They are starting up the Shampeachment – I’m pretty sure Chuck will bury this as quickly as possible. The only question is whether or not the Democrats can get more than 1 or 2 to go along with them in the Senate. Any GOPer who does will not be running for re-election.
One thing useful about being on Social Media is to see what the Bots are saying. These are the fake accounts which are paid to push particular notions. The Blue Checks live and die by these Bot comments. Seriously: if you go to a Blue Checks account and see who is commenting favorably on their drivel, it is often better than 90% Bots. And the Blue Checks simply gotta know that is what’s driving their Social Media clout. But, they just love their likes and retweets. Anyways, what the Bots are saying is what the Ruling Class wants them to say – and what they are saying is that January 6th was the moment America unified against Trump.
No: seriously. Stop laughing! I’m being serious here. That is what they are saying.
Of course, it is all a Narrative. The Insurrection at last exposes Trump and the people unite behind Biden and now we’ll go forward into our Social Democrat future. This is what the Bots are saying. It is entirely divorced from reality, but they are running with it. They are seriously acting like you’re sitting there in your home, traumatized by 1/6 and so grateful that Joe Biden is now in there to save you. So, that is the Narrative for at least the next couple years. The ridiculous Springsteen ad is part of that. Meanwhile, the other thing they’re doing is calling the GOP and bunch of Q-Anon Nazis. I’m not sure this bold strategy of theirs will pay off.
Joe Biden is opening up the border – which is part of his Clever Plan to…I dunno…get the Democrats to lose 60 House seats next year? Gun control and Amnesty: two issues which can unify the disparate parts of the anti-Democrat coalition.
One of the key things to look for after any Democrat political victory is to see whom they make walk the plank when the Democrats do what they promised they wouldn’t do. This year’s winner is Democrats From Oil Producing States. In this case, New Mexico Dems trying to survive Biden’s fracking ban.
Victor Davis Hanson on America’s Animal Farm.
The VDH article is brilliant, piling one piercing observation on another. His portrait of the new United Soviet States of America is a brutal and accurate portrayal of the success of the Left in “fundamentally transforming” this country.
We are now finally witnessing the logical fruition of their radical utopia: Censorship, electronic surveillance, internal spying, monopolies, cartels, conspiracy theories, weaponization of the intelligence agencies, pouring billions of dollars into campaigns, changing voting laws by fiat, a woke revolutionary military, book banning, bleeding the First Amendment, canceling careers, blacklisting, separate-but-equal racial segregation and separatism.
My comment to rico last night about him defining himself by his petty malice was based on long-term observation of the radical Left trolls I see here and in Comments sections all over the web. An interesting characteristic of this obsessive snouting around for something to sneer at is its foundation on the assumption of moral superiority. So it’s kind of entertaining, in a way, to see the scrambling to maintain this delusion in the face of hard cold facts.
Much has been made of Donald Trump’s wild years, with his indiscretions and adultery, but now the Left has chosen a man whose marriage is based on a long-term adulterous relationship, and not only that but President Asterisk was boinking the wife of a friend, even driving his slutty girlfriend around in his friend’s Corvette. And there is the uncomfortable comparison between Trump having sex with consenting adults for whom sex was a very public business vs Uncle Gropy grasping, massaging and tweaking the budding breasts of pre-pubescent girls, with the added titillation of doing so while standing next to their parents in public ceremonies.
Trump has often been accused of being “corrupt” but his business dealings have been investigated many times and no criminal activity has been discovered. Ditto for his tax returns. He made billions and THEN went into politics, using what he learned in business to be the most effective president we have had in more than a century. President Asterisk, on the other hand, never had a scintilla of success until he got into politics and was able to leverage his status and growing power to become rich as a politician. Even then it was mostly petty grifting, till he hit the Obama Jackpot and had the office of Vice President and the authority granted to him by buddy Barry to really make bank. It took the combined clout of Joe and John Kerry to get the right deals made, the right aid packages passed, the right amount of money rolling through to the right people in the right places in the right countries, to really pay off. He had to become “point man” for the Obama largesse to start piling up the dough.
All the moral posturing and pursed-lipped scolding about alleged “collusion” with Russia to influence the 2016 election kind of fell by the wayside once it came out that it was the Obama/Biden administration, trying to get Obama 2.0 in the White House in the distasteful person of Hillary Clinton, which had really colluded with a Russian agent to try to tank the election for Trump. Oh. The Dems actually paid a Russian agent to work with a failing British spy to concoct a fake dossier and then had its lapdog media “leak” it in an effort to discredit Trump. Not only that, it was the Obama/Biden DOJ that committed perjury and fraud upon the court in presenting fake “evidence” to back up the use of federal agencies to spy on Americans because they might be contributing in some way to a Trump campaign. So that Moral High Ground quickly became a deep pit of corruption and deceit—but corruption and deceit from the Obama/Biden regime, not from Trump.
The frantic effort to spin the massive election fraud of 2020 into wild-eyed howls of “SUBVERSION!!!” when the Right pointed out the many examples of out-and-out rigging of the election became a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the affidavits and videos and statistical analysis and screen shots of vote flipping and even the prior bipartisan warning to avoid using the voting machines now so passionately defended, an effort that just got shot to hell by a smug brag piece in TIME gloating over the many ways the Left rigged the election.
Now it is all coming down to control of the messaging, which is the new focus of the Left, They are realizing that the wheels are coming off their wagon, and the only thing they can do is keep the information as buttoned up as possible. For every ricorun who couldn’t care less about facts or fairness as long as he gets to wallow in spite and malice there is someone who is going to get pretty ticked off at being led around by a cabal of organized liars. So now it has become a war of media, of who can get what message out there most effectively. One problem the Left has is that its Agenda Media lapdogs are tired old faces, the same glowering or shrieking or glaring or snarling or otherwise overheated emoters the public has been exposed to for years now. They’ve heard all that Joey and the Bimbo have to squeal about, have seen enough of Humpty Stelter, and Don Lemon’s vapidness has to be wearing thin. There’s a lot of fertile communications ground out there ready to be populated with new faces, new ideas and new energy. And if there’s anything the already-moribund and tottering Biden regime is lacking, it is energy.
amazon: My comment to rico last night about him defining himself by his petty malice was based on long-term observation of the radical Left trolls I see here and in Comments sections all over the web.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but I think it’s interesting that you followed it up with comments about things based on very dubious facts, and presented with obvious petty malice. Poor amazon. You just haven’t been doing well lately.
I thought she was extremely civil in her responses to you. I would have just told you to go fu*k yourself.
Now, now, Spook—I think such carnal suggestions might flummox an incel like little ricky. Though it probably does reflect what passes for his real, shall we say, “experiences”.
If I were to spend any time speculating on what he is like in person I would expect Johnny Weir, but bitchier.
In all these years, and we are talking at least two decades, I can remember only one Liberal who seemed serious about entering into actual discourse. You remember this, Spook—it was the discussion on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. She pushed me very hard, and I had to do a lot of research, and at the end I felt that I had made my case but it was a stimulating and challenging match.
That is one person out of how many? Dozens? The rest have been superficial, not interested in discourse but just in dropping their little recycled stink bombs that had so impressed them on CNN or some other trash source, and there has never been even a hint of interest in an actual discussion involving contradictory information.
My comment was based in part on the sheer nastiness of your “contributions” to this blog and partly on the fact that that is all they are. When an idea is presented you ignore it. When a question is posed that would lead to an actual discussion, you ignore it. Every post is clearly designed only as a vehicle for your insatiable need to snarl, attack, criticize and hate, and every post is dependent on a toxic stew of lies and what could be, in a generous attitude, merely being profoundly in error.
In the years you have dropped in to deposit more of your troll droppings I have never seen a statement of unbiased fact, an objective idea or anything of value. Of value, that is, to anyone who does not collect grievances, pick fights and seek out bickerfests. You like to escalate your lies and misstatements of fact till someone finally says something you can then sadly pronounce to be an “ad hominem attack” or some such thing. You do love to play the coy victim, and you do love to fall back on vague generalities that kind of imply disagreement but can’t be pinned down to fact, such as “based on very dubious facts”.
This is just a game to you, a strange kind of sad and very silly game in which you seek attention by skittering around on the edge of a discussion just tossing out falsehoods, accusations, insults and foolishness. It may be just your pathology, or it may be your job, but whatever prompts it you come across never as important, or thoughtful, or significant, or a contributor of anything of value, just a smug simpering fool who counts contempt for you as some kind of odd victory.
I assure you, your insipid little snarl that I don’t seem to be doing well these days is so patently ridiculous I don’t think even you believe it. It’s just the kind of simpering little titter you seem to find so precious. If I were “not doing well” I would be bowing under the weight of your precise and logical presentation of facts, not swatting your inane little brain farts out of the air like gnats.
A decade or more ago he used to at least make a pretense of trying to be thought provoking. I guess he hasn’t “been doing well lately.”
Amazon: When an idea is presented you ignore it.
I’d say that’s more accurate of you than me. Either way, though, this blog is not set up for arguing in any detailed fashion any sort of idea. Comments are only open for a few days, so if you actually have things to do, you can’t say much. It used to be that comments were open for a couple of weeks, and under those conditions it was possible to discuss things in some detail.
That said, what is it that you want to know? And could you please answer one particular question that you have heretofore ignored: In what ways is Mitch McConnell not conservative? As you may recall, I suggested that his only “sin” against “conservatism” is finally throwing Trump under the bus. And my view is that that is not anti-conservative in the least. It just took balls. And you ignored all that and tried instead to change the subject. Once again, you have accused me of doing something that you do in spades.
Likewise, you are the master at trying to denigrate your opponent first and foremost. You virtually always question their integrity before addressing the issue. This very thread is a case in point. Heck, I was being denigrated before I even said anything! That’s okay. I don’t mind. But it is telling.
In what ways is Mitch McConnell not conservative?
And, once again, if I don’t know what you mean by “conservative” I can’t answer this question in a way you can understand. You toss out words you never define, making discussion meaningless. You also said Trump is not conservative.
I didn’t change the subject: I asked for enough information to continue and only then brought up other topics. You are the one who skitters wildly from one topic to another when pressed for specifics. I only question the integrity of posters after the exhibit this kind of evasive behavior, which, after a while. leads to the inevitable conclusion that they have no interest in any real discourse, only in hurling insults and snot-nuggets and lies.
You seem to spend quite a bit of time lurking on this blog as well as posting on it, so you know perfectly well I not only have a coherent political philosophy I have explained it in detail many times. If you were even remotely serious about discussing politics you would do the same regarding where you fit into the political spectrum, so a discussion could take place on the relative merits of each position.
But you clearly have no interest in the kind of intellectual give and take that serious people have, choosing instead to wallow in pseudo-political gossip and backbiting. And then whining because you are seen as a lightweight seeking attention. I don’t shy away from or avoid ideas—I just don’t define an “idea” as mere regurgitation of some hate-based slur, and I am not interested in getting dragged into silly bickering.
I do believe ricky has just made history, being the first person to use the words “balls” and “McConnell” in the same statement.
Mildly interesting, though hardly surprising, is the admiration for groveling for acceptance once it is apparent that someone else is going to be in charge. Nothing says “courage” like licking the boots of ones’ new masters.
Amazon: Mildly interesting, though hardly surprising, is the admiration for groveling for acceptance once it is apparent that someone else is going to be in charge. Nothing says “courage” like licking the boots of ones’ new masters.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I’m a fan of McConnell? Oh hardly. I think he’s too stringently, well… conservative. I give him respect for finally saying what he feels, but I don’t condone him taking so long to say it. You know how you admire people who are ideologically pure on the conservative side (that’s another topic of discussion, I suppose)? Well, that matters not at all to me. I don’t tend to like ideologically rigid anything, left or right. As you already know I am into efficiency and expediency as seen from the long view. That is my “ideology”. If you can convince me something is better in the long run than that which exists now, I want to hear more. But again, that is not the current topic. You, on the other hand, adore ideological purity. That’s the first thing you ask people — what’s your ideology? You brag about it, like it’s an essential question. And if they can’t answer, you shut them down and deride them for it. Even if they answer the question differently than what you expect (i.e., me) you deride them. You’re that rigid.
But again, that’s not the question at hand. The question at hand (at least in the deeper sense) is whether Mitch McConnell is a conservative. I remind you, that was YOUR question. You based it on YOUR definition of conservative, not mine. I hadn’t even chimed in. You answered no.
I’m asking (and have been asking throughout) is why you think that way. Amazon: Mildly interesting, though hardly surprising, is the admiration for groveling for acceptance once it is apparent that someone else is going to be in charge. Nothing says “courage” like licking the boots of ones’ new masters.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I’m a fan of McConnell? Oh hardly. I think he’s too stringently, well… conservative. You know how you admire people who are ideologically pure on the conservative side? Well, that matters not at all to me. I don’t tend to like ideologically rigid anything, left or right. You, on the other hand, do. That’s the first thing you ask people — what’s your ideology? Most people are not purists, Amazon. Nor should they be, IMO.
More to the point, you made your comment before I ever weighed in on the topic. All I asked is what your metric is — how is he betraying his conservative creed? That’s when you got your panties in a bunch and accused me of not answering your additional questions that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Who are you trying to kid? My guess is… you can’t answer that question without revealing how enraptured you are with the personality cult that is Donald Trump. I might be wrong, of course. But I am unlikely to know because you are not likely to answer. Such is life on an ephemeral blog.
So back once again to the question at hand… you made a comment about how Mitch McConnell betrayed his allegiance to the conservative creed (I paraphrase liberally, but I think accurately). All I ask is why, according to your own definition of conservative, is Mitch McConnell betraying your definition of conservative? Is that really so hard?
I am into efficiency and expediency Good for you, admitting that expediency is what matters to you and not an objective political blueprint for how to govern the country. I would suggest that you work a little on your “efficiency” however as you did seem to paste the same comment twice.
As “expediency” that’s just a five-dollar word for spineless. It’s an effort to gloss over the inability to commit to a belief or philosophy to try to make it sound like a virtue instead of a weakness. You sneer at my own commitment to ideology, as if this is a weakness or character defect. Yet I contend, with years of experience to back me up, that the ability and willingness to analyze and then choose a blueprint for governance is not only essential to intelligent decision-making, it DEFINES intelligent decision-making. Anything else is just a guess, based on emotion or, as you admit, “expediency”.
This applies to life in general. You either believe that theft is wrong or you believe it is OK if it is “expedient” to steal. You either believe that fidelity in marriage is essential to a lasting relationship or you think it’s OK to betray your spouse’s trust if you feel like it—if it scratches a current itch, or is “expedient”. People who base their lives and decisions and actions on “expediency” are, in my opinion, people who should be avoided because they are not trustworthy. They might seem like good people, if they are in the mood at the time, but because this is not based on an objective philosophy of integrity it can (and usually does) fall by the wayside when it is “expedient” to not be.
You don’t seem at all embarrassed by your revelation of your strange emotion-based delusions about why I support Donald Trump. I guess this kind of projection of Identity Politics onto others is the only thing that makes sense to people like you. What marks you as a tool is that no matter how often the objective rationale for supporting the actions of Donald Trump as president have been outlined here, in great detail, with examples, you reject all that to fall back into your default position of “it has to be Identity Politics because that’s all I understand”. Ergo, as a dog returns to his vomit, you return to your fantasy of some sort of personality cult to explain what you either can’t understand or just don’t like.
Now you seem to think you have hit on something significant you can whine about interminably. So go ahead and whine. Keep up with your own version of “fake but accurate”—in this case ” paraphrase liberally, but I think accurately”—-but don’t think it is going to disguise your complete inability to define “conservatism” so we have some idea of what the hell you are babbling on about.
While I did see McConnell acting in ways that are consistent with the political philosophy of restriction of federal authority when he had a strong conservative president with huge support from the party as a motivation (see, I gave you a hint there….) he, much like you , appears to be driven by expediency more than allegiance to a coherent political philosophy. Here comes another hint: conservatism is based on allegiance to the rules of law set out in the Constitution, which in this case include processes for challenging questionable elections. To choose instead to adopt the anti-constitutional position that challenging an election through constitutional processes is somehow wrong or illegal does show a certain, shall we say “flexibility” in ideology.
You did state, unequivocally, that you do not believe Donald Trump is conservative. Your words, in your post. A single declarative sentence. Yet when I ask you to define the term “conservative” you start squirming, squealing, and trying to turn the tables to demand that I explain my opinion of McConnell. Now you lie and say my request for a definition of conservatism “had nothing to do with the subject at hand” when it was relating to your declarative sentence that Trump is not a conservative.
This is what happens when people like me try to talk with people like you. You blurt out some crap you heard from some Agenda Media source and when challenged to explain or defend it you just start babbling about something else, throwing up verbal chaff to try to distract from the fact that you can’t or won’t back up what you say because, quite frankly, you can’t. You are really good at trying to muddy the waters with your nonsense. but it always comes down to you not being able to back up a single thing you say, unless you can reference some Agenda Media claim.
Again, you lie when you say If you can convince me something is better in the long run than that which exists now, I want to hear more. Any effort to engage in actual political discourse runs into your mental speed bumps and you instantly try to shift back to your comfort zones of gossip, innuendo and personal attacks on people on the Right—including me. When I have tried to introduce objective analysis of competing political ideologies you skitter off, afraid to actually think or discuss.
This is why no one here takes you even remotely seriously. You are noise. Meaningless. fatuous, ultimately silly noise.
amazon: The frantic effort to spin the massive election fraud of 2020 into wild-eyed howls of “SUBVERSION!!!” when the Right pointed out the many examples of out-and-out rigging of the election…
To whom (or what), exactly, did they bring those “many examples of out-and-out rigging of the election”? It seems to me that “the Right” was far more interested in broadcasting the so-called “out-and-out rigging of the election” to their sycophants in the right wing fever swamp than they were to producing a case that would stand up in court — which is where it should have been decided. But it didn’t happen. Why not?
As the saying goes, we can explain it to you, but we can’t understand it for you. It’s been laid out here in great detail over the last couple months. I would only add that, of the cases that have actually been heard and not just dismissed on procedural grounds, Trump has won more than he’s lost.
I think even you would agree that we can’t have another election like this last one if our republic is to survive.
Thanks for that info, Spook. It will take me a while to sift through it all. Could you, perhaps, direct me to the suits that are related to “The Kraken”? I presume that’s where the meat of the biscuit resides, yes?
Spook did his research, so why don’t you do yours?
Or—-just spitballing here—-are you really not interested in facts and just doing another of your snickering gotcha moves, trying to shift from the serious matters of the lawsuits into some snarky comment about Sidney Powell’s language?
Spook gave you links. Why don’t you go gnaw on that meaty biscuit and check them out?
Thanks for offering more proof of your unseriousness and frivolity, as well as your spite and malice. While you try to posture as a serious person asking serious questions you are really just trying to bicker about facts already in evidence throughout the last three months on this blog, as well as in many other sites, while presenting your biased opinion tainted with ad hominem insults.
Your fatuous queries are really very tiresome
Spook: I think even you would agree that we can’t have another election like this last one if our republic is to survive.
What I would agree is that we cannot ever again have two supposed “realities” that differ from each other so fundamentally and egregiously. Perhaps we need a truth commission or something — some agency, or office, or congregation… which is committed to investigating falsehoods, misrepresentations, and/or blatant lies in a reasonably nonpartisan fashion. Oh wait… isn’t that the judicial system? The trouble is, courts aren’t very fleet of foot. Well, individual ones can be, but the whole process can take years.
Anyway, I found out what happened to the “Kracken” lawsuits. Sydney Powell withdrew them. I suspect it might have something to do with those lawsuits.
Nice misrepresentation of the judicial system. Typical ignorance on display again
Spook: As the saying goes, we can explain it to you, but we can’t understand it for you. It’s been laid out here in great detail over the last couple months. I would only add that, of the cases that have actually been heard and not just dismissed on procedural grounds, Trump has won more than he’s lost.
Okay, so I went through them and I gotta say that if that’s all you Trumpers got, you’re doomed. Did you even read them? What’s particularly telling are the court decisions that were filed after the article you cited (as well as the 20 or so articles from “other sources” that were almost verbatim) was published. Things are not going well for Trump. And by the way, NONE of the outstanding cases are about fraud anywhere close to the magnitude required to change the outcome. So I stand by my statements. Can you stand by yours?
I wonder how many people, at least the ones paying attention, think it’s OK, in this nation of laws, to conduct a trial where the judge who, according to the Constitution, “shall” preside, refuses based on the unconstitutionality of the process, and the prosecutor assigns, as his replacement, a juror who found the defendant guilty in a previous trial that ended in a hung jury. YCMTSU!
Well, now that we are being pushed into the direction of being an outcome-based society, where all that matters is achieving a goal no matter how it is done, (see the TIME magazine article) I suppose more and more people will find this kind of thing acceptable. That is, until it is their turn in the barrel and they find that the old laws don’t apply to them, either, if the ruling class wants a different outcome.
Well, think they have found the “lowest common denominator” of 1 so even folks like Rico can understand.
ONE VOTE MATTERS – How Weighted Race Distribution and One California Vote Brings Entire 2020 Election into Question
I had found one more thing that really bothers me is almost all sites are now saying even though there was fraud and the election was stolen “We can never let this happen again.” . No, we can never let this happen at all as we kick “President” Asterisk and the wanna be VP to the friggin’ curb and hold another election. If this stands it really doesn’t matter what else those two do–we have been screwed royally.
I know, and I agree. But there is just no mechanism for discounting an election and starting over, at least not for the president. I think the Founders thought they had built in enough safeguards to prevent a rigged election from ending with a fraudulent president, but they didn’t count on people just not having the integrity or backbone to follow the rules they set down. The key was the inauguration—once Biden was inaugurated he was safe, as there is simply no way to unwind an inauguration. We could get control of the House and impeach him, but that would leave us with Harris (who will probably be president by then anyway) and I think getting control of Congress and providing enough speed bumps to control the Dem presidency till it can be removed through an election is really all we can do.
I think we have to start dealing with this at the state level. That means, for example, prosecuting officials for falsely certifying uncertifiable vote counts. You realize this has been an incremental erosion of the rule of law, so now people can break laws with impunity because they know no one will do anything about it. That means finding some kind of recourse against the officials who violated their state laws, even their state constitutions, to enact last-minute election changes. It means getting mean and getting tough at that level. so the next time around it won’t seem so easy to cheat because the stakes will be higher for those who try.
As I keep saying, a law without a penalty is the same thing as no law at all. So we can’t let anything slip by. We have to push our legislators and DAs and so on to prosecute every single law that is broken or even bent, we have to aggressively go after people who break them, and we we have to be very blunt with the public and tell them that if they insist on electing crooks they might as well not vote because from now on we won’t certify crooked election results which means all the votes in a state will be tossed out
I know, and I agree. But there is just no mechanism for discounting an election and starting over, at least not for the president. I think the Founders thought they had built in enough safeguards to prevent a rigged election from ending with a fraudulent president, but they didn’t count on people just not having the integrity or backbone to follow the rules they set down
If credible evidence of fraud continues to dribble out, I can’t help but believe that it will have a crippling effect on Harris/Biden’s ability to govern. I think, at least until the 2022 mid-terms, that’s the best we can hope for.
Spook: If credible evidence of fraud continues to dribble out, I can’t help but believe that it will have a crippling effect on Harris/Biden’s ability to govern.
In large part, I agree. My only exception to your comment is the “If credible evidence of fraud continues to dribble out” part. There has been no credible evidence of fraud, dribbling or otherwise. Okay, maybe a little dribbling here and there, on both sides, as there is in every election, but nothing of serious consequence. Even Trump’s top officials indicated — repeatedly — that there was nothing to suggest that a major malfeasance had occurred. Likewise, that was the conclusion on the state level in EVERY SINGLE STATE. Seriously, how much crazy does it take to ignore something that is so plainly obvious?
Seriously, how much crazy does it take to ignore something that is so plainly obvious?
Do you mean ignoring things this plainly obvious?
1 – Incumbent loss anomaly
2 – House of Representative results anomaly.
3 – Senate results anomaly.
(In Georgia, Biden polled 99,000 more votes than the Democrat Senate candidate in the normal two candidate Senate race in GA (a second Special Senate election was held for the other GA senate seat but it was a three way race). Sidney Powell (a Trump lawyer) estimates that, of those 99,000 excess Biden votes in GA, there were 65,000 votes solely for Biden and no other votes for any other candidate anywhere on the ballot. )
4 – Swing state anomalies versus Obama’s very strong 2008 performance.
5 – Bellwether county anomaly.
6 – Thousands of precincts all reporting significant over vote in Michigan.
7 – Biden underperforms Obama in 80% of Wisconsin counties but hugely overperforms in just 5 counties.
8 – Wayne County, Michigan anomaly.
( in fully 71% of precincts in the county, the tally of absentee ballot of those who requested ballots and those who cast ballots was unable to be reconciled because the number of actual absentee ballots counted exceeded the number legally requested. Furthermore, 28% of ballots could not be verified because they have either been lost or destroyed!)
9– Anomaly of hugely lopsided Biden votes added in minutes in the dead of night.
(“At 3:37 AM CST, total votes were 3,018,212; Trump had 1,536,270 votes (50.9%); Biden 1,427,614 votes (47.3%); other candidates 54,328 votes (1.8%).
At 3:42 AM CST, total votes were 3,186,598; Trump had 1,561,433 votes (49.0%); Biden 1,570,993 votes (49.3%); other candidates 54,172 votes (1.7%).
Total increase in Trump votes in 5 minutes: 25,163 (1.64%).
Total increase in Biden votes in 5 minutes: 143,379 (10.04%).
Before the Biden vote dump, both candidates’ votes were increasing at about the same rate, 1.64% per 5 minutes. So, the “legitimate” Biden vote increase is likely around 23,400 votes. The remaining 119,979 votes are fake.
Here is his analysis of the same trend in Michigan
“At 5:32 AM CST on November 4, total votes were 4,574,555; Trump had 2,346,747 votes (51.3%); Biden 2,150,041 votes (47.0%); other candidates 77,767 votes (1.7%).
Then, still at 5:32 AM CST, only five seconds later than the prior reading, total votes were 4,724,327; Trump had 2,352,715 votes (49.8%); Biden 2,291,299 votes (48.5%); other candidates 80,313 votes (1.7%). In that brief five-second period, Trump’s vote total increased by 5,968 (0.25%) while Biden’s vote total increased by 141,258 (6.57%)! Folks, that is a clear, fraudulent electronic “ballot dump” for Biden. I calculate that this fraud created about 135,883 fake votes for Basement Joe.
The count kept uneventfully grinding on to 6 AM CST, where at 6:03 AM total votes were 4,752,966, Trump votes were 2,366,977 (49.8%), Biden votes were 2,309,941 (48.6%). Ballots (presumably real paper ballots) had been counted at the rate of about 1,000 ballots per minute for the preceding half-hour, with Trump votes having a slight edge over Biden votes during the counting.
Then between 6:03 and 6:14 AM CST, more than 113,000 “votes” were counted, at an average rate of 9,800 ballots per minute. Total votes increased sharply to 4,866,279. Trump votes were 2,403,942 (49.6%), an increase of 36,965 votes (8.16% increase). Biden votes were 2,379,610 (48.9%), an increase of 69,699 votes (30.17% increase). Unlike the previous half-hour of counting, this deluge produced almost two Biden votes for every Trump vote counted.
Of those 113K total votes, 40K showed up in the last two minutes – between 6:12 and 6:14 AM. In two minutes, Trump gained 5,665 votes; Biden gained 29,588 votes. That’s about 5.2 Biden votes for every Trump vote. Because paper ballots simply cannot be fed into the ballot boxes that quickly, I consider this interval to also be electronic vote fraud, adding about 24,037 fake votes to Biden.
Then the ballot-counting quieted down and returned to “normal,” with votes for Trump and Biden about equal, until just before 8 AM, when another sudden burst of 107,700 heavily-Biden votes – 41,914 for Trump, 65,786 for Biden – erased Trump’s lead and tied the candidates at 49.2% each of the total votes. My total count for electronic fraudulent Biden ballots from this 2-hour, 30-minute period is 159,920””)
10 – Anomalous turnouts in Wisconsin and Minnesota
11 – Pennsylvania’s mail in ballot anomaly.
(when you look at the margin that Biden beat Trump in the mail in ballots broken down by each county, the margin at which Biden won was at or around 40% in each county. That defies logic in that Biden would be expected to lead Trump strongly in the Democrat stronghold counties and lead less strongly or trail Trump in the Republican stronghold counties, much as was the pattern with the in-person voting on election day. This result is statistically impossible and has never been replicated anywhere.)
12 – Michigan counties anomalies.
( as the precincts became stronger and stronger for Republicans, the vote margin between Trump and Biden INCREASES in a direct linear line and this curious statistical anomaly happened identically for the election day vote and the early vote – the trend line is illustrated by the orange lines. The exact same trend line was observed in Kent and Oakland Counties (only McComb is shown but the others are virtually identical), again identical for election day and early voting. No real vote turns out like this smooth and linear in its progression nor would you expect a margin of Biden over Trump to get bigger the more conservative the precinct and so he hypothesises that a vote switching algorithm is the only logical way to explain such a statistical anomaly. )
13 – Same anomaly occurs in Wisconsin.
14 – Virginia has similar ballot count anomalies.
15 = Mail in ballot rejection rates in 2020 defy historical norms.
defy a number of statistical conventions going back many decades over dozens of Presidential elections. The various anomalies unearthed by various people point to irregularities in the vote
I’d say it takes a whole lot of crazy to ignore all this.
Your link is not working. This is a good compilation of “irregularities” and historical anomalies. The only ones they missed that I can see were the level of minority vote, and the Ohio/Florida anomaly. Both of those anomalies date back 14 presidential election cycles since a Republican won the level of the minority vote that Trump won and won both Ohio and Florida but lost the election, and that was Nixon in 1960 where, shazam, there was widely acknowledged cheating by the Democrats. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley even bragged that he had come through for Kennedy. I assume the incumbent anomaly mentioned refers to the fact that the last time an incumbent president increased his vote total by or more than Trump’s 18% and lost was Martin Van Buren in 1840. As near as I can tell, the ONLY other incumbent to increase his vote total the second time around and lose was Grover Cleveland in 1888, and, interestingly, he ran again 4 years later and won. Any one of the historical anomalies, in and of itself, could be coincidence. Taken as a whole they’re statistically impossible.
Sorry about the link. I usually check them before posting.
Try this: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/11/statistical_anomalies_in_the_2020_presidential_election.htm
Interesting. I still have the blog on my dashboard and I can go to it but when I click on the address I just posted for you I can’t get to that page. I saw the same analysis on another site—I’ll see if I can find it. I opened it last night right before I posted.
On the 404 notice that the page is not available there is a search bar and if you paste in the same link information it goes to the site. It just won’t go directly through Word Press. Odd
I can open this link from a Duckduckgo search for “Statistical anomaliies in 2020 election” where clicking what appears to be the identical address opens up the page. It’s only trying to run it through this blog that it breaks down.
And interesting thing about the “House of Representatives” anomaly. The ONLY other time in American history that an incumbent president lost and his party gained seats in the House of Representatives was in 1992, but there’s at least a credible explanation for that. It was a 3-way race between George H. S. Bush, Ross Perot and Bill Clinton. Bush and Perot got 57% of the vote between them, while Clinton won with 43%, so it was not surprising that Clinton’s party lost seats.
Amazon: I’d say it takes a whole lot of crazy to ignore all this.
Obviously it’s impossible to evaluate any of this. But if you think you have a case, bring it to court. If you’re so convinced I’d say it takes a whole lot of crazy to ignore them.
you think you have a case, bring it to court. You just get goofier all the time. Sure, after a cowardly court refuses to hear a case claiming the plaintiffs have no standing, even when the plaintiffs are citizens of the state where the frauds took place and therefore had their votes canceled by the fraud, someone in another state could succeed in having that court hear a similar case.
You don’t even need to type posts—all you have to do is post a blank page under your name and we’ll know it is stupid and just another silly fatuous non-response to whatever you pretend you are talking about.
You could pick out one of the many anomalies I cited and address it, if you thought you had the ability and the facts to do so. But you don’t have either, and you know it, so all you can do is make some stupid comment.
Absolutely, DBSchmidt! One vote always matters! But your evidence is woefully weak. Do you need me to tell you how?
Do you need me to tell you how?
Oh, don’t go to any trouble. You can just link to what CNN or MSDNC have to say about it.
How about “weighted” values are illegal in a Presidential election and ‘yes’ I know what they are because I have done them for various companies before.
How about this…since California sees me as 0.322 of a vote then our “President” can only sign laws that are duly passed by both houses of Congress and everything else is reset to Jan 20th. He can sit & drool in his pudding till the next legal election.
Oh, and BTW, only those “laws” that past Constitutional muster.
I have suggested a couple of new rules for Congress:
1. A bill has to be written by its sponsor(s)
2. No bill can be more than two pages long
3. No bill can address more than one topic or issue—no more omnibus bills
4. No one can vote on a bill without first reading it
5. No bill can be accepted for a vote unless and until it has been proved to comply with the Constitution, and pass 10th Amendment scrutiny.
6. When a bill is intended to address a problem with a prior bill or bill, any preceding bill has to be revoked and replaced with the new one. No more slapping half-baked “bandaids” on defective bills, that then lead to other problems that are then addressed with more such bandaids.
A few weeks ago a friend sent me a video of a talking cat discussing mask wearing, and it was hysterical—about people going out to walk their dogs, wearing muzzles—the people wearing muzzles, not the dogs. I wondered how it was made.
Then just a few minutes ago I saw this entry on RedState and if you want a chuckle take a look at the video. A lawyer got onto a Zoom call for a court appearance not knowing that someone using his computer—-presumably a kid—-had left it with a cat filter on it. After the whining of rico we can all use a laugh and I laughed out loud at this poor lawyer trying to enter a motion as a cat.
Texas Lawyer Shows up to Virtual Court Hearing With Cat Filter, Hilarity Ensues
This is the first video I mentioned. I laughed out loud every time I watched it, and one of the phrases in it—“like talking to a f*****g potted plant”—has gone into the vocabulary.
Very funny! I especially relate to the comment, “like talking to a f*****g potted plant”.
Yeah, that reminded me of you, too. I admit to being a little surprised that you recognized yourself in it, though. Maybe you are starting to develop a little self-awareness.
Of course they have presented a doctored video. When facts don’t fit the narrative, change the facts. It’s what they do.
The last caller to Rush’s show this afternoon brought up a point that I hadn’t heard since January 6th or 7th. Trump had no possible motive to incite violence at the Capitol. He had every incentive to avoid what happened at all costs, because it interrupted and eventually ended his last ditch chance to get an audit of the voting in the 6 states that sent two slates of electors to Congress.
I made that point yesterday or the day before in one of those interminable rico babblefests where he just vomits every Leftist talking point there is and then shifts to others when they are challenged.
I think you can expect to see a lot more of this.
It’s refreshing to see a Democrat leading the way on this.
I wonder if they are also going to investigate the solicitation of bribery in the Senate runoff election. After all, people were told that if they voted for Dems they would get checks for $2000. That sure sounds like bribery to me.
Your quotations refer to charges being brought against President Trump, but certainly the preservation of election materials and records would benefit those interested in the chicanery of the election itself. Willis didn’t mention former President Donald Trump by name, and her office didn’t respond when asked whether she is probing a phone call he had with Raffensperger and other officials on Jan. 2 concerning the presidential election in Georgia
The lone Democrat on Georgia’s state election board plans to introduce a motion next month urging state attorney general Chris Carr to open a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.
The plan by David Worley has not been previously reported. The proposal follows other calls for an investigation into a phone call Trump made to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the election results based on false voter fraud claims.
The motion, which Worley plans to present on Feb. 10, would also urge a criminal probe by Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat who has said she would “enforce the law” in relation to Trump’s call.
BTW, this is a perfect example of how and why the Left gains so much traction while the Right just impotently spins its wheels. In Georgia the allegedly Republican governor and secretary of state whimpered, fretted and remained paralyzed in spite of requests to simply isolate questionable voting machines and engage in efforts more reasonable than just recounting ballots. They were incapable of addressing the lie of a broken water pipe used to explain why counting was allegedly halted at 1 a.m., or the video of it then restarting once Republican watchers were gone, or the video of boxes and boxes of ballots suddenly appearing from under tables, or the video of one batch of ballots run repeatedly through a machine, or the affidavits of people who saw bundles of pristine, unfolded, ballots that appeared to have been marked by a machine and then photocopied so they were identical—ballots claimed to be mailed-in ballots though they could not have been received in envelopes as they had not been folded.
The Republicans ducked and ran, terrified to act, even as Dems were blatantly offering to buy votes in the Senate runoff. Yet a single Dem DA from a single county is willing to file criminal charges against the President on the silliest, flimsiest, charges.
I have a feeling this Dem DA is not going to be too worried about false certification of uncertifiable vote counts, though. This focus is on shoring up the preemptive battle shaping up to undermine the evidence that will find its way into the public eye, in spite of the frantic efforts to bury it and the trollerverse coming to sites like this to stridently insist THERE’S NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS, JUST KEEP MOVING
Trump had no possible motive to incite violence at the Capitol.
Are you kidding? You can’t be serious.
And here we see the latest example of the utter stupidity of the Left in its blind Trump hatred. Anyone can see that alienation of the members of Congress by threatening them in any way would be counterproductive, but the mouthbreathing bottom feeders of the Left just can’t get past their cartoonish vision of Trump as Whatever Is Bad so this obvious fact flies right over their pointy little heads.
Of course this delusion depends to a great extent on the lie that the disturbance at the Capitol was really an effort to mount a coup, overturn the election, overturn the government, represented “insurrection”, blah blah blah.
The goal of Trump and his supporters was merely to show support for the delay of counting the votes for ten days, to allow for an investigation. Period. Not to STOP the count, not to “overturn the election” which BTW could only happen if it were legitimate in the first place, not for any of the reasons the howling Left has been screeching at top volume for more than a month now. All of this is just a pack of lies.
The hysterical hyperbole just keeps ramping up. Now we get this breathless pronouncement: WATCH: The Split Second an Officer Saved Romney's Life During the Capitol Riot
What the officer did was direct Romney away from the crowd. Mitt, in his usual alert posture of situational awareness, was evidently planning to exit directly into the crowd of rowdies, some of whom were rioters. And a police officer pointed him in a different direction. Give the man a medal! He should have followed Mitt outside to make sure he didn’t step in front of a bus.
There is no indication that he would have been in danger in that crowd. No one was talking about hurting anyone, though an agitator did try to ramp up some enthusiasm for “hanging Pence” but that never got any support.
Everyday Conservative Americans sit on their hands wishing the bully left would go away, all the while the Left tightens their stranglehold on the nation.
I’m not trying to be negative, just explaining the reality of what I see as wrong.
After this sham impeachment is over I look for major changes to happen overnight in this country, changes that in many ways will be nothing short of nightmarish. At least that is my fear.
Keep praying and have faith.
I don’t see anything happening “overnight” but I do see a massive unrest bubbling right below the surface.
I spent four hours in a chair yesterday getting a skin cancer excised. It takes a long time as the procedure calls for removing the lesion, prepping it and examining it carefully to make sure the margins are clear and no cancer cells remain. My margins were not good so they had to map where they had to go back in, and then the examination process started over again. It was mostly just sitting and waiting.
I had planned to read but one of the assistants in this procedure asked me if I like my Nook. I said yes but when it comes to politics or history I prefer a real book. She perked up at the word “politics” and it was ON. (She has not only seen that movie I keep asking you all to watch, “The Lives Of Others” she has seen it three times.) After that, other people kept doming in, the plastic surgeon who did the closing once I was clear was involved, and without any effort whatsoever on my part found myself in the midst of several ordinary citizens who are indignant about what happened, deeply concerned about a Biden presidency and eager to find out what they can to do. I would put the age range of these young women at 21-30, with 30 being the top end for the nurse, and the doctor is in his late 30s to mid 40s as a guess.
I have learned that all I have to do is bring up politics, even just in the context of Commandant Polis’s mask edict but also related to shutting down the oil and gas industry or the election or what people think of Biden, and people are eager to chime in with their opinions and concerns. I don’t go to a lot of places, but when I get my tires checked, when I buy chicken feed, when I get an estimate on getting a dent in my hood pounded out, when I need a plumbing part at Home Depot, it seems that if I open the door just a tiny crack people are eager to come through it and talk about how upset they are.
This is going on under the surface. Conservatives are not rioters, we seldom march and tend to discuss rather than protest, so the numbers of the disaffected are not readily discernable. But they are there, and I think they are growing. It is building, and when it reaches critical mass it will explode. The key is to get it to explode in the right way, at the right time.
The rebellion that led to the creation of the United States developed in coffee houses and taverns, where people normally gathered anyway and where discussions about the excesses and problems of the monarchy were easily incorporated into the conversations. Given the efforts by the increasingly tyrannical Left to shut down public communication forums I am thinking we may end up returning to some degree to that kind of basic in-person discussion and letting the participants spread what they learn.
I don’t even WANT an “overnight” change or event. That sounds like something that could be squashed, put down, discounted or spun into something sinister, just as the carefully planned and orchestrated Capitol disturbance was. My preference is a slowly building pressure on the Left’s incursion into our governance, with people becoming educated about how to discuss what is going on so they can talk about it to friends and families, till it is time for them to surge forward into the voting booths in two years.
I hope you are doing better, and don’t have any further complications. Cancer is scary stuff!
Just a quick word on your finishing paragraph. As I think there was just a slight misunderstanding. What I meant (which I should have further elaborated on) when I said that there would be major overnight changes after the impeachment charade is over, I meant that I fear the Biden administration will get down to the business of implementing their massive anti-Constitutional Marxist-Communist agenda.
With relation to 2022, if this past election is any indicator of future elections, there won’t be any 2022 election, or a 2024 election, because I see no urgency with respect to making sure that future elections are not stolen. There was plenty of time to educate family and friends about what needed to be done in the 2020 election, and the proof was that the majority voted for President Trump, but illegitimate and fake ballots that numbered in the millions were added to the Biden/Harris ticket, which is where we are now. This has to be corrected in order for us to have any hope left of saving America. In essence, taking 2022, 2024 and beyond.
I just have this uncanny sense, though, that we are watching the fall of a once great empire. Like all past empires, from the Greeks to the Romans to the Persians, etc, etc.
Thanks for the kind wishes. Decades of outdoor activities, ranging from skiing to snowmobile riding to ATV riding to horseback riding to general ranch work, all at 9000 feet or higher, with a casual attitude toward sunblock, tend to catch up to someone who is Eastern European and Irish—that is, so melanin-deficient I nearly glow in the dark. This stupid pandemic panic made it harder to get in for my normal skin maintenance, so a couple of spots got a little more developed than I like.
I think that the Left has overplayed its hand and lost, or is losing, the advantage it had by having secret strategies. Now when TIME Magazine has an article bragging about how they rigged the election (though stopping short of admitting to actual vote switching and fake ballots) a lot more people are going to be seeing what they did and how they did it. Sure, the article takes the position that the Left did this because the HAD to, to “save the country”, but it still comes down to bragging about cheating and rigging the game. People don’t like being tricked, and the Left is bragging about tricking people to get rules changed so they could game the system.
We can build on that, and develop a powerful narrative of our own about the core strength of our nation, its ability to elect its leaders, being taken away from us by arrogant power-seekers who think they should be the ones to make the decisions for us because we can’t be trusted to make the “right” decisions.
I am not nearly as despondent or pessimistic as many others are. I still have faith in a lot of the American people, and I see a surging sense of realization of the mistakes we have made, which is the first step toward fixing them.
The demand for vigilance and energy cannot be overstated. The Left is canny and relentless, and never stops to rest on a victory but moves on to the next target.
We can see their focus shifting to state legislatures. Hillary Clinton just reposted this: The insurrection isn’t over. “In Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country, the assault on American democracy that began on January 6 rages on,” write
@ivotefund’s @EllenKurz and @RepMcGovern
The Left knows it is vulnerable to any legislature that is closer to the people, and is now shifting its attack from the national election to gaining more control over state legislatures. But this is where the people have more to say about who is elected at the local, county and state levels.
I think the first step is to lobby your state GOP and demand that it formulate a coherent political statement that is NOT about Identity Politics, NOT about issues but about the most basic level of politics—will power be concentrated in the hands of a few who then impose their will on the people, or will it be retained by the people in their local, county and state governments to represent the will of those people and not that of political elites?
Don’t argue about or try to defend Donald Trump, but do talk about the arrogance and power grab inherent in half of Congress trying to take the choice of who to vote for away from the people by proactively eliminating some people from running for office. The voters should be able to choose who to vote for, and not have a handful of people decide for them.
This is the kind of battle that takes place in churches, coffee shops, sports bars, gyms—wherever people congregate. (Do we need a better explanation for why the Left is trying to keep people from congregating?) This is the kind of thing that happens at family dinners, where the conversation should not be about any one person or even any identified party but about the basic structure of our government—do we want it to be one where most authority remains with the people, closer to home in our state and local governments where we have a say in what is decided and have oversight in how our decisions are administered, or do we want to sign over our authority to a handful of political elites across the country?
This is the kind of strategy that carefully avoids the tripwires of Identity, being careful to not trigger knee-jerk responses of defense or attack but studiously sticks to unemotional analysis of what KIND of government works best.
This is the kind of strategy that scares the snot out of the Left, which tells us that it is effective, that it poses a very serious danger to their agenda. This is the kind of strategy that, when people insist on trying to make it about Trump, does a subtle lateral move and says that the Left doesn’t really HATE Trump but FEAR him because he understood the true power base of the Left—the massive explosion of size, scope and power of federal agencies, which are run by unelected political appointees—and he had been working to force the rule-making back to Congress, where it belongs.
The Left has just dumped a major responsibility on the collective shoulders of the people. That is, to study and understand enough to formulate simple but coherent arguments for Constitutional governance that don’t depend on, or even include, personalities or issues. That is, to become involved at local and state levels and demand that people at those levels of conservative governance understand those arguments and will use them with great energy and focus.
And defend efforts like this. Publicly and privately support the people who are willing to stand up against tyranny and the slippery slope into dictatorship.
As President Joe Biden issued more than 40 executive actions with less than a month in office and Democrats took control of Congress, Republican attorneys general in the states appear poised to be the strongest check on overreach by the federal government.
I just finished re-reading George Orwell’s novel, 1984, and now we’re seeing it play out in real time. The censoring of any ideas that don’t mesh with the Leftist narrative is right out of the book. The re-writing of history that we’ve witnessed over the several decades is right out of the book. The threats to punish people engaged in “wrongthink” is right out of the book. Asking us to believe that the Senate is engaged in the impeachment trial of the President of the United States because the Constitution doesn’t say they can impeach a former President, while, at the same time asking us to believe that Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, because, if he is then the Constitution says the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court SHALL preside over the trial. That’s Doublespeak, right out of the book. For the sake of our descendants we can’t let that be the future of our republic.
I should have watched Tucker Carlson last night. He addressed something I have been wondering about and keep forgetting to ask about here on the blog. That is, who got “killed” in the Capitol disturbance, how were they “killed” and why don’t we ever hear anything about them?
We have finally learned that the officer who was treated as a martyr based on the allegation he was killed in the line of duty by a vicious murderous mob of Trump supporters actually died hours after the disturbance and there were no signs of violence or trauma on his body, no indication that he had been injured in any way. Basically, if there is nothing to connect a death to an event, rational people can’t blame the death on the event.
But what about the others? We saw video of a young woman shot to death by a Capitol cop. So that accounts for two deaths, one at the “riot” though not at the hands of the “rioters” and one hours afterward. That leaves three people dead whose deaths are constantly cited as part of the toll of the carnage at the Capitol
One of the things Tucker talks about is the idea that five people died as a direct result of the riots, a statement that has been made more times than one can count by the news media. In regards to what we actually know right now, he notes that one person died of what appears to have been a heart attack while on the phone with his wife. Another man had a stroke, and there’s no evidence he was even part of the riot that day. Another woman died after passing out, possibly being trampled by the crowd as a result.
In other words, of the five people listed as dying that day due to the riots, three of them were unquestionably accidental.
Again, we have to remember that the Left invented reverse engineering, at least when it is applied to creating a narrative. They create the narrative first, and then engineer “facts” after the fact to try to explain or validate it.
Put more bluntly, they lie. And they have scads of eager liars waiting to spread those lies to places like this blog.
It was all the Trump Covid. EEEEeeee.
What he says:
Stop Calling It an ‘Insurrection’
Since counting to one is too difficult for Rico…how about “Chain of Custody” which is required to be maintained at all times for certification. Remove those votes that States do not have an end-to-end chain of custody & Biden’s “win” disappears. Is that “simple” enough?
That is a good point, db. But it should go further. Remove all mailed-in ballots that were not requested via the old regulations, before the rules were illegally changed. Remove all ballots that are not proved to belong to a properly signed envelope. Remove all ballots not backed up by a photo ID. Remove all ballots that can be linked to illegitimate rules that were not passed by state legislatures. Remove all ballots counted without the oversight of opposition party observers.
Oh—you can’t do that because once the ballots are counted they can’t be related to the envelopes they came in, to verify ID or when they were counted or even when they arrived? Too bad—next time put competent people in charge and your votes can be counted. Till then, toss all mailed-in ballots and only count in-person votes. that were properly counted. THOSE can be certified.
Because once ballots have been accepted they become votes and disappear into the fungible stream of votes there is no way to pull out those cast by illegitimate voters or those cast by people voting more than once, so the whole vote stream is contaminated and there is no way to know who got how many votes. Sorry, no certification.
None of this requires analysis of the machines. Just chain of custody, retention of all materials, and following the rules. It’s not that hard, but the Left will fight every one of these changes.
I don’t compare today’s Left to Nazis, I compare them to the Stasi. But that is really a case of potayto potahto as both iterations of Leftist tyranny shared the same core belief system and tactics. Both depended on expanding the power of the State to oppress and dominate the people, and on using fear, intimidation, violence and imprisonment to impose their beliefs. And both used the emotions of the citizenry to support them, turning people against each other, weaponizing hatred and distrust, fracturing societies and creating the illusion that it was OK to attack others if they happened to be different in some way the State identified as legitimate targets.
A Hollywood actress was recently fired by Disney/Lucas for saying this, and dumped by her oh-so-woke agency. She reposted this: “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”
(Amazingly even some “conservative” sites kind of tepidly defending her were so confused by the post that they scolded her for “attacking Jews”. This is what happens when people are not taught to read and process information properly.)
Jewish science fiction writer Marina Fontaine made the same point Dennis Prager made in his recent article, “The Good German“: who wrote … I no longer judge the average German as easily as I used to. Apathy in the face of tyranny turns out not to be a German or Russian characteristic. I just never thought it could happen in America.
Fontaine wrote: Holocaust captures our imagination not only from the sheer number of the dead, but because it came from a highly civilized country. We say Never Again, and want to believe it can never happen here. So we focus on cattle cars and gas chambers, which are the iconic symbols, but forget that those came later.
It started slowly, the drip-drip-drip of propaganda combined with the steady separation of Jews from society. And people, good people would watch their neighbors banned from parks and stores or whatever, took it as proof that maybe they did do something to deserve it. And then propaganda turned to hysteria, the separation turned to dehumanizing, and the violence was the next logical step.
You could say “the Good Germans” didn’t see it coming. The rest of the civilized world was in denial because it never happened quite like that, with hate and mass murder coming strictly from propaganda, in such a civilized place, against people who posed no threat but were painted as monsters. We, here, now, have no excuse. We know how it starts, and how it ends, and silencing the people who point out the fundamental similarities will not take us off that course.
And here is a woman who survived the Holocaust, warning us of the same tactics being used here and now by the Left.
We, here, now, have no excuse. We know how it starts, and how it ends, and silencing the people who point out the fundamental similarities will not take us off that course.
Now that Chuck U Schumer has crumpled and decided not to call witnesses after all, Ted Cruz has tweeted some of the questions he says were going to be asked of Dem witnesses. My favorites:
Q1: “Where’s the short, fat guy?”
Q2: “Can we build the Keystone Pipeline if we add Hunter Biden to the board?”