Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 This does not portend well for the Biden side in Arizona. It may not look like it, but this McCain Country Leader belly-flop just intensified the lack of Certificate of Accuracy as evidence to the stratosphere. I don't know how deep Rae Chornenky is engaged with the establishment Republicans, but I bet the ties are deep. (btw - Chornenky is the correct spelling, not Chorenky as in a lot of news accounts right now.) Talk about a perfect premise to demand a hand-counted audit. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: But, Scott has a theory. The theory is bonkers, as you note. I haven’t a clue why Scott would propose it. My only info about him is stuff posted here and comments he makes on Twitter threads I look at because they're linked to from various places. Speaking of which - Twitter threads combined with a statement you made. You wrote: 14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: It is possible for the media to convince the public of something that did not exist, like Trump saying Nazis were fine people, which was the fountainhead of Biden's campaign--Biden said it everywhere he could. Seems to me that at least a co-fountainhead of Biden's campaign was Trump's supposed bad leadership in the pandemic. I see that theme emphasized a lot by Biden supporters. Here's an example from the comments about the Adams episode (1184) you described: Quote Eric W Which is Trump spending more time/energy on (a) fighting an election that he has very clearly lost and around which he is trying to come to terms or (b) the pandemic that is ravaging the country and is getting as bad now as ever? Which would a leader prioritize? Biden is proposing national lockdown, mask-wearing made national law - and contact tracing also! And his supporters are cheering. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Constitutional lawyer, Ted Cruz, weighed in on the good and bad yesterday on his podcast, Verdict. A bit of a bummer but a reality check all the same. He says Trump will have to win challenges in all states to stay for a 2nd term. Two, he commented on the need for heavy hitters to replace the lawyers who stepped up. He says there's a qualitative difference in the two. In conversations with the President and Kushner, "Ive been urging them to bring in a stronger team, more serious, high powered litigators. Yelling about it isnt going to change it......a legal basis, hard , careful, diligent work." "No one knows which claims are accurate and which aren't. That's what courts do." "For the Trump team to prevail they cant just win in one state. They have to run the table. Pickup 14k votes in Georgia, Biden 12k lead in Arizona, 20k vote lead in Wisconsin, Nevada, Biden has 36k lead, Michigan, Biden has 148k lead and Pa, Biden has 45k lead (paraphrasing w/short in context quotes). The Trump team has to win in a whole bunch of states." Bush won by 537 votes in the hanging chad episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: He says Trump will have to win challenges in all states to stay for a 2nd term. TF, He might be referring to election by delegate. Certainly not to the Electoral College. All President Trump's legal team needs to do is legally annul enough illegal ballots in two or three states and President Trump wins in the Electoral College. For example, these votes (among millions of others): As someone quipped, dead people are not a very vocal bunch, but they do turn out in droves to vote (and vote Democrat). Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 23 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: A bit of a bummer but a reality check all the same. No, not really. Biden and his supporters are the ones who need a "reality check" for thinking they could get away with an election heist on this scale, and committed so brazenly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 Here is a true reality check for Trump supporters. I don't like it, but it's true. A little exaggerated (almost no one? really?), but the gist is true. We now know not to let that happen again in President Trump's second term without raising an enormous stink. But I think our President learned his lesson on that point. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 Heh heh heh... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 22 minutes ago, ThatGuy said: No, not really. Biden and his supporters are the ones who need a "reality check" for thinking they could get away with an election heist on this scale, and committed so brazenly. Additional observation: focusing on a single comment/data point like the one from Ted Cruz, and concluding it's a "bummer/reality check" is reality a demonstration of what Chris Matthew Sciabarra called the "dangers of reification". It takes one point and ignores all the rest (like the mounting overwhelming evidence of fraud going on, the MSM's gaslighting, the Soviet-like intimidation of the postal worker in PA, etc.) And why is it always reified at the expense of Trump? Why is it never at the expense of Biden? Why focus on reifying one point against Trump, and not pointing out the negatives that should signal a "bummer/reality check" for Biden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Heh heh heh... Michael I'll have to watch Amber Alerts in Sussex Co Del over the weekend ," .. last seen riding a bicycle.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: So, once the Georgia hand count proves that systemic fraud was perpetrated that is similar to other cases filed in court all over the country, I believe that will set a precedent for demanding manual recounts everywhere. What if the Georgia recount does not show that systemic fraud was perpetrated? What if it does not appreciably change the vote totals? What then? Can we then accept that Georgia returns are 'safe'? How should we be keeping track of the number of lawsuits? Quote Wait until the people in the Dem machine, especially in the lower echelons, start flipping on each other. Wait, you suggest. How long is a good time to wait? -- Link to Ted Cruz podcast: Episode 59 - Holy Crap, What a Week 52 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: Constitutional lawyer, Ted Cruz, weighed in on the good and bad yesterday on his podcast, Verdict. A bit of a bummer but a reality check all the same. Edited November 12, 2020 by william.scherk Pronouning ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 On 11/9/2020 at 7:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Anyone want a layman's overview of the main litigation as of today along with information on the Stockdale principle (often called the Stockdale Paradox)? All the election litigation is chronicled at DemocracyDocket.com, state by state. If one objects that the docket is maintained by Marc Elias, say to them that "Know thine enemy" is always operative. A political intelligence unit always tracks the actual moves of the other 'warring state.' The paradoxical part of Stockdale's principle can be taken as "Optimists don't survive as prisoners of war." His brief remarks suggest to me that however strong you may be, however firmly hopeful you may be, to prevail you must grapple with reality, "brutal facts." On 11/9/2020 at 7:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: [...] Here ate his words: "You have to have faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time, must confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.” Unsurprisingly, Stockdale's pithy psychological observation has been teased out into a marketable guide to life. Here's a bit from business success guru Jim Collins: Confront the Brutal Facts with "Productive Paranoia"! Here's Collins' offering or interpretation of the Brutal Facts association with the paradox/principle. Quote The moment a leader allows himself to become the primary reality people worry about, rather than reality being the primary reality, you have a recipe for mediocrity, or worse. This is one of the key reasons why less charismatic leaders often produce better long-term results than their more charismatic counterparts. Indeed, for those of you with a strong, charismatic personality, it is worthwhile to consider the idea that charisma can be as much a liability as an asset. Your strength of personality can sow the seeds of problems, when people filter the brutal facts from you. You can overcome the liabilities of having charisma, but it does require conscious attention. Winston Churchill understood the liabilities of his strong personality, and he compensated for them beautifully during the Second World War. Churchill, as you know, maintained a bold and unwavering vision that Britain would not just survive, but prevail as a great nation—despite the whole world wondering not if but when Britain would sue for peace. During the darkest days, with nearly all of Europe and North Africa under Nazi control, the United States hoping to stay out of the conflict, and Hitler fighting a one-front war (he had not yet turned on Russia), Churchill said: “We are resolved to destroy Hitler and every vestige of the Nazi regime. From this, nothing will turn us. Nothing! We will never parley. We will never negotiate with Hitler or any of his gang. We shall fight him by land. We shall fight him by sea. We shall fight him in the air. Until, with God’s help, we have rid the earth of his shadow.” Armed with this bold vision, Churchill never failed, however, to confront the most brutal facts. He feared that his towering, charismatic personality might deter bad news from reaching him in its starkest form. So, early in the war, he created an entirely separate department outside the normal chain of command, called the Statistical Office, with the principal function of feeding him—continuously updated and completely unfiltered—the most brutal facts of reality. He relied heavily on this special unit throughout the war, repeatedly asking for facts, just the facts. As the Nazi panzers swept across Europe, Churchill went to bed and slept soundly: “I... had no need for cheering dreams,” he wrote. “Facts are better than dreams.” Now, you might be wondering, “How do you motivate people with brutal facts? Doesn’t motivation flow chiefly from a compelling vision?” The answer, surprisingly, is, “No.” Not because vision is unimportant, but because expending energy trying to motivate people is largely a waste of time. One of the dominant themes that runs throughout this book is that if you successfully implement its findings, you will not need to spend time and energy “motivating” people. If you have the right people on the bus, they will be self-motivated. The real question then becomes: How do you manage in such a way as not to de-motivate people? And one of the single most de-motivating actions you can take is to hold out false hopes, soon to be swept away by events. Yes, leadership is about vision. But leadership is equally about creating a climate where the truth is heard and the brutal facts confronted. There’s a huge difference between the opportunity to “have your say” and the opportunity to be heard. The good-to-great leaders understood this distinction, creating a culture wherein people had a tremendous opportunity to be heard and, ultimately, for the truth to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: What if the Georgia recount does not show that systemic fraud was perpetrated? What if it does not appreciably change the vote totals? What then? Can we then accept that Georgia returns are 'safe'? How should we be keeping track of the number of lawsuits? William, You see, this is the fundamental difference between you and me. I would never ask you those questions because my premise would be that you are only in it to win it, by force or fraud if necessary. And I don't think about you like that as default deep inside me. But every time I examine it, every time I find myself called on to examine it by your own actions, you come off as exactly that. But I like you as I've said. And I stand by that, even if that does make me look retarded at times. So you want to play? Let's do it. (Incidentally, you should know this about me after all these years.) What if the Georgia recount does not show that systemic fraud was perpetrated? Let's stop with the loaded language, OK? When I say "recount," if I have not been clear, this means what the AG said it means for this particular case: canvas, audit and hand recount. A simple recount means feeding the same anonymous ballots into the tabulator once again. An anonymous ballot counted twice means it will return the same count twice, regardless if it is legal or illegal. So it also needs to be canvased before the recount (a legal requirement), and audited for legality. And in the case everything is hunky dory after those things happen, I will accept the outcome. I did when Obama was elected--twice. Why wouldn't I do it with Trump? On another loaded language point, what is the difference to you between fraud, widespread fraud, systemic fraud, etc. Are they not all fraud? If the Georgia "recount" discovers even only one case of fraud, isn't that a good thing in your world? I doubt it, though. I have a feeling in your world, one case of fraud doesn't count. Not worth thinking about... But suppose my doubt is not warranted. I mean, your question implies you want to play by the rules, right? So a fraud is an infringement of the rules whether it is simple, widespread, systemic, etc., right? And that would mean it's all bad. At least, that is before your peeps change the rules and the language. What if it does not appreciably change the vote totals? What then? For whom? Me? I already answered. Why the second question? Are you worried a little? How about asking the same thing of yourself, that is, what if the vote totals switch to reality, I mean, favorable to Trump? What then? Can we then accept that Georgia returns are 'safe'? I could. Would you? (You did say "we.") Or, who knows? Maybe I would support spying on Biden, framing him for getting elected by a foreign dictator, get someone to pay millions of dollars for a report where Biden pays hookers to pee in a bed where Trump once slept, run an impeachment after 2022 if the House flips to Republican because Biden made a phone call, and... should I continue? How should we be keeping track of the number of lawsuits? If I ever need that, I will find a source I trust. I do not trust the source you have offered. And I have total confidence in the lawyers engaged to keep track of everything just fine. There. We've made it all about me and you. Happy? Now let's get back to the interesting discussion, shall we? You know, the one about Trump and Biden, cheating, the law, voter fraud, overreach by the corrupt press, and things like that. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 57 minutes ago, ThatGuy said: Additional observation: focusing on a single comment/data point like the one from Ted Cruz, and concluding it's a "bummer/reality check" is reality a demonstration of what Chris Matthew Sciabarra called the "dangers of reification". It takes one point and ignores all the rest (like the mounting overwhelming evidence of fraud going on, the MSM's gaslighting, the Soviet-like intimidation of the postal worker in PA, etc.) And why is it always reified at the expense of Trump? Why is it never at the expense of Biden? Why focus on reifying one point against Trump, and not pointing out the negatives that should signal a "bummer/reality check" for Biden? I found time to focus on another point. heh Tangible evidence unheard in court as of yet (excepting some) must still be proven by preponderance or 50% true. And then the trial can be granted. Only then can votes be recast or negated or adjudicated. It's an abstract legal concept taken to a concrete example. Here it is. The plaintive gets their day in court. They don't get to decide what is acceptable or true. And it all must be concluded in due time. You didn't think it could be tried over the internet? I see a few twists and turns happening in court. Ms Powell also makes the allegation of fraud having been committed by Hammer and Scorecard. Well, I hope, the math works and she is also able to obtain in court, Dr Shiva, who did a statistical analysis of voting integrity in Michigan. He gets math. Judges are very good at understanding these concepts, right? That's why they specialize in jurisprudence. Oh wait. Here comes the Judge. Because the judging matters. in 37 days Bushs' team was able to find 537 votes that decided the election after 2 trips to the SC. Should be a cake walk for Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: And it all must be concluded in due time. TF, In the case court times cannot be met, then the tallies will not matter. A Contingent Election will be called in Congress. The Senate will elect the VP and the House (one vote per State) will elect the Prez. The Founding Fathers did not leave many options for fraudulently winning by running out the clock. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: TF, He might be referring to election by delegate. Certainly not to the Electoral College. All President Trump's legal team needs to do is legally annul enough illegal ballots in two or three states and President Trump wins in the Electoral College. For example, these votes (among millions of others): As someone quipped, dead people are not a very vocal bunch, but they do turn out in droves to vote (and vote Democrat). Michael Right. 14k. 12k. 148k. Good luck to the winner. Go Trump! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: TF, In the case court times cannot be met, the the tallies will not matter. A Contingent Election will be called in Congress. Michael Michael, ‘CONTINGENT ELECTION’ "A determination that neither candidate has secured a majority of electoral votes would trigger a “contingent election” under the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. That means the House of Representatives chooses the next president, while the Senate selects the vice president." If after Jan 3 and the new Congress, Dems took what 218 to 201 Rep seats? TF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 19 minutes ago, william.scherk said: If one objects that the docket is maintained by Marc Elias... William, Thanks for saying this since it saved me from looking it up. So I looked into Marc Elias. Good God! You want me to trust something by a Perkins Coie partner? They're the guys who facilitated the payments for the PeeGate dossier. Dayaamm! I stand in awe... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: Michael, ‘CONTINGENT ELECTION’ "A determination that neither candidate has secured a majority of electoral votes would trigger a “contingent election” under the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. That means the House of Representatives chooses the next president, while the Senate selects the vice president." If after Jan 3 and the new Congress, Dems took what 218 to 201 Rep seats? TF TF, And it can be called in other instances. In fact it has in the past. I already made long posts about that earlier in this thread. I decided to study it to understand it rather than copy/paste the first thing that looked good from the Internet. I didn't know jack about it before this study. I suggest you look them up and read them. Or research this on your own. (Warning, it's a slog because everyone has an agenda.) The election process, the one that counts, is fascinating--a work of art in harnessing the worst of human nature and emerge with a fair outcome. We're seeing it at work in real time right now. I, personally, am delighted to witness this. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 The first blood from a cut among the thousand cuts appears. BREAKING: Judge orders Pennsylvania NOT to count certain segregated ballots Quote A judge in Pennsylvania has just give Team Trump a victory and order the state of Pennsylvania not to count ballots that she’d previously ordered segregated... You can read the article for details. The important part information-wise for the vote count is here: Quote It’s important to note that these are NOT the same ballots that the Supreme Court ordered segregated last week. This judge ordered different ballots to be segregated based on the unlawful actions of the Secretary of State in extending the deadline for voters to fix ballots that lacked of proof of identification. Note, the article says “The court had previously ordered that all ballots where voters provided proof of identification between Nov. 10 and 12 should be segregated until a ruling was issued determining what should be done with them.” So any ballots where voters fixed their ballots before the 10th and not part of this ruling. How many ballots her ruling pertains to, I do not know. But it was enough that Trump’s legal team filed a lawsuit over them and they appear to have won this ruling. The bleeding starts. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Dear Abby. If there is fraud, but the perpetrators are suspects and their guilt cannot be immediately proven, should there be a recount or even a revote in the corrupted states? And Abby, should I take down my “Trump 2020” sign like the New York Times suggests or leave it up in my yard? Signed, Worried in Pennsylvania. Dear worried. What would I do if I were President Trump? Keep fighting for a legitimate outcome, so I wouldn’t take my sign down just yet. We must allow the vote to be contested with some legal challenges even going to the Supreme Court, and if needed America can have a contingent vote. For some light, but pertinent reading check out the article in November’s issue of the Smithsonian called “Behind the Scenes at the White House.” You will learn about the White House staff who tend to the daily needs of the first family. Abby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 Cut? How about another slash coming? Michael EDIT: FAKE DONALD TRUMP JR. ACCOUNT AND I GOT OWNED. SORRY... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: TF, And it can be called in other instances. In fact it has in the past. I already made long posts about that earlier in this thread. Michael Oh! I thought there is proof for a Trump win. Stay tuned. I am. In it to win it. All the way with delays. Or else. Channeling Brant? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: Oh! I thought there is proof for a Trump win. TF, Actually there is more than enough evidence. Proof comes as the court decides. So far, there hasn't been enough time to establish the transformation of evidence into proof. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 Another cut coming... Presumably the Secretary of State will call for an audit after this. Imagine what the backstage pressure is like. And once that happens, I wonder if William is going to ask me again if I will accept the results if "systemic fraud" is not established? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 A new one from James O'Keefe. Another knife comes out for the thousand cuts. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now