package. Just like rich people.

By the way, if I had gotten pregnant on the Church's dime? No maternity leave program. I could apply for unpaid time off through the federally funded FMLA program.

When my husband finally found work, we moved to where the job was. With two kids who needed daycare and a market that would pay me $9 an hour for my ten years of experience, the clear choice was for me to stay at home with them, saving on childcare expenses.

Thank goodness I already had a credit card, since women who choose to stay home with their children usually can't get one these days.

I had no car, no means for making money, nothing left but my family.

And you know what? Little by little, we claimed it back. We paid tens of thousands of dollars into a mortgage at a home where we were no longer living before the banks allowed us to sell it back to them for a fraction of what we paid for it. We were able to do this before we stopped paying our monthly dues, and they foreclosed on us. Obama's policies allowed us that reprieve.

I found ways of making money at home. We were able to keep barely above water during the hard times because Obama's policies extended unemployment benefits time and again when we, personally, were in need.

Many look down on the extensions. Let me tell you something, it wasn't about allowing people to lose motivation for work. Have you ever received unemployment? Trust me, it's not a lifestyle choice people want to make. Extending those benefits was a real-world recognition of the hardships normal citizens were facing when the economy crumbled beneath them through no fault of their own. I will never understand someone who scoffs at those extensions. Those extensions saved us.

You may say, well, thanks for that little narrative, but you've barely touched on the War on Women.

Well, maybe not. I definitely interwove all the democratic policies that helped us. Know why? Because I am a person.

Women. Are. People.

But we struggle more. That $9 an hour I could make? Because I'm a woman. The cost of birth control? Because I'm a woman. In fact, being a woman increases the cost of health care as much as being a smoker does. Great. Because women have total control over their sex.

We need to protect the rights that others have worked hard to achieve for us. This is a real thing. If any one of the programs I used was not in place, I'd have failed. If I had been considered a second-class citizen, I'd have failed. If basic female health care had been denied to me, I'd have failed and my babies would have died.

Women are people.



 

Ways Mitt Romney Is More Juvenile than my Preschoolers

I think the title here speaks for itself. No introduction needed.

1) He rewrites history.

My girls will say, "Hey, remember when you said you were going to give me a lollipop?" When I said, "I'll give you a lollipop tomorrow after breakfast, if you behave."

Romney takes it a step further.

He'll straight up claim that the Obama administration is trying to spread misperceptions about him by saying he doesn't care about 100 percent of the people. Which, obviously, he does.

Oh wait, no. That was Romney who said that 47 percent thing. I saw the video.

2) He confuses words and their meanings. And he makes words up.

Sure, my girls use words like "boccki" just for the hell of it. Mitt Romney uses words like "misperception" when under pressure. It's misconception.


3) He cannot answer direct questions.

Me: "Did you go potty?"
Twins: "I really like Superman."

Candy: Can you talk about assault weapons that were once illegal and are now legal?
Mitt:

4) He blames everything on mom.

Did you know that the rising violence in America rests solely on the shoulders of single moms? Thanks for that insight, Mitt.


5) He says straight up ridiculous things.

My girls: "Mom, I'm a unicorn!"

Mitt Romney:

(PS - I suggest checking this out for a while.)


6) He has no respect for authority and will act petulant and rude when simply being reminded to follow the rules.

7) If he doesn't like what you're saying, he'll try to intimidate you. He will simply repeat things louder and more persistently than you (just like my kids), then laugh as if you're the asshole (not like my kids. A new level of immaturity even they have yet to achieve).

8) He uses really big hand gestures as if the reason you don't understand him is that you are incompetent. My kids also employ this method to indicate really big and really small. But it's for them not for me.

9) He'll tell you what the rules are, thank you very much.

Me: "Give her back the toy."
Girls: "It's my turn."
Me: "You just had the toy. Now it's her turn."
Girls: "No...WAAAAAAAHHHHH."

Candy: "It's time to move on."
Romney: "If he gets two minutes I get to respond!"
Candy: "You answered the question first and we have another audience--"
Mitt: "WAAAAAAAAHHHHH."

10) He will tell you with absolute certainty things that are patently false.

Girls: "I didn't poop my pants."
Me: "Are you sure? Because I smell it."
Girls: "Yes, I sure."

Romney: The President didn't come out and say it was terrorism until two weeks later.
Obama: Actually, I said that in the Rose Garden the next day.
Romney: In the Rose Garden, hahahahaha, you did? In the Rose Garden, the next day?
Candy: Um, actually, yeah, he kind of did.

Just shows you the kind of confidence he can portray about things he actually knows nothing about.

 

Image and Politics

~All the TV channels say Mitt Romney won the debate.~

As Americans, we are so obsessed with image and likability that we refuse to open our minds to facts, numbers, models, scales, or anything that could possibly help our nation.

This is a problem that has been perpetuated since I was a little girl. American history, the course we have to take eight billion semesters of, all we hear about is how great we are. But we're not. I mean, we are, but we're not flawless. These problems we have...they're not little. I don't know if Americans think they're stupid, or what, but start giving them figures and they tune out.

Don't count yourself out, Americans! You can understand this! You can grasp it. Have confidence.

But no, these days, if a gaffe-ridden politician can show up to a podium and not say something like, "I don't know why windows on planes don't open," he wins a debate.

Americans are proud of eschewing facts. They think it speaks to their character and judge of character if they "go with their gut."

It does, but not in the way we think it does. Obama is criticized for being the "celebrity President" but when he comes out muted with facts and projections to support his plans, no one pays attention.

Because Mitt Romney is doing his best impression of a bulldozer. Unfortunately for Romney, even with his repeatedly vague assertions, the fact checkers came through. For those still watching.

Something one of the PBS commentators kept saying is that Mittens won because he looked happier to be there.

Well, yeah.

He's got a shot at the presidency! Woot! I'd be psyched, too. Obama has to defend his right to be there. Not as exciting.

Plus, did anyone think that maybe Obama was peeved to be there because he had to spend his 20th anniversary talking to a Republican millionaire?

And talk about image, poor Jim Lehrer. Yeah, he had a hard time, but can anyone expect him to meekly shut the candidates up right after his job and livelihood has been threatened? You take Big Bird, you take Jim Lehrer. I'd be nervous, too.

Image means so much to us. Too much. And it frames everything we think about. So much so that when someone bucks the image train, everyone jumps behind them in a show of solidarity. They are so impressed with themselves about how image doesn't matter to them that they have to shout really loudly about it.

Just so you know, that doesn't count. Those people are just as obsessed with image as everyone else. The louder you talk about how awesome you are for embracing the little guy, be it the bus driver bullied or the new anchor who just broke all boundaries and kicked butt defending herself and her weight, it's still about image.

I don't know how we can move away from this. I just thought I'd point it out.

Anyway, for those of you interested in some specifics, here's a link to the plans brought up in the debate. (You'll have to click farther than the blog itself. The plans are in the links.)

Washington Post

Here's a distribution table, showing exactly where people fall and what should be defined as middle class.

(Spoiler, you're probably not rich.)

For those of you who don't really want to go through all that, let me bring you to my side the American way:

So, yeah, I'm an Obama supporter. Maybe I'll tell you why in the upcoming weeks. But it has nothing to do with gifs and macros and everything to do with policy and personal experience.

Whomever you want to be your next President...please vote. (Unless you're in PA. Free pass.)