Open Thread January 13, 2021Mark Noonan So, they impeached him twice. I don’t think they understand how little we care about what they think. Trump had some remarks Jake Tapper is a very, very bad person. Don Surber’s thoughts on Trump. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:Like Loading... Related
I would echo Dan Bongino’s plea on the Glenn Beck radio program this morning that all the trump supporters planning to demonstrate across the country on January 20th, leave your guns at home — PLEASE!
I’d go farther and say, just stay home. Not to signal defeat, not to appear cowed, but to defang the violent paid agitators who will infiltrate any Trump gathering and—with great success, as we have seen—-initiate violence which will then be used against us.
My philosophy in a situation like this is that, in a tug of war where the other side has brought in the defensive line of the Chargers, the best thing you can do is let go of your end of the rope. Let them fall on their butts, in other words.. We have to come to grips with the fact that our bullheadedness in continuing to do the same exact thing the Left has learned can be used against us will, well, be used against us.
But when Trump defenders are interviewed, I would have them very bluntly say that we learned a valuable lesson from the Capitol incident, which is not only will peaceful demonstrators (I would NOT use the word “protesters”) be infiltrated by troublemakers, the Agenda Media and the gullible public will jump on the ensuing violence as if it was really the fault of the Trump supporters. I would pull no punches. I would say that we have seen, with our own eyes, how many people can read or hear the word “peaceful” and come to the conclusion it really meant “violent” and we realize we can’t really deal with that kind of mentality. That we realize we now have more than 200 members of Congress whose mental filters have distorted plain words into emotional interpretations that are unrelated to what was actually said, and that the Left will happily build on this foundation of irrationality to further smear not just the president but those who support him.
I think that refusing to provide another platform for the Left and the squishes who claim to be on the Right to fabricate even more lies and accusations would be the smart thing to do—-not to quit fighting, but to put them off balance by moving the fight into a different arena.
If people truly want to gather, then I suggest doing it in ways harder to penetrate by the Left, like motorcades and boat parades. I would absolutely avoid marches, gatherings of people on foot, in favor of some form of visible support that are vulnerable to the kind of infiltration and incitement we saw last week.
I’d be quite happy to see 20 or 30 million people around the country organizing multi-mile motorcades with flags and with banners saying INFILTRATE THIS ANTIFA! I’d fill my fuel tank and join them.
But the key to this would be the media explanation for this change of tactic. It would be flooding all media—-TV, radio, print and online—-with the same message that as long as we have people so gullible they can be convinced that a multi-million-member movement that has never been violent suddenly did a 180 and adopted the well-known tactics of the Left in initiating violence and vandalism we have to avoid situations that make it easy for these paid agitators to infiltrate our ranks and further confuse and mislead them. That if more of the public could see through the lies, we we could engage in our Constitutional right to peaceably gather and make our voices heard, but as long as the Agenda Media control the narrative and millions of people blindly accept their lies we have to adapt to their strategy. Therefore, we are making it harder for Antifa to penetrate our ranks and cause trouble the gullible or the mendacious can blame on us—-so far at least the Left isn’t equipping its paid agitators with cars and boats.
Not that I think the Right will ever stand back, take a 1000-meter view of things and make necessary changes in narrative or behavior. Why start now?
Amazon: We have to come to grips with the fact that our bullheadedness in continuing to do the same exact thing the Left has learned can be used against us will, well, be used against us.
As much as I admire that sentiment, I have to ask: does that apply to Trump himself?
In this case, yes. So go do that twirly little victory dance you hardly ever get to do. I already posted a more detailed opinion of how one of Trump’s biggest assets, the eagerness of people to get out and publicly support him, has turned into one of his greatest weaknesses as it has created a venue for the Left to insert agitators and inciters into those groups to try to create the impression that it is Trump supporter who are creating problems. I think someone, including Trump, should have seen this developing and shifted strategy, to deprive the vicious Left of an easy target.
Amazon: If people truly want to gather, then I suggest doing it in ways harder to penetrate by the Left, like motorcades and boat parades.
Boat parades!!! Absolutely! I have not heard a more reasonable suggestion in the last… well…. 24 hours at least.
And no one named “Amazon” posts here. Again, try to keep your facts straight
Amazon: And no one named “Amazon” posts here.
I can’t imagine who I meant. Either way, you can’t possibly tell me you are offended. That would be too poetic.
Offended? My goodness, if I were to become offended every time you post something stupid I wouldn’t have time for anything else. You showing lack of respect for my name is just another reason for the opinion we have of you here.
You showing lack of respect for my name is just another reason for the opinion we have of you here.
Come on — you ARE an AMAZON — own it!
“OK” she admitted meekly, scuffing her toe in the dust while unstringing her bow, “I guess I AM pretty bad-ass.”
But the name Amazona comes from the time I beat some professional South American horse trainers at a national show, and at the party afterward asked “If the word for a man who rides is ‘caballero’ what is the word for a woman who rides horses?” and the response was that such women were called “amazonas”. I liked that, and it has been my nom du blog ever since. For some reason there is a certain mentality that thinks it is darling to mess with the name.
Come on — you ARE an AMAZON — own it!
There ya go, Amazon! I agree with Spook. No sense in hiding behind your femininity. It’s only effective if anyone cared. And I’m pretty sure no one here does. Just sayin’.
It’s always fun to see how long you can carry on before you stop even trying to make sense. Today might have set a new record for a descent into total babbling. From the playground taunt of “I know what you are but what am I” to the limp-wristed preciousness of “how darling” to simply abandoning any pretense of coherence, this has been a remarkably rapid death spiral even for you.
For some reason there is a certain mentality that thinks it is darling to mess with the name.
So says the amazon of ad-hominem attacks. How darling.
From what I understand, at least from Matt Couch, there are no MAGA rallies or protests scheduled between the 16-20 of January. Those flyers and announcements on social media are FBI, BLM Antifa related operations designed to lure patriots into going to “armed protests” at all the state capitols and DC designed to disarm law-abiding gun owners.
I hope you are right. I still think motorcades and boat parades and the like would provide lots of public support for the president (who does not have an * after his name, like (President Joe Biden*) without providing a way for Antifa et al to infiltrate.
In the meantime I rescheduled a January 19 appointment in Denver, not wanting to get caught in some Leftist hissy fit in advance of the Biden coronation.
I hope it’s true, too. Something is definitely going on behind the scenes, though. The 10th Mountain division special forces have been ordered in, and 305th military intelligence division, the number of national guard has been upped to 20,000, all fully armed with AK-47’s, Marines are on standby, FEMA has been called up, and will be in DC. No inauguration has had this kind of treatment in history, that I’m aware of.
Amazon: I want to just say that though I admit I hope you are right. I still think motorcades and boat parades and the like would provide lots of public support for the president (who does not have an * after his name…”
While appreciated Babe Ruth greatly when I was a child, I also appreciated Roger Maris and all of the trials and tribulations he suffered in the process of breaking Ruth’s all-time home-run record. Imagine what would have happened if loyal Ruth fans tried to deprive him of his record. Oh wait… they did!
Don’t expect anyone to pretend that mishmash of nonsense made any sense at all.
Of course, if someone came in with hundreds of sworn affidavits that some of those alleged home runs were not home runs at all but falsely recorded by corrupt officials, and home movies of balls bouncing off infield walls but the hits being recorded as home runs, it would not only have made sense to challenge the Maris claims it would have the only fair thing to do, regarding Ruth.
Amazon: Don’t expect anyone to pretend that mishmash of nonsense made any sense at all.
I expect that most people will be able to appreciate sarcasm — which in this case takes the form of absurdity in the face of absurdity. And boat parades… it’s hard to come up with anything more absurd than that.
No, you invented a scenario which you then presented as analogous to putting an asterisk after Joe Biden’s name to indicate that his title was questioned, referring to the asterisk after Maris’s name as the holder of the home run record to indicate it was also not universally accepted. If you don’t want to own a stupid and irrelevant comment don’t make one, and don’t then pretend it was just “sarcasm”.
Thank you for saying that, Spook. I know how you feel about armed insurrection, so I’m particularly pleased that you would take it off the table this time around. Thank you for taking the high road.
THIS TIME AROUND? Wow, what a weaselly little passive-aggressive pseudo-compliment. You must have been practicing.
Amazon: THIS TIME AROUND? Wow, what a weaselly little passive-aggressive pseudo-compliment. You must have been practicing.
First off Amazon, thank you for acknowledging who you are. But that’s really beside the point. The fact is, Spook and I have had many conversations, both on and off Blogsfor, about his propensity to advocate armed insurrection. I would have guessed that this would have been the time when that attitude became ascendant greater than any other. And yet he did not. My comment was a response to that. I remain of the opinion that political differences should be addressed politically, not militarily. Since you were there for a lot of it, I can’t imagine how you must have missed it. But of course you are prone to ad-hominem attacks, no matter where the facts lead. In your particular case, I expect no more of you. That’s who you are.
Really? You just played “I know what you are but what am I”? I’m not surprised at this level of “discourse” after dealing with blog vandals for so many years.
I know Spook, personally and through his blog postings, I have never seen or heard him suggest that he would tolerate, much less advocate, armed insurrection. Of course, that is based on his and my and normal peoples’ definition of “insurrection”. That is to say, not the current Leftist definition of being caught up in a Leftist-incited riot that happened to involve penetrating the Capitol building in an action that never had even a hint of an effort or desire to affect the government in any way. And BTW, he did not “advocate” that either.
I’ve thought for a long time that we’ll eventually have a civil war of some kind, but I can’t recall ever advocating for it. Half the population has been taught to hate the other half beginning in elementary school and reinforced in spades for those who have gone on to college. That can’t continue without some kind of violent confrontation. That said, the vast majority of Conservatives will not, IMHO, respond with violence until it becomes inevitable that our lives and/or our way of life are in danger. My new slogan is a a very old slogan.
Spook: I’ve thought for a long time that we’ll eventually have a civil war of some kind, but I can’t recall ever advocating for it.
Okay, when you say you can see no other alternative except taking up arms in a civil war, would you call that “advocating”? I do. You just said it here, and you’ve said it numerous times in the past in numerous different ways.
Why would anyone call that “advocating”? Here is another word you don’t understand, but like the rest of what you don’t understand you don’t let your ignorance slow you down. Only in the fever swamp of trollery can saying one might be forced by circumstance to engage in an unpleasant and distasteful action as “advocating” for it.
You seem to think you are making points here, but as usual you are merely proving how superficial and silly you are.
Okay, when you say you can see no other alternative except taking up arms in a civil war, would you call that “advocating”?
You ignored the next sentence:
That said, the vast majority of Conservatives will not, IMHO, respond with violence until it becomes inevitable that our lives and/or our way of life are in danger.
To use one of your pet phrases, “put another way,” we will not fire unless fired upon is NOT advocating for a civil way. The Left has, until January 6th, owned violence as a political tactic since the 1960’s. The violence perpetrated by Conservatives in the U.S. Capitol was a fraternity panty raid compared to the left-wing violence we saw across the country all summer long. In spite of this complete lapse in judgement by some on the Right, I have little doubt that the coming civil war will be started by Leftists.
Fun times ahead.
I wonder if any on the impotent and incoherent Right will pick up on this and define “RESET”.
Here is where one of those half-hour or hour-long shows I have been talking about using GOP money to fund would come in handy.. Run one several times a day on several commercial cable stations showing the history of such language as the Left has taken over governments, imposed tyranny, stripped people of their rights and either silenced or punished all opposing voices.
I think that two weeks or so of such a show would build up word of mouth to the point that a prime time slot could be bought, if a network would agree to run it.
Has anyone here gotten the COVID vaccine? The reason I ask is that my granddaughter sent me a link from her phone yesterday from the local news media announcing vaccinations for people 70 and older in Indiana. The first couple weeks have been for 80 and older and first responders. I clicked on the link and was directed to the closest vaccination site, which turned out to be our local county health department about 10 minutes from our house. I clicked on register and received a message that said, due to overwhelming response, their system was down and to try again later. I tried again this morning and received a message that all available appointment slots were filled.
Yesterday I met a young woman—well, young compared to me, probably in her early 40s—who had just received her second vaccination shot. She is a doctor, which might account for her ability to get not just one but two vaccinations in such a short period of time.
I don’t see many reasons to get vaccinated, given the messages that (1) any protection will be temporary and (2) we have to keep wearing our ineffective and annoying face diapers anyway. Under the iron fist of Dr. Fauci and the trembling hand of Joe Biden we will still not be able to open businesses or function like people instead of livestock herded into panic pens, so unless and until vaccinations are defined as the way out of the government-generated controls we are living under now they seem to be more symbolic than anything.
I haven’t gotten the vaccine. I think I’ll pass on getting it. I’ve seen some people on video who purportedly got the vaccine, who developed some very debilitating neurological symptoms/side effects after taking it. I said, no that ain’t for me.
I was sick twice this past fall, with terrible flu symptoms. Once in September, and the second was in early December. That last one I had lasted about a week, but I coughed phlegm for a month afterwards. I had never had that before. One to last that long, anyhow. And during the summer I caught the Lyme disease, out walking through the woods, and got a little ol tiny deer tick on my side, the thing actually died after it had buried its head into my flesh. A big red circle popped out around the bite site. I came down with a 105 temperature in 95 degree weather, and all I could do was drink. I drank juice and water I’ll bet you close to 2 gallon in one day. Never went to the doctor until about a month later, and they tested me cause I told them I thought I had Lyme disease, they did blood work, and sent it off to the lab to test it, and yep it came back positive on antibodies, I went ahead though and took a course of antibiotics so I made sure and got it all all the bacteria out of my system. Just luckily I didn’t have the chronic Lyme disease, that messes up the neurological system. That’s really scary.
You may have actually had the virus. The symptoms are so wildly different from one person to another it is hard to tell. I am pretty sure I did, but my symptoms were just debilitating fatigue for a few days accompanied by muscle aches, and it was only the onset, a few months later, of changes to my taste and smell that confirmed my suspicion that that was what I had. I met a man in Wyoming with the same odd taste change—neither of us can enjoy hot coffee any more, but I like iced coffee and he now likes Frappucino. He was sick for about three weeks last Christmas, in bed and miserable, and his doctor said it wasn’t really the flu but he should treat it like the flu. Some people have digestive upsets, some don’t. Some people have respiratory issues, some don’t. I find it odd that what is supposedly the same virus has such different onsets, not to mention that supposedly this virus only conveys temporary immunity after you have it.
With me, I evidently spread it to a friend, whose boyfriend then came down with the exact same symptoms, as did the kid working for me and then his parents. There are also studies that say many of us are highly resistant if not immune to Covid, due to prior exposure to related viruses.
Ticks are nasty. I spray my whole creek bottom every year, twice if I get to it, to get rid of ticks and mosquitoes. I figure the deer appreciate it, too. My uncle had Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever that nearly killed him and left his face partially paralyzed for years and an old boyfriend had tick fever and then developed a massive abscess on his kidney that nearly killed him—20 years old, and he spent 42 days in the hospital before they were even sure he’d ever go home. What you need to do is figure out what it is about you that kills them and get it synthesized and patented. You might have super powers 😉
Glad you are recovered/recovering.
Thank you, Ma’am! ☺️I’m glad you’re doing well, as well! I’m sorry to hear about your uncle and old boyfriend, I hope they are doing okay now!
Would be something to look into if I have super powers, and could get patent on it. I would be a rich man. Lol! Unfortunately, I think the tobacco industry already has the patent. Insects are not too fond of nicotine.
I think I maybe had the covid, too. My neighbor had it, but her husband didn’t test positive throughout the whole time that she was quarantined. A dentist I know, he had it but his wife never tested positive throughout his quarantine period.
So, yeah it’s very strange how it operates. I know that dogs carry a lot of coronaviruses, so I just wonder about some people who have dogs, if they don’t develop some type of immunity to covid through exposure to their pets?
Your comment about dogs was interesting. When I had dogs, they did love their sneak attacks to give me mouth kisses—they thought it was about as funny as dog humor can get.
OMG Jeremiah! I feel for you, dude! Hang in there!
“January 14, 2021 (Ron Paul Institute) — Things seem to be working backwards at The Commons on St. Anthony nursing home in Auburn, New York. Vaccinating people is supposed to reduce or end coronavirus deaths. Right? But, at The Commons, such deaths are reported to have occurred only after residents began receiving coronavirus vaccinations.
James T. Mulder wrote Saturday at syracuse.com that until December 29 there had been no coronavirus deaths at The Commons. December 29, when deaths of residents with coronavirus began occurring at The Commons, is also, Mulder’s article discloses, seven days after the nursing home began giving coronavirus vaccinations to residents, with 80 percent of residents so far having been vaccinated.
Over a period of less than two weeks since December 29, Mulder relates that 24 coronavirus-infected residents at the 300-bed nursing home have died.
Is the timing just a strange coincidence?”
“A “very healthy” 56-year-old obstetrician has died 16 days after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
According to his widow, Heidi Neckelmann, Gregory Michael, MD, who practiced at Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC), was in good physical shape, active, and had no pre-existing conditions prior to receiving the vaccine on December 18, 2020.
Three days later, he noticed severe broken blood vessels on his feet and hands which prompted him to seek immediate medical attention at MSMC.
There, according to the DailyMail, he was diagnosed with ITP, also known as severe thrombocytopenia. Under this condition “the immune system mistakes platelets for foreign objects and instructs the spleen to destroy them,” and thus too, their function of helping the blood to clot in prevention of bleeding.
Though remaining in the hospital for ongoing attention, Michael died suddenly on Sunday, January 3, from “a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the lack of platelets,” Neckelmann lamented on her Facebook page.
“In my mind his death was 100 percent linked to the vaccine. There is no other explanation,” she said.”
JDGE: Three days later…
I guess that time-frame says it all. No one with any authority, as far as I can tell, has suggested that immunity can develop in 3 days — or anywhere close. You guys need to keep your facts straight. It’s more than a little important.
Reactions are not the same as immunity. Try to keep your facts straight. Not that it’s very important for you, as no one pays any attention to your silly knee-jerk opposition to anything said by a conservative anyway but it might be good practice in case you ever decide to leave the dark side.
Amazon: What? What are you talking about? I was talking about how long it takes to develop any level of immunity after a vaccine shot. Three days is not going to do it. THAT was my point. Duh.
And it was in the context of sneering at JD for his citation of the death of a vaccine recipient after three days, which was due to a reaction to the vaccine. Duh
As my 3rd response on this topic indicated, COVID vaccinations were not developed to create immunity but rather help lesson the symptoms. Lessoning symptoms does NOT mean preventing the disease from spreading or from someone from catching it. Negative reactions however have been occurring from moments to within a few days – from when the vaccinations was given.
This is one of the big deceptions of the COVID vaccination.
“While the vaccine is sold as a way to end the pandemic and return us to normal, it cannot, since it has only been evaluated for its ability to lessen COVID-19 symptoms, not reduce the risk of infection, hospitalization or deaths.
Spook: I clicked on register and received a message that said, due to overwhelming response, their system was down and to try again later. I tried again this morning and received a message that all available appointment slots were filled.
That’s been my experience as well. In the mean time my medical group assures me that they will contact me when the vaccine becomes available, probably in the next 2 weeks or so. I hope that’s true. But I have to say, I won’t be surprised if it’s not.
I like and respect Dan Crenshaw, and in principle I agree with most of what he said about Liz Cheney:
“Let’s get some truth on the record: @Liz_Cheney has a hell of a lot more backbone than most, & is a principled leader with a fierce intellect. She will continue to be a much-needed leader in the conference, with my full support.
“We can disagree without tearing each other apart.”
But my complaint about Cheney is not based on her having a different opinion than I do. It is based on a couple of objective observations. One is the obvious real reason to try to impeach a president who only has a week left in office, over something that is wholly dependent on personal interpretations of what he said—-for her to pile on in this symbolic attack on him which can be justified only as a way to try to keep him out of office in the future shows a crack in her much-vaunted principles. It is participating in the concept that it is up to Congress to decide who can and can’t run for office, —-not the public, not the voters, but a small number of elites. And one is the obvious lack of intellect shown by her inability to get past her personal animus toward the president and actually understand the words he used. When a powerful and influential legislator makes a big decision like going against her party, based on a personal interpretation of words that when accurately defined mean the opposite of the secret meaning assigned to them, this is a reflection on her ability to separate her personal emotion from objective reality as well as her obligation to represent her constituents.
I’ve been a Liz Cheney supporter and I am deeply disappointed in her. I expected her to act on the principles I thought I saw in her. to stand back and say, essentially “I wish the president had phrased things a little differently but even so I can’t really say I thought he was telling his supporters to invade the Capitol and indulge in violence and mayhem when his words were to PEACEFULLY make their VOICES heard”.
As a Wyoming resident and long-time Cheney supporter through two generations of Cheneys, I now have no confidence in or respect for Liz Cheney’s ability to separate her personal animus from her duties to her constituents, or in her principles, as she has firmly set herself on the side of helping a few hundred elites in Washington D.C. assume the rights and authority of the people in deciding who can and who can’t be our next president.
The Wyoming congresswoman, who wrote Tuesday “There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,”
How can we have any confidence in a legislator who believes that supporting a Constitutional process to sort our conflicts in our elections constitutes a “betrayal…..of his oath to the Constitution”?
As for Crenshaw, he has set up filters so no one outside his district in Texas can email him, and his comment shows the same confusion that seems to dominate the anti-Trump hysteria.
While the Houston Republican said he doesn’t like how some states conducted their elections, Congress never had the authority to overturn the elections in those states. He said the problem is some members of Congress gave Trump supporters false hope that on Jan. 6 they could change the results if they just fought harder.
But the effort on January 6 was not to “overturn the election” but merely to delay the Electoral College vote until after a ten-day investigation by a committee to look into the legitimacy of the vote certifications. Agree or not, it is certainly a valid argument to say that Congress DOES have the authority to investigate election fraud. My understanding of Cruz’s proposal was that the final EC vote would be delayed until a committee investigation showed whether or not the certified vote tallies could be certified as accurate—and if they could not, to kick these false certifications back to the state legislatures, which actually DO have the authority to certify or not certify, as well as to decide which electors to appoint.
Yeah. An actual orderly process of Constitutional methods of dealing with challenged elections.
Then Crenshaw, after his wholly personal, filtered, perception that some members of Congress were wrongly “inciting” violence by saying they were going to keep fighting for ways to certify the legitimacy of the election, put on his big bad macho Navy Seal hat and sneered at his designated villains: “All of the members who called for everyone to come and fight and make their last stand, all of those members were scattered like cowards while the Capitol Police had to do the fighting,” Crenshaw told Hearst Newspapers on Thursday morning.
This entire ginned-up hysteria depends on semantics. Some people see the exhortation to “fight for what is right” as meaning continue to keep pursuing all legal means to achieve a goal, while the internal filters of others read it as “go out there and engage in violence because that’s how we interpret the word ‘fight’ ” while the Left sees it as a way to create an emotional reaction to the narrative they base on their definition of the word.
It is time to stop the Semantics Game, time to stop assigning personal interpretations of words to support personal agendas, time to admit that personal perceptions aren’t necessarily the objective truth. And here I include those who make speeches, to avoid words that can be twisted to manipulate the emotions of others or even just confuse the easily bumfuddled.
I think Trump’s only mistake was in assuming that everyone understood his words to mean what he understood they meant. That, and underestimating the malice and cunning of the Left by presenting them with a tailor-made opportunity to create false impressions of the Trump movement. If errors in judgment, or application of personal perceptions, can officially be punished by prosecution, banishment, censure, silencing of voices and sanctions then we are all in trouble.
There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,”
Evidently using the power and authority of the presidency of the United States to use federal agencies to violate the Constitution by lying to a federal court to get bogus warrants to allow the administration to spy on American citizens does not qualify as a “… betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,”
Or maybe this was just a teeny tiny “betrayal” compared to that of encouraging citizens to continue to fight for the establishment of legitimacy of a presidential election.
What nonsense this woman is spouting.
Evidently using the power and authority of the presidency of the United States to use federal agencies to violate the Constitution by lying to a federal court to get bogus warrants to allow the administration to spy on American citizens does not qualify as a “… betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,”
Or running illegal guns across the southern border, resulting in the deaths of a border patrol agent and several hundred Mexican nationals; OR using the IRS to target political opponents; OR……..I’m sure Matt and Mark’s book highlights MANY more examples.
Amazon: “We can disagree without tearing each other apart.”
I’m up for it! Always have been. On the contrary, many years of evidence suggests you are not. I hope you are able to refocus your efforts on substantial policy issues, using a logical and factual basis.– which is where policy disagreements should be focused. In that regard, I think your backing of Trump makes it especially difficult to achieve.
Why are you attributing that quotation to me?
Oh, I see—so you can come back with another snarl about what a big meanie I am. Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhh
I don’t need to “REfocus” my efforts on substantial policy issues, using a logical and factual basis. That is how I discuss politics, though I usually prefer to discuss the merits and defects of political models and their effectiveness as blueprints for governance, as I find many claims of discussing “policy issues” to really be just bickering about emotionally based biases. I think it remarkable that you can claim this is a desirable approach to discourse, given your unbroken history on this blog for so many years of steadfastly avoiding anything like true political discourse in favor of simply sniping at the Invented Other of what you foolishly seem to think is conservatism. I have yet to see you present an actual idea, much less enter into a rational discussion of one.
Your evidently uncontrollable need to snarl about Trump and those who support him bears out the comment I just made.
I am so tired of supposedly intelligent, supposedly principled, supposedly objective commentators focusing on projected (that is to say, guessed-at) outcomes of decisions to determine which decisions to make. The fact is, a commission to look into well-documented election fraud is not the same as trying to overturn the election. In fact, if an election is proved to be fraudulent it can’t be “overturned” because it was not valid in the first place. But that’s not the point. The point is, merely examining the evidence in a formal legal forum is not only a reasonable action to take, I think it is a duty of anyone sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I contend that refusing to confirm the legitimacy of an election is a dereliction of duty and violation of the oath of office. Fretting about what might happen down the road, if the election results could not be certified for example, is not the duty of our elected officials, Or of our judges.
It’s this projection of a guessed-at outcome of an unknown but potential conclusion if a situation is evaluated that has led to so many very bad decisions, and using it as justification for simply abandoning the duties of office is cowardice.
I contend that a very simple criterion be applied to certification of a vote tally: Can this total be certified as accurate if there is proof that many votes were not legitimately cast? It’s an easy yes-or-no question. It doesn’t matter that there is no way to know who the invalid votes were cast for—-actually the inability to prove who got them or who should have gotten them is the whole point. If 4000 dead people voted, and 4000 people voted twice, and 4000 non-residents voted, but the official vote count includes these 16,000 votes, then the official tally of X number for Candidate A and X number for Candidate B can’t possibly be certified because there is no way of knowing who received how many votes, much less how many were not legitimate votes in the first place. Yet even really smart people like Kurt Schlicter have made the argument that we can’t discount those votes because we don’t know who they benefited.
And there is the breathless disclaimer of “But….but…..but allowing some voters to be disenfranchised by letting their votes be canceled out by bogus votes is so much fairer than disenfranchising other voters by not certifying a vote tally that might (or might not) include their votes. Because we have assumed the authority to decide which voters get screwed instead of saying hey, guys, if you want your votes to count next time then make sure you put people in charge who will follow the rules.”
You know who makes decisions based on a personal concept of what is most fair? Elites. Tyrants, either current tyrants or tyrants in the making. True conservatives simply apply the process, with faith that this will usually have an outcome that is pretty fair. No guarantees, but that is how the system works. You have a law, you apply the law, and you let the process work its way out.
It doesn’t matter if the outcome would change national election results, it doesn’t matter who would have gotten questioned votes. IT DOESN’T MATTER. What matters is that including them in the vote total means the vote total is compromised and cannot reasonably be treated as an accurate reflection of the the choices of the voters. Therefore, the vote total can’t be certified. What happens then is not, or at least should not, be the concern of people whose job it is to simply make sure that only certifiable votes are certified.
The duty of the officials is not to fret about how this might affect something else. Their duty is simple: Either have a compelling reason to accept the vote total as accurate, or admit the vote total can’t be certified as accurate because there is proof it isn’t.
Amazon: The fact is, a commission to look into well-documented election fraud is not the same as trying to overturn the election.
True. But 50 or so “well-documented” (actually not-so-well supported, which is the fundamental problem) court cases have not found that the “well documented” part of your statement is the major problem. Rather, they have dismissed cases out of hand for lack of standing — or worse, lack of merit. That’s the big problem. And it hasn’t mattered who appointed the judge — be it Democrat, Republic, or even more specifically, Trump-appointed Republic judges. I can’t say I’m surprised at the resistance y’all have to the truth — it has been demonstrated numerous times in the past — but I remain disappointed. At some point y’all have to start respecting the truth. Unless our democracy ceases to exist, you cannot win elections consistently on lies. If cannot embrace the truth, then you will be thrown on the ass-heap of history.
I voted for Romney in 2012. I thought he was the best choice at the time. I still think he would have made a very good president. But I cringe at how he’s been treated in the Republican party. For him and all the others who have tried to stand up to the travesty that has been the Trump presidency, I promise to redouble my efforts to rejuvenate the GOP and make it again what it used to be long ago — the party of reason, science, and pragmatism. THAT is the conservative way.
Judging “lack of merit” without hearing sworn testimony from eyewitnesses is typical of the distortion of language we get from you people. One has to examine the evidence to judge its merit. Most evidence was not presented, except in the most abbreviated form usual in a preliminary pleading.
Amazon: One has to examine the evidence to judge its merit. Most evidence was not presented, except in the most abbreviated form usual in a preliminary pleading.
Who is this “One” of which you speak? It sounds like you think it’s you — as opposed to the more than 80 judges involved in one or more of the multiple dozens of court cases that were tasked to adjudicate them. That’s where you bring it up — in freakin’ court! But apparently you don’t believe in courts. That’s not surprising. You don’t believe in science, either.
Rico, we know you are an idiot—you don’t need to keep illustrating it with comments like yours on your odd perception of how courts work. OK, maybe in ricoland there are no preliminary hearings, but out in the real world there are. If you file a lawsuit in a normal, typical way, there is a long and convoluted process before you ever get into a courtroom. Both sides have to go through specific processes, including filing of briefs, responses to briefs, rulings by judges on the briefs, and so on. In this process, some of the evidence that will be produced is outlined for the judge.
When a judge is asked to hear an unusual case very very quickly, there is no time for these leisurely processes, so there is a preliminary hearing in which one side has to convince the judge, in a very very short period of time, why he or she should agree to hear the case, and in which the other side tries to convince the judge that the case should not be heard. In such a preliminary hearing, the plaintiff does not, can not, present his case, except in outline form. He explains that he intends to prove such-and-such, with this evidence supported by that testimony and so on.
Now you might be having trouble with the word “preliminary” (as you seem to have trouble with the term “armed insurrection”) but that is not my problem. I understand it, and I understand the process, and as usual your ignorance is never my problem
Suffice it to say that in a preliminary hearing, which is not very long or very detailed, the plaintiff presents an outline of his case and the judge makes determination of whether he or she wants to hear the case. The wording is not about “wants” but that is what it comes down to. In the preliminary hearings the judges chose not to get involved in cases which would expose them to a lot of grief, which in terms of personal cost they could not win. And their excuses for bailing were often ridiculous. One was what I call the “Catch-22” excuse—that the plaintiffs should have filed a case against the state for illegally changing the election laws before the election—but the law said that no challenge could be filed till after the election. Then there was the SCOTUS retreat from their duty, claiming that states suing other states did not have standing, when the wording of the filing proved standing and when the Court is literally the only recourse in cases of one state suing another
And so it goes. If you can name a single judge in a single court who heard an actual, fully presented case. heard witnesses, heard examinations and cross examinations and took the time to analyze the full extent of the evidence given, please do enlighten us. Of course, you can’t, because none did. So please pack up your inane and silly Leftist blather and go away. You are late to the party. Others have tried the same crap here, others have been totally shot down, and no one has time for your smug prattling of lies and nonsense.
You don’t believe in science, either.
You mean the science of XX and XY chromosomes determining gender? Or the science of DNA proving that a person is a person, a human being, from the time of conception? Or the science relating the temperature fluctuations on the surface of the Earth to proximity to a giant furnace in the sky? Or the science of statistical analysis?
For someone who “doesn’t believe in courts” (one of the truly stupidest comments even from one specializing in stupid comments) I still helped manage a two-year multi-million dollar lawsuit, coordinating teams of lawyers, doing research, helping write briefs and organize questions for depositions.
You’d be funny if you weren’t so pathetic. You actually seem to enjoy exhibiting the verbal equivalent of reaching back into your tightie whities for nuggets of your intellectual excrement to hurl at your betters.
Scott Adams, popularly known for being the author of the beloved “Dilbert” comic strip and, now, Twitter provocateur, came up with a very simple way to gauge whether or not you’re currently living in a maliciously biased news cycle.
In a series of tweets, Adams pointed out six very obvious ways you can tell if you’re being lied to by the media.
“Here are six easy ways to know you live in a propaganda bubble and the Fake News Industry is malicious,” wrote Adams.
“1. The Fake News tells you Trump is “lying” about the election being stolen as opposed to actually believing it, the way tens-of-millions of his supporters do. The Fake News mind-reading act is propaganda,” he began.
“2. The Fake News tells you all of the election fraud claims have been rejected by courts. But where is the master list of all the (non-crazy) claims and which court rejected them and why? If that list doesn’t exist, assume you have been fed propaganda, not news,” he added.
“3. If knowing you are inciting domestic violence is a reasonable standard for impeachment, let’s apply it to every Democrat who supported BLM protests or now supports a mostly useless impeachment. Otherwise, the impeachment is just a Fake News propaganda enhancer,” he tweeted.
“4. There is no acknowledgement that the Fine People Hoax is still the most damaging Fake News in American History. That hoax is STILL reported as fact. That is pure propaganda,” he continued.
“5. When Trump won in 2016, the Fake News said Russian interference in the election was substantial despite all evidence indicating exactly the opposite. When Biden won, the Fake News told us Russia had no substantial impact. That is propaganda, both times,” he said.
“6. When the Fake News labels the Capitol assault a coup or an insurrection, that is propaganda, not news,” added Adams. “The mob had violent people, but no resources appropriate to conquering a superpower and holding it. That OBVIOUSLY wasn’t a plan. Reporting it as a coup is propaganda.”
“Maliciously biased”. Yeah—what he said
The Daily Wire does not claim to be without bias. We’re opinionated, we’re noisy, and we’re having a good time.
This blurb fails to mention that it censors comments, canceling people who are not attacking the evidently-sacred Daily Wire but merely having a different take on some of its topics and opinions.
Smug, self-righteous hypocrisy is never attractive, and to a conservative it is even less tolerable coming from a self-identified conservative source.
Yesterday “conservative” Ben Shapiro wrote: Last week, the Capitol was breached by a group of fringe Trump supporters who had bought into a series of lies: the lie that President Donald Trump lost the election due to proven voter fraud and irregularity; the lie that the Electoral College results, legally certified state by state, could be overturned by Congress or the vice president; the lie that Trump would remain in office if only some sort of armed rebellion were to prevent the election certification by Congress.
Those were lies. And those lies had deadly consequences
My comment was censored. It said I don’t understand the claims made in the first paragraph. We can’t know who won if we can’t verify the legitimacy of the votes but the proven “irregularities” and statistical evidence of major anomalies, combined with the sworn testimony of hundreds of witnesses, all lead to the compelling conclusion there was significant fraud.
No certification can be “legal” if it is not based on provable accuracy. That is what “certification” MEANS. If a commission to investigate the substantial and specific allegations of fraud, backed by sworn eyewitness testimony, were to conclude that there are proofs that votes cannot be verified then certifying uncertifiable votes can’t be considered “legal”. As a matter of fact, in most states if not all a false election certification is a Class 3 felony—pretty much the definition of “not legal”.
And there is absolutely NO evidence that any verified Trump supporter ever said, hinted or implied that “Trump would remain in office if only some sort of armed rebellion were to prevent the election certification by Congress.”
This kind of discourse is evidently not tolerable to the smug bubble of Daily Wire pontification. Who knew Ben Shapiro is just another snowflake not willing to expose himself to the heat of a different point of view?
I read Shapiro’s comment yesterday, and my first thought was, well, there’s goes another Conservative down the crapper. I wonder if he’s been bought off. If the events of the past couple months do nothing else, they’re going to separate the true Conservatives from the faux-Conservatives.
Exactly how would Dems go about doing this.
These are not fringe Democrats. Eugene Robinson is a front-line columnist for the Washington Post, and Nikole Hannah-Jones a columnist for the New York Times Magazine. I can’t even begin to imagine how they would proceed short of using the military to round up half the country.
I don’t know—if the deprogramming were done on a one-to-one basis it could be fun. It would be the first time any conservative would have the ability to sit down across from a Liberal and discuss facts.
Deprogrammer: We need to address your involvement in the Trump cult
Amazona: Define this please
D: The people who support Trump
A: Why do you call this a cult?
D: Because it is
A: Can you define “cult?”
D: It is a group that shares a common belief that is not supported by fact
A: Oh, you mean the belief in socialism as a viable form of government.
D: No no no no no we mean people who believe that Donald Trump is not evil
A: Can you define “evil”?
D: It is the opposite of “good”
A: How long are we going to be stuck in a metaphysical discussion on the definitions of good and evil? I have an appointment at 4.
D: You just have to admit that Trump is evil
A: Give me an example
D: He is a racist
A: Give me an example
D: He says racist things
A: Give me an example
D: He is a threat to democracy
A: Give me an example
D: Because shut up
We are so lucky that Twitter is monitoring the site for hate speech and incitement of violence. //sarc off
A former Senior Policy Analyst at the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health repeatedly tweeted that Senator Josh Hawley deserved to be “skinned alive and rolled in salt” for challenging the integrity of the 2020 election.
Kurt Schlicter, in his inimitable way, rephrases the question I have often asked here: Are the Libs liars or just plain stupid? In “The 21 Biggest Lies About Donald Trump” he says:
Here’s a question I often have when I think about the lies surrounding President Trump: Are the people spewing them cynical frauds, or are they impenetrably stupid real believers in the nonsense they regurgitate? Or has their Trump Derangement Syndrome reached the point where they’re certifiably insane, unable to differentiate the figments of their imagination from reality?
My take on this: In the Cynical Frauds category I put Pelosi and Schumer at the head of the list.
In the Impenetrably Stupid group are the Usual Suspects, like Schiff and the Waddler and most of the talking heads on TV, especially Joey and the Bimbo and Lemon among a lineup of equally unimpressive intellects. But here it gets murky, because the line between Impenetrably Stupid and TDS-Insane is so indistinct I think many, like Scarborough, are able to occupy both categories at the same time, just as people like AOC straddle the first two (forgive me for putting the image of AOC straddling anything into your minds, calling for brain bleach and bourbon) as she, like any good bartender, mixes up a concoction of cynical fraud and bone-deep stupid, shaken not stirred and garnished with a slice of goofy.
Newt interviews John Solomon in one of the most interesting podcasts I’ve ever heard.
The plot just gets thicker and thicker.
Karma’s a bitch.
I seen a picture of Joe Biden behind viking guy sniffing his fur hat, and the caption was “You smell like my Aunt Teefa.” 🤣
So much for bipartisianship.
So does that mean the Democrat Senators and Congressmen who raised objections to the electoral vote in 2000, 2004 and 2016 should have been expelled from their respective chambers, particularly in 2016 when significant riots occurred in Washington, D.C.?
Perhaps the people of West Virginia should recall Senator Manchin for pretending to be a good guy.
I wish West Virginia would vote Manchin out of office. He is another swamp creature, a snake in the grass for sure, trying to punish other representatives for refusing to accept a fraudulent election. Unfortunately, we are still stuck in a generational problem of being under the illusion that Democrats are “for the working/middle class” here, when nothing could be further from the truth. We do good in voting for the Presidency, as the map is all red, but when it comes to representation, it turns blue. Another problem is, we have people fleeing from these other states, and are pouring into West Virginia from California, New York, and various other places to escape the crime and high taxes, but to bring the very policies with them that led to them having to leave their state in the first place. So, I don’t think the future looks good for our state. I could be wrong, but we’ve seen examples of how influxes of liberals from one area to another destroys the states they infiltrate. How we will ever stop that, I don’t know.
I will say we have done better in the past few years, we voted in Big JJ, and Mrs. Capito, although Mrs. Capito voted for certification of the fraudulent election, which to me is a stab in the back. I’ll be forced to vote against her in the future, and I encourage all of my fellow West Virginians to vote against Joe Manchin in the coming mid-terms.
That is if we have future elections. We may all be under the thumb of a totalitarian.
No, pretending to be a good guy when you really a spineless weasel is actually a requisite to be a Democrat in Congress.
Mancin should be recalled for swearing to protect and uphold the Constitution when he clearly doesn’t know what it says, and then violating that oath.
But that takes me back to my soapbox of how oaths of office should be binding. The outcry against this included the protest “But who would decide if an oath had been violated?” I think Manchin, and many other Dems, are clearly showing us how easy that would be.
Has anyone else noticed that, since becoming President Elect, Joe Biden no longer commits verbal gaffes?
Or he now only speaks from teleprompters in short segments and any opposing opinion is silenced.
Another interesting point of view. Caution: Language
You know it’s really bizarre. They are erecting razor wire around the perimeter of the Capitol grounds, and the checkpoints are hummers with “M60’s” mounted, “saws”. Concrete interstate dividers put up as barricades, they are bolting the fences, over 25,000 troops, some coming from as far away as Puerto Rico, I think 200 from Puerto Rico. Military helicopters. Etc, etc.
Seems to me more like a maximum security Federal prison more than anything else. And is supposed to be a virtual inauguration? Something ain’t jivin’.
Actually the “SAW” (M249 squad automatic weapon) is a belt-fed light machine gun in between the M4/M16 rifle and the M60 machine guy. Still, I wouldn’t want to be in its path of fire of 700 – 850 rounds per minute.
Still, I wouldn’t want to be in its path of fire of 700 – 850 rounds per minute.
That’s for darn sure! That’s what I figured it was. The thing would literally saw a person in half with as many rounds as are coming out the barrel of it.
It’s a beautiful Sunday and a good day for a smile. I like Mike Ford, and saw a whole new side of him through this article that made me like him even more.