Fraud and Context in the 2020 USA Elections

[ThatGuy]

 

[tmj]

Either or both , his relevancy I think just took a unrecoverable self inflicted blow , he just couldn’t shut up , the interviewer even tried to leave the subject and he redirected .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sam Harris tried to do some damage control on Twitter, but he made it worse.

Here is the start of the thread:

Here is the text of all 6 tweets for the sake of convenience.

Quote

There is a podcast clip circulating that seems to be confusing many people about my views on Trump (which is understandable because I wasn’t speaking very clearly). So, for what it’s worth, here is what I was trying to say:  1/6

I was essentially arguing for a principle of self-defense (where there’s a continuum of proportionate force that is appropriate and necessary to use). I’ve always viewed Trump as a very dangerous person to elect as president of a fake university, 2/6

let alone the US, and when he became a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power, I viewed him as more dangerous still. (However, I’ve never been under any illusion that he is Orange Hitler.) 3/6

On the podcast, I was speaking narrowly about the wisdom and propriety of ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop story until after the election. I’ve always thought that this was a very hard call, ethically and journalistically. 4/6

But given what happened with the Anthony Weiner laptop in the previous election, I think it was probably the right call. 5/6

Nothing I said on that podcast was meant to suggest that the Democrats would have been right to commit election fraud or take other illegal measures to deny Trump the presidency (nor do I think they did that). 6/6

 

Oh yeah, right... YOU--audience--are the one confused. And it's all the podcast's fault because Harris did not speak "clearly."

Well, the confusion persists because he sounded pretty damn clear to me. And he sounded pretty damn clear in his damage control thread.

Here are just a couple of problems among others...

Scott Adams said that Harris made a point of talking about Trump being Hitler during an interview with Scott (or maybe an exchange of some sort.) So Harris is outright lying in his damage control thread.

But even worse, not once did he address the elephant in the room for many, many people. Me included.

 

(I did not make the following meme, but I like it.)

 

Corpses of children in a basement, to him, are preferable to Trump being reelected.

That is ick to the nth degree...

Michael

 

[Peter]

What a brilliant metaphor!

ThatGuy quoted Bosch Fawstin: Sam Harris says it's ok to conspire against Trump because he’s like an asteroid heading towards earth. So to hell with truth, this liar will rationalize any lie, any fraud, to stop Trump. Even election fraud. end quote

Yup. That’s them guys, those Elmer Fudds. Imagine the ‘fear and loathing” the left wingers experience, when they hear of someone like President Trump, who wants Americans to be freer and even worse . . . better off, and with no left-wing dictators in charge! Bugs Bunny. 

[ThatGuy]

"Drip...drip...drip..." as MSK would say...
(Is the water pipe about to burst?)
 

 

FBI Officials Told Agents Not to Investigate Hunter Biden Laptop ahead of 2020 Election, Whistleblower Says

NEWS.YAHOO.COM

---

A whistleblower claims FBI officials instructed agents not to investigate Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election, saying...

 

[Marc]

18 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

"Drip...drip...drip..." as MSK would say...
(Is the water pipe about to burst?)
 

 

Enough proof Peter?

[tmj]

I haven’t seen the podcast , but I hope Rogan also asks about Zucker-bucks , the over 400 million he spread around to install ballot collection boxes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I posted this Zucky clip on the Biden thread. I didn't realize it was here.

But I have some questions, so I will quote my questions.

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Zuckerberg just told Joe Rogan the FBI asked people to sit on the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Except he did but he didn't. The FBI asked them to, but they didn't.

Zuckerberg is weird on this clip.

What's worse, if you read between the lines, you either think he is as stupid as all hell, or he's trying to throw the FBI under the bus for some reason.

Don't forget, Zuckerberg spent all that money to elect Biden. drop boxes and so on...

The election officials were calling it Zuckerbucks. (Sorry tmj, I didn't read your post before saying that.  )

There is a lot more to this than is on the surface. I think some deep shit is going on and I don't know what it is yet...

Michael

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Marc said:

Enough proof Peter?

It is nice having smart objective people like Michael and you bringing your “proof to the forum, but I am waiting for a semi rebellion about legitimately overturning the 2020 election from both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, tons of articles from the free press, and a groundswell of rational discourse from political talk shows. And I would want the evidence examined by the Electoral College, yadda, yadda, yadda . . . . er? When is this going to happen? Is it going to happen? My fellow objectivists and fans of Ayn Rand, what qualifies as BS?

Buzzer: nyaaa. Times up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:06 PM, Peter said:

... I am waiting for a semi rebellion about legitimately overturning the 2020...

Peter,

No semi-rebellion is needed. But I seriously doubt anything objective will get done to remove Biden for a fraudulent election until after January, when the new government gets sworn in all over America. The people in office currently stonewalling all inquiries are bought and paid for. So we can expect nothing from them.

But the newcomers? Many of the people running for office right now are running on the platform of exposing and punishing election crimes in the 2020 election. And creating election integrity laws. Starting with Kari Lake for governor of Arizona. That's the right way to do it.

 

Investigate the crimes without stonewalling, introduce the evidence in court without stonewalling on technicalities. convict the criminals if proven guilty, and if any are illegitimately holding office, remove them.

Notice that removing Biden is a result of this process (once proven), not the legal purpose of it. The legal purpose is to discover and prosecute crimes, and prove or disprove guilt.

That's how I understand rule by law.

 

Notice, also, that this has nothing to do with a semi-rebellion. In fact, the semi-rebellion already happened in 2020 and, short term, it was successful.

The great thing about America is that remedies exist due to checks and balances should people pursue the corrections.

Just don't expect instant justice. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Not even civil wars are instant.

In movies, this stuff can be instant. But this is reality. It's slower.

Michael

[tmj]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

It is nice having smart objective people like Michael and you bringing your “proof to the forum, but I am waiting for a semi rebellion about legitimately overturning the 2020 election from both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, tons of articles from the free press, and a groundswell of rational discourse from political talk shows. And I would want the evidence examined by the Electoral College, yadda, yadda, yadda . . . . er? When is this going to happen? Is it going to happen? My fellow objectivists and fans of Ayn Rand, what qualifies as BS?

Buzzer: nyaaa. Times up.

Examined by the Electoral College ? What does that mean ? The EC  is a mechanism and procedure used for tabulation and reporting of the votes from the sovereign states to the federal election of the President. It isn’t a body or institution , there’s no quad there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

I get what Peter means and his perspective is not a bad thing in the current situation. It's a check and balance, so to speak.

From the way I understand it, he is saying when the whole American government system--as it currently exists--rejects Biden as president, he will, too. 

But until such time, he believes any such attempt to be unrealistic.

I don't think he's doing the details like which part of the US government can or will do this thing. When he mentions them, I do not read them like a technical blueprint, but instead as rhetoric and sometimes hyperbole. I think he's looking at the US government as a whole.

There's a technical term for this. It's called "holistic" thinking.

He loves the world he learned, the America he grew to know and defend, and he's hanging on to it. Not the details, but the whole.

And, frankly, that's a good thing to hang on to. 

All the rest is normal bickering.  

That's how I see him.

 

Peter and I do not disagree on that vision. We share it. And it's a beautiful vision.

I disagree with Peter on the method, not the end. I believe today's America needs some radical changes in order to preserve that vision. And I think this "radical change" part bothers him. Maybe scares him a little. Makes him bicker at times. But radical change should always scare anybody a little if life is the standard.

Hell, the American Revolution happened that way.

 

So I appreciate him keeping the holistic vision alive. In that context, details do not matter nearly as much as the whole does. He keeps his vision alive in his own way, not in a way I do.

But I see it.

In my mind, I always filter his words through that perspective.

Like I said, it's a beautiful vision.

From what I see, the bad guys are out there, not in here.

 

To put it another way, I would not hesitate to leave my kids in Peter's care if I needed it, even if we were disagreeing on something and bickering about it.

But I would fight to the death before I left them in the hands of anyone from the predator class, even when I agree with them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you want to see an good example of what I am talking about, look at the tweet below. It's not part of the election fraud, but it is in the sense of the current rejection of RINOs as being part of the fraud.

The Libertarian Party of NH posted the following tweet not one full day ago and it's causing a shitstorm.

Here is an image of the whole tweet in case Twitter takes it down.

If controversy was what they were after, they certainly got it. There is a howl of anger and outrage at them, many people calling them hideous.

But they responded with tweets bearing the following messages:

 

"Not as hideous as someone who colluded with terrorists and Nazis, and voted in every single case to send young men and women to drop bombs on poor people only to benefit himself and his corporate sugar daddies."

. . .

"While some might think this is in bad taste, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim children who are alive today because her father is not alive to promote relentless bombing campaigns/wars. 

Yes @LPNH's tweet is insensitive, but not as insensitive as dead children."

. . .

"If only everyone put as much effort into opposing the warfare state and the Military Industrial Complex as they do into mean tweets, we might actually be getting somewhere."

. . .

"If we don't dance on the graves of war criminals, who will?"

 

For those who see the world holistically, heroes protect women, they protect the vulnerable, they do not kick people when they are down and grieving. That is just not part of their world.

Just as it is not part of mine.

But then read the pushback. If we are to protect--or at least not harm--children and the vulnerable, what about all those Muslim children bombed to smithereens and written off as "collateral damage" so assholes like John McCain can enrich himself and his cohorts? What about those?

 

That is the problem. In storytelling, this is called a dilemma. One horn of the dilemma must be sacrificed so the other can exist. Both cannot exist at the same time. So which one do you choose?

And this is why the greatest stories throughout mankind always find a third way where the good from both is preserved and the bad in both is rejected. 

 

I, for one, do not share the worldview of people who celebrate the grief of others for things like dead parents. I will not condemn the Libertarian Party of NH for doing that tweet, though, because they have a point--a really good point--and free speech demands they get their say.

To be clear, I have no love for Meghan McCain. I believe she is a spoiled daughter of a war criminal and probably a war monger herself. At least she luvs her some money from the dead babies being bombed overseas. She spends enough of it on things that give her pleasure.

But I do have empathy for her in her moment of grief as a human woman, no more and no less than a janitor or homeless woman, or a rich oligarch. As a woman, I will not kick her when she is down although I despise her and everything she stands for.

That's not the world I live in inside my mind.

 

So what is the third way? Politically--in reality and not just in theory, I found it to be MAGA. We need to dismantle the cancer that invaded the American system and allowed hideous people like her father to do hideous things for money and power--and we are on the way to doing precisely that.

I will not kick Meghan McCain when she is down, but I will work to take her wealth and power from her. I will work to punish her if she is guilty of anything illegal (and I believe she probably is). I will not excuse her for lapses as I would for a friend.

But I will not ignore countless dead babies from American bombs, either, when I think of her. What hell on earth do people want if they promote that and cover it up?

 

So I work to create a world where Endless War for Profits is seen as unspeakably evil, and I work to create a world where people are nice to each other on a basic humanity level, and I work for a world where people have the freedom to express themselves, even when I don't like them or what they say.

I can do all that without kicking crying women and without bombing babies--and most of all, without letting the government participate in these things.

The third way out of the dilemma is to get the government out of it. Holistically. And in details.

Good people will take care of the rest.

Michael

[Marc]

On 8/26/2022 at 8:08 AM, tmj said:

Examined by the Electoral College ? What does that mean ? The EC  is a mechanism and procedure used for tabulation and reporting of the votes from the sovereign states to the federal election of the President. It isn’t a body or institution , there’s no quad there.

You don't have any proof about what you stated about the EC.

 

[tmj]

4 hours ago, Marc said:

You don't have any proof about what you stated about the EC.

 

At first I thought you wanted at least a link to substantiate a claim , being a Canuck and all, but then lol, I think I see what you did there.

[Marc]

35 minutes ago, tmj said:

At first I thought you wanted at least a link to substantiate a claim , being a Canuck and all, but then lol, I think I see what you did there.

 

[Marc]

 

[william.scherk]

On 8/19/2022 at 6:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

(I did not make the following meme, but I like it.)

 

Corpses of children in a basement, to him, are preferable to Trump being reelected.

I subscribe to Sam Harris's free podcast Making Sense, but rarely get beyond the show notes and through a whole episode. 

The last time I paid a lot of attention there were transcriptions of much of the discussion/correspondence and a lot of by-catch in text media -- the issue was mostly race and IQ and Charles Murray but the nub was he was "misunderstood and misinterpreted" by Ezra Klein. 

Hours of long disquisition were boring to me in a very particular way (the exposition itself is boring, but the key-word is "arrogance")¹, so today it's fun to see Sam Harris in the penalty box again. An unusually loquacious man who pretends to be careful with his words to the point of perfection ... reduced to a grotesque meme out of his mouth. Poetic. 

All that bumf and wind-up aside, I am just listening to the encounter on Triggernometry, and clipping out some video. Next I will plod unhappily through Sam's long and possibly not boring podcast analysis of his moments of ... insane rhetoric? debased commentary? wildly inappropriate metaphor? Hilarious pratfall?

___________

1. "Only I can fix it." Sure, Sam. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by william.scherk
Penalty boxes

[Peter]

Two years have passed. Yet many here on OL think/believe the election will be overturned. That is not using reason. To come to that conclusion is wistful thinking. Besides, if it were overturned Trump would only be serving six years but if he is elected in 2024 he will have served eight years.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Yet many here on OL think/believe the election will be overturned.

Peter,

Talk to us all you want.

Try talking to all those people all over America--from the high and mighty to the humble--who are going to make this happen.

Tell Kari Lake, for example, that she is not using reason.

But better hurry.

Once she is elected governor of Arizona with an accompanying MAGA group around her (AG, Arizona Congress and so on), she might be too busy working on recalling the 2020 electors of Arizona (thereby overturning the 2020 election) for you to tell her she is not using reason.

And that is just one state. There are many that will be engaged in a similar process.

Michael

[Peter]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Once she is elected governor of Arizona with an accompanying MAGA group around her (AG, Arizona Congress and so on), she might be too busy working on recalling the 2020 electors of Arizona (thereby overturning the 2020 election) for you to tell her she is not using reason.

I saw that there are a whole bunch of Arizonans up for election. Thank goodness! So, Trump will be "in the presidential oval office" on November 8, 2022? Or just after that? Wow. Can you predict a timeline? joke. You KNOW that is not going to happen. Wishin' and hopin' and dreamin'. By the time 2024 rolls around most people might be saying, those forever Trumpers were just making trouble. Will this "talk" help Trump be reelected? Who knows. I see his web site is not paying its bills. 

[Peter]

Golly, Jethro. Where’s your science brain gone? Lemme poke some more holes in these arguments, all in fun of course. Did you know you can bet on things in Vegas and lose it, oops, I mean do it online? And the article below . . . way below objective standards . . . proves it! Trump shall return and before 2024! Just making fun but I can't save my “nyahs,” for after the November 2022 elections. Nope. I don’t see an election being overturned. The truth, thy will be done. It's still Trump in 2024 if he doesn’t do something wrong and Ron De Santiago from the State of Fluoride overtakes him.

Notes. SCOTUS Has Overturned 2020 Presidential Election Posted on July 21, 2022 by David Robinson From American Patriot Email Reports. Whether you want to believe it or not, Phil here brings up in this short video from two weeks ago, that SCOTUS has ruled in private to Overturn the Results, as DJ Trump did win the 2020 Presidential Election, as well as, Trump will step back into office soon and not have to run in 2024 and win. There will not be a Special Election for Trump to get back into office as he is the Secondary Runner Up, thus he will be handed the Presidency. The SC Justices and their families are now under US Military protection: Continuation of July 6th Livestream (intel drop)

[tmj]

"Hey Daryl, is Putin an elected official?"

"um yes Daryl, I believe he is"

But come now , surely I am not trying equate the great Satan with the Great Biden. But I would point out they both followed( of course cheating may have occured and not been given credence) the 'rules' and the 'laws' that govern certain activities that bestow legitimacy(as long as they maintain their ability to thwart or remove opposition to their claimed status, their status remains intact)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Whenever a person keeps mischaracterizing what others are doing, that is a signal. Of what? I'm not going to get into speculating on that. But I do believe something needs to be identified correctly before one can evaluate it correctly.

And constantly mocking people for something they do not say or do is not mocking them. It's mocking a character in a story in your mind and saying this is them.

 

And pulling William's trick of showing someone on the fringe and pretending that person is characteristic of the whole is just fooling yourself or trying to fool others (or both). It's an old propaganda trick.

No one on OL even knows who Dan Mahnke (or David Robinson) is, much less believes what he posts. That's a premise worth checking.

 

I will grant you this. MAGA people do want to overturn the 2020 election. But here's the rub. What they are doing is different.

They are running investigations into election fraud. They are investigating things like whether the 2020 electoral college electors were validly chosen by vote and not just appointed because the votes were rigged. They are documenting case after case of fraud. Eventually most of it will all get into the courts.

Even though they want Biden out real bad, if MAGA people find no election fraud, they are the kind who will accept that outcome.

But the investigation has to be rational and fair, not stonewalled, corrupt, irrational and bullying. All that has happened is the second so far. They don't accept that. I don't accept that. I, for one, refuse to bow to bullies.

Mocking them for this is not going to make them stop. They are going to keep investigating as they get voted into office.

All. Over. America.

And if their investigations discover so much fraud, there was no valid 2020 election outcome, well, we have a problem, don't we?

Wishing that were not true is OK if that is your wish. We all wish. It will not change reality, though. Investigations are carried out to ascertain reality--meaning metaphysical facts in addition to what people say and sign.

 

Meanwhile you can mock all you want. The following news places are not mocking. Here is a tale of two headlines from very similar sites (in structure, not in substance).

And here:

You were a military man if I am not mistaken. Were you not trained to smell fear in the enemy?

So what is the current ruling class afraid of?

Wishing is not going to make this go away. Will mockery help calm things down? As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

All I can say at this point is watch what happens as the pudding gets made.

Michael

[Marc]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

I saw that there are a whole bunch of Arizonans up for election. Thank goodness! So, Trump will be "in the presidential oval office" on November 8, 2022? Or just after that? Wow. Can you predict a timeline? joke. You KNOW that is not going to happen. Wishin' and hopin' and dreamin'. By the time 2024 rolls around most people might be saying, those forever Trumpers were just making trouble. Will this "talk" help Trump be reelected? Who knows. I see his web site is not paying its bills. 

If something major is not done well before 2024, 2024 will cease to exist.

This recent madness is a pre emptive Coup D'Etat as Jack P tweeted.

If someone stole your home via mortgage fraud for example, would you be sitting back and saying, well I will work hard then buy another home in a few years, what's done is done? 

Don't answer Peter, we both know the answer.

It has nothing to do with 8 years or 6 years or Trump or whomever but everything to do with the following hundreds of years.