Blog powered by Typepad

« Record check | Main | Milestone reached! »


\\"(now threatening to rival The Iliad in both length and repetition)" - MP/

ROFLMAO! It's all doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing! Everything going exactly as planned! You'll see! {grin!}

Emotions Make the Memory Last
More Detail, Easier Recollection With Emotional Memories

From JoNova's site at

December 17, 2020 at 8:07 pm · Reply
The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society (a national constitutional litigation organisation) is now going after Zuckerberg for his $500million donation to Dem operatives before the election which it alleges was “used to violate election laws” and it also challenges the constitutional validity of the “safe harbour” provisions.

“In a white paper released Friday, The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society is arguing that the current Electoral College deadlines are both arbitrary and a direct impediment to states’ obligations to investigate disputed elections.”

“ . . . the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, today announced that it will file federal and state lawsuits challenging the presidential election results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona.

The Amistad Project has uncovered an organized effort involving multiple private organizations and partners working with government officials to design, fund, and implement an improper and illegal scheme to create an unconstitutional two-tiered election system to deliver the presidency to Joseph R. Biden.

The suits allege violations of the equal protection clause, as some voters, specifically those in large Democratic strongholds, were treated more favorably than others. The suits also allege violation of due process, various state laws, and violations of numerous state court orders. A common thread of the election dynamics in these states is that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, through a progressive organization called the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), provided enormous amounts of money to Democratic-controlled cities in these states for elections. The grants that Zuckerberg funded literally paid the salaries of election officials, and came with significant strings attached, such as mandating the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places – a fact revealed by documents released by court order thanks to Amistad’s efforts.”

More cases with no standing? Hope not.

Seems that the Supreme Court is going to hear Sidney Powell after all based on the analysis of the machine in Antrim County, Michigan.

I'm just wondering if you directed the same contempt you do with allegations of voter fraud at the Russia stole the election/Russian collusion nonsense.

I am also wondering how you know that Trump is a bad man and a crook, etc. since he has not been convicted of anything and proof in a court seems to be your criterion for deciding whether or not something really happened.

Also, the Senate is hearing the evidence. What if they decide fraud occurred that flipped the election? Would that constitute proof to you?

Same questions to Matt


The difference is that:
A) Democrats as a whole concluded that Hillary Clinton didn't run a good enough campaign to secure the win (thus they spent the last four years working harder to get support from voters rather than wasting their time on dead-end lawsuits, likely because Hiliary conceded and moved on)
B) Trump has never once said a bad thing about Putin, not even when it's revealed that Russia has been hacking into the US government systems like nuclear facilities and emails. Or that Russia has been placing bounties on US soldiers. In fact, he either avoids the question or tries to justify Putin's actions, even going as far as trying to bring Russia back to G7 for no reason. So either Trump isn't saying a bad thing about Putin because he admires his dictatorship... or he has been colluding with Putin in exchange for reelection help... like he did with Ukraine and China. Neither is a good image.

Also, Trump's company was known have been bankrupted 4-7 times, which is an utter disaster for any businessman. There have over 3,500 legal cases against Trump, most prominent being Trump University being a fraudulent university scamming people out of their money. And Trump was known to secretly settle them by paying millions of dollars. Essentially, buying out their silence. And keep in mind, after seeing four years of lies and malicious behavior in the White House, New York is planning to prosecute Trump on much more serious level, which is why Trump is so scared of losing the election.

And the Senate knows it's over. Mitch McConnell, the most hated Republican Senator for liberals and Democrats alike, acknowledged Biden as the President-elect and everyone knows that he holds power over the Senate (and would not risk losing it for Trump's ego). They've been humoring Trump to get on his good side but know this. They will backstab Trump if it benefits them.

Trump lost, and the world has moved on just like they did with Hillary. That's why she's not in the 2020 presidential race. The irony is that Trump had never moved on since 2016. His insistence that he won the 2016 popular vote and when the electoral vote was more important (and I recall conservatives love to hammer that fact towards liberals in the post 2016 election) showcased a man with a frail ego who can easily be baited into a trap. If the Deep State exist, then Trump would not be the people's savior; he would be the State's manipulated puppet.


Ok. You're right. I hallucinated the Russia hysteria 24/7 in the liberal media for three years, Mueller, the impeachment. As well as the sanctions Trump slapped on Russia. Thanks for setting me straight.

Oh, and #resitance, Pelosi publicly tearing up Trump's state of the union speech at the event were figments of my imagination.

Maybe you're not an American. Do you live somewhere with limited media access?

Since National Review has been cited more than once as a conservative publication that sees little or no election fraud, this roundup of the magazine's NeverTrump contributors is worth a look. Basically, all of NR's major writers except Victor Davis Hanson are so dismayed by Trump’s character that they either prefer Biden or recommend not voting. NR's brand of "principled conservativism" amounts to ditching Trump by any means necessary, presumably so the right can get back to losing gracefully rather than winning ugly.


Do not engage in ad hominem or makes baseless accusations. That makes you no better than James Randi or any nasty skeptics you have encountered in the past. I am an American who experienced firsthand of what Trump has done.

And you should start looking past the flashy media because that's missing the forest for the trees. The Mueller investigation was started by Rod Rosenstein, a Republican who became in charge of DOJ when AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Michael Flynn scandal.

Additionally, while you point to Russian sanctions, you fail to address my actual issue which is Trump never saying a bad thing about Vladimir Putin. He has insulted Western leaders in Europe and is willing to engage trash talk with King Jong-Un, yet Putin only gets praises? And then you have reports saying Trump wanted to weaken sanction bills against Russia while the rest of his administration was perfectly happy to impose sanctions on Russia.

Sounds to me like Trump loves Putin. Is it because he admires Putin because he is rich and dictator-for-life? Is it because Putin blackmailed him with kompromat? It doesn't matter what the reason is. Because when Trump fails to bring up the reports of Russian bounties on US soldiers to Putin (and this was months after he was briefed about it), he has proven himself to be an unpatriotic and weak leader. It's no wonder that Russian collusion conspiracies flourished. All Trump had to do was to publicly condemn Putin with his own words (and not rely on words from a GOP administration who needs no such encouragement).

I should also point out that one of things the Democratic Party learned from 2016 was that Tump's media outrage was a distraction that made them ignorant of real voters. They underestimated Trump's appeal to the middle class workers in swing states. And so, they spent the last four years appealing to them with compassion and addressing their concerns on local levels, which is why Biden won back the swing states that Hillary Clinton lost.

The so-called liberal media hysteria is just an eyeball distraction, as my father once said. The fact that Trump bought into the bait, hook, line and sinker is proof that he is an easily manipulated puppet. Presidents do not engage in such petty Twitter arguments as it would distract them from greater, more important issues.

And incidentally, that is why many people were caught off guard by Biden's win. Too much focus on eyeball media. As someone has been watching Democratic Party's campaign, Biden had multiple ways to win the election while Trump only had one. Biden also took a page from Trump's 2016 playbook by going after the middle class who felt abandoned by Hiliary Clinton and thus voted for Trump. But Trump never realized that, instead wasting his time engaging petty wars on social media with Never Trumpers rather than ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Hoisted by his own petard.


To win ugly for short-term gain is to lose in the long run. All it takes to discredit any ideology for generations is to be associated with ugliness. Better to lose gracefully today and focusing winning tomorrow than try to win today with ugly means for the whole world to remember for a long time.

If there is a Deep State, then they'll love Trump for making people believe that there is no Deep State. An untrustworthy conman with over a thousand lies to his name will never be believed even if he told the truth.

“Seems that the Supreme Court is going to hear Sidney Powell after all based on the analysis of the machine in Antrim County, Michigan.” – I googled this and came up with nada. So how did it go?

“I'm just wondering if you directed the same contempt you do with allegations of voter fraud at the Russia stole the election/Russian collusion nonsense.”
- I find it utterly bizarre that Trump has downplayed the cyber attack and suggested it might have been China and not Russia. The intelligence agencies are of a very different opinion. Trump never seems to have anything negative to say about Putin, as if he has been compromised in some way. The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump, and it looks like something fishy is going on between Putin and Trump. So no, I don’t have the same contempt.

“I am also wondering how you know that Trump is a bad man” - The many many vile things that come out of his mouth. Also all the (demonstrably) false statements he makes.

“Also, the Senate is hearing the evidence. What if they decide fraud occurred that flipped the election? Would that constitute proof to you?”

- Nope. We already know that Republican politicians will support Trump. The judicial system is a different matter however.

Assassin and Mandy,

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stone. As we have seen, the democrat party is totally in bed, sometimes literally, with the Chinese. You probably like communism. So it's not a problem for you. However, China has hacked more US systems and stolen more US technology than the Russians could ever dream of. They've been doing it for decades. The Communist party is a vastly more oppressive regime in every way than whatever it is that Putin is supposed to have done. China is officially recognized by the US military as the biggest threat to the US and free people around the globe. The Biden family is deeply involved with them in personal business as are other prominent democrats.

Remember when lite in the loafers Obama was making peace with Iran, another horribly repressive regime, and was unable to do anything about ISIS rampaging about slaughtering people? Remember when the US military worked on a daily basis to coordinate with Russia to stomp out ISIS? And they did. Every day. Whatever idiot news you consume probably didn't tell you about that - because Orange Man Bad! His friend Putin bad too!

You guys really are brainwashed and have simpleton view of the world.


Unfortunately, Eric, the Republican Party doesn’t seem to be a whole lot better. The new "stimulus" bill is a disaster, but Republicans voted for it. Neither party is looking out for the interests of ordinary Americans or of the country as a whole. The left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party is openly anti-American, while moderate Dems and most GOPers pay lip service to traditional values. But when push comes to shove, they all vote the same way.

Trump, for all his undeniable faults, stood as a bulwark against the corrupt Uniparty that’s taking us down the path to Venezuelan collapse. Biden, his successor, is the perfect standard-bearer of the Uniparty. Though he won by cheating, I can’t say we don’t deserve him. And I’ll bet the majority of Republican officeholders, at least at the federal level, are relieved to be back to "business as usual" (bankrupting the country, endless wars, open borders, outsourcing to China, etc.).

We live in deeply discouraging times.

I know. You are correct about the uni-party (aka "the establishment" aka "the swamp"). Yeah, that "relief" bill is a disaster.

My paternal grandmother, a hard and cynical woman who was actually considered by some in the community to be a witch because of her accurate premonitions and willingness to curse those she didn't like, used to interject herself when the men were arguing politics with a dismissive "same nose". This was a reference to an old country saying, "they're all snot from the same nose. Left nostril, right nostril, what difference does it make?".


I think you may be suffering from PTDS and it's not helping your case. To accuse others of being communists and idiots just because they don't voted for Trump? I may heavily disagree with a lot of folks who think Trump isn't that bad, but I refuse to resort to name-calling or dismissing everyone who disagree with me as idiots or worse.

I honestly gave you a benefit of the doubt, but after stumbling upon a Skeptiko forum thread called Trump Conscious, which you apparently have posted in, I'm quite disappointed from what I've saw there. And I'm disappointed on your latest post here. All that anger and hatred will not lead to spiritual enlightenment, only a vicious cycle of misery.

Take a step back from politics, that's what father said. And he's right. After stepping away from politics since Biden's 2020 election victory, I've slept much better than I did in the past.

I don’t remember people on the left worrying about the spiritual dangers of hating Trump after he won in 2016, or advising other leftists to step away from politics for the good of their souls. What I recall is the left "resisting" Trump for four years in every possible way. They seemed to regard perpetual resistance as a moral crusade.

Now it’s "President" Biden's turn to be resisted. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.


Playing a game of whataboutism doesn't change the fact some of the statements said here are quite unhealthy and obsessive. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. My father was no fan of protests or activists (in fact, he considers them to be stupid during a pandemic). He didn't take politics that seriously until the pandemic happened and he had better sleep than most people worried about what Trump will do. And he ultimately chose Biden because he liked that Biden was offering something that wasn't petty like engaging into Twitter wars with people who knowingly troll you for attention.

The people of the "Left" is a much larger, more diverse group ever since Trump drove out many Republicans out of the party and did everything to alienate minorities. What you see in social media is just a small fraction of Democrats being loudmouths just like Trump supporters. A vocal minority, if you will.

If the left was just consistent of social media activities, it would have been Bernie, not Biden, who would have faced Donald Trump. And many, like Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson, believed that Bernie would have hand in another victory for Trump if he ran in the general election. Yet Bernie lost because the majority of the voters thought he was too extreme for their tastes and thus they went for Biden. And when the general election happened, the people voted for Biden because Trump's extreme, stubborn, and immature attitude convinced many former Republicans that it's better to have a Democrat as President than Trump. And Biden, being a moderate Democrat criticized for not being liberal enough, was good enough to override partisan feelings.

That's the irony. Biden was reaching out to both sides of the poltiical spectrum to increase his chances of winning back the states Hillary lost while Trump spent the last four years creating an echo chamber in the GOP, driving out all moderate Republicans to Biden and shrinking his party into a tiny bubble, unaware that they have sealed their fate. This, combined with the pandemic mishandling, is why Trump lost and none of his supporters saw it coming. Well, none except his political strategists and advisors who warned him that this would happen if he doesn't change course.

I disagree with pretty much all of that analysis, but you’re right that there’s no point in obsessively arguing about it. And I agree that politics, in general, is bad for the soul. It "lowers the vibrations," to put it in spiritualist terms. It would be better if everyone could take a step back and breathe. But I doubt it will happen.

What I’m seeing in "real life" (not social media) is that people who were not very interested in politics have become engaged, even radicalized, by the COVID lockdowns, the prospect of a quasi-mandatory vaccine, the months of riots, the calls to defund the police, and the widespread election fraud. There is an unstable mix of anger, frustration, and despair unlike anything I remember. I agree it’s unhealthy. But it’s real.

Glancing over all these posts I'm just curious... why do humans have a tendency to lump people all into one group as if we have some kind of hive mind? "The leftists do thus and so" or "The Republicans will all follow Trump?"

In other aspects of our life it is pretty much politically incorrect to lump all races of people together? I remember hearing someone say one time that if we see a inebriated black man it's the whole race are drunks but if we see an inebriated white man it's "he's a drunk?" So why in politics is it acceptable to say or lump us all together and that all liberals believe a certain thing or all conservative Republicans also have a hive mind?

Just wondering?

I think it’s legitimate to generalize about people who share political opinions, at least in terms of what those opinions are and what they logically imply or entail. When I say "the left," it’s shorthand for "people who embrace the positions of the leftward side of the Democratic Party." There are policy differences among those people, but the similarities in policy outweigh the differences. The same is true for "the right," which today broadly encompasses Trump supporters of various stripes. (All this is in the context of US politics only.)

There are some politicians who have positioned themselves as centrists — Tulsi Gabbard, who unfortunately is retiring from Congress, is one. But they’re increasingly rare in our polarized environment.

Biden himself doesn’t strike me as either a leftist or a centrist. His long career is characterized by opportunism. He will be whatever his handlers want him to be. Given his cognitive decline, he is even less likely to hold any opinions of his own as POTUS. Even so, I consider the Biden-Harris ticket to be hard left because Harris is hard left, and it seems inevitable that she will hold the top job before long. If Biden had chosen a true centrist like Gabbard as his VP, I would have an entirely different view of the incoming administration.

Anyway, it’s clearly a fallacy (hasty generalization) to look at one drunken Irishman and say "all Irishmen are drunks." But it’s not a fallacy to say that all or most of the people who identify with a particular agenda are seeking the goals set forth in that agenda. As with any generalization, we need to bear in mind Aristotle's favorite qualifier: "always or for the most part."

From JoNova's blog:

December 24, 2020 at 2:44 pm · Reply
This has the Navarro report that sets out the evidence of fraud in each state:

None really new as far as I see but neatly packaged summary.

\\"And I agree that politics, in general, is bad for the soul. It "lowers the vibrations," to put it in spiritualist terms." - MP//

A number of years ago I was driving my wife's aunt back to Knoxville and during the drive I was going on about near death experiences and deathbed visions. Her response to what I was saying was "you've turned into a kook!" LOL!

Which reminds me of something I said on Facebook to my sister in law a few weeks ago. My brother and his wife are staunch Republicans and really like Donald Trump and my sister in law sometimes posts political stuff that is rather critical of liberals or Democrats so.... in the comment section of her post I couldn't help myself and typed "Politics is just a great big giant wedge that drives people apart and causes separation."

She didn't respond to it but since then I don't recall seeing her post something political? She still posts but mostly about family and friends. If she took what I said to heart I think she might actually be the first person in my entire life that has listened to something I said and didn't think I was a kook or stupid? Most people just ignore what I say in real life and online. {grin}

I doubt there will be a Civil War. I've traveled and lived across the US for years, just went from CA to MN this year.

The online crazies - SJWs, IDW, etc - like to get up in arms defending important things such as *check notes* games...Star Wars movies...comic books...etc...

In the real world most of us have other concerns. As a white friend of mine who worked his way from the factory floor to the office once said, "Judging by what's happening online you'd think we'd be heading into a race war, but then I come to the real world and all us guys of different races at work are passing out cigars b/c one of my Puerto Rican co-workers just had a daughter."

Though we do like to reminisce about the "old days" when the character of a man was more important than the color of his skin. I remember moving from a literal foyer into a girlfriend's place, carrying my mattress across several Philly city blocks in the summer heat. Two black guys in a pick up truck drive up next to me and say, "Get in."

I tell them I sadly have no money to give them, to which they reply, "It ain't about money, we just saw you carrying that damn mattress and liked your hussle."

So if I had a piece of advice it would to promote a Log Off America campaign. Let Facebook, Twitter, all that die - starve them out. I went on social media briefly, noticed it worked to manipulate me into seeing things that would psychology get me angry, and turned it off save for a few parapsychology & consciousness related things I keep tabs on.

\\"I doubt there will be a Civil War. I've traveled and lived across the US for years, just went from CA to MN this year." - Saj Patel//

Somebody set off a bomb in Nashville, TN and now our ATT cell phones are completely kaput. No cell service, no instant messages, no texting, no nothing on our cell phones.

So I was wondering if maybe it was someone who was wanting Donald Trump to declare martial law or something?

My thought, like yours, was that it could have been a right-wing group hoping to incite a civil war. I’m reminded of Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building many years ago. But who knows? We can only speculate.

One thing that seems clear is that the bombers wanted minimal casualties combined with maximum destruction of property and infrastructure. If they had wanted mass casualties, they would have detonated the bomb on a different day and time, and they wouldn’t have broadcast a recorded message warning people to evacuate.

The location they chose suggests an intention to shut down telecommunications, as you pointed out.

Art: Oh I've no doubt there are people who relish the idea of physically fighting their fellow Americans.

But I also have no doubt this is a contingent that has become addicted to feeding their online outrage.

The saddest thing is the varied "journalists" and "expert commentators" on social media just care about making an easy buck over honest work, why they harp on minutiae as much as substance. They will help incite violence from the political extremes while being sure to stay far away from the danger.

Thankfully I don't see this leading to Civil War, but unfortunately it can lead to a good deal of Civil Unrest.

Though I credited the bombers with trying to minimize casualties with their recorded message, some people have a different explanation. They’re suggesting that the bombers wanted to lure police to the scene. In other words, they were interested in maximizing law enforcement casualties.

With regard to civil war, I still think it’s unlikely. You see keyboard warriors flexing their muscles, but there’s little sense of a general uprising in the air, much less any sign of widespread coordinated action. What we might face down the line is a Bleeding Kansas* scenario, or perhaps a situation reminiscent of the IRA's fight against the UK government, which involved political assassinations and public bombings. In the longer term, I wouldn’t rule out a negotiated separation, even though the obstacles are formidable.

*Bleeding Kansas:

Here's Dave Barry's Year in Review:

Hiya Eric/Michael. Say, what is your thoughts on the Covid relief bill.
i) Do you think Republicans should support the higher payments?
ii) Do you think Republicans will support the higher payments?
iii) What is Trump up to?

IMO, the bill is despicable. It it supposed to be relief for all of the American small businesses and citizens severely economically harmed by the the insane reaction to a virus that the evidence clearly points to as being no more harmful than a flu. Instead it is payments to foreign countries and to global big businesses.

The paltry $600 to Americans is an extreme insult.

No one outiside of DC voted to give our money - it's ours, not the government's - to the big recipients listed in the bill. That is more evidence of taxation without representation and a "let them eat cake" attitude on the part of our "elites".

We cannot keep printing money, especially when much of it doesn't even go into our economy. Macro economics 101 states that clearly (for those interested in playing "science sez"). America is being destroyed by Washington DC, clearly on purpose. An acceptable good bill would distribute a one time check of meaningful size to Americans economically most impacted and would include laws against states shutting down businesses (i.e. demanding a return to normal).

What Trump is doing, I have no idea.

Will Rs support higher payments? Probably not. Establishment Rs and Ds are, as my grandmother would say, snot from the same nose.

Contrary to Michael, I do think there will be a civil war. It won't be over Trump. He is just one of weights on the scale. It will be over a federal govt and some state governments that are destroying the last vestiges of America. When we fall into a Great Depression (it's coming) and the govt is unresponsive, at best, and the Left keeps pushing open hatred of capitalism and white people and common sense in general and looking to confiscate what people have earned to give to those deemed "victims of the system", then the armed citizens that constitute the conservative bloc will have to fight fight or perish. This is a few years down the road yet; perhaps 3 or 4.

Sadly, Michael, this strikes me very much as your "Arthur Conan Doyle and the fairies" moment: a man with a formerly credible reputation becoming a transparent victim of motivated reasoning leading to gullible acceptance of wild claims.

As with Arthur, it is already clear that history is going to judge the episode harshly. How could you expect otherwise when you have the extremely Trump sycophantic AG Barr already abandoning ship?

The other point worth making is that I would have thought you would be more interested in cults and recognising the extremely cult-like following from which so much of the allegations of fraud are springing, which of course affects its credibility. There are clearly many allegations where a fraudulent interpretation is put on observations of events which the observer does not understand, and there is no caution shown; it is straight to the worst possible interpretation and it is gullibly accepted by millions, who then claim they can't understand why judges say "this is supposition, not evidence of fraud".

The other major factor is the profession of Right Wing punditry which makes a lucrative living out of creating a RW alternative universe of facts, of which you have become a victim. This is clear from your hyperventilation about protests: oddly enough, although you paint them as a crisis, the large cities where they happened still voted overwhelmingly for Biden. Huh. Maybe they were not as bad as they seemed to you through your biased sources, and/or you don't understand the phenomena properly. Or do you think city folk are mostly crazed leftists who would prefer to live in rubble just for the fun of it?

It's true there is a culture war in America, and it does affect perceptions of fact. The problem as I see it is that on the Left, the hypersensitivity to (say) identity politics does not have extremely serious consequences: yes it's sometimes bad that a figure who says unpopular things about gender, sexuality or race gets hounded out of college or university, for example. (And even then, it's not always bad - I am sure even you would agree that some extreme views do deserve expulsion.)

But the worst effects of Left leaning politics in America on the perception of facts are no where near as dangerous as those from the Right. The American Right has crippled a strong global response to climate change, for example, by disbelieving science.

And your dismissal of Covid as a serious problem is just extraordinary, when you have hospitals all over the country (not to mention England and elsewhere) full and turning away patients for other life threatening conditions too. Sure, Left politicians have made mistakes in response, but at least they can't be accused of denying it's a dire problem.

Now, on top of that, the Right is willingly harming faith in democracy: you have already given up on it! What a disgrace born of your own gullibilty and blindness to your motivated reasoning.

That's enough, and it's at least good that you have shown openness to criticism. Unfortunately, though, you seem immune to explanations offered in good faith as to why, in politics, you have become dogmatic and wrong headed in close to the same ways as people as others have been with respect to the paranormal. (It is also apt that others have pointed out the comparison to your attitude to Randi.)

Recent development - a state senate committee reviewed the election issues and, a couple of days ago, decided to recommend de-certifying Biden's Georgia electoral votes. This was done based on the evidence.

"The November 3, 2020 General Election (the “Election”) was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy. The Subcommittee took evidence from witnesses and received affidavits sworn under oath. The Subcommittee heard evidence that proper protocols were not used to ensure chain of custody of the ballots throughout the Election, after the opening of ballots prior to the Election, and during the recounts. The Subcommittee heard testimony that it was possible or even likely that large numbers of fraudulent ballots were introduced into the pool of ballots that were counted as voted; there is no way of tracing the ballots after they have been separated from the point of origin. The Subcommittee heard testimony of pristine ballots whose origin looked suspicious or which could not be verified and the inability of poll workers to distinguish between test ballots and absentee ballots. Signatures were not consistently verified according to law in the absentee balloting process. Poll watchers on Election Night testified that they had noted that ballots were not secured, that seals and security tags were not used, and the chain of custody was often lax or non-existent."

The hope is that other states will follow Georgia's example in the coming two days (some are apparently close to doing so. Also, that Republicans in Washington,like Ted Cruz, will not vote to confirm the electoral votes from the states; forcing the Supreme Court to hear the evidence.

I do not understand why Democrats/liberals/progressives/socialists are so afraid of the evidence actually be reviewed. I don't understand how anyone who values intellectual integrity can just had wave away the evidence without it ever being heard in a court (as opposed to cases being dismissed on technical points of law). It's almost as if winning is more important than the integrity of our system of governance.

If there was no fraud to the extent that election was swayed to Biden, the what are you afraid of? Let that be declared by the court after a fair hearing and we can all start focussing on moving forward.

Steve, if you're really in Brisbane, I doubt you have enough info to comment intelligently on US political controversies, just as I don't have enough info to comment on controversies in your country.

With regard to Doyle, he endorsed a belief in magical fairies, while I'm endorsing a conviction held, according to polls, by half the US population, including about 30% of Democrats. Doyle relied on photos snapped by teenage girls, while I'm relying on sworn testimony delivered before state legislatures, as well as video surveillance footage, forensic analysis of voting machines, and mathematical analysis of voting trends. If you think cheating in an election is as implausible as photographing fairies, perhaps you need to open a history book.

The evidence for widespread fraud in key states is very strong, not that it will make any difference in our corrupt system. Tragically, the US has entered the "technofascist oligarchy" stage of its development.

Eric wrote, "It's almost as if winning is more important than the integrity of our system of governance."

Hmm. Yeah ... almost.

Trump would have a better chance of winning if he had pledged a month ago to resign right after his inauguration. That would mean that giving the presidency to a Republican would not entail giving it to Trump, which would be much more palatable to those currently trying to shut down appointing a 10-day Electoral Commission, as in 1877, to investigate the allegations, as Senator Cruz and others are proposing. (It was composed of five senators, five representatives, and five Supreme Court judges.)

It's still not to late for Trump to make this move.

Michael, I'm sorry, but your first point is exceptionally weak. Of course modern communications means I can read and view what Americans are consuming in political reporting and opinion in "real time" and without my local media filtering it for me.

I subscribe to the Washington Post, regularly check in on websites like Axios, Vox, Slate, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Hot Air, sometimes Douthat at NYT, and NRO. I see PBS Newshour pretty often; it is rebroadcast here on one of our public broadcasters, but also has full episodes on Youtube. I follow a lot of American journalists on Twitter.

I would love to know your sources of info and whether they even aspire to objective reporting. Most RW sources of info are more opinion than anything resembling proper journalism.

And of course people in smaller countries follow American politics more than Americans follow small country politics. You're still the economic and cultural powerhouse for the english speaking world. I don't know much of what is going on in, say, Ireland; and the average Irishman probably knows little of current politics here. But both of us are likely to have a bigger interest in what's going on in the White House because of its global power and importance.

Your second point: sworn testimony before State legislatures carries little real risk of consequences for lying or claiming misinterpretations of event as evidence for fraud.

The video evidence relies on your interpretation of what is happening - in Georgia and elsewhere, the electoral officials have denied the interpretation people have made, yet you prefer your second hand interpretation.

The polling about belief in "rigged" election is a disingenuous exercise in self serving conspiracy mongering: "see, we've made so many allegations [left out: none successful in court] that most of our side of politics thinks there must be something to it!" On the Democrat side, allowing for possible margin of error, the latest poll suggests that it may be just over 10% who take "rigging" as contributing to the outcome. Even that is too high, but it is still a more accurate picture of how many people, if properly informed, would consider it likely.

With your last point: you seem to give no consideration to the fact that modern communication has the clear problem that it allows conspiracy based information to spread like wildfire and have greater sway and reach than ever before - a damaging consequence of fast and "democratised" communication that techno optimists like Arthur C Clarke completely failed to foresee.

It is entirely appropriate, when it is democracy and its institutions at stake, that the communication facilitating companies take steps to stop the unmitigated spread of falsehood and rumour.

Finally, I would hope, but probably have no good reason to, that Trump's appalling call to Georgia on 2 Jan would convince you of his dangerous authoritarian streak that is a mile wide and been obvious ever since he first led chants of "lock her up" about his political opponent when he was campaigning.

"China hacked more US systems and stolen more US technology than the Russians could ever dream of. They've been doing it for decades.....China is officially recognized by the US military as the biggest threat to the US and free people around the globe."

So it couldn't have been the Russians that were behind the recent cyber-attack as it's evidently impossible for there to be two hostile state actors in operation during the same time period. I guess the attack on Pearl Harbour was actually perpetrated by Nazi Germany,and not as we are led to believe by the Japanese, as Nazi Germany were the most troublesome nation at that particular time. As usual, Trump is telling the truth and the Intelligence community is lying. Okey doke.

"Steve, if you're really in Brisbane, I doubt you have enough info to comment intelligently on US political controversies".

So we are not in a position to form opinions about Nazi Germany then, since we did not live in that society. And you seem very quick to conclude that people from the UK are 'socialist'. How could you possibly make that judgement from America?

No one has to live in America to observe and comment on the piss poor response to the pandemic, or that around half of America basically don't believe in science (when it suits them). And no one has to live in America to understand what sort of man Donald Trump is, suggesting bleach might be a cure for Covid (but I guess he was joking right?), and harassing secretaries of state to change the election result or risk legal action, amongst many many other things.

I find all this very pitiful and sad.

Here's a comment I just posted on the Reason magazine site:

Sullum says: “Since that “evidence” has not persuaded the courts and those objections are bound to fail, forcing these votes can serve only to further undermine confidence in the election system by lending credence to Trump’s wild claims.”

But, if an electoral commission is NOT appointed, won’t the damage to the electoral system be worse? That’s what Cruz et al. claim:

“support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20 would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.”

The credibility of this claim depends on how many Americans are already suspicious or worse that Biden won fairly. If it were only 3%, then giving a hearing their crank claims would worsen the situation. But, since 33% or more believe the election was stolen, examining and (presumably) debunking those claims will mollify them.

NOT doing so will look suspicious (“what do they have to hide?”) and anti-American, and will provide some on the fringe with a point of rebellion. It is very unstatesmanlike of the current nothing-to-see-here consensus not to appreciate the riskiness of their course.

RE: “those objections are bound to fail”—but that’s only because Democrats in the House will not accept a Commission report that endorses Trump’s claims. It’s not because Trump’s case is prima facie preposterous, despite the claims of the Consensus. His claims must be given a fair hearing. If they aren’t, a significant number of Americans will conclude that The System is rotten to the core and is illegitimate.

Trump would have a better chance of winning if he had pledged a month ago to resign right after his inauguration. That would mean that giving the presidency to a Republican would not entail giving it to Trump, which would be much more palatable

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The bad news just keeps on rolling in doesn't it? Perhaps Georgians took the advice of Michael Prescott:

"I do not recommend voting in any future election whatsoever.....basically, I would opt out of the political system at this point."

May I just say, I strongly recommend the above sentiment (to Republicans). You should resign yourself to the fact that the electoral system is completely rigged in favour of the Democrats. Where is the proof I hear you ask. Be reasonable! What sort of world do we live in where remedial action requires evidence. Let me explain by means of an analogy. Suppose my house is burgled and I suspect my neighbour was responsible. I have absolutely no evidence to back this up mind, but nonetheless I can't quite shake the feeling it was my neighbour who robbed me. What sort of world would we be living in if I was to approach the judicial system who then refused to convict my neighbour due to lack of evidence. Highly unreasonable! Moreover, what if they not only refused to convict my neighbour but did not even bother to take the matter to court, claiming, quite unreasonably, that it would be a waste of time and resources since I could not present any corroborative evidence to the court, and the case was doomed to fail. Thank god we do not live in such a world. Oh, hang on a sec, we do.

There is four years until the next presidential election. That is a long time, but I implore all Republicans to keep in mind the above sentiment expressed by Micheal Prescott. It will serve you well, I promise.

(Now, where's that bottle of champagne......)

I’m actually glad the Dems will have full control. I’m tired of half-measures. Let’s implement the whole agenda and see what happens.

Well I wonder if you saw McConnell's remarks today ( and whether that's going to lead you to change your mind on this at all.
Or is he in on the conspiracy too?

As for the 50-50 split in the Senate, Republican Senate leader Trent Lott presided over a 50-50 senate in 2001. He opined "I could have been a horse's rear, and said, 'We have the majority, the hell with you.' And we would have had daily warfare". Instead Democrats and Republicans had equal committee membership until the Senate flipped to the Democrats in June when a Republican defected and switched party.

This will be a test of President-elect Biden's promise to work with Congress in a bi-partisan fashion. Is it even possible in today's world of highly polarized politics? We will see, but call me cautiously optimistic. I believe Mitch McConnell is a reasonable man who would rather have half a loaf than none.

On another note, I read the full transcript and listened to the complete audio of Trump's call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (with a certain alleged vote scammer's name that rhymes with "Scooby Screamin" bleeped out). If you are a political junkie (which I'm not) it's a must read and must hear. I don't believe that President Trump is trying to steal the election, but rather that he is, in my unsolicited and wholly unscientific opinion, a bit off his rocker. His yacht has come unmoored from the steady pier of reality and is drifting out to sea towards a fantasy island where Trump won Georgia, and he won it big by over a half million votes.

I would cite one example, upon which my thoroughly unprofessional and utterly worthless medical opinion as to the state of our president's mind is based. With respect to ballots "that were dropped mysteriously into the rolls" in Fulton county, President Trump claimed:

"We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged. And we are quite sure that’s going to happen."

To use a favorite word of the President, this is a "beautiful" expression of conviction. Indeed I would say that it is positively voluptuous, curvaceously full-figured, and buxomly bra-busting in it's audacious certainty. I picture Secretary Raffensperger praying inwardly "Oh Lord, watch over me as I endure this trial, and protect me from pulmonary embolism, sudden onset of brain hemmorage, stroke' and other maladies that may come about as I try to keep my brain from exploding. And, God save the Grand Old Party."

I'm all for Georgia doing a comprehensive audit of signatures in Fulton county, not that the outcome would change the President's opinion one iota. He has, what those of us in the fake psychiatric community call, a "fixation" on this particular issue.

In other news, at the Save America March/Capitol Riot Whoop Dee Doo, President Trump inspired the gathered crowd (hundred's of thousands by his account) with these beautiful words:

"We will never give up, never concede, it doesn't happen. You don't concede where there's theft involved. Our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore."
“I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election...All Vice President Pence has to do is recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people.”

God save the Grand Old Party indeed.

I strongly disagree with McConnell's claim that there is "no evidence" of serious fraud. I also would note that most of the court challenges were rejected on technical grounds (standing, "laches," etc.) and not after a review of the evidence. The courts are very reluctant to get involved and will come up with any excuse to duck the issues.

I think Mitch is a creature of the establishment and will behave as such. No, he's not part of a conspiracy. He's just a go-along-to-get-along sort of guy, like most politicians.

I do agree that, given the absence of dueling slates of electors, there is no role for Congress except to certify the EC vote. Pence was correct about that. The only exception might be Pennsylvania, where I think the state legislature has officially requested a delay in certification. I'm not sure if that request has legal authority or not.

One way or the other, Biden will be sworn in. Since the morning of Nov. 4, I haven't expected any other outcome. The larger question is if the half of the country who regard him as illegitimate will settle down, or if we will see more mob action and other violent resistance like the events in the Capitol today.

Here's something I posted on another site a few hours ago:

Robby Soave: "Indeed, what happened at the Capitol was no less a riot than any of the window-smashing and church-burning that occurred in the summer ...."

On the contrary, it WAS “less a riot,” AFAIK:
Fewer windows were smashed
No fire-setting was attempted,
Fewer objects were hurled at the cops
Cops were less spat upon and kicked.
Bystanders and passing cars were not attacked.
Shots weren’t fired (by protesters).

It was predictable that rioting would occur if the grievances of the election-protesters were not given a fair hearing. It was very unstatesmanlike to deny them their—so to speak—day in court, especially in light of their large numbers and high passion. It was very unwise to give the Deplorables a reason to consider the state illegitimate. That our “clerisy” thinks it can carry on in this fashion, dismissing objectors with the back of its hand and telling them to Move On, is an indication of its profound immaturity—and its out-of-touchness. (It seems to be living in the Fifties, when the public trusted mainstream institutions to have its interests at heart and not to be actively evil.)

The clerisy’s arguments that objectors are trying to “overturn the results of the election” assumes what it tries to prove—i.e., it begs the question, Were the so-called “results of the election” really the results of the election?

Rudy Guiliani said recently, “It’s perfectly reasonable and fair for us to ask for 10 days. Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence…. If we’re wrong we look like fools.”

If the accept-the-results Consensus is correct in thinking that Trump’s claims are preposterous or toxic, it should air them before the nation and expose their foolishness. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, it’s been said. So let’s let it do its work and we’ll be one happy family again—or at least a happier one.

Choir-member Lynn Cheney disagrees. She just said that reviewing the results of voting would set a bad precedent. On the contrary, voting-results-review is a badly needed reform. No close election’s results should be accepted until a review-panel has heard and evaluated the losers’ objections to the way it was conducted. This would discourage voting fraud, increase the legitimacy of the winners, and diminish social divisiveness. The current set-up, whereby precincts’ vote-counts are rubber-stamped by the local secretary of state, incentivizes dishonesty and creates a festering boil of resentment and alienation that impairs and discredits democracy.

PS: I may have been unjust to our clerisy. It probably feels that it would be dangerous to allow an Electoral Commission to possibly find that cheating gave the election to Biden, as it would result in massive rioting by Biden’s supporters. So it thinks it’s being statesmanlike. But if Congress can be cowed by the threat of violence, that means that force rules, not consent, and we therefore ought to abandon the attempt to govern the nation by voting, and resort to gladiatorial contests instead. Or adopt massive decentralization.

Here are 27 photos of the capitol Hill Riot by Buzzfeed:

Michael wrote:

"The larger question is if the half of the country who regard him as illegitimate will settle down, or if we will see more mob action and other violent resistance like the events in the Capitol today."

You should at least admit that Trump exaggerates wildly the extent of any fraud - wasn't he claiming he won state/s he lost by "hundreds of thousands" of votes. Doesn't this prick up your ears as being extremely improbable (simply because the larger the scale of the fraud, the more people who are likely to know about it and have to maintain silence)?

And secondly, doesn't it strike you as extremely irresponsible and dangerous to wildly exaggerate when you're telling it to a crowd of followers dedicated enough to have come from all across the country to see you, and who on social media have been spending weeks and months threatening violence or even the start of a second civil war if their fraud claims were not vindicated by the reinstatement of Trump? Have you had a look at Parler? (I don't take civil war talk seriously, but it shows a willingness to contemplate violence.)

If there was genuinely a scale of fraud so massive as Trump was claiming - you can understand the crowd's anger. Similarly, if you believed Trump's outright and utter lie that "they (Democrats) know I won", you could be excused for being outraged.

This was genuinely appalling behaviour, and it is reflected in the number of White House staff who have abruptly resigned.

But - Trump never had the support of Republican election officials from Georgia or any other states that there was any credibility to any significant amount of fraud, let alone "hundreds of thousands".

It seems you are backing away from the "Deep State" explanation for McConnell not supporting the fraud claims. What about Lindsay Graham, Trump's golfing partner, also explicitly saying in Congress yesterday that no one was able to back up their fraud numbers claims to his satisfaction? And Bill Barr - the most sycophantic culture warrior of an attorney general that Trump could have ever hoped for.

The most likely explanation for key Republican figures not being persuaded there was anything to wild claims (which only became wilder over time - look at the increasing nuttiness of Wood, Powell and Rudi) is that the alleged evidence was never robust, sometimes purely invented, and hundreds of people were prepared to make dubious claims of what they thought was fraud because Trump is the figurehead of a personality cult. The fact they swore it in affidavit form and at risk of perjury is hardly significant if a lot of the evidence was more of the "and that looked suspicious to me!" variety than anything else, as that may be true, but still valueless (or unpersuasive) of actual fraud.

And really, I would fully expect that the USA is like Australia, in that perjury cases are very rarely pursued - it has to be clearest case of a lie (and one which has had a substantial effect on a court decision) before investigations are even started. People's affidavit evidence is disbelieved in court every day with no risk that they are to be prosecuted for perjury.

The biggest issue I see is not in Trump having any substantial influence on the Republicans going forward - he tipped a tin of gasoline over his credibility yesterday and lit the match himself - but how long his cult like sway over some very gullible, conspiracy belief prone people, will last. Qanon surely can't last for long once Biden is in the White House, though, surely?

But it would not be all that surprising if a Trump devotee, still believing his Master's claims from yesterday, tries blowing up one of more government or Democrat buildings, like McVeigh.

Let's hope it doesn't happen, but I would be sure the workload on the FBI to try to catch such plans before they are executed will be the highest its been since just after 9/11.

What a legacy of a narcissistic loser of a President.

I have spent countless hours musing over how Trump's core base could so easily buy into his blatant lies, many of which are demonstrably false statements. Having observed the intelligence level of the mob that stormed the Capital building, based not only on what they were doing but their responses to journalists questions, I am no longer quite so perplexed. I don't generally like using lazy stereotypes, but based on what I saw and heard these people were just dump hillbillies. I honestly don't think they had a brain cell between them.
I have no general prejudice against thick people. People can't help being daft, and I guess there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a complete plank anywat, but it certainly can have consequences. These people have so little critical thinking skills they are literally incapable of seeing through the great conman Trump.
My fear of a civil war has somewhat abated however. These people are not a credible militant threat. Possessing firearms makes them slightly dangerous, but confronted with any meaningful military response (which they weren't) they would scatter like roaches. I'm convinced of that.
Here is a tweet made by trump a few months back:
“Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Don’t do it!”
Michael/Eric, do you think this same standard should be applied to the people who stormed the federal building a couple of days ago.
Roger Knight, your latest comment is so outragous it is not really worth dignifying with a response, although I am sure it will have some traction on this blog.
And I am just waiting for someone on this blog to reiterate the latest conspiracy theory that it was ANTIFA who stormed the Capital building. Go on, say it someone, I'm just waiting for it.

It is a relatively slight matter for friends to gather around the digital water cooler and shoot the bull. Our woefully ill-informed opinions are more or less harmless. Our words do not lead to the deaths of a veteran of our armed forces and an officer charged with defending the capitol of the United States.

The President of our great nation does not possess the same liberty of loose speech that we common folk enjoy. His word can command men and women into battle and unleash the full fury of our wrath against our enemies. Whether the president's words possess the inspired mastery of a Lincoln, or are the lunatic conspiratorial ravings addressed to an enthusiastic crowd, they carry a gravity and import that our airy musings cannot aspire to.

I always bridle when someone uses the expression "He's not my president". As long as anyone is privileged to be an American citizen, then the man or woman who sits behind the Resolute Desk is your president, whether you damn well like it or not. Today I say with acute sorrow, shame, and regret that Donald J. Trump is my president. His disgrace is mine too. What Ronald Reagan called "A shining citadel on a hill", shines less brightly today, a shadow cast over that glorious beacon of light in the world.

Concerning Roger's praise of the recent breach of the capitol by protestors, I would respond with the eloquent reply of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe to the German commander demanding his "honorable surrender": "NUTS!"

Roger Knights,
Yes! "If the accept-the-results Consensus is correct in thinking that Trump’s claims are preposterous or toxic, it should air them before the nation and expose their foolishness. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, it’s been said. So let’s let it do its work and we’ll be one happy family again—or at least a happier one."

As far as the penetration of the Capitol goes, agree with you there as well. The riots, which were encouraged by several members of congress, were far worse. Some people are just getting tweaked over the site of some Tom Foolery.

In the context of analysis not being advocacy (please!), Tuesday's breaching of the Capitol, IMO, hardly merits the level of pearl clutching that it has generated; whether genuine or opportunistic. It could have been a true Constitutional crisis. Rather than a group jesters breaking in, dancing around and generally mocking our politicians (well deserved, btw), it could have very easily been serious men with guns blazing and Molotov cocktails/bombs being hurled and lots of dead congress people along with dead Capitol security. That with a simultaneous destruction of the power grid and cell phone communications, roads blocked, trucking into the city disrupted, food and other essential goods and services attacked and disrupted and assassinations of bureaucrats and media personalities in key locations - an armed siege of Washington DC and a bloody attack on the establishment; very easily. All it would take is a couple hundred thousand seriously pissed off Deplorables; some percent with military background. Such an uprising would probably spontaneously spread to capitols in democrat governed states across the country; "spread" if not pre-coordinated. There have more than that number of MAGA types in DC in recent months airing grievances. In Michigan crowds of armed men were in the capitol last year.

Some will say that such an event is impossible. I don't think so. Make Americans desperate enough and they could very well go all 1776. Would they ultimately prevail? I have no idea. But at least they would show the swamp that they are the men they thought they were.

Some will say the answer is to take away the guns. Attempting to do so will actually greatly increase the odds of the above occurring. The only answer is to truly come together as a people, find a middle ground and to dispense with radicalism on both sides of the aisle. Politicians and whoever is pulling their strings must give up dreams of hegemony and victory. When they exhibit thinking and act in those terms, as they have been doing, it is they who have declared war and there will be a proportional reaction.

The neat little trick the left is engaging in is that they are going to black list and otherwise socially destroy conservatives as well as destroy their livelihoods via conciliatory trade with China, open borders, destruction of the energy sector and manufacturing sector, quota based hiring, covid lockdowns...basically hyper regulation, Green New Deal BS, etc. BUT no blood is shed by them. So they are not bad. If any of their targets reacts with violence, well that is just a demonstration of why the left needs to up the ante. It's very passive aggressive (you wouldn't hit a woman would you?) type approach to purging a nation of an entire of people.

One thing that interests me is that people always say they don't want to see political posts on this blog, which I can understand. I get sick of hearing myself rant about politics, and I would assume everyone else gets sick of me, too.

And yet the political posts typically generate *far* more comments than the paranormal/afterlife ones. This comment thread runs for several pages.

It's as if there's an ugly attraction to politics that gets us caught up in it, even as we insist we don't want to think about it. It reminds me of St. Augustine's prayer: "Lord, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."

If anyone cares (and why should they?), I thought all along that it was a big mistake to hold a pro-Trump really in DC. I saw no upside to it, and a huge downside. There's a reason that the two dueling presidential candidates of the contested 1876 election both discouraged assemblies of their supporters. They understood that violence could result.

Trump, showing far less statesmanship than either Hayes or Tilden, encouraged the massive gathering merely as a way to feed his ego.

It's impossible to support him anymore. He's dishonored himself by clinging to power in a crazed, desperate, no-holds-barred way. He's become the Mussolini-esque caricature his opponents have painted. I had no problem with court challenges, and I think some of the suits should have been heard and not dismissed on technicalities, but bringing together an enormous crowd, whipping them to a lather with angry rhetoric, and leading them on a march down Pennsylvania Avenue is just irresponsible. As some famous Frenchman, possibly Talleyrand, once said, "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder."

Though I'm no fan of Biden or Harris, I am anxious to have them sworn in, because the situation right now is unstable and deeply troubling. And I would hope that the Joint Chiefs of Staff will think twice about obeying any orders Trump may give in the next 12 days.

"Trump, showing far less statesmanship than either Hayes or Tilden, encouraged the massive gathering merely as a way to feed his ego."

Agree. This is true. However, the left is doing the same for for more sinister reasons (again, see BLM/ANTIFA riots that politicians encouraged, including Harris). That does not excuse Trump.

Trump is as lame as a duck can be. Nothing he orders in the next 12 days will be followed. What the leftists order over the next 4 years will be followed. We are screwed, big time, and not by Trump. This country is becoming one big shit show and it won't end well. The Democrats and their media lackies and tech company bosses are already proving to be less statesmanly than Trump. They have fallen below a very low bar.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)