I do feel sorry for Fetterman – he nearly dies of a stroke and this his wife and friends, instead of caring whether he lives or dies, press him to keep running for an office he was manifestly unfit to serve in. Yes, shame on us for not being able to beat him, but it is simply a crime that he didn’t withdraw from the race. Keep that in mind: the Democrats will do anything to obtain power. They don’t care how much harm it causes…as long as they can get the power, its all good in their view.
The number of train derailments is getting beyond coincidence. If we had an actual FBI, they’d be looking into it to see if foreign actors were involved, directly or indirectly. This doesn’t mean, of course, that it definitely is an attack – but it could be, and we should find out. There is the chance, however, that it is just degraded infrastructure. Remember, the last thing a Democrat infrastructure bill does is provide infrastructure…it provides money for cronies and various BS projects nobody needs. There is no upside for Democrats if rail lines, roads, bridges, etc get built and repaired. There’s no payoff for them – but there’s a huge payoff if you can send a couple million for an anti-racist program to fight systemic racism in the construction industry. Meanwhile, the train derailment in Ohio isn’t the problem – the real problem is that we on the Right have noticed the derailment.
I guess the Democrats have some polling indicating that Haley has strength among some section of the voters because they are going hard after her – with the universal talking point being that she’s a race traitor who uses a “white” name in order to be acceptable to the racist GOP. Day by day, Democrats just get more inhuman an disgusting. I hope that it is turning off ever more people.
Al Sharpton and the Race-Baiter Brigade went down to Florida the other day to protest DeSantis’ education reforms…and it was as if nothing happened. Because, of course, nothing happened. Nothing could happen. DeSantis and the Florida GOP weren’t about to give in to any demands and any effort by Sharpton to gin up violence would have resulted in real arrests…with people going to jail rather than being let off entirely or given small fines. The best news we’ve had of late is that ever more GOPers simply don’t care if they’re called racists. At long last, that false accusation is losing it’s sting. Calling us racists is a stupid and insulting lie – but, they won’t stop it so all we can do is ignore and it and implement policy.
Blogs For Victory 
Well Mayor Pete told us yesterday that train derailments happen all the time, so just calm down. This is the new normal in the new Democrat liberal world order. Remember, a cancerous toxic cloud of chloride is nothing compared to a flu virus. And FEMA just denied any help for the town of E. Palestine so obviously the Biden admin. doesn’t take it seriously. So nothing to see here, Oh and a plastic plant just burnt to the ground in FL yesterday and those chemicals released in the air are nothing to worry about either … just get your booster.
And evidently the smart people can’t figure this one out …
It’s the international whodunnit that’s stumped investigators across the world. Now, as a Pultizer-prize winning journalist points the finger at the CIA… Who DID blow up the Nord Stream pipeline?
I mean it’s not as if the POTUS emphatically declared that he would “take out” the Nord Stream pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. If that happened, then we would know right? It’s a mystery
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760473/As-Pultizer-prize-winning-journalist-points-CIA-DID-blow-Nord-Stream-pipeline.html
They don’t care how much harm it causes…as long as they can get the power, its all good in their view.
Sooner or later Democrats are going to cancel the wrong person or group, and then it’s going to be like a dam bursting.
This is the problem we face … extreme narcissistic ignorance. Listen to this Biden official say that he actually believes China will work in “harmony” with the United States in combatting climate change. People this stupid are dangerous.
People this stupid are dangerous.
Theoretically that should make them easier to defeat.
You would think
Don’t you think we’re pretty close to a tipping point on the woke bullshit?
I do. I think we are reaching maximum insanity.
I care when ANYONE lies to me.
I’m not excusing when any news organization lies to us, but do you realize how much bandwidth we could use up listing all the lies that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC have told just in the last 5 years? Anyone who relies on ANY mainstream news source telling them the truth is incredibly naive. Their biggest social value is forcing us to finetune our BS meters.
What I found, when I tried to track down forty’s complaints, was a picture of a lot of strong people with strong opinions who not only did not march in lockstep with an approved narrative but who questioned and challenged pretty much everything they had been told. And there was back-and-forth and there was strong language and there was disagreement and there was melodrama in some of the language.
This kind of free-for-all of often conflicting opinion is just so alien to the Borg that is the Left that they just don’t know how to process it. So when a finished product did not include all the various arguments and hyperbole and dramatic flourishes that had been part of the process, the poor lockstep Lefties can only howl THEY LIED!!!!!!
Word people use words. They use metaphors, allegories, hyperbole, exaggeration, dramatic emphasis. I am a word person, and today in a meeting we were talking about a person who had done some very bad stuff, and I said “Let’s just say if he is ever run down it might be a good idea to look at the front end of my truck”. I’m sure that a forty would be howling SHE THREATENED TO RUN OVER SOMEONE! Whether it’s a malignant effort to reframe an innocent comment into something sinister or just an example of how a simple mind fails to grasp complexities of communication, it doesn’t matter. What matters is how, in this time of nearly instantaneous dissemination of anything, a distorted interpretation can and will be spread and, sadly, assumed by some to be true and relevant.
Combine the simple-minded with the fervid evangelical and you have a forty, rushing in here to spin his interpretation of sentence fragments and titter in glee over his self-perceived “gotcha” of the political infidels.
Those organizations have biases as all do and make mistakes because of those biases. But do they outright lie to their audiences? I don’t think so. Dan Rather is a good example of this. He wanted the Bush National Guard story to be true and he believed it to be true. In the 2020 election fraud stuff they knew it was false and yet put it out there in the hopes of their team holding power.
I am sure we will have to agree to disagree on this but at least we won’t call each other names.
election fraud stuff they knew it was false………yet it wasn’t. As I have pointed out the apologists depend on careful parsing of the word “fraud”. You don’t like to apply it to lying about Trump to deter people from voting for him, for example, or to hiding information about Biden’s corrupt abuse of power as VP to enrich him and his family. There is such a wide range of examples of fraud in this election, and the Left ignores most of the evidence.
And BTW, Rather had access to the reports from the document examiners that the documents in question were false but he ran with the story anyway, and then confirmed his lack of interest in their accuracy by declaring them “fake but accurate”. So no, I don’t accept the excuse that he thought the story was true.
News organizations can and do get things wrong. They can even have a partisan bent. But (to loosely quote from Josh Marshall)… The bedrock of all journalism is fundamental honesty with readers. That bedrock principle has numerous and sometimes not obvious implications and imperatives. But the simplest and most obvious is don’t willfully lie to your audience. Over and over and over again.
Fox News is a deeply corrupt institution. It doesn’t even have anything to do with ideology. You can be a great journalist with a strong conservative or liberal viewpoint. You can be just as good and legitimate as journalists who say they bring no viewpoint to the issues they cover. But you can’t willfully decisive your audience as a matter of course and practice.
And the revealed texts show that Fox News did this for one reason: ratings. The contempt that organization holds for its viewers is remarkable.
Which texts?
The bedrock of all TRUE journalism is fundamental honesty with readers. But what we get from the Complicit Agenda Media is a wide range of efforts to shape beliefs and opinions.
So stories from some sources, especially AP, always include the editorial opinion “baseless” to describe any opinion on the illegitimacy of the 2020 election. A low-information reader probably thinks this means there is no foundation for these opinions, when in fact there is abundant evidence of various kinds and levels of cheating. No true journalist would stoop to inserting an editorial opinion in a piece presented as “news” yet this is what the public gets, day in and day out, from the Agenda Media.
And, like with all lies, there is the lie of commission and the lie of omission. The Hunter Biden laptop story was a mishmash of both—the commission of lies that the computer was not his, that it had been stolen, that it had been hacked, and the claim by “intelligence agency” people that it contained nothing to implicate his father in any wrongdoing, and the purposeful omission of any of its contents other than bits and pieces of salacious content so the claim could be made that there was nothing to see but bad behavior by a disturbed man.
We can look at the infamous J6 Committee and its various lies, ranging from misstatements of the legal definition of “insurrection” to its false claims that Trump instructed people to act violently. Here, too, were lies of omission, as the actual recording of Trump’s speech was edited and altered and other exculpatory evidence was simply not presented. Then there is the lie of implication—in this case, subjecting people to secret depositions which were then selectively leaked to the press when someone close to Trump admitted that he had said he didn’t believe in the legitimacy of the election, and/or that the person didn’t agree with this. This was a dishonest effort to imply that there is a crime or any degree of wrongdoing in having and expressing an opinion.
I did a search for Fox communications that would confirm your spin that there was an admission that the network was really just an arm of the GOP or engaged in a pattern of “deceiving its viewers over and over again”. And I found no such thing.
There has been a huge effort on the Left to criminalize freedom of speech and assembly and Wrongthink. I found examples of Fox people expressing varying opinions, but one thing I noticed was that all of the quotes I saw were fragments of statements, with no context.
The effort to distill complex thoughts and communications and decisions into small discrete bits of free-floating fragments is not proof of anything. People who use words for a living are often good at using dramatic phrasing. Now I’m going to invent a possible statement here, not claiming to have heard it or seen it quoted or attributed to anyone, so cool your jets.
But let’s say that someone who is skillful with language is talking about someone who is sometimes hypersensitive to criticism and also has a lot of influence, and suggesting that it would be prudent to avoid getting this person angry for fear of retribution. So let’s say the comment, for dramatic effect, is that this person “is like a demonic force, capable of crushing us if we call down his ire, so let’s be careful of what we say”. Pull out the most dramatic words, connect them with ellipses, and present the edited version as an accurate quotation of a serious opinion, and you have the kind of thing that forty and his ilk gobble up and regurgitate with glee on sites like this. “He’s a DEMON!!!”
Which, of course, is an example of the evangelical aspect of this secular religion. It’s not enough that they believe it but they go out into the normal world like missionaries to try to convert others to their dogma. Only a zealot would persist in barging into sites like this to try to hammer the catechism of his faith into non-believers.
“I did a search for Fox communications that would confirm your spin that there was an admission that the network was really just an arm of the GOP or engaged in a pattern of ‘deceiving its viewers over and over again’. And I found no such thing.”
First of all, I didn’t say that “there was an admission that the network was really just an arm of the GOP.”
Second, I was responding to Fielding’s comment about the text messages sent by Fox News on-air hosts and executives between each other, confirming that the hosts and executives knew that what they were airing regarding the supposed 2020 election fraud wasn’t true. (Fielding’s comment has since been deleted.) These text messages, in addition to the depositions of the hosts and executives, show plainly that Fox News was lying to its viewers in order to achieve higher ratings, and also out of fear that if it didn’t lie it might lose viewers to Newsmax.
Read it for yourself. It’s filled with private texts between Fox stars like Hannity and Carlson, plus Rupert Murdoch, all admitting they knew Fox’s stolen election claims were lies, and that guests such as Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani were “an insane person,” “such an idiot,” and full of “really crazy stuff.” Tucker Carlson repeatedly worries to his producer that Donald Trump is a “demonic force” who could “destroy” Carlson if he didn’t toe the line. “He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” Carlson tried to get Fox News executive Jacqui Heinrich fired because she admitted the election wasn’t stolen, and that was bad business for Fox News (never mind whether lying about the election was bad journalism.) It’s just incredible stuff.
Click to access full.pdf
I started to address your rant and then thought “I’m so tired of this shit.” I’m tired of people like you cherry-picking statements and throwing out isolated fragments of out of context comments and then filling them in with your own editorial spin.
A lot of claims were made, some outlandish and some quite reasonable and legitimate. When you look at the total chaos of election week, the sheer volume of information, allegations, claims, assertions and accusations was overwhelming, and the emotional overload of those charged with deciding what to produce and what not to cover had to be demanding. I can’t think of anything more chaotic and fluid, constantly shifting, than the information overload during that week. It was easy for CNN, MSNBC, et al, because they only had to parrot the scripts provided to them, For people actually juggling the onslaught of information it was different. And of course different people had different takes on what was legitimate, what sounded crazy, and so on. Big effing deal. The non-puppets in media have opinions, have perceptions, state them, argue their positions, and aren’t controlled by canned narratives fed to them across the rest of the media spectrum.
You react to something in a certain way, possibly out of rationality and possibly out of sheer exhaustion. Then new information comes in, modifying your original response. And so on. You express it, and then someone comes back with a different perspective, and there might be arguing about the differences. This is the process. Good management lets its people have the freedom to express themselves, and it sounds like that is what was going on at Fox.
When people dismiss some allegations this does not mean they condemn all of them as “lies”. But this is what you keep saying. When I look at your comments what stands out is that when a news organization put on guests with whom some in the organization did not agree, in the interest of providing a wide range of opinions and a wide range of information on a very important subject, this is somehow distilled by you (or whoever writes your scripts) into them LYING because perhaps some of the opinions of some of the guests were not wholly in line with their own.
In other words, the failure to pre-edit content and only present content with which everyone agreed in every way in every detail is cast by you as somehow nefarious. Which makes sense, coming from someone who seems to be quite accepting of the predigested, heavily editorialized, canned narrative repeated nearly verbatim on every show on every station in your accepted media world.
And why did they do this? FOR RATINGS!! OMG who ever heard of a media executive deciding that it might be good for ratings to be the only media outlet providing different information than the others? Outrageous! Get a rope! You’d be funny if you weren’t so toxic and so tiresome.
As far as I’m concerned, if an executive or an on-air talent finds a guest or an allegation far-fetched but still thinks it is an important aspect of the overall subject at hand and puts it on-air I find that admirable. Throw it out there and let the public decide. After all, the only place the public is going to be exposed to anything but the canned narrative being echoed on every other station is on Fox.
And the feigned outrage at seeing Tucker Carlson admit that Donald Trump wields a lot of power and influence is pretty silly. ““He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” ” Do you disagree with that? What you did was insert your opinion that this meant Tucker had to “toe the line”. This is what you people do. You fish around for a statement that can be spun as dramatic or malignant, then ‘explain” it using a phrase like ” if he didn’t toe the line”. As I said earlier, there is lying by commission, lying by omission and lying by implication. And sneaky insertions like “if he didn’t toe the line” are lies by implication.
You use words like “admit”, which is an effort to steer to a conclusion that is not borne out by fact. You claim “Carlson tried to get Fox News executive Jacqui Heinrich fired because she admitted the election wasn’t stolen”—-how did he “try to get” her fired? Because she had an opinion that you just claimed was shared by pretty much everyone at Fox? What is your source for his alleged motivation, much less his alleged actions? And expressing an opinion that “the election wasn’t stolen” is a far cry from ADMITTING this—she didn’t have the authority to admit to anything.
And, of course, there is your dependence on the word “stolen” because that lets you narrow the definitions and ignore the other aspects of the election rigging. It lets you focus on one thing, like the voting machines.
It’s this constant semantic manipulation and editing and padding with personal perspectives and so on that makes you people so tiresome and so worthless.
What “wasn’t true”?
Was it true, or not, that key states had last-minute changes made to their voting rules, in violation of statutes or even a state constitution?
Was it true, or not, that untold number of ballots were cast, received and treated as legitimate votes in spite of being cast under illegitimate rules?
Was it true, or not, that tens of thousands of unsolicited ballots were sent out without regard to registration status?
Was it true, or not, that tens of thousands of ballots were accepted after the legal deadlines and then treated as legitimate votes?
Was it true, or not, that tens of thousands of ballots were accepted without the legal requirements of signatures on the envelopes and then counted as legitimate votes?
Was it true, or not, that efforts to examine voting machines were denied or severely restricted?
Was it true, or not, that ballot bundling and ballot harvesting took place in states where this was explicitly prohibited, and that those ballots were accepted and counted as legitimate votes?
Was it true, or not, that envelopes were destroyed when demands were made to examine them for signatures, in violation of the legal requirement to preserve them?
Was it true, or not, that demands to physically examine absentee ballots that appeared to be either marked by machines or delivered unfolded though presented as absentee ballots (which would have had to be folded) were denied, and examiners were only allowed to look at photographs of these ballots?
Was it true, or not, that there is a legal definition for the word “certify” and that false certification is illegal?
Was it true, or not, that states “certified” vote tallies even while admitting knowledge that they had no way of accurately determining who got which votes?
Was it true, or not, that it was acknowledged that illegitimate votes had been cast and accepted, meaning that there was no true way of knowing who got how many legitimate votes?
No answers to these questions, but then the Left don’t do answers. They do poo-flinging and emoting, parroting the scripts fed to them by their masters and avoiding reality.
I should have stated that the link to the legal document is Dominion Voting System’s brief in its defamation suit against Fox News. The brief was made public yesterday.
Well gee—now that we know that the claims in a legal brief made by people trying to get a lot of of money are established fact, I guess we don’t need the fuss and bother of a trial. That sure simplifies things.
Defamation is certainly a hard charge to prove in court, but that’s beside the point I and Fielding are making. The Dominion filing offers the best look inside Fox News’ internal operations that we’ve ever had. It shows Fox operating as many suspected: no compunctions about lying to viewers, desperately trying to avoid losing market share to competitors like Newsmax, prime time hosts afraid to tell the truth for fear that Donald Trump would “destroy” them.
Again, your malignant spin.
All this pious oleaginous hand-wringing over the very THOUGHT of a media corporation striving to gain (or in this case retain) market share is bizarre. This is supposed to indict Fox? Planning shows to appeal to or expand its audiences? its audiences? Having a business plan based to a great extent on showing information the lapdog Agenda Media won’t? What kind of monsters ARE they?!
Wow—you seem stunned by this. What a concept! After all, Fox’s “competition” hires hosts and puts on elaborate spectacles of wild invention and character assassination not to gain market share but just—-well, evidently just because. It can’t be to gain market share, because you have just identified this as a sin if not a crime and pretty unforgivable.
You just don’t care that you make no sense at all. Worse, because simply not making sense could be neutral, but you dive headfirst into insanity by howling your outrage—-OUTRAGE !!! I TELL YOU!—-at the idea that a media outlet might be interested in maintaining its substantial lead in market ratings.
As for desperately clinging to the “lying” theme that you find so compelling, that’s just your own perspective. I’ve covered it, and you don’t like what I said so you just ignore it and go back to lovingly masticating the fantasy that producing actual news about what is going on in the country even when the producers might not wholly agree with some of the conclusions is, by definition, LYING. What’s next—-howls of outrage at having a Jew produce a documentary on the Pope? After all, if he doesn’t believe in Christian dogma then he must be LYING if he produces a Christian-based program.
Hint: We already know you and your kind are wholly driven by emotion-based Identity Politics. You don’t need to waste your time and ours by constantly describing it, defending it, and generally bragging about it.
And, another thing you steadfastly refuse to address is your implicit admission that you see the role of newscasts as one of only producing carefully screened and edited content that only reflects the beliefs and opinions of the producers.
Which boils down to, you’re all Big Mad because Fox doesn’t act like CNN or MSNBC and you find this to be proof of irredeemable malfeasance that must be explained in loving detail by zealots and evangelicals.
In the Senate hearing on election irregularities I cite in other posts, former Judge Starr said this:
(emphasis mine)
I think we live in a new age, and we need to
go back to great lessons from constitutional law, as you well
know, Senator Hawley, and Justice William Brennan, an icon of
the Warren Court, saying that our democracy is based upon
robust and uninhibited debate, and Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes saying let us test things in the marketplace of ideas.
You cannot test ideas and theories unless you allow the
marketplace of information, communication, to flourish.
It’s interesting, though not surprising, to see an evangelical Leftist like forty arguing so strenuously against the very concept of robust and uninhibited debate, even among fellow employees in a media giant. After all, his movement has been quite candid and vocal in its objections to free speech and freedom of assembly.
…hosts afraid to tell the truth for fear that Donald Trump would “destroy” them…. is a statement that absolutely reeks of a personal perspective.
The words “afraid” and “truth” depend wholly on your spin, and then you link your delusion to the fact that people were aware of Trump’s influence in a Dr. Frankenstein-like effort to cobble together a monster out of unrelated parts.
You clearly don’t lack basic intelligence components, and it’s a shame to see them so wasted in obsessing over people, in a shallow pretense of actual political philosophy.
Are you asserting that the Dominion team included all the testimony and all the emails, and did not cherry-pick the vast volume of information it gleaned to filter out the fragments that could most successfully be used to influence the Low Information base that will probably provide most of a jury pool, if the case ever gets that far, and the few who slurp up the Agenda Media slop fed to them?
Because that would be a really interesting, almost revolutionary, approach to filing a brief.
The lack of self awareness of internet trolls is truly amazing.
“So let’s say the comment, for dramatic effect, is that this person ‘is like a demonic force, capable of crushing us if we call down his ire, so let’s be careful of what we say’. Pull out the most dramatic words, connect them with ellipses, and present the edited version as an accurate quotation of a serious opinion, and you have the kind of thing that forty and his ilk gobble up and regurgitate with glee on sites like this. ‘He’s a DEMON!!!'”
It’s not me and my ilk (whoever they are) saying it, it’s Tucker Carlson. In a text to his producer he described President Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer.” If you don’t like the language he used with respect to President Trump, take it up with Carlson.
Contrary to their on-air statements, all of the Fox News prime time hosts new the election fraud theory was bogus and said so—in private. But for public consumption they toed the line. You’re trying to make this a lot harder to understand than it really is.
I didn’t say I didn’t like what Tucker said. I actually agree with him. It’s that bull in the china shop approach to problem solving that made Trump so appealing and so effective and it would have been foolish to dismiss it. I just think he might not have intended the far-ranging scope of anti-Trump sentiment you try to credit it for.
You play the same game the Left always plays—take a snapshot of a narrow frame of time and then identify that static fragment as all that is needed to know of the entirety.
As I said, over the span of several weeks everyone I know personally and no doubt every media personality on Fox went through a range of reactions and levels of acceptance of what was flooding in from so many different sources.
And in the meantime the obedient little acolytes like you were furiously parsing out of context communication fragments and reframing topics in ways that made it easier to use emotions in examining them.
What is not hard to understand is that tens of thousands of votes were cast under illegitimate election laws and/or in violation of legitimate laws, and you and your fellow travelers were and are just fine with that because it means Trump is not in the White House any more.
“No answers to these questions, but then the Left don’t do answers.”
Oh. You were expecting me to answer your questions? You know, you do have a track record of deleting comments of other posters, right? Why would I spend time answering your questions if you’re just going to delete those answers? So forgive me if I don’t put a lot of effort into it. Nevertheless, I’ll play along with the first question and we’ll see if you let my comment stand.
“Was it true, or not, that key states had last-minute changes made to their voting rules, in violation of statutes or even a state constitution?”
To my knowledge, no court of law has determined that “last-minute changes made to their voting rules” violated “statutes or even a state constitution.” Can you cite a court ruling to the contrary?
Even if it is true that “last-minute changes made to their voting rules” violated “statutes or even a state constitution” in response to a historic pandemic, how did that result in the type of widespread voter fraud that you allege (and which Trump’s own hired firm couldn’t find and told him so, and which Fox News hosts and executives knew didn’t exist but pretended it did anyway to keep people like you tuning into their programming)?
The source of your conviction that I am The Boss Of Everything should be questioned. Sounds like you got trolled.
I just posted a detailed account of Wisconsin changing its election laws in violation of legislated statutes.
I don’t accept your claim to be able to define “widespread voter fraud”. Be specific. Do you have an aggregate number of fraudulent votes cast in the entire country? Are you talking about “widespread” in geographic terms? Do you have a number of fraudulent votes you find acceptable? What do you mean by
“the type of widespread voter fraud that you allege.”
And I certainly don’t accept your rather breathless rush to pack in as many talking points as possible in the last few lines of your post.
Wisconsin statutes say that the legislature finds that the
privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully
regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse, to
prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may
prefer not to participate in an election, to prevent undue
influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a
candidate.
As a consequence, their laws are strictly construed. Results which do not
comply with those regulations “may not be included in the
certified result of any election.”
Among results which did not comply with those regulations but which were included in the certified result were:
Incomplete and altered certificates. These are the certificates
on the front of the envelopes that have to be exactly done
correctly under the law. If not, those results may not be
counted. How many of those? More than 3,000 of those identified
by person were nonetheless counted, even though they are
clearly invalid under the law.
More than 2,000 ballots in Dane and Milwaukee County had no
clerk’s initials at all, but, nonetheless, they got counted.
Wisconsin statutes explicitly say there are only
two ways to submit an absentee ballot: in person or delivery to
the clerk’s office. That is it. Nothing else is allowed. And
yet the city of Madison had 17,271 ballots in this category
identified.. There are tens of thousands more because they
commingled the ballots afterwards so they could not identify each
one that may have been improperly cast.
28,395 people were explicitly identified as casting absentee ballots granted to them due to claiming “I cannot get to the polls” so not required to show identification
Finally, there are other categories in which as many as
170,000 other ballots were submitted without any application.
In fact, they considered the certification envelope the
application though separate application is required by law.
More than 200,000 votes got counted that Wisconsin statute says
should not have been.
And no, no judge has the authority to override properly legislated laws.
Is this what you mean by “trying to make this a lot harder to understand than it really is”? Because I think it is very easy to understand.
In the state of Wisconsin many people, whether working together or independently, violated several state statutes to allow illegal votes to be cast and counted. That is not hard to understand. What IS hard to understand is how or why anyone would defend or tolerate this if not more interested in achieving an electoral victory than in preserving the integrity of our electoral system and respecting the legitimate votes of the people.
Naturally, more than 200,000 illegal and illegitimate votes accepted and counted as valid in a state “won” by something like 20,000 voted attracts attention.
It reminded some of us of old Joe Kennedy’s comment to his son: “Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.” Apocryphal or not, it resonates because it is so closely related to the reality of Democrat politics and election rigging.
And back to that “widespread” meme—-we are talking about proved fraud in six states. So let’s drop the modifier “widespread” and stick to them.
Nevada had proof of fraud: 42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, . Forty-two thousand people.
Fifteen hundred people voted in Nevada that were dead; 19,000
people voted though they did not live in Nevada, and they were
not a college student. Eight thousand people voted from a
nonexistent address; 15,000 people voted though they were
registered to a commercial address or a vacant address; and
4,000 people voted in Nevada that are noncitizens.
…………………………
A district court in Nevada shot down the campaign’s claims Friday, finding “that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”
Note the weaselwording: that the election WAS AFFECTED BY FRAUD.
That means that the judges reserved the right or ability to arbitrarily decide whether or not the election WAS AFFECTED, not whether fraud took place. 130,000 instances were identified from the 2020 election in Nevada
and most if not all were supported by government records—who voted more than once, who had moved, etc. and this was dismissed based on the careful parsing of the ruling. Not that there wasn’t “credible or reliable evidence” but just that the judges decided it didn’t really matter.
Biden’s margin was 33,596 votes but 130,000 highly questionable votes were identified. The percentages would indicate a pretty good chance that enough of the questionable votes existed to AFFECT THE ELECTION.
Do the math:
42,000 voted more than once. How do you handle that? You can’t just take half of 42,000 and give half of that to each candidate, and ‘more than once” could mean half a dozen times. So those 42,000 votes should be disqualified. But how can you do that if they are now folded into the whole, and can’t be isolated?
Fifteen hundred people voted in Nevada that were dead and 19,000 people voted though they did not live in Nevada. These pose the same problem: They are all now part of a whole and can’t be identified as bogus. We know that 20,500 bogus votes are in the mix, though.
Then there’s another 19,000 with unacceptable addresses or no proof of Nevada residency.
What do you do in a case like this?
First you agree that whatever number has been submitted is merely a guess, and that there is literally no way to know who got how many votes. So Nevada is precluded from certifying its official vote tally because to certify means to guarantee accuracy.
Then you deal with millions of people who are rightly ticked off because their votes have been stolen from them, made void, due to incompetence or corruption or whatever. You impose consequences, you investigate, you prosecute the criminality and you get rid of the bumblers. And you make it clear that each of these offices, from Secretary of State all the way through the election commission and so on, is a legal responsibility with liability for failure. So you make sure these people purge the registration rolls of the dead and those who have moved, you implement stringent rules for identification of voters and adherence to rules, and you prosecute those who commit voter fraud.
One such election cycle would purge most of the miscreants and incompetents. Harsh? Yes—but not worse than having a corrupt election process that the people don’t trust.
in response to a historic pandemic
That sly weaselwording slipped past me earlier. So you seem to be using the Left's "the ends justify the means" argument, in this case it's OK to break the law if you feel that it is justified by a pandemic. But it actually comes across as "a crisis too good to waste".
Well, the pandemic wouldn't have precluded the state legislatures from meeting to legally make changes deemed necessary.
“I just posted a detailed account of Wisconsin changing its election laws in violation of legislated statutes.”
You posted a bunch of unsourced remarks and allegations. You still have not cited a court case in which a judged ruled that a state violated “legislated statutes.”
Nice try. But a statute is a statute, a law is a law, my citation was sourced as an official transcript of a Congressional hearing with sworn testimony, and courts do not have jurisdiction to override legislation.
I know you guys cling to the fallback position of counting on the judicial system to legislate for you but that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
And then you just ignore the courts and do what you want to do anyway. Six hours ago I posted:
From October 11, 2022: Pennsylvania’s top-ranking state elections official said Tuesday a new U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding how rules for the state’s mail-in ballots had been applied in a county judge election doesn’t change her agency’s guidance about counting them.
Acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman said county elections officials should count mail-in votes that arrive in exterior envelopes with inaccurate or nonexistent handwritten dates, despite a requirement in state law.
But there’s nothing to see here, folks, because a judge has said so, in spite of properly legislated state statutes and other court rulings. A compliant judge, an acting Secretary of State, and who cares about the law?
DESPITE A REQUIREMENT IN STATE LAW/RULING BY US SUPREME COURT
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that absentee ballot drop boxes, used widely in the 2020 election, have no statutory authorization and Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) guidance encouraging their use was unlawful. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Wisconsin voters in June 2021 challenging the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes after WEC issued guidance in 2020 contrary to state law.
The majority decision, authored by Justice Rebecca Bradley, said, “Only the legislature may permit absentee voting via ballot drop boxes. WEC cannot. Ballot drop boxes appear nowhere in the detailed statutory system for absentee voting. WEC’s authorization of ballot drop boxes was unlawful…”
……………………..
WILL filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Waukesha County voters in June 2021 challenging the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes after WEC issued unlawful guidance to clerks, in 2020, encouraging the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, and telling voters that others can return their ballot for them.
This advice was contrary to state law. Voting is a constitutional right, but state law makes clear that, “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.” <b?There are just two legal ways in Wisconsin to submit an absentee ballot. When voting by absentee ballot, state law says “[t]he envelope [containing the ballot] shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.”
An October 2021 Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) report on election administration confirmed there is no authorization for absentee ballot drop boxes in state law. And WILL’s 2020 Election Review said, “the widespread adoption of absentee ballot drop boxes, encouraged by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), runs afoul of state law requirements for the collection of absentee ballots.”
On January 13, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued a summary judgment decision that held that WEC’s guidance on absentee ballot drop boxes violates state law. Judge Bohren further stated the guidance should have been adopted through the rulemaking process in Chapter 227. Judge Bohren made clear that state law provides just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office.
LMAO you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. I think it goes without question that our resident losers are some of the dumbest pieces of shit in America, and they’ve just proven that ….
FOX NEWS LIES !!!!
This is so fantastically ironic that this moment must be preserved. Let’s never forget this. Consider that these two non binary mouth breathers who just wet their panties over Fox News texts, have bought 100% into these lies over the last 7 years …
Russia Collusion
COVID
Vaccines
Masks
Systemic racism
Climate change
Saving Democracy in Ukraine
Men Can Become Women
They have so much fucking garbage in their head they can’t think straight. Fox News is not Americas problem Forty. You are Americas problem.
Look at the implications of forty’s moaning and groaning over Fox’s alleged “lies”. Based on his “logic” then every host of every Agenda Media outlet absolutely, firmly, without question not only believed every word of what was presented but had absolute faith in and admiration for every single guest.
When you look at the rogue’s gallery of guests and the insane nonsense these outlets have disseminated that is a pretty damning indictment of both the intelligence and integrity of every host or personality on CNN and MSNBC, just to name two.
Here’s your problem Forty, and Fielding, and Casper
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11764657/Heartbreaking-moment-NBC-reporter-cries-Japanese-grandfather.html
Your emotions are child like, and you need to get the fuck over yourselves. What is it with the younger generation and emotion control??? They have none. Bad shit has happened all throughout history to everyone, but it is the emotionally strong people who build better societies. The weak die, or become gender fluid, either way they’re worthless. I thought “enlightened” people would have figured that out.
Anecdotally I know a Japanese family in Idaho who did go to internment camps (btw, a Democrat did that), and they did not complain and understood why. Today, they own a few restaurants and are a very successful family.
NEVER apologize to WOKE pieces of shit
Tiger Woods apologizes for his bizarre TAMPON prank with pal and playing partner Justin Thomas and says ‘it was supposed to be all fun and games’
Live your life, say what you want, make all the crass jokes you can, and FUCK these emotionally challenged losers. I am so fucking tired of these losers in life
I know. What is it about all these squishy spineless grovelers, whimpering in fear of “offending” some anonymous faceless Karens somewhere?
Some bawdy humor is downright funny, some is just crude and obnoxious, but very little of it calls for self-abasement. But self-abasement is a core element of the Left, as it has a history of demanding public admission of various crimes and sins.
Ok, pick out the lies in this statement
Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant falsely claimed in an effort to boost faltering ratings that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election. The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trump’s election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trump’s historic second impeachment.
Faltering ratings??? Five people dead??? Including an officer??? ALL LIES. And it’s hard to believe that anyone would question the integrity of Dominion, right???
And just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Dominion’s Director of Product Strategy and Security, Eric Coomer, acknowledged in private that “our shit is just riddled with bugs.” Indeed, Coomer had been castigating Dominion’s failures for years. In 2019, Coomer noted that “our products suck.” He lamented that “[a]lmost all” of Dominion’s technological failings were “due to our complete f— up in installation.”
The other BIG LIE that Forty believes, is that the 2020 election was fair and transparent. Yes, they are that stupid.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/breaking-sht-just-riddled-bugs-fox-news-filing-shows-dominion-knew-voting-systems-major-security-issues/
You didn’t attribute that leading statement to AP, but you really didn’t need to. It’s such a perfect example of the AP’s total lack of integrity as it drops trou and grabs ankles to present itself to the American Left as an ally.
You pointed out the lie in the claim that Fox was “trying to boost faltering ratings”. Here we see more Leftist semantic manipulation, redefining leading in ratings as “faltering” and it is shameful editorializing by a shameful pretender to journalism.
Did anyone claim DOMINION rigged the election? I thought the Left rigged the election and just hired Dominion to help out, or took advantage of Dominion’s defects. If Dominion had complied with requests to examine code and machines they might have avoided being implicated in the deceit. That’s a clever bit of distraction there, AP.
I almost had to admire the shell game of phrasing in this: “that left five people dead, including a police officer.” Aside from the lie that a police officer died as a result of the riot, it manages to skirt the fact that two of the other deaths were heart attacks and two were homicides committed by law enforcement against unarmed people who were not engaged in violence.
And then, of course, the AP slipped in the comment about “Trump’s historic second impeachment” without referring to the fact that it depended wholly on a lie. Actually, on two lies. One on a purposeful misstatement of the actual definition of the word “insurrection” as it was on the alleged grounds of “incitement of insurrection” and one lie in claiming Trump “incited” anything.
That’s a whole lot of lying packed into a short paragraph, but the AP has had a lot of practice
Let’s just all imagine for a moment that Trump is still POTUS, and a Russian surveillance balloon is allowed to traverse the country unimpeded, and once that mission is completed and the balloon is out to sea, Trump flexes his muscles and shoots it down. Following that, Trump unleashes the Air Force to proceed to just shoot down random unidentified and unknown objects out of “caution” and it’s later revealed that one object shot down was a $12 hobby balloon. On the heels of this, a train derailment happens and toxic chemicals are unleashed on unsuspecting, lower class Americans and Trumps response is … “it happens all the time”
Do you think the media would have different coverage of these stories??
Here’s a headline guaranteed to make Leftists’ heads explode:
U.S. FIREARM COMPANIES MADE OVER 13 MILLION GUNS IN 2021
It appears that the Left is losing the race to rid America of guns. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when two diametrically opposed movements reach their culmination. What’s going to happen when the effort to destroy freedom collides with the arming of a significant portion of the population?
Sworn testimony in a Congressional hearing on 2020 election irregularities: emphasis mine
EXAMINING IRREGULARITIES IN THE 2020 ELECTION
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DECEMBER 16, 2020
……………………………………..
Absentee voting in Wisconsin is
treated quite differently, I believe, than other parts of the
country. Let me read for you what the legislature found. It is
in our statute. It says that the legislature finds that the
privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully
regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse, to
prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may
prefer not to participate in an election, to prevent undue
influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a
candidate.
As a consequence, our laws are strictly construed, and even
more so, let me read again from the law. Results which do not
comply with those regulations “may not be included in the
certified result of any election.” So it is very
straightforward that the State of Wisconsin has taken a very
different view of in-person voting with all the protections and
absentee voting that has been repeatedly, including in the
Carter Commission report, thought to be a source of significant
potential for fraud.
In Wisconsin, we just completed a recount. We had more than
2,500 volunteers, or probably more than 1,000 volunteers for
the Biden campaign as well. Uniquely, we are able to examine
actual envelopes that contain the ballots that are submitted by
absentee voters. This allowed us to identify by person, by
address, by ward–it is not conspiracy. The real names are in
the record. Here is what we found. We found that there were
incomplete and altered certificates. These are the certificates
on the front of the envelopes that have to be exactly done
correctly under our law. If not, those results may not be
counted. How many of those? More than 3,000 of those identified
by person were nonetheless counted, even though they are
clearly invalid under the law.
A second category: initials of clerks are placed on all of
those envelopes. Why? Because the clerk identifies it having
been properly received and identification is provided. That is
the check in advance of the election. What did we find? More
than 2,000 of those ballots in Dane and Milwaukee County had no
initials at all, but, nonetheless, they got counted.
We also have special laws in Wisconsin with regard to
voting in advance. We do not allow advance voting. We allow in-
person and other voting as absentee. So anything before
election day is under our absentee rules. What did the city of
Madison do? They created a system where people could arrive at
a park, hand in their ballots in envelopes, 5 weeks before the
election. They also created boxes, no controls at all, just
boxes on corners, that you could throw the ballot in. No
attempt at all, and our statutes explicitly say there are only
two ways to submit an absentee ballot: in person or delivery to
the clerk’s office. That is it. Nothing else is allowed. And
yet the city of Madison, we had 17,271 ballots in this category
that we identify. There are tens of thousands more because they
commingled the ballots afterwards so we could not identify each
one that may have been improperly cast.
Then we have an interesting category called “indefinitely
confined.” These are people which the statute–I will read
from the statute–“by age, physical illness, or infirmity or
are disabled indefinitely.” Among those claiming this status–
so they do not have to provide any identification. Among those
claiming this status is one of the electors for Joe Biden, who
said, “I cannot get to the polls.” We have poll workers who
claimed it. We have people who went to protests, people who had
weddings, people who had vacations. All claimed this status:
“I cannot get to the polls,” so they were able to vote
without identification. There were 28,395 people we explicitly
identified.
Finally, there are other categories in which as much as
170,000 other ballots were submitted without any application.
In fact, they considered the certification envelope the
application though a separate application is required by law.
Three million people properly voted in the State of
Wisconsin. More than 200,000 identified during this recount did
not. But those votes got counted, and our statute says they
should not have been. That, in our view, is a taint on our
election in Wisconsin.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Troupis. I believe Joe
Biden won our State by about 20,000 votes?
Mr. Troupis. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. You are talking about over 200,000 that
were outside of our law that probably, if the law would have
been followed, should not have been counted.
Mr. Troupis. Correct.
…………………………….
This is all information readily available to the governor and state legislature of Wisconsin, even before the hearing date of December 16, 2020. Yet in spite of this information “Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the head of Wisconsin’s elections board certified Joe Biden’s victory in the state ” on November 30, 2020.
In other words, the governor and the head of the election board violated several Wisconsin statutes and falsely certified a vote tally known to be based on illegal votes.
Yet no action has been taken, against either of these people, for their illegal actions which not only violated state statutes but resulted in election fraud.
Instead of defaulting to the narrative, perhaps a troll would like to provide a legal analysis of the cited statutes and a defense for counting votes deemed illegitimate by those statutes.
Or, just keep howling the word “baseless”
Judge Starr, you have raised twice this issue about
Pennsylvania and that the laws of Pennsylvania were changed. In
Oklahoma, we did State Bill 210 and State Bill 1779 because we
saw with the pandemic there were going to be problems. So our
legislature came into session, made a change to be able to
adjust for how we were going to do early ballots and early
voting, because we knew that was the law that needed to be
followed. Was that done in Pennsylvania? And does it matter who
sets the law and the rules for elections?
Mr. Starr. No, it was not done, unfortunately, in
Pennsylvania. The Governor sought to change the law. The
General Assembly in Pennsylvania had met, reviewed, and made
various and sundry changes and reforms. And then the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, building on what the Governor had
done, made additional changes, and those in my judgment were
complete violations of the United States Constitution and
flagged as such preliminarily by Justice Samuel Alito. So the
Oklahoma Legislature did it the right way.
does it matter who sets the law and the rules for elections?
Anyone have an opinion on this?
From October 11, 2022: Pennsylvania’s top-ranking state elections official said Tuesday a new U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding how rules for the state’s mail-in ballots had been applied in a county judge election doesn’t change her agency’s guidance about counting them.
Acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman said county elections officials should count mail-in votes that arrive in exterior envelopes with inaccurate or nonexistent handwritten dates, despite a requirement in state law.
But there’s nothing to see here, folks
does it matter who sets the law and the rules for elections?
Anyone have an opinion on this?
It matters only to the extent that the U.S. constitution specifies that it’s the state legislatures that are responsible for election laws. (Article 1, Section 4) So, if you view the Constitution as an outdated, flexible, living document written over two centuries ago by racist white men that can be changed or reinterpreted at will or ignored when it conflicts with a political agenda, then it really doesn’t matter. But a country that operates on that pretext is no longer a Constitutional Republic. and can’t exist as a bastion of freedom for very long.
It also matters when a state, exercising its Constitutional mandate, legislates laws stating that its election laws can only be made by the legislature. This matters when Secretaries of State, and/or courts, and/or election commissions, assume that authority in violation of the laws of the state. I do foresee an effort to get a very narrow SCOTUS ruling allowing federal standards to be applied to all national elections, while allowing the states to handle the details themselves.
“Nice try. But a statute is a statute, a law is a law, my citation was sourced as an official transcript of a Congressional hearing with sworn testimony, and courts do not have jurisdiction to override legislation.”
You’ve posted so many comments that I thought you meant the one posted at 6:21 p.m. since that was in the same thread in which I was commenting. But I guess you meant this comment.
So you are quoting from the testimony of Jim Troupis, one of the individuals who attempted to submit a fake slate of electors for the State of Wisconsin. This would be the same Jim Troupis who failed to persuade every level of Wisconsin state courts of his claims of 2020 election fraud.
So yeah… still waiting for you to cite a court ruling that “last-minute changes made to their voting rules” violated “statutes or even a state constitution.”
failed to persuade every level of Wisconsin state courts of his claims of 2020 election fraud. that’s your Identity Politics spin on it—ignore the facts presented and pretend that the only thing that matters is who said it.
You have trouble keeping up, don’t you? Or maybe it’s just that facts run into an impermeable barrier of obdurate allegiance to the narrative and just can’t fight their way through—kind of a brain condom. So…one more time…..
still waiting for you to cite a court ruling that “last-minute changes made to their voting rules” violated “statutes or even a state constitution.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that absentee ballot drop boxes, used widely in the 2020 election, have no statutory authorization and Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) guidance encouraging their use was unlawful. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Wisconsin voters in June 2021 challenging the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes after WEC issued guidance in 2020 contrary to state law.
The majority decision, authored by Justice Rebecca Bradley, said, “Only the legislature may permit absentee voting via ballot drop boxes. WEC cannot. Ballot drop boxes appear nowhere in the detailed statutory system for absentee voting. WEC’s authorization of ballot drop boxes was unlawful…”
……………………..
WILL filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Waukesha County voters in June 2021 challenging the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes after WEC issued unlawful guidance to clerks, in 2020, encouraging the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, and telling voters that others can return their ballot for them.
This advice was contrary to state law. Voting is a constitutional right, but state law makes clear that, “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.” There are just two legal ways in Wisconsin to submit an absentee ballot. When voting by absentee ballot, state law says “[t]he envelope [containing the ballot] shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.”
An October 2021 Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) report on election administration confirmed there is no authorization for absentee ballot drop boxes in state law. And WILL’s 2020 Election Review said, “the widespread adoption of absentee ballot drop boxes, encouraged by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), runs afoul of state law requirements for the collection of absentee ballots.”
On January 13, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued a summary judgment decision that held that WEC’s guidance on absentee ballot drop boxes violates state law. Judge Bohren further stated the guidance should have been adopted through the rulemaking process in Chapter 227. Judge Bohren made clear that state law provides just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office.
So a circuit court judge ruled that state law provides just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office and the state’s Supreme Court issued a similar ruling.
I know, you need an authority to tell you what to think, and just can’t work out how to understand something like a law on your own.
Reminds me of a popular T-shirt.
I was thinking more like this:
“An impermeable barrier of obdurate allegiance to the narrative…” You’ve outdone yourself. That phrase alone is worth the millions of words you wrote today. You are truly an impressive wordsmith!
Congratulations. You found a court who issued a ruling regarding the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which is vested by state law to administer elections, encouraged the use of ballot drop boxes and permitted a third party to return a ballot on behalf of another voter. By a 4-3 vote, the court found both were not expressly authorized by Wisconsin law and thus were illegal.
Now, where is the fraud? You’re a LONG way off from proving fraud in the 2022 election, but keep trying. Maybe you can persuade Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson Laura Ingraham, and their ilk to stop referring to election deniers as “mind-blowingly nuts,” “totally off the rails” and “completely bs.” (Not that they’re talking about you, specifically.)
Ah, yes. First the sniping about my ability to type fast as well as summarize actual thoughts and ideas, and then the effort to do a lateral shift to another topic, one going back to your comfort zone of Identity Politics.
It’s not even a good try. It’s actually pathetic and feeble. Who cares that the WEC is authorized to ADMINISTER elections? That’s not the point. The point is that they were not authorized to change the law.
So now the phrase “not expressly authorized by law” is supposed to dilute the criminality of breaking the law? Actually, it was expressly forbidden by the law, but I can see you’re not swayed by that detail—not when you are stuck on trying to convince people that votes cast under illegitimate rules should be treated as legitimate votes.
That is what you’re trying to do, isn’t it? Justify breaking the law, trying to blur the edges of the law with vague mumblings of “not being expressly authorized” to do something as an acceptable excuse for doing something expressly forbidden, and falling back on the old court ruling whine?
So cut to the chase. What’s your end game here? The laws in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were explicit. They were broken. The result was tens of thousands of votes being counted as valid that should never, under the laws, been accepted. Two Supreme Courts agree with this. In both states the margin of victory assigned to Biden was far smaller than the number of fraudulent votes accepted.
So what are you trying to accomplish? You’ve thrown in everything you can think of—–semantic manipulation, Identity Politics, demonizing freedom of opinion and speech, attacking independent thought, implying that courts can (and did) override legislated law, pretty much the whole shebang. You’ve even sunk so low as to ridicule my blogging skills.
Your problem is that you’re wrong. If you would just admit that you couldn’t care less about the law, about fairness, about legitimate elections, about what went on in 2020, because the only thing that matters to you is that Trump is not president you wouldn’t be right. But you’d be a little closer to honest.
Now, where is the fraud? You’re a LONG way off from proving fraud in the 2022 election
Oh, is that the shell game now? Suddenly we just jumped a couple of years to a completely different election?
And who WERE Tucker, Laura and Sean referring to? Specifically? Everyone who recognized the problems in the election or a few outliers who probably WERE "totally off the rails" ? (That would mean, by the way, as blindly dedicated to a defective narrative as you are.)
Warning: Incoming words and ideas.
What is your position on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, and do you think it should or should not apply to votes gathered by illegal means?
I know you don’t like to look things up, so I’ll help out here. Strictly speaking, it addresses the doctrine that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded, but there is a legal theory that it can and should extend to excluding anything obtained through violation of the law.
What’s your take on this? That anything gained through illegal means must be excluded, or “anything goes” no matter how or where it was obtained?
This is not a “DEMAND” that you answer, just tossing an actual idea out there. It’s what serious rational people do when there is an important issue at hand.
But now that I think of it, this might be what got you fretting about me “trying to trip you up”. Certainly an objective legal concept might do that
“deniers” = new Leftist buzzword granting the delusion of superiority to those who sneer the word at those who don’t agree with them
Election “denier”
AGW “denier”
“vaccine” “denier”
science (in general) “denier”
gender fluidity “denier”
Russia Collusion”denier”
CRT “denier”
insurrection “denier”
systemic racism “denier”
And so on
Of course the implied subtext is that to “deny” something means it’s real and we just refuse to accept it—more of that sneaky semantic manipulation thing the Left does, to such great effect on the unthinking.
” First the sniping about my ability to type fast as well as summarize actual thoughts and ideas, and then the effort to do a lateral shift to another topic, one going back to your comfort zone of Identity Politics.”
Where did I say anything about typing fast? I did say you have posted a lot of comments and I mistook one comment for a different one you were referring to. If you consider that a snipe, so be it.
“So what are you trying to accomplish? You’ve thrown in everything you can think of—–semantic manipulation, Identity Politics, demonizing freedom of opinion and speech, attacking independent thought, implying that courts can (and did) override legislated law, pretty much the whole shebang. You’ve even sunk so low as to ridicule my blogging skills.”
Uh, no. I made a few comments about how the Dominion Voting Systems legal brief revealed Fox News to be a dishonest organization. YOU were the one that responded wit a laundry list of questions and demanded that I answer them. That is, you were the one who changed the subject and tried to throw “everything you can think of” into the mix in the hopes of tripping me up… or something. I don’t claim to understand your motivations.
As for as ridiculing your blogging skills, what blog? You have a blog?
“revealed Fox News to be a dishonest organization” in your opinion
I “demanded” nothing. You sure are sensitive.
“In hopes of tripping you up” ???? Too funny. Not my fault your “thinking” is so incoherent and riddled with internal inconsistencies that you keep running into rhetorical dead ends.
This is a blog. I write on this blog.
Hint: I wouldn’t put your effort to participate in this blog on your CV if you want to impress anyone with your ability to hold your own in discourse.
“I don’t claim to understand your motivations.”
Hmmm. I’ve explained my “motivations” several times here. One is to engage in the exchange of information and ideas. Which is what we usually do here, except for troll invasions that try to drag reasonable discourse off into the weeds of Leftist delusions and wallowing in toxic Identity “Politics” devoid of any actual understanding or explanation of a coherent political model.
And one is, when I see a steaming pile of crap sitting there stinking up the place (ie: one of your typical contributions) I like to correct the lies and clean things up a bit. A lot of people read these blogs without participating and I don’t like the idea of someone seeing blatant propaganda or scripting go unchallenged and thinking it must be true.
Call it a hobby.
“This is not a ‘DEMAND’ that you answer, just tossing an actual idea out there. It’s what serious rational people do when there is an important issue at hand.”
Oh, my apologies for mischaracterizing your motivations. Regardless, you obviously were expecting answers to your laundry list of questions because, after having not addressed them for a period of a few hours, you wrote: “No answers to these questions, but then the Left don’t do answers. They do poo-flinging and emoting, parroting the scripts fed to them by their masters and avoiding reality.” I guess that’s what passes for engaging in the exchange of information and ideas.
Speaking of which, my first comment on this open thread was about the internal communications of Fox News hosts and executives that reveal the organization to be dishonest. Actually, I think my original comment, as well as Fielding’s on the same subject, has been deleted. So much for an exchange of information and ideas. But in the interest of an exchange of information and ideas, you obviously didn’t know what I was talking about even as you attempted to refute it. I think you still don’t.
“‘revealed Fox News to be a dishonest organization’ in your opinion.”
It’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of Fox News hosts and executives themselves. That point seems to still elude you.
“This is a blog. I write on this blog.”
Commenting in a comments section of someone else’s blog doesn’t make you a blogger any more than commenting on a news article makes you a journalist.
“Hint: I wouldn’t put your effort to participate in this blog on your CV if you want to impress anyone with your ability to hold your own in discourse.”
So you put on your CV that you post comments on someone else’s blog anonymously under the handle “Amazona”? You think that will impress people? lol I can just see you at a cocktail party:
“So, what do you do?”
“I’m a writer who enjoys an exchange of information and ideas.”
“That sounds interesting. Who do you write for?”
“Well, I write for myself.”
“Where can I see some of your writing? Do you have a substack or a website?”
“No, I…”
“A Facebook page? Twitter?”
“No, I…”
“You’re a writer but you don’t have any outlets?”
“I comment on other people’s blogs.”
“Oh. I think my drink needs a refill. Excuse me.”
Anyway, let me again apologize if I insulted you by pointing out that you write a lot of comments on someone else’s blog, or that I mischaracterized your motivations. Insulting other commenters is rude, don’t you agree?
“she” is adorable? Well, that might explain a lot. I’ve noted the shrill bitchiness, of course, but always thought it was more of an incel-belligerence thing. But “she” works, too.
The petty screed, above, fits into incel-bitchiness and Mean Girl bitchiness equally. It’s not only a peevish nit-picky overreaction to whatever it was that stepped on some toesies, it is also an absolutely brilliant confirmation of my observation of lack of self-awareness. When an observation is that trolls depend on defining terms and then a troll demands that s/he is the final arbiter of the definition of “writer” you have to be almost embarrassed for him/her. You just wait for Spook to come in with a reminder of the Rule of Holes—JUST STOP DIGGING !!!
And it serves two purposes. One is to remind us why these people are usually not allowed to use this blog as a mental litter box, and one is show how quickly a smug pretense of actual political commentary disintegrates into poo-throwing when thwarted by reason and fact.
“When an observation is that trolls depend on defining terms and then a troll demands that s/he is the final arbiter of the definition of ‘writer’ you have to be almost embarrassed for him/her.”
I said you are not a blogger just because you comment on someone else’s blog posts. You are also not a talk show host just because you call in to the program.
Cheers.
I never said I was a blogger. I said I am a writer. Because I write. I’m writing this. I write a lot. You commented on how much I write. I’m taking time out right now from writing a legal brief for a new project.
And BTW, I believe that people who contribute to the content of blogs might be considered to be “blogging”‘ and I usually do this, much more than respond to other bloggers’ posts. Evidently your fortycentric dictionary has a much more limited definition.
I responded to your posts because they were so batshit crazy they needed some context.
HOWL!! Fox hosts are liars because they have guests they don’t necessarily agree with!!!!!
HOWL!! Fox is hypocritical because it produces shows on what is happening and not just on content everyone agrees with!!!!!
HOWL!! Fox is corrupt because its business model includes programming intended to boost ratings!!!!
OMG the horror!!! Who could ever imagine such a thing? News segments that don’t edit the news! Opinion hosts who have opinions! A business model based on making money! No wonder you’re outraged!
Plop a load of this on this blog and if I’m around on that day yes, I will shred it. Of course that is like dragging a feather in front of a kitten, as it stimulates your obsessive need to bicker. Bicker bicker quibble quibble blah blah blah. But it’s time for you to go play with yourself, if you can’t get gratification from your own tribe. You like your story, it makes you happy to believe it, so go roll around in it and glory in it. Just quit dragging it in here to stink up the place. Because it’s dumb. A dumb story based on dumb conclusions and assumptions cobbled together to appeal to dumb people.
Abp. Viganò: The globalist New World Order has the marks of the ‘antichurch of Satan
This article dovetails nicely with comments on the previous thread talking about leftist religion. The author clearly defines the problems we face in today’s world of evil and makes it quite clear, things are worse than most people realize, in part because it’s happening globally, not just the US.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-the-globalist-new-world-order-has-the-marks-of-the-antichurch-of-satan/?utm_source=daily-usa-2023-02-18&utm_medium=email
“deniers” = new Leftist buzzword granting the delusion of superiority to those who sneer the word at those who don’t agree with them
I’m thinking we turn the tables and start calling Democrats “promoters”
Gender transitioning “promoters”
Abortion “promoters”
Climate change “promoters”
Censorship “promoters”
Ukraine War “promoters”
Drug use “promoters”
Open Borders “promoters”
Excellent idea! I’d add two more: young children sexualization promoters, and human trafficking promoters.
If only the GOP would learn how to fight
Good call!
So we all consider the Democrat party to be a cult and for valid reasons, well with the intense focus on racism over the last decade, I’m beginning to think the American black population are becoming cult like as well
Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot urged black voters to help her ‘keep the seat’ from falling to white or Hispanic challengers, despite an appalling spike in crime. …. In rallies on Saturday, Lightfoot told the South and West side residents who don’t support her to not bother voting at all. Chicago’s South Side is a historically-black area.
And so now, if you don’t vote for the right candidate, they don’t want you voting???? WTF? Isn’t that voter suppression???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11768009/Chicago-mayor-Lori-Lightfoot-urges-black-voters-help-seat.html
I think I finally understand Forty’s breathless glee over the Fox texts. What Forty witnessed there was a difference of opinion amongst Fox hosts, and that concept is not encouraged or even accepted in the Democrat Party anymore. They are a cult … make no mistake about that
https://raheemkassam.substack.com/p/fox-vs-dominion-discovery-docs-show
Sounds like Dominion’s law suit may be a severe case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for.
I was thinking the same thing.
Warning: Incoming words and ideas.
LMAO
Insulting other commenters is rude, don’t you agree?
No. Fuck your feelings.
So it’s well known and documented that the FBI infiltrated the Jan 6 mostly peaceful protest, as well as infiltrating the Proud Boys, and of course censored speech on Hunter’s lap top, AND Democrats guaranteed us that the 2016 election was all a Russian op, BUT we are to believe that the 2020 election was unquestionably fair and transparent.
Or at least that’s what Forty believes. Isn’t she adorable?