Current Events: Our Nation Has A Migraine

~ crossovercreativechaos

I have a headache. Both from near-constant stress the past several weeks (we’re looking at Hurricane Eta headed this way next week, 2020, you SUCK) and from the gaslighting our media is trying to pull with this election. Because they are seriously pulling out all the stops, and the amount of chutzpah on display is… breathtaking.

No, seriously. Speaking as someone with a stat degree, the fact that votes keep mysteriously turning up and they’re all for Biden is simply not plausible, human nature being what it is. Larry Correia breaks it down better than I can.

The 2020 Election as seen from MonsterHunterNation.

This is going to get ugly. Very ugly.

And yet I’m not surprised in the least. The problem with people who’ve gotten away with gaslighting everyone around them is they think they can keep doing it no matter how outrageous the lie.

Investigate it. Investigate everything. Our nation depends on a free and fair election. If you honestly think one side won, you should welcome the chance to prove it.

…Now I’m going to go get some more aspirin. Ugh.

 

Some more links of possible interest….

Let’s Stop Pretending Any of This IS Normal

Revolt of the Deplorables: A new correlation of forces.

When even NPR says there’s a problem….

Political Elite, Counting States, Twitter And MSM Are Silencing Vote Disputes.

What Can You Do About A Stolen Election?

64 thoughts on “Current Events: Our Nation Has A Migraine”

  2. As I told somebody who asked me the other day: nobody can win this election because both sides have accused the other (subtly and not so subtly) of cheating for months before the election itself. I know which side I think was actually cheating (and it isn’t the side the corrupt, political mainstream media supports) but the truth is it doesn’t matter. What matters is that both sides are going to take it to the court, and the country will be even more deeply divided than ever before no matter what the courts decide.

    I mean I’m personally more than a little terrified of what will happen should Joe Biden end up “winning,” but it’s going to be bad no matter who does.

    At this point the only way to save the nation long term is an impossibility. We need to tear down and tear out by the roods both of the current major political parties and reign in Big Tech and then expose the mainstream media for being just like (or really less trustworthy than) the checkout rags that are always going on about somebody’s half-extra terrestrial babies.

    But I honestly have no faith that such can be done.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
  3. Pingback: LinkSwarm for November 6, 2020 « Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

  4. At this point, with how blatantly the media’s twisting things, I’m wondering if they’re going for the Hyperboly Defense. If they lie really blatantly in a way that looks like Hyperboly in all its exaggeration, people may believe that the lie is all in the exaggeration, not in the basic statement. After all, that’s the basis of hyperboly, take something nominally true, and exaggerate it out of all proportion for the sake of effect. So in this case, the lie may be believed because people are tricked into thinking a different part of the statement is the lie (the degree, instead of the position).

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. That is, in fact, Trump’s strategy. Shout for months about “Voter Fraud”, and that Mail In Ballots are Fraudulent- but Absentee Ballots somehow aren’t… Though they’re just, like, The Same Thing. Or, how about the Trump appointee to the USPS ordering mail sorting machines to be scrapped. Yup, don’t need those for speedy delivery for mail, let alone ballots. Or reducing the number of mailbox. Nope, no problem having to go out of your way to find a mailbox…

      The Trump campaign told all you Trump voters to vote on Election Day, because it was so apparent that the majority of Democrats were voting early- Election Day Ballots from the voting precincts get COUNTED FIRST, early voting/absentee/mail in Ballots AFTER. So, once you get the early surge of republican votes, start screaming about VOTER FRAUD once the scales start to tip. Yup, just as planned.

      Like

      Reply
  5. Pingback: Ridiculous Election Shenanigans and … Gun Bits .. – Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  6. The Right hasn’t been paying attention to the mainstream media for years, so the obvious demoralization play isn’t working.

    Mood online is…combative. At a minimum.

    Apropos of nothing, anyone ever wonder what happened to the people who shot up the Metcalf Substation?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. Considering where those votes originate from (read: heavily Blue areas), as well as the sheer lengths that Republicans have repeatedly gone to to try and suppress those votes, there’s not a whole lot of credibility for the opposition’s argument.

    *snorts* Not a lot of credibility for either side, TBPH – it all depends on whether you consider Trump enough of a threat to basic values and decency that the tactic qualifies as “taking more Evil out of the world, than you’re putting in”.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I fail to see how “prove you are who you say you are when voting” is voter suppression, while Black Panthers standing outside polling places laughing about killing cracker babies (footage of which was brought to the local DA, who had known Panther ties and refused to prosecute) is somehow not.

      But don’t look at the sides, look at the numbers. 28,000 votes showing up for Biden in PA, for example. All of them for Biden? Not one write-in for, say, Mickey Mous? Which tends to happen, Americans being what they are. That is beyond statistically unlikely.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Especially when you consider then number of people who didn’t show up at the Biden rallies. I admit that I’m firmly praying for Not Biden, but given his rallies were pulling some really low numbers, the number of votes he’s getting are, um, suspect.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Rallies wouldn’t tell the whole story, I don’t think.

        IIRC – and for my own mental health I skipped *a lot* of the news cycle, so apologies in advance for the overgeneralization – the narrative endorsed by Dems was “don’t congregate in large numbers.” The narrative endorsed by Republicans was, “congregate or don’t in however large a sized group you want.” Following that advice would lead to a disparity in turnout size at rallies.

        Like

      3. Tens of thousands at a Trump rally versus a dozen-plus at a Biden one is a disparity, yes.

        Although, to be accurate, the Democratic stance was “don’t congregate in large numbers unless you’re protesting racism on the streets”. Which is how we got our lovely summer of riots.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. *sigh* Ladies and gents, welcome to the “Witty shoots themselves in the foot” corner, thank you, brain.

        [sarcasm] What were they going to do to stop them practicing their right to free speach, arrest everyone out on the street? [\sarcasm]

        Disclaimer: Anyone who rioted, looted, caused property damage, etc, should be charged and judged by the law accordingly. As aggravating to sanity as they are, lawyers are a profession for a reason.

        …and I fear that reason is going to get an exercise the likes of which haven’t been seen since 2000. Pass the migraine medicine, oi.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. I fear you are correct on the lawyers. If rioters had been arrested, charged, and not bailed out by various Democratic fundraising organizations, the past few months would have been a lot more rational.

        https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/milwaukee_officials_have_some_explaining_to_do.html

        https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/05/doj-looking-into-criminal-referral-alleging-3k-cases-of-voter-fraud-in-nevada-n1127129

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Most of the rallies were parades of vehicles.

        Which started as a Democrat suggestion so that people could go show support, without risk of infecting anyone, because they’re all in their vehicle bubbles.

        Thus, the spontaneous “trump parades,” and why it was noteworthy that Biden got single-digit vehicle turn-out in his attempts.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Blue areas? Rather, areas that have historically recorded majority votes for Democrats.

      In some cases, you cannot oppose white supremacism without saying that recorded majority votes for Democrats were fraudulent to some degree. Basically, everything from when Reconstruction ended to some time after white supremacist terrorism largely ceased. Which period definitely includes 1960, which JFK ‘won’ by his ‘victories’ in southern states. LBJ himself is proof that if the ‘the parties switched places’, it was definitely after 1960.

      1860s the Radicals were the dominant Republicans. When the dominant Republican faction switched to moderates/Mugwumps, Reconstruction was ended and various laws to prevent it reoccurring were passed. Nixon was definitely of the post WWII collaborationist faction of Republicans, which was willing to pretend that blue votes could be trusted.

      That national consensus of pretending to believe that opposite party controlled votes, and ideas of voter suppression/ballot integrity, can be trusted may have definitively broken down.

      If the 2020 blue results were not fraudulent, then that can be demonstrated in court.

      If the 2020 red results were fraudulent, then you will be able to successfully bring suit to demonstrate that in court.

      We know for a fact that you only have the courage to burn down poor neighborhoods in blue areas, not rich neighborhoods or offices in blue areas, much less neighborhoods in red areas. That is one reason not to respect your alternatives to negotiation.

      Furthermore, there is a theoretical argument that as people in blue areas are denied the right to freely own guns, and to shoot criminals (such as rioters) in self defense, then so to should they be denied the right to suffrage.

      Yes, yes, you can have the negotiating position that there are no blacks or hispanics alive to vote in Red areas, because they were murdered as a result of American whites being fully correctly described by the 1619 project.

      Convince me that the blue area ballots have owners; you will not convince me that ballot access means that I must accept however many voterless ballots, or multi-ballot voters, that you need to ensure that you get whatever outcome you desire right now. Trying only to do so, and then resorting to your alternatives to negotiation, will not actually bring you the outcomes you desire.

      I was certain that Obama was not fairly elected both times, but accepted the results because I felt obligated to accept the electoral vote. The constitution specifies the electoral vote, it doesn’t require multi-factor authentication for every ballot, and it doesn’t outright literally say that a state cannot select its electors in corrupt manner.

      Your side’s completely unnecessary mistakes are why I no longer feel so obligated.

      1. You could have accepted the losses when it stopped being possible to plausibly hide the necessary fraud. 2. You could have hidden the fraud better, if you had retained a better grasp of how minorities would vote in a blue area. 3. You would have done that, if you hadn’t deciding that burning down minority neighborhoods was a way to get the black vote out /or/ hadn’t compromised the utility of polling by blatantly using it as way to manipulate public opinion last cycle. 4. You could have selected a candidate that did not require setting up such extreme ballot manipulation measures in the first place. Tulsi Gabbard, you could have easily frauded in, or perhaps even outright won. But Biden required a) setting up Covid ‘counter measures’ to justify mail in ballots ‘received after the election but post marked the day of’ b) burning down enough blue state neighborhoods to make sure that the State Legislatures knew to select the right slate of electors after the ground truth was confused.

      You spent credibility that you needed with the right and the neutrals with everything you did, and you did so without realizing.

      I’ve probably wasted a great deal of my own credibility saying this, but I would never have much credibility in the long term anyway. I’m convinced that figures in my state’s Democratic Party were comfortable playing footsie with white supremacists back in the day, because they cared about sucking up to power. I’m utterly convinced that one of these people, who is now pretending to be woke, is pretending to be woke for the same reason. For this reason, I think that many of my local Democrats who pretend to wokeness would support white supremacist terrorism if that was what power desired. People who are not local think this sounds strange; after all, the consensus in the US, including a local Republican, is that the parties changed places. People who are foreign have fixed simple ideas of how the US works, and think my position is utterly insane. In any long political discussion, I only retain credibility with US nationals who think they see similar things in their own local politics.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who genuinely believes that minorities are so helpless that they don’t know how to get state-issued ID, are you?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      3. What the *>^€. How is that immediately pegged as racist as hell? That is exactly the kind of attitude that says minorities should be colonized for their own good, because they need to be shown better. Which is an attitude I thought had died out already. Then again, I didn’t realize that India didn’t gain independence until 1947, another idea I thought lost to history.

        Sigh. Every time I think we’ve grown past something, I realize that the spots are still there, just a different color.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Oooh.

    I was thinking about this just now, and there are a couple of models for forecasting.

    My main model has been that a) First Lady is the daughter of a Slovenian Communist Party official, and her son would be a target for an incoming communist regime, so Trump is not going to back down b) Biden and Harris are likewise unlikely to back down c) First presidential election in decades with that consent decree out of force so hard to forecast from precedent, but it’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the litigation.

    But, thinking this model over again reveals that it is possibly a confrontational negotiation that does not require assumptions of the impenetrable shield/irresistible spear sort. Everyone remember Herman Kahn’s On Escalation? This could be understood as Chicken sorts of strategies. Of course, my search for remedies on this basis does not produce any immediate pleasant options, so it isn’t obviously useful.

    Most of the remedies I have thought up generally for this are not viable. So, either /none/ of my theoretical models are useful, or viable remedies is not a test I should use for them. My broader answer has been that my ability to find theoretical solutions to problems of society is not a correct object for faith.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. I think this shows we need Campaign Reform.
    Not just Campaign Finance Reform, but going over the entire system and inspecting it piece by piece.
    How do we divide districts, hoe do we choose candidates, how do they campaign, how do we vote, how do we count votes…

    We have a lot more tools now, and a lot more people.
    The old systems are just a confusing mess.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Couldn’t agree more. Start with Election Day being a National Holiday. Oh, and an explicit Right To Vote for all Citizens.

      Unfortunately, a lot of the confused mess is because the Constitution, and its creators, were bound and determined to preserve “States Rights” wherever they could. And how elections are carried out in their specifics, is one of those. You would practically need a Constitutional Ammendment before you could achieve some kind of uniformity of the election process.

      Also, Ranked Voting could help make choice less starkly binary, without completely overhauling the 2 Party system

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States

      Like

      Reply

      1. I don’t think your proposed solution would work, in part because we tried that for President and VP of the United States all the way up to the Civil War. That… was determined not to work so well.

        I do appreciate that you’ve given this some thought. 🙂

        I would point out, though, that preserving States’ Rights is critical just to keep any country this big together. I ran across a couple studies that indicate once an area hits about 50-60 million people, any larger than that is functionally ungovernable without an authoritarian dictatorship. (And only badly then.)

        Since we want to keep a republic, the best way to keep our country functioning is to have the states rule themselves as much as possible – keeping under the 60 million mark – and only relegate things to the federal government that absolutely have to be decided at that level.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. preserving States’ Rights is critical just to keep any country this big together

        *nods* The United States are effectively a federation of small nations. Subsidiarity is baked into the governmental structure – as exemplified in the constitutional prohibition against the President sending in the military to restore order in a state unless the state’s governor specifically asks him to – and, generally speaking, problems are to be taken care of on the lowest possible level of government.

        And unlike the EU, this worked because we had a generally consistent culture – each state was made by people who had come from other states – and no centuries-long history of inter-state/inter-nation conflicts.

        This is what allows states (like California, for example) to make disastrous and destructive policy decisions without bringing the rest of the country down as a result. Despite CAFE standards and Prop 65 warning labels.

        And this is what means that even if you decapitate the federal government, the state governments will still keep going. You could nuke Washington DC, and we would be able to reconstitute the federal government – sans the metastatized federal bureaucracy – in any less radioactive location.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. *cough* Actually, Washington was pretty insistent on not having a party system at all. The original concept was to have the winner be president and the runner up be VP.

        If we’d stuck to that, I’m not sure we wouldn’t have more assassinated presidents in our history. Or we wouldn’t be having this, debacle.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. I never see ranked choice voting being anything other than another opportunity for fraud, confusion and dissatisfaction. At least right now. Give us 20 years or more of undeniably clean elections, voter ID etc. and then ask me again.

        I remember seeing an article analyzing it recently…. dredges up where… wsj here’s the URL, if it isn’t paywalled: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ranked-choice-voting-is-second-best-11604348234

        Here’s a large chunk to show the sorts of things it says:
        “We don’t need empirical evidence to know RCV would make elections more difficult to navigate when trust in democratic institutions is already low. Columbia computer scientist Stephen Unger has highlighted some of the “bizarre outcomes” the iterated counting system delivers. For example, in a three-candidate race, it’s possible that it if all supporters of candidate A listed him first, he would lose in the second round—but if some of them strategically listed him third, he would win, because a different candidate would be knocked out in the first round.

        Whether such cases would occur often in practice is less relevant than the effect the complex system would have on voter confidence. For a 2017 paper in the journal Politics and Policy, political scientist Lindsay Nielson had volunteers do mock traditional and ranked-choice elections and surveyed them about the experience. She found “weak support for the supposition that RCV rules could increase support for election winners.” She also found respondents were significantly less likely to say RCV was “fair” than plurality voting.

        As for the idea that RCV will moderate politics, San Francisco State University political scientist Jason McDaniel followed mayoral voting patterns in cities that adopted RCV and those that didn’t. RCV led to “greater racial divisions at the ballot box between white and Asian voters, and quite possibly also between white and Black voters,” he wrote in a 2018 paper for the California Journal of Politics and Policy. Faced with a more confusing set of options, voters may be “more likely to rely on candidate traits.”

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Me again, I poked further at the WSJ and found some letters replying to the article, one of which gave an actual example

        “he experience of the Maine second congressional district race in 2018 is instructive. Incumbent Rep. Bruce Poliquin got the most first-place votes, but he only got 46.3% of the total vote, so the RCV system was applied. The two lowest vote getters were eliminated, and their second-place votes were examined. Of the ballots that entered this second round, over one-third were disqualified—or “exhausted,” to use the RCV euphemism. Almost all of those were because the voter didn’t make a second choice.

        These properly cast but eliminated ballots followed the rules; second choices weren’t required. But only these ballots without second choices were disqualified. Of the ballots that had Jared Golden or Rep. Poliquin as their first choice, 51% didn’t list a second choice. However, those ballots weren’t disqualified. Is that “fair?” Rep. Golden won the election with 50.6% of the vote based on second-place votes, but without the selective disqualification he would not have reached a majority.

        With each round of candidate elimination, the denominator for determining the winner will shrink to create this false majority. .” https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-ranked-voting-the-best-election-answer-11596137651

        I know Australia uses it, and it seems to work for them. But here, switched to NOW? Nope.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Semi-unrelated: Is there an alternate link to the MonsterHunterNation article? Mobile keeps refusing to load it…

    Completely unrelated: Monster Hunter the game looks super pretty on the Switch.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Going to have to look at it after work, it appears… Mobile is refusing to load the blog at all. Thank you for the link!

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Oh yes, here we go again with the “Voter Fraud” gaslighting.

    Congrats on swallowing all the conspiracy theories.

    There aren’t ballots “magically appearing”, those are the MAIL IN /Early voting ballots, because states often just collect them, and count them AFTER the ballots cast on election day.

    It has often taken over a week for some states to certify the election results, especially if the tallies are close, including recounts at times. This is nothing new

    EVERY state has had its own laws/regulations regarding absentee/mail in ballots, and whether or not a mailed ballot has to be received at its destination on or before E Day, or at least postmarked E day, for instance.

    The party that has been shouting the loudest about rampant voter fraud, has been the Trump Party. Trump even went on and on about how “Mail In Ballots” were somehow fraudulent by default, until even Mitch McConnell had to publicly comment that Mail In Ballots were a normal instrument for the election.

    Of course, if we had “stopped counting” on November 3rd, a looot of overseas Military/citizens would have been disenfranchised, because their ballots often come in after Election Day.

    The Party of Trump made a HUGE production of a congressional investigation into the 2016 Election, because although Trump actually won, there “obviously” was “rampant voter fraud”.

    Remember the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity”?

    Somehow nothing ever came of it. Trump just closed it down.

    Nothing came of it after Homeland Security took over either.

    After all, if there WERE any evidence to support large scale voter fraud, SURELY FOX/Trump would have been trumpeting about it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There aren’t ballots “magically appearing”, those are the MAIL IN /Early voting ballots, because states often just collect them, and count them AFTER the ballots cast on election day.

      Which tabulated in the middle of the night, after the legally required observers were sent home, and were only for one person.

      Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    2. Yeah, sure, that’s why they’re counting ballots in Michigan that arrived at 3 AM after the election, when the _legal requirement_ is that no ballots be accepted after 8 PM.

      That’s why there’s more votes than voters in some Wisconsin counties.

      That’s why the Pennsylvania governor said there were still over three million mail-in votes to be counted when there weren’t three million to begin with.

      That’s why a Philly prosecutor threatened to jail Trump–which, by the way, he doesn’t have the authority to do in the first place–if he sent observers for the vote counting. Observers that are _legally required_, by the way.

      There’s gaslighting going on here, yeah. But it sure as hell ain’t from Trump’s side.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Gotta agree. While I’m sure the Republicans aren’t entirely innocent – they’re still politicians after all and there’s no such thing as a Good politician – their arguments have been less that there is voter fraud and more that the mail in system (not absentee ballots, but the mass mailed ballots that were BRAND SPANKING NEW this election) had security holes wide enough to drive a fully loaded space shuttle carrier through and that if they were not addressed would LEAD to voter fraud.

        It’s notable that the Democrat response was essentially “STFU, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” And then we had them following up with what was essentially a pledge to overthrow the government if Trump disputed the election. And it was a serious enough issue that there was an official statement given by the military saying they were going to sit the election out and would not intervene in the case of a dispute/Trump refusing to step down.

        Honestly the Democrats have been setting themselves up to be doubted by anyone who isn’t an ardent Trump hater for pretty much his entire presidency thus far and relying on the Mainstream Media to brainwash the masses into believing them.

        Meanwhile, even with Social Cancer tools the Trump administration has been struggling to get their ACTUAL words and message out to people. Because the MSM, Big Tech, and most well known and easily available platforms have been doing double duty to hide, distort, or just plain misrepresent what Trump has been saying his entire Presidency.

        Which is kind of suspicious in and of itself, but then you listen to Trump actually speaking, and you begin to lose all faith because Trump…is kind of a moron a lot of the time. So the amount of energy and money they spent twisting and misrepresenting his words makes you wonder just how bad his opponents are that they feel the need to make Trump look even worse.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Trump doesn’t sound like a moron. He sounds like a guy who is in sales and operations, in any industry not primarily based on verbal communication.

        Cutting out the voices of such a large chunk of people, and making most people in verbal industries unfamiliar with how other industries talk, is an amazing sort of division and isolation for the Internet age to have managed. Yet here we are.

        Previously, we have seen the mocking of people from Texas and people from Idaho and Alaska, but this has been four years of East Coast people mocking at people in Queens.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. The mocking of even well-educated people from the South has never stopped.

        And yes. Trump sounds more like a plumber than a lawyer. So? Lawyers got us into this mess in the federal gov’t – given these days most politicians are lawyers. I’m tired of letting them dig the hole deeper. I wanted someone who would fix problems, not talk at them. Trump has decades of experience doing that!

        Like

      4. Few simple words can be skill.

        If you are really working at persuasion or explanation, you pick the right subset of your vocabulary for the audience. I’m a hot mess at this, partly because of carelessness.

        There’s a big audience of people who are a little pissed off at the sort of people who would use words (which they don’t know well enough to explain) solely for the purpose of counting coup against an audience who does not know those words. The annoying sorts of people who put PhD in twitter handles, where it is completely useless information. (Knowing that someone is a PhD is only ever useful when you know exactly what their work was, and that their work is relevant. Anything else you need to learn about a thinker, is best learned by talking over various things with them, or seeing their work on a range of problems.) The sorts of people who would, as an MBA fresh out of school, would condescend to welders and machinists thinking that they are unskilled workers.

        People sneer at Trump’s “best words” when they assume that rare complicated words are best, and that lesser people should shut up and do what the smart people say. Trump is a man who must sell, and when you see him now, he is always closing where his supporters are concerned. When he was selling to extremely rich people, there was an article that said that Trump was the only person who could explain what he meant by ‘super super luxurious’. He was selling or renting luxury housing, and the phrase was part of the psychological manipulation he used to sell things for a much higher price than they would have gone for without the manipulation. When the man dies, he will cold read Peter, and decide whether addressing him as “Saint Peter” or “Pete” will work better. Then he may just stand there, trying to talk other people into heaven, for lack of meaningful deals to conclude in heaven.

        Always taking Donald at face value is risky. Early on, NYT published an interview with Trump on AGW, where he mentioned his uncle, John Trump. There were two ways to interpret Trump’s statement, and you could tell that the Times writers were only aware of one. Going by Trump’s subsequent level of excitement about AGW, I think he meant the other, but phrased it with two interpretations so that he wouldn’t unnecessarily alienate people who disagreed.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Fox has the exact same political alignment as all the other news networks, i.e full bore leftsts.

      The only reason they were ever considered conservative was marketing, and that, when they stared out, something like 30% of their newsroom were republican, as opposed to the 0% in any other network’s newsroom.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. Fox News. FAUX News. Full Bore Leftist. Oh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh harder.

        “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”

        Your chosen side has been pounding the table for roughly four years, now.

        Liked by 3 people

    4. The same press declaring a Biden victory is the one proclaiming “mostly peaceful protests” as their reporters stand in front of buildings burning down.

      And in case you missed it, Trump isn’t asking to stop counting all ballots. He’s asking to stop counting any ballots postmarked after the election.

      Not that even that’s going to be enough – there now appears to be a genuine USPS whistleblower case going where a postal worker was ordered to stamp a case of ballots with postmarks of election day even though they’d come in unmarked.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  12. I (Swiss) used to think Trump was a lunatic, like he’s portrayed by European MSM.
    In fall 2019, wife and I are visiting friends, and our nice, rational, down-to-earth host starts talking about the Deep State, rampant corruption and QAnon and so on. I was initially shocked, but I’ve since gotten far too many glimpses of the Men behind the Curtain to dismiss what he said.

    Samwise Gamgee‘s infamous one-liner, „There’s an eye-opener, and no mistake!“ is terrifyingly accurate for this sham election, showing just how corrupted the US voting system has become.
    Setting the whole system on fire and starting from scratch sounds like a viable strategy…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Oh, we’re all crazy here. Most of us, though, despite being the types to go climb the Rockies, work at recreating European Martial Arts, and build spaceships in our backyards, are also capable of enough responsible behavior to look after ourselves and our families.

      Though the percent of people who are that responsible seems to be lower than I’d hoped. I can’t help but be aghast at the numbers of people turning out to riot, loot, and burn this year. You’d think anyone with two brain cells to rub together could find something more personally fulfilling to do….

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. It might be both better and worse than you think. There’s no confirmation – because of all the permissiveness involved by the government and the masking – but there’s some indications that a lot of these rioters are “professional” rioters who go from city to city stirring up trouble and committing crimes.

        So there may be a lot less people actually engaging in this than it seems like…but on the other hand they may be a lot more organized than a lot of people are willing to admit.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. What a wonderful idea, having “patriotic” Militias plan to attack elected officials. If you don’t like someone’s politics, just threaten them with violence. Yay for gun rights. “Proud Boys” still standing by for Trump’s go order?

    Then we have those lovely unmarked Federal Officers Trump deployed to various places. What a splendid idea. Secret police is such an interesting concept.

    Have you people really taken a good hard look at AG Barr’s doctrine on how much power the justice department has to deal with the executive branch in the case of suspected wrongdoing? Like, pretty much nil? Just imagine Biden or Harris keeping Barr on, or appointing someone with similar views.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “If you don’t like someone’s politics, just threaten them with violence.”

      Have you… missed this entire year?

      Seriously. Have you been paying any attention to the riots going on, who’s setting stuff on fire, who’s killing people they don’t agree with?

      It’s not Trump supporters.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Have you… missed this entire year?

        What part of anything he’s written about the US would lead you to conclude differently?

        Seriously, has thus far shown the least bit of interest in informing himself, or even reading and responding to primary sources which do not align with his existing conclusions?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. *Sigh.* I have to keep reminding myself that most people do not look at facts and make conclusions, they jump to conclusions and then cherry-pick their “facts”.

        It’s such a sad waste of the biggest human advantage – our brain. Especially when just a little poking around gives blatant examples of who wants the violence.

        https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/left-post-trump-enemies-list-trump-accountability/
        https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/11/06/aoc-democrats-eager-make-sure-trump-allies-face-accountability/
        https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/watchdog-finds-21000-dead-registrants-on-pa-voter-rolls-in-final-weeks-of-election/

        https://pjmedia.com/election/bryan-preston/2020/11/06/breaking-michigan-legislature-to-convene-special-joint-oversight-hearing-saturday-after-glitches-blow-one-election-give-6000-trump-votes-to-biden-n1131066

        https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/11/06/scratch-a-socialist-find-a-fascist-aoc-threatening-to-archive-the-tweets-writings-pics-of-trump-sycophants-does-not-go-well-for-her-like-at-all/

        https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/11/06/welp-mi-county-clerk-catches-software-glitch-that-gave-1000s-of-votes-meant-for-trump-to-biden-in-1-county-47-other-counties-used-same-software/

        Liked by 2 people

      3. He’s living in Germany.

        There may well be people there willing to form opinions differently from what Merkel’s government claims is true. I’ve come across zero of them in the last year.

        Jinping Xi did nothing wrong, and America must fit the theoretical model a German ‘expert’ on America found in his navel. Never mind that they can no more closely know US events than I can know that votes for SED adjacent figures are a willful act by German voters against Denazification.

        They make my foreign policy suggestions look sensible.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Then we have those lovely unmarked Federal Officers Trump deployed to various places.

      I know the concept of arresting people who set fire to federal buildings and then try to ambush the emergency responders is highly offensive to AntiFa, and that they really, really want to be able to target the families of law enforcement, but that was an especially lame accusation since the NPR report on that situation showed the officers were in uniform, and the original accusation was that they were not giving their name and badge number.

      Which they are not required to do, when arresting a violent felon in the middle of a mob.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Yeah, I couldn’t even reply to that one, because WTH. “Unmarked”? You mean the guys the federal gov’t assigned to protect federal buildings because the local cops weren’t being allowed to arrest protestors and keep them from setting things on fire? Because destroying federal property is – drumroll, please – a crime?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. My cousin is a Portland fire fighter.

        You can just imagine how incredibly Not Impressed I am about people launching professional grade fireworks at responding fire fighters.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. The articles I saw referenced ‘unmarked vehicles’. To which the reply is, “Well maybe if Antifa would stop setting the marked ones *on fire*, they wouldn’t have to use unmarked vans.”

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment