You Bet Your Life

Saw this post on Twitter which referenced Texas HB196 – which was an act introduced by Rep. Thresa Meza to amend Texas’ “castle doctrine”. The long and short of it seems to be to restrict the ability of a property owner to use deadly force to defend said property. As you can see from the Twitter link, the explanation offered is that a person shouldn’t get a death sentence for robbery. I’ve seen this before and I find it an interesting idea.

You see, it is Stalinist jurisprudence.

Now, Stalin likely didn’t work this out on his own; for sure things in Marx and done by Lenin closely informed Stalin’s criminal code, but as Solzhenitsyn pointed out Gulag Archipelago, the criminal code of the Soviet Union both disarmed the populace and required it to give every benefit of the doubt to the criminal. The ultimate result of this was that crime was rampant in the USSR. It wasn’t reported on and, of course, it didn’t affect the very closely guarded elite, but the average Soviet citizen was plagued by crime his or her whole life. This being based on the general Marxist idea (refined by Lenin) that crime is only the result of injustice: essentially, if you have more than the criminal, then you are the thief. I can’t say the quote linked above is definitely Meza’s: I haven’t been to track down certain proof. But, it is in line with her bill about the castle doctrine…and her bill is an attempt to bring Soviet jurisprudence to the United States. She was, by the way, a teacher and a lawyer before entering office. So, she was teaching kids and carrying out legal actions with her mind certain that crime is never the fault of the criminal.

This brought to mind the George Floyd case. Once it became clear that he was a petty criminal and was resisting arrest (and also was, apparently, high as a kite) the word went out, before the MSM completely memory-holed this stuff, that whatever Floyd did before that knee got on his neck, it didn’t warrant a death sentence. And, that is true: it didn’t. But here’s the real deal: George Floyd bet his life.

And then he lost the bet.

Floyd’s wager was that he could be a petty criminal and drug addict and then, when arrested, he could resist arrest and he would get through it with no serious consequences. Given his arrest record, he won this bet many times. On May 25th, 2020, he lost the bet.

The reality is that we all bet our lives all the time. When you hop into your car, you are betting that a fatal accident won’t happen to you before you get to your destination. This is almost always a safe bet but 102 people lose that bet every day. Still, low risk bet. Higher risk bets are things like skydiving or climbing Mt Everest. Another is being a criminal. Essentially, a criminal is betting his life that he can get what he wants without paying for it and nothing bad will happen to him. As in driving a car, this is mostly a safe bet – less safe than the car, but still pretty safe. If you decide to take this bet and rob your local liquor store tomorrow, you almost certainly will not die as a result of it. But you would be betting you life, and you might lose. You might have picked the liquor store where the guy has a gun under the counter and has a keen appreciation for his property. Of course, the more bets you place, the more you can lose. Place $5 on roulette and your possible losses are $5. Place $50 in five dollar increments on ten different spots, you could lose all $50.

Floyd made the following bets with his life.

  1. Be a criminal.
  2. Be high.
  3. Resist arrest.

Any one of them can lead to disaster. Doing three bets at once simply increased the odds that disaster would strike. It did for Floyd in the form of a policeman who didn’t take his knee off Floyd’s neck in time. To be sure, Floyd making the bets doesn’t excuse everyone else involved – the officers involved are under indictment and we’ll see how those cases come out (almost certain acquittal in my view: but, we’ll see). But the bottom line is that the police didn’t place Floyd’s bets for him. Floyd did. Had he not placed the three bets – or even decided against betting one of the three wagers – he’d likely be alive today.

As for me, I have little sympathy for folly. I watched not too long ago a documentary about an expedition to Mt Everest which was pitched in sad tones about some people who died trying to climb that mountain. All the tear-jerking narrative and somber music, you know? I felt nothing for the deceased. It was foolish of them to make the attempt. There was no upside to even a successful climb. There is nothing at the top of Mt Everest that any human being will ever need. I can barely understand why Edmund Hillary did it; but after someone had done it, what the heck possible justification can one muster to risk their lives merely to stand on a particular spot of ground? You bet your life to climb up to a place which has nothing of use and where human beings can’t live without life support? That’s not adventurous or brave: that’s just stupid.

And, hey, I understand striving for the grand achievement. This is why I can say that Hillary’s achievement was something – but, even then, not much. It wasn’t even in the same league as useful risks like Yeager breaking the sound barrier or Armstrong going to the Moon. Useful things flowed from both of those acts of sublime courage. What flowed from Hillary’s effort? Well, a picture in National Geographic…and about 300 corpses of people betting their lives that they could climb to a completely useless point on the map.

Congrats. I guess.

But at least the mountain climbers get some exercise out of it and search and rescue teams are kept in top form looking for them. Betting your life on being a drug addicted petty criminal? Yeah, not so much good going on there. Floyd’s death was decreed many years before he died. He could have prevented it by the simple expedient of not being a thief or not being an addict or not resisting arrest. He chose not to. He apparently liked his life as it was – and in that, I won’t judge. Everyone is to live as they please.

And everyone is to suffer the consequences of their actions.

And that, I think, is really what is missing in us these days: we don’t want to take responsibility for ourselves. Everyone has an excuse and it’s always that other guy, who played zero role in our decisions, who is the source of the trouble. That has to stop.

No, it isn’t a balanced thing if someone breaks into a home to get a TV that he gets shot. But it was the bet made: I bet my life against a free TV. This is not a wise bet, but it is a bet many make…and some of them lose their bet.

46 thoughts on “You Bet Your Life

  1. Cluster December 10, 2020 / 9:21 am

    Anyone who lacks Faith and spirituality will be afraid of death. Death is as natural to life as life itself, and death is simply a new beginning not a permanent end. However, this spiritual reality is not conducive to Government control, therefore the need to eliminate Faith and invoke Fear is essential, and that is playing out in real time in 2020. Free, Prosperous, and Faithful people are an existential threat to a large authoritarian government hence the closing of Church’s and small businesses this year.

    Granted no one ever wants to hurry up their expiration date, but I admire people who ignore that date and proceed to live life to the fullest. I once watched a documentary on a guy who was an adrenaline junkie who did much more risky things than climbing Mt Everest and he said something that has always stuck with me … “I can’t enjoy life unless death is right next to me”. Now that guy has more balls than I do, but I love the sentiment. NEVER live in fear. Fear is debilitating and paralyzes people from enjoying all that life offers. Another parable I like is that of Cochise, the Comanche warrior and Chief. When he would lead his warriors into the frontier to hunt or to battle there was always the chance that some of them may not return. Before they left camp, Cochise would cry out “Ho Hi Ka” … translated “it’s a good day to die”

    The worst thing that ever can happen to you in life is death, and death is simply a new beginning, so rejoice.

    • Retired Spook December 10, 2020 / 10:24 am

      I could not agree more. For most of my adult life I didn’t think much about death one way or the other. And the older I get the less I fear it. Like you say, there’s no reason “to hurry up the expiration date,” (love that phrase, BTW) but there are so many evil people in our society who, more often than not, are never held accountable for their actions, that I’d like to take a few of them with me when I leave this life. It probably won’t work out that way, especially since I’ve got an order in to die in my sleep (heh), but our civilization seems to be imploding right before our eyes, so who know?

      • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 12:19 pm

        Well, I am not ready to die—–I can’t stand the thought of then having to vote for a Democrat

      • Cluster December 10, 2020 / 12:27 pm

        That would be the worst part of death hahahahahahahaha

      • Cluster December 10, 2020 / 3:26 pm

        Agreed. I still believe that what free people are up against now, is worse than what the Founding Fathers were confronted with. King George just wanted to raise taxes and did not have the power Communist China, Big Tech and our Government have. Not even close. So what do we do? That’s the big question. I, like you, will take a few with me if it comes to that but honestly I think the tide is turning, the blatant fraud is no longer being ignored, and 18 States now have band together to fight it so I like our chances the democratic way. But that being said, if the evil people prevail, never give in and never give up fighting. Our grandchildren’s futures depend on it.

      • Cluster December 10, 2020 / 3:29 pm

        I will also say that there are 70+ million people who are right there with us. Did you see the rally in GA last week where 40,000 people were chanting “fight for Trump”?

  2. Retired Spook December 10, 2020 / 10:37 am

    I’ve said I think mathematicians and statisticians and poly-sci classes will study this election for years to come, and Jay Valentine at American Thinker agrees.

    The thing about conspiracies is that the more people involved the greater likelihood that’s they’ll be exposed, and I think the number of people in on the various conspiracies to steal this election (they had a plan A, B, C, D, E, F & G) is so large that some of the weaker willed ones are going to snap. And I think it all boils down to the fact that the Left grossly misgauged Trump’s support and discovered late in the game that simple garden variety fraud, ie., dead people voting, people voting twice or multiple times, people voting in more than one state, etc., simply wasn’t going to be enough to stem the tide. Eric Coomer, the VP of Strategy and Security for Dominion let the cat out of the bag when he bragged on Twitter (or Facebook) that “Trump is not going to win — I’ve got this.”

    • Cluster December 10, 2020 / 11:33 am

      Biden also let the cat out of the bag when he unwittingly admitted that they “had put together the most extensive election fraud team ever assembled” and that was the most honest thing Biden has ever said.

      Via universal mail in ballots in the swing states, to ballot harvesting, to Dominion algorithms it was quite an operation indeed … but they got caught

      • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 12:17 pm

        Biden blurted out something else that wasn’t supposed to be said out loud when he said, regarding the possibility of a serious disagreement with Harris: “…if I reach something where there’s a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I’ll develop some disease and say I have to resign.”

        (BTW, the frantic Agenda Media are now claiming he was “joking”,.)

        I have a feeling that a significant number of Dem voters don’t mind the fact that they voted for someone who will pretend to be sick and then resign rather than stand up for a moral principle.

    • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 12:18 pm

      I’ve been saying all along that if the DOJ or even a state AG would just arrest some of the people they know have been breaking the law, one of them would happily turn state’s witness and rat out the rest of the whole scheme.

    • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 1:11 pm

      I’m not sure why segments of the video keep repeating, but the core message is clear. This woman is explaining, with examples, how the machines can be used to cheat.

      • Cluster December 10, 2020 / 1:16 pm

        She showed that the “adjudicator” can alter the ballot in any way they want. And batches of ballots were adjudicated.

      • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 2:23 pm

        At first I thought it was a video of an actual vote counter. It took a while to figure out it was someone illustrating how the machine could be manipulated to get desired results.

        It is annoying when important information is presented in a confusing way. People need to do more editing and have a better concept of how to tell a story in a coherent way.

      • Retired Spook December 10, 2020 / 1:53 pm

        I’m not sure why segments of the video keep repeating

        It’s on a loop, so it starts over automatically.

      • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 2:21 pm

        The thing is, the loop is integral to the video. Instead of going to the end and starting over, it gets to the end of a segment within the video and starts over while the indicator shows that the video is only partly finished. I know that videos start over when they are ended but this one seems to incorporate repetitions within it so if you stay with it till it ends you have heard segments several times.. I think it would have been a more powerful video if it had been edited to be shorter and only run a segment one time, and then started over when the video itself was ended, instead of running the repetitions within the video itself. I thought that was annoying because the impression was that she was moving on to another point and then it would become clear it was the same point she just made.

        Mine had a hard time buffering—my internet is slow because it is from a satellite, and this is a common problem—so I had it running while I was doing other things and not watching. I would hear something repeated and go look and it would look like it was only about a third finished.

      • dbschmidt December 10, 2020 / 7:37 pm

        Worked fine for me and there was a notice on the web site that it was messed with and deleted but one of his friends made it available again.

        I am putting my money on, if Biden/Harris are seated, that Hunter takes out Papa Joe and whole shebang is handed off to Harris

      • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 10:15 pm

        …and whole shebang is handed off to Harris… and then we can finally get a definitive SCOTUS ruling on Natural Born Citizen.

        Remember, when the Constitution was written there were only two kinds of American citizenship—naturalized, and Natural Born, which meant born to at least one citizen. It was nearly 90 years before the 14th Amendment created Native Born as a new category of citizenship. A true originalist Court should rule on the meaning of the term as it existed and was understood and used at the time it was included as a criterion for eligibility for the presidency.

        Biden has always been a stalking horse for Harris, who could never even get close to the presidency without hanging onto the coattails of a man. But the Left needs to check off another couple of categories—female president and female WOC president.

  3. Cluster December 10, 2020 / 2:39 pm

    Things are going well in the Peoples Republic of Minneapolis:

    Minneapolis delivers on its George Floyd promise to defund police and wipes $8m from force’s budget: Shootings DOUBLE and carjackings are up 331% on the year as it’s revealed 160 disgusted cops have now quit or taken leave

    • Amazona December 10, 2020 / 7:06 pm

      Mark, you said Floyd’s wager was that he could be a petty criminal and drug addict and then, when arrested, he could resist arrest and he would get through it with no serious consequences.

      I think his wager was that he could take a massive dose of a strong drug and survive. That is the bet he lost. It just happened to be while he was in custody, held improperly by an idiot cop.

  4. Amazona December 10, 2020 / 7:48 pm

    CNN was perturbed that the Biden transition team rather than respond to their inquiry about their pending story, published a press release to spin and blunt their story. In the release, transition team, using transition team monies and a transition website, all paid for by the taxpayers then defended Hunter Biden and also published his statement, a clearly improper use of the transition proceeds.

    Biden’s not even sworn in yet and he’s already abusing power by using taxpayer dollars to defend his worthless son—and by extension, himself, as he is a major part of every crooked scheme Hunter is or has been involved in.

    • Cluster December 11, 2020 / 7:35 am

      James Biden is also under federal investigation so how long will it be before one or both of them confirm the “10% to the big guy” memo? Then what?

  5. Cluster December 11, 2020 / 8:57 am

    This is interesting

    The conservative radio host, predicted that some states may soon break away from the rest of the US and declare independence in his show Wednesday. ‘I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,’ he said. Limbaugh said America is becoming increasingly polarized between conservatism and liberalism, and the two cannot have ‘a peaceful coexistence’. ‘We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way,’ he warned. The only other time in American history that states have seceded was in the lead-up to the Civil War when 11 southern states cut ties with the Union. Fears of a deep-rooted divide comes as 19 states have broken rank following the election result, taking legal action to throw out ballots in four other states. Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a suit with the US Supreme Court against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia to have millions of votes thrown out. Another 18 states have backed the suit, Trump asked to join it and 106 House Republicans then endorsed it in a friend of the court brief filed Thursday.

    I’m all for it. Like I have previously said, never be friends with a Democrat. They will kill your buzz every time, and so by extension, who wants to share a country with people like that?

    Bottom line is … let’s make life very uncomfortable for Democrats/Communists and like Spook said the other day, take a few of them with you if it comes to that.

    • Retired Spook December 11, 2020 / 10:34 am

      I have a question for everyone. Maybe there’s an answer other than the obvious one, maybe not. If Harris and Biden are going to take office on January 20th, why would the complicit agenda media including CNN break the Hunter Biden/James Biden story NOW? They could just keep it swept under the rug for another 40 days, and it would quietly go away. The logical conclusion is that Harris/Biden are NOT going to take office on January 20th. I’m becoming more and more convinced that this is not over.

      • Cluster December 11, 2020 / 10:55 am

        Why hasn’t the slut Kamala resigned her Senate seat?? This is definitely not over despite the medias all out effort to coronate the pedophile.

        And IF the pedophile is installed, there will be hell to pay. Myself included, I have just read to many accounts of conservative patriots saying “oh hell no, we won’t put up with this”. And we won’t. The reason why this world and this country is in such turmoil is because free conservative patriots allow communists to live.

        We need to change that.

      • Retired Spook December 11, 2020 / 11:08 am

        Why hasn’t the slut Kamala resigned her Senate seat??

        I heard that the other day. Why indeed? It doesn’t sound like someone who is confident that she’s going to take office.

    • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 12:09 pm

      I think the reason we have reached this point where people are acting the way they do is because they can. That is, there have been no consequences for what they do.

      If Trump retains the presidency, I think he should invoke the Insurrection Act. Not necessarily use federal troops, though that would be called for in case of rioting, but in general invoke it to arrest those who have openly advocated for the violation of state and federal laws, and/or interfered with their enforcement.

      (1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
      to read as follows:
      `Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
      `(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President
      may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal
      service, to–
      `(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a
      result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health
      emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or
      possession of the United States, the President determines that–
      `(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted
      authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public
      order; and
      `(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
      `(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
      combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or
      conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
      `(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–
      so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as
      applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any
      part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or
      protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
      authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that
      right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
      `(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or
      impedes the course of justice under those laws.

      `(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be
      considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the
      `(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the
      determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as
      practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the
      duration of the exercise of that authority.’.
      (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended
      by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws’ after
      (3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is
      amended to read as follows:
      (4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the
      beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning
      of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to
      chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:331′.
      (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is
      amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the
      following new item:
      `333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal


      I would instruct the DOJ to indict any and all public officials who have violated the law, enabled the violation of laws, refused to enforce laws or in any way become part of the violation of laws. That would include mayors, governors, police chiefs and district attorneys who have decided which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore, including immigration laws. That would eliminate Sanctuary Cities and States, and bring the hammer down on places that condone shoplifting, rioting and so on.


      I would instruct the FBI to identify every person associated with election fraud and file federal charges against them. That is, everyone involved in the many episodes of illegal ballot counting, changing of postmarks, altering ballots, etc. as well as everyone who voted twice, voted while living in another state, etc. All of them. A law without a penalty is the same as no law at all.


      I would charge Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc with illegal campaign contributions and/or interference in an election, as well as the Agenda Media. The censorship of opposing opinions on social media and the hiding of information about the Bidens are all proof of such activity.


      I would thoroughly investigate Dominion and its associated businesses and file charges where possible.


      I would challenge Congress to pass an Election Standards law. While states are Constitutionally allowed to set their own election rules, I think it is possible to have an umbrella of standards which have to be met. This would include strict regulation of voter registration rolls, strict confirmation of voter ID and eligibility and regulation of all equipment used to count ballots. Basically, any state which wants its votes to be counted in the presidential election, or to put people in Congress, has to comply. Any Dem who votes against such a bill would be asking to be defeated in 2022.

      The country has been pushed to the brink of disintegration and it is the job of its leadership to pull it back and correct the conditions that led to this state of national emergency.

      • crewman4238 December 11, 2020 / 5:18 pm

        This is an amazing post even from you. Where to even begin?

        Let’s start with your so-called political philosophy. I see that you are perfectly willing to jettison your fealty to the Tenth Amendment when it suits your purposes. In that respect, you are not unlike all of the so-called liberals that you denounce time and again for having no political philosophy. You recognize that “states are Constitutionally allowed to set their own elections rules,” but you nevertheless argue that Congress should pass election standards in place of the states. You’re political philosophy is hollow.

        And then there is your desire to arrest anybody and everybody that YOU think did something wrong. Not only if you think they did something wrong, but SAID something wrong, in your opinion–that is, those “who have openly advocated for the violation of state and federal laws.” Wow.

        You write, “I would instruct the FBI to identify every person associated with election fraud and file federal charges against them.” Never mind that the Trump campaign has failed to prove election fraud time and time again, and in fact, in most of the cases they have brought before judges, they don’t even claim that fraud occurred.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 6:47 pm

        I hope you aren’t a smoker, because a spark around your army of straw men could be disastrous.

        1. A standard is not a rule. States can make their own rules. They can require voters to wear bunny ears to be able to vote. They can color-code their ballots. They can do all sorts of individualistic things. These would be rules imposed by the states on how their elections would be handled.
        Standards, on the other hand, are broad requirements supported by the Constitution, which says that all votes have to be treated equally. Therefore, if one state says anyone can vote, including non-citizens and people who are not registered and people who no longer live in that state, those votes are not equal to those cast in states requiring citizenship and identification and proper registration. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that no state can … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. As a presidential election affects every person in the nation, unequal protection of the integrity of the vote would be a denial of equal protection of the law.

        From Gore v Bush, 2000:
        Once a state holds such election, the right to vote becomes fundamental and the weight given to each vote must be equal. Compromising equality can result if the process permits more weight to some votes over others.
        The Court held that the state Supreme Court’s ruling for a manual recount is abstract and standardless and fails to satisfy the minimum requirements for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right of voting. Formulation of uniform rules determining intent based on recurring circumstances is practical and necessary. Application of different standards would result in impermissible inequality in the treatment of votes

        Get all pissy if you want, get all giddy because you think you have a chance at a “gotcha” but don’t bleat that my opinion is indicative of no fealty to the 10th Amendment or lack of a coherent political philosophy. I know that your obsession with me means that you are perfectly willing to make a fool out of yourself to try to make a point against me, but you should probably rethink that. And BTW, spend a little time with a grammar book.

        2. It is a given that any arrest would have to be based on evidence of wrongdoing. Duh. But if we have legislation saying that the federal government can step in with authority to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
        combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or
        conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
        `(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–
        `(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as
        applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any
        part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or
        protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
        authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that
        right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
        `(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or
        impedes the course of justice under those laws.

        Therefore, refusal to execute the laws of the United States, or of a state, is pretty strong evidence of—-
        refusal to execute the laws of the United States, or of a state. Final adjudication would, naturally, depend on a trial and conviction. But notice that I said “arrest”, not “imprison” or “punish”.

        You really ought to try to pay more attention. And read the words. They are essential to understanding the argument.

        It’s cute that you are still pretending that Trump, et al, have not proved any election fraud. But you know, when there is video of people violating election laws that is prima facie evidence that they are, well, VIOLATING ELECTION LAWS. Judges ruling to support political agendas instead of according to the law do not mean laws were not broken. It just means that we still have too many activist judges who see their positions not as defending the law but enabling their political allies. And again, read the words. “Arrest” means to take into custody people when there is strong evidence that they have broken a law, and this is accompanied by a filing of charges. Eyewitness testimony and video recordings qualify as strong evidence. Arraignment or indictment follow arrests, when a judge determines there is enough evidence to pursue prosecution. Then follows a trial, with evidence produced, testimony produced, and a jury acting as a finder of fact based on the evidence.

        Take a breath, take a pill, and try to rein in your breathless exuberance at the illusion that you have a real argument to prove me wrong. You just sound silly.

      • crewman4238 December 11, 2020 / 7:07 pm

        I’m not pretending that Trump et al have not proven election fraud; they haven’t. I read the decisions in the court cases, and I read the claims that the Trump campaign makes. There’s no pretending about it–they haven’t proved election fraud, and in most of the court cases they don’t even claim that there was election fraud in the first place.

        You can cite videos all you want. If they so conclusively prove fraud, why are they not used as evidence in court cases? I mean, this is getting ridiculous. The Trump campaign is something like 1 win and 55 loses in court. Are you still claiming that this is part of their grand strategy, that they are intentionally losing cases after cases in order to eventually win? When do they start winning? I’m still waiting for you to cite a legal textbook that describes the efficacy of such a strategy.

        As far as your claim that you advocate standards, great, go for it. But can you cite an example of a state that says that anyone can vote, including non-citizens and people who are not registered and people who no longer live in that state? And I don’t mean, oh, I heard that California permits illegal aliens to vote. Or I saw a video of non-citizens voting. I mean, show me the documentation that supports your allegation. Where is it in any state’s election laws that they permit non-citizens to vote?

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 7:12 pm

        What I just said about you getting goofier and goofier. Now you are claiming that if a state does not have DOCUMENTATION showing, in writing, that it is going to violate the law to engage in election fraud then, why, it just doesn’t count. Where is it in any state’s election laws that they permit non-citizens to vote?

        Now I’m getting embarrassed for you, and I don’t even like you.

      • Mark Noonan December 11, 2020 / 9:40 pm

        It would take months to get a court case together where you could prove it to legal standards: which is why the cases are all about providing relief under the other provisions of law.

        Now, will Trump prevail in this? Very unlikely – the Courts are always going to shy away from interfering in elections and, also, everyone knows that if they ruled in Trump’s favor, it would spark very bloody, nationwide riots by the BLM/Antifa types.

        But here’s your real problem: some tens of millions of Americans are convinced there was fraud. It isn’t enough for the other side to say, “prove it”. Democratic republics only work when nearly everyone is certain that the votes are fair. We don’t have that, now. If we are to continue as the United States of America, then over the next two election cycles, people will have to be convinced that it was free and fair. If they are not, then people will start to shoot their way into power.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 9:57 pm

        .. the Courts are always going to shy away from interfering in elections and, also, everyone knows that if they ruled in Trump’s favor, it would spark very bloody, nationwide riots by the BLM/Antifa types.

        That may explain why the lower courts have either punted or simply made transparently biased rulings, but it won’t excuse the Supreme Court. If the Supremes duck their responsibility then they will have contributed to the wholesale disintegration of faith in any aspect of our system. The Supreme Court is the last recourse we have for rulings that actually comply with the Constitution, and if it is controlled by cowardice then it is useless. The Dems won’t even have to pack it, because it will be a toothless impotent purely symbolic relic of what the Founders tried to create.

        As for the riots, well, if we prove the Left right—that is, that we can be intimidated into turning over our nation to a bunch of thugs—then they win. Trump, if he remains in the White House, could invoke the Insurrection Act, send in troops and round up the rioters in a couple of weeks. I mean round up, detain and charge the rioters, get them off the streets and in prisons where they belong. And without an election looming over his head I think he would.

        The Left, as we saw with the crewman, is claiming that if a court rules against Trump then that means his case was proved worthless. I was just talking with a friend about this and we concluded that this is just an example of the brain-dead Identity Politics mentality of the Leftist enablers. If a judge tells them something then that is all that matters, no matter what the facts say. They will not examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions, but just sit back and wait till their minders tell them what they are supposed to think. No one who actually examined the evidence could possibly conclude that it does not show widespread and extensive fraud on many levels, but we are not talking about thinkers and analysts—we are talking about puppets parroting what they are told by their Identity Politics masters.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 10:02 pm

        I just heard that the Court refused to hear the Texas case. So we can write off the Court–they have no credibility any more. We are unmoored and adrift.

      • dbschmidt December 11, 2020 / 7:17 pm

        BTW, the 10th amendment has become a complete clusterf**k thanks to activist judges.

  6. Cluster December 11, 2020 / 1:02 pm
    • Retired Spook December 11, 2020 / 4:36 pm

      Must have been the truth.

  7. Retired Spook December 11, 2020 / 5:36 pm

    There’s been some talk this week about the possibility of the country splitting apart into Red and Blue areas. Call it secession, separation, whatever. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck both mentioned it on their radio shows — didn’t advocate for it, just said it may be an inevitability. I know how I feel about it. I won’t live under Leftist governance, and I love where I live. How about the rest of you? I think most of us in Red states could live comfortably without Silicon Valley and Wall Street. I doubt that most of the Blue states could survive without the food and fuel provided by Red States. The only problem I see is that states like Illinois and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are kind of landlocked in the midst of a sea of red. They might have a tough time choosing which way to go. Maybe they could all join Canada. As for the rest of middle America, those who don’t want to work or live under the Constitution and the rule of law could take a hike. The alternative is that we fight it out to the death. It’s a no-brainer who would win that fight, but, in the end there wouldn’t really be a winner. And I don’t think it would be a long term split. I don’t think a Blue America would last nearly as long as the Soviet Union did.

    • crewman4238 December 11, 2020 / 6:10 pm

      I generally think the idea of secession is an absurd fantasy that conservatives engage in. But I have to say, given the way so many conservatives have shown their willingness to throw away democracy in favor of simply asserting that their favored candidate won the presidential election, I’m not so sure that the United States can survive under those conditions. It is obvious that the only thing conservatives want to conserve is their power. It is sad and shameful, but here we are. We can’t have a democratic republic under these conditions.

      As for whether the so-called blue states could survive without the red ones, again you are living in a fantasy world. California produces more agricultural products than any other state in the union by almost a 2-to-1 margin. You also seem to think that Texas will remain a red state. The evidence shows that it becomes less blue every election cycle. By the time we ever got around to the real possibility of session, Texas probably would be blue.

      In any event, this is just fantasy thinking. The real problem we have right now is that so many conservatives are willing to trash an election in order to put their preferred candidate in office. That is truly a threat to the United States as we know it.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 6:54 pm

        The real problem we have right now is that so many conservatives are willing to trash an election in order to put their preferred candidate in office. That is truly a threat to the United States as we know it.

        What utter nonsense, but so typical of a Leftist, which demands constant redefinition of terms in efforts to sound at least remotely reasonable. So now, though the election has not been determined, the Left is howling that the Right is “trying to overturn it”. And now you are redefining efforts to protect the integrity of the electoral process as being “willing to trash” it.

        That is part of the analysis of the quotation I cited. The other part is the blatant screeching hypocrisy, as you are defending the undermining of our entire electoral process because if it is successful it will put YOUR desired candidate in office.

        I’m not going to go into the hundreds and hundreds of examples of illegal and fraudulent activities on the part of Democrats in an effort to steal this election. I am sure you have seen a lot of them described in detail. Suffice it to say they are now public knowledge, and will remain so, even if the Left is successful in putting Biden/Harris in the White House, and they will not only haunt that administration for as long as it lasts they will end up doing more damage to the Left and its growing influence on America than any of you hate-blinded loyalists can imagine.

      • crewman4238 December 11, 2020 / 6:56 pm

        First of all, I don’t have any overlords. Second, show me all the court cases that the Clinton campaign mounted to overturn the 2016 election. Show me all of the state attorneys general who went to court to overturn the results of the 2016 election in other states. Show me all of the congressmen and senators who signed on to overturning the 2016 election and rejected the votes of millions of Americans.

        The only thing conservatives want to conserve anymore is their power. Period.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 7:09 pm

        Oh, wahhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhh. Are you truly as stupid as you sound? (Ooops, sorry—that question answers itself.)

        No, the Democrats did not go to court with evidence of vote tampering in the 2016 election, because Trump won in spite of efforts to influence the election by the Dems. Perhaps you have not noticed that the election tampering in that election, while it included the Usual Suspects of dead people voting, etc. focused on Clinton collusion with Russian agents to try to get false information about Trump spread around to hurt his chances of election, as well as the Obama regime weaponizing federal agencies (also sometimes in collusion with foreign agents) to spy on and set up and frame Trump supporters. Then there was the charade of the “impeachment” in which a Dem activist changed the rules of the Intelligence Community whistleblower regulations to allow third party testimony by someone who had received a fabricated account of a classified Trump phone conversation from a military officer who violated the Espionage Act to do so.

        And you have the unmitigated gall to claim that the Clintons trying to avoid legal scrutiny for their many misdeeds and breaking of many laws by not filing court cases is somehow proof of their moral rectitude?

        You just get goofier and goofier.

      • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 7:01 pm

        I think cryboy is just another example of the willingness of Leftist supporters and enablers to make utter fools of themselves if they think they might score a point or so by doing so. Of course, all they ever do is point out that they have no self-respect as they beclown themselves by parroting stupidity.

        They remind me of people who think they can sing, and are blissfully unaware of the real noise they are making. Today one of the talk show hosts played a montage of talking heads declaring that there was no election fraud, no Biden scandal, and even though I have no use for these people I still felt embarrassed for them. Leslie Stahl may never live down her chiding of President Trump as she claimed there IS no “Biden scandal”. It couldn’t happen to a better candidate.

  8. dbschmidt December 11, 2020 / 7:07 pm

    Bacterial pneumonia was the #1 cause of death during the Spanish Flu. It was caused by masks and Dr. Fauci wrote a paper about it.

    There is also a post by @DC_Draino that I want to check…
    “Today in the Pennsylvania election hearings, we learned that 1.8 million ballots were mailed out for the 2020 election. Do you know how many were counted? 2.5 million.

    • Amazona December 11, 2020 / 7:18 pm

      But….but…. DB, there is no documentation that Pennsylvania has a rule that no more votes can be cast than ballots were issued, so according to cryboy that doesn’t mean anything.

      This is why we ask blog administration to block posts from these clowns, All they want to do is bicker, and they will start off with something that has a tiny scintilla of something that could be a legitimate idea just to start the ball rolling. It only takes a post or two till they are in full bicker mode, saying the stupidest and most insane things just to try to get people to respond. There is no seriousness, there are no ideas, there is no legitimacy to any of it. It’s just to get clicks and keep a “conversation” going as long as possible. It’s what trolls do, and they will say anything to try to keep it up.

Comments are closed.