Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wmLambert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
General Comments / Re: Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 30, 2022, 08:14:35 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.

No more or less so than the marginal utility of voting at all. But I think you're wrong because you are thinking of whopping giant races like Mayor of New York or Governor of Georgia.

Your local school board and city council are likely decided by a few hundred votes if not fewer. The same reason that in local races, the marginal utility of cheating is so much higher. I couldn't find online information on what two competing council candidates had as policy goals. One of them responded to me with a thoughtful response. The other didn't respond at all. Research complete. Was that irrational?

I agree generally. Nothing is so sad as the news shows that do man on the street interviews, and always find voters who can't even name the Vice President, or know the big issues of the day. Through the years we gave had poll taxes and other ideas that have tried to prove the voters had the knowledge and capacity to make intelligent decisions of who is worthy of their votes. At one point the argument was that only property owners had the right to vote. Franklin nixed that with his argument: "Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions. Today's use of dark money to sway voters may be the only way that some people get their info. The election ads are very problematic, and often spew disinformation, so when only one candidate can buy those ads, the fix is in.

Local elections always have info sourcing available, like Common Cause, The League of Women Voters, and the ACLU. If anyone runs for office, if they don't fill out such info requests, or provide more extensive websites, I recommend they aren't legitimate options for your vote. I also dislike candidates who hide their party membership. Why hide it?

General Comments / Re: Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 30, 2022, 07:58:52 PM »
Personally, I think the problem is not with campaign money, its the fact that voters are so damn stupid that seeing political ads changes their opinion.

If you're going to go down this rabbit hole it gets much darker than just 'public stupidity'. You are looking at a populace uninvolved in the operation of politics, unschooled in civics, mistrustful of government (on both sides), and subjected to an economic system which deliberately puts them in the position of having to work free overtime to prove their worth and having zero free time to ponder the study of candidates. Realistically you expect all of them to spend their free time doing research? Aristotle may have had a glimmer of a point when he suggested that only gentlemen of leisure could be expected to pursue virtue in any serious way. That may be dated and overstated, but it does point to the fact that if you take away too much free time, apply too much stress, divide the classes too much, and otherwise incentivize mindless pleasure to decompress from a stressful life, you are simply not going to get anyone but intellectuals who will push themselves to do private study.

Sure. That's a fair presentation. Part of the reason why I oppose mandatory voting, and I hate the "get out the vote, just vote" blanket message. It should be "it's August, register and start researching candidates in your area."

I don't think for most people there's not enough time. It might take 3-5 hours if you want to research every candidate. So if you just don't watch a football game, you can get it done. People don't care to. Most of them already set who they would vote for, and all the ads just keep reminding them not to forget - kind of like a Coca-Cola ad.

Money doesn't entirely buy wins though, Bloomberg showed us that much.

I agree generally. Nothing is so sad as the news shows that do man on the street interviews, and always find voters who can't even name the Vice President, or know the big issues of the day. Through the years we gave had poll taxes and other ideas that have tried to prove the voters had the knowledge and capacity to make intelligent decisions of who is worthy of their votes. At one point the argument was that only property owners had the right to vote. Franklin nixed that with his argument: "Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions. Today's use of dark money to sway voters may be the only way that some people get their info. The election ads are very problematic, and often spew disinformation, so when only one candidate can buy those ads, the fix is in.

General Comments / Re: Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 30, 2022, 07:37:09 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.

Actually, there are many voting info websites that interact with candidates to fill out their generic info sheets to get their views on what they stand for. Some candidates either don't know such aids exist, or don't want to reveal what they stand for. Eitherway, not filling out the info is sign they are not the best candidates.

General Comments / Re: Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 30, 2022, 03:57:14 PM »
So no one is able to penetrate the search engines to find info on that "A"group? The name was something like "Antebellum" but finding it is hard. Those numbers I posted came from that search and I copied the numbers into my own archives because things disappear so quickly on line. I never got the whole thing and URL copied, which is why I asked for help. As for Ron Johnson getting money, Soros by himself gave Kim Foxx in Chicago $2 million for her reelection this year, and she was a DA - not a Senator or House member. And like I said, that "A" group was supposed to have distributed twice as much money to Democrats than Soros did.

Almost every email from GOP candidates asking for money, say their opponents have raised much more than they have, and they can't come close to matching the media buys. It's amazing that the much greater number of small donors funding GOP candidates are so far behind the smaller number of donors  getting much more money from fewer donors. One party is trying to buy the election - and it doesn't seem to be GOP.

The bills that have not been ratified by Democrats are the ones asking for fair elections. We are required to have ID for almost everything - but somehow, the lower economic quintiles of voters are said not to be smart enough to get valid ID. Cleaning up the voter rolls is mandated by law, but bills trying to help that effort is resisted by Democrat lawmakers. Why? When Conservative or Independents reject bills that make fair elections worse, why act like it is a vote against

Fenring asked; " would be both morally and strategically desirable for Republicans to squash the campaign finance system as it is now? Why don't they? Are they dumb? Well, it helps to have a fair DOJ to enforce what rules we have. It also helps to get fairness when the bills are supported across the board and not sunk because either party votes unilaterally.

General Comments / Re: Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 30, 2022, 11:38:26 AM »
I wonder how much Pete Thiel and the Koch people have given in Dark Money over the years? Not to mention the Waltons and other billionaires. And I wonder which party benefited from it the most.

I checked those amounts, and Democrats have more than twice as much money coming in. Soros dwarfs anything the Koch brothers ever donated - even before David Koch died in 2019, they had donated a little less than $900 million to small government PACs. As comparison, Soros alone gave $18 billion dollars. According to the numbers, the ultra rich Democrat donors, excepting Soros and the "A" fundraiser, gave  enormous sums of money to individual candidates.

Major nonprofit groups aligned with the Democratic Party
Organization                                 Spending in 2020
Total                                             $5,172,579,799
Adjusted total                                $1,513,291,420
Sixteen Thirty Fund                        $410,038,247
America Votes                                $250,000,000
Majority Forward                             $185,000,000
Future Forward USA Action              $149,377,966
Hopewell Fund                                $127,636,237
The Voter Participation Center          $100,315,874
Voter Registration Project                $74,922,371
League of Conservation Voters Inc.  $71,608,762
Priorities USA                                 $70,959,898
Duty and Honor                              $58,617,637
Everytown for Gun Safety
     Action Fund Inc.                        $52,280,883
North Fund                                    $48,780,510
Center for Voter Information           $47,188,981
Planned Parenthood
     Action Fund Inc.                       $40,914,740
Defending Democracy Together       $38,117,693

Major nonprofit groups aligned with the Republican Party
Organization                                 Spending in 2020
Total                                            $972,501,426
Adjusted total*                              $904,202,426
One Nation                                    $195,992,551
Stand Together
      Chamber of Commerce Inc.      $170,671,786
U.S. Chamber of Commerce            $169,020,709
Americans for Prosperity                 $78,329,056
America First Policies Inc.                $66,234,305
The 85 Fund                                   $59,753,082
The Concord Fund                           $45,600,000
American Action Network Inc.          $43,000,000
Rule of Law Trust                            $38,447,824
Faith & Freedom Coalition Inc.         $33,694,567
American Conservative Union Inc.    $18,640,526
Susan B. Anthony List Inc.              $15,904,180
Heritage Action for America             $15,564,208
Club for Growth                              $12,874,486
Citizens United                               $8,774,146

General Comments / Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 29, 2022, 08:47:46 PM »
George Soros funds enormous sums of money to individual candidates. Take Kim Foxx in Chicago. He originally got her elected with $300,000 in 2016 - then, after negative reports on her actions, he gave her $2 million in 2022 to get her reelected. He’s done this throughout the country to install ultra-progressive DA’s in blue cities. He donated $18 billion to his Open Society Foundation. I recently heard that he is only the second largest donor for the Democrat Party. The winner is a foundation I have never heard about. I caught a report on it but didn’t catch the name. It was said to donate much more than Soros. When I went to track it down, I saw many foundations and political funding groups, as well as wealthy individuals giving millions to PACs that distribute that money to candidates - but no mention of this dark money source. The name of the Foundation starts with an “A.” Both Soros and this group funds Progressive candidates.

We all get fund-raising emails - and though the GOP is larger than the Dems, and get much more small donations - they can’t keep up with the huge dark money sources funneling into individual Dem races.

Isn’t this important? Dinesh D’Souza got jail time for a few thousand dollars he contributed to a friend’s local campaign. These billionaires donate billions of dollars that buy disinformational ads that can't be answered, yet no one seems to comment on it. Search engines don’t seem to help. This seems to be the driving force behind elections now.

What is the answer?

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: September 28, 2022, 06:17:46 PM »
I don't now much about golf, nor Trump's ability in it. I looked up Jack Nicklaus' take on him I'm not much impressed by Rick Reilly's credentials, because I've never heard of him, and so many Trump-haters make up so much. I've got the book on order to fix my ignorance on it, but don't expect too much, based on the tendency of all Trump haters to blatantly lie. I will take Nicklaus's view of his golf game, for now.

Rick Reilly doesn't make the claim Trump is a bad golfer. He makes the claim Trump compulsively and blatantly cheats at golf. Trump can be a good golfer and still feel the need to compulsively cheat. That's all Reilly is saying. That Trump feels no need to follow the rules and will cheat people to their face even when they are betting money on the game.

The latest news is that Leftist's heads are exploding because Golf Digest announced the rankings of past Presidents, and gave Trump the top ranking of 2.8. JFK was 7, George H. W .Bush was was 11. Ford, Clinton, and Nixon were 12, Obama was 13. George W. Bush was 15, and Ike was 18. The biggest complaint is not how high the former president is rated - but that Biden was given second place at 6.7. While Reilly argued the magazine's ratings are off, golf reporters say it is hard to believe anything he says, He has been caught outright lying and getting facts seriously wrong in his past reporting.

Now that I've read his book, Commander in Cheat, I see where he's coming from. He thinks Golf is the ultimate religion - and any disregard for tournament rules within the sport is heinous. Many think Golf is just a rich man's game and could care less how golfers playing for the fun of it behave on the links. Professional golfers have said Trump is a good golfer, but the 2.8 may be a bit too high. As was Biden's, who hasn't golfed much. Reilly said he may have been a six a long time ago.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:22:35 AM »
Ok fine, but what does that have to do with "Armed IRS agents" which was what Noel was talking about.  This is a distraction, again, from the claim that the IRS is going to hire tens of thousands of armed IRS agents to go after low and middle class tax payers.

Which is a lie.

Okay, fine - for sure. Please explain what the armed agents are supposed to do with such firepower. The wealthy have armies of attorneys - but I don't think they have artillery.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:14:05 AM »
This is the first time Wm has said that Trump ordered staff to do any paper work...

That is only because it is hard to find info from Trump's side of the issue in our complicit media. It's out there. I came across it weeks ago. Good luck finding it... But isn't it good to know Trump did cover all his bases? He asked his Chief of Staff to do the necessary paperwork for all documents he was storing at Mar-A-Lago for his future use.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:07:26 AM »
This is the first time Wm has said that Trump ordered staff to do any paper work.  Trump has been out of office coming up on 2 years now and none of the documents that they claim were declassified show up in any government site as declassified, as shown by the FOIA requests for them.

His lawyers have not claimed in legal filings the Trump declassified any documents, just that he could have. If Trump did as you say, why did they not claim that in the legal filings? Who among his staff was supposed to do this?  Trump should know who that was and list that person in the legal filings.

Instead we get most of the people who are responsible for these actions saying it never happened. His Chief of Staffs  (at least 3 of them) all say it never happened. His own White House council say it did not happen.

The Special Master is asking Trump to put up or shut up in a legal sense. And so far Trump has given nothing.

My guess it is because he has nothing. He got caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar.

And again you ignore my question. What do you think about Trump saying he could declassify with just thinking about it?  No notification to anyone about what he did?

What about "total control of the classification program" confuses you so? There is zero bureaucracy invested with overweening authority. The President is the sole authority and tells them what they can or can't do.

The President is in the same boat as Lawrence of Arabia when he spoke to Auda:
T.E. Lawrence: My friends, we have been foolish. Auda will not come to Aqaba. Not for money...
Auda abu Tayi: No.
T.E. Lawrence: ...for Feisal...
Auda abu Tayi: No!
T.E. Lawrence: ...nor to drive away the Turks. He will come... because it is his pleasure.
Auda abu Tayi: Thy mother mated with a scorpion.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 27, 2022, 10:38:47 AM »

“ So I have no worries about armed IRS agents. Why do you have worries?”

One name; Louis Lehrner.

The right does love to hang onto their fake outrage for years. I bet you're still convinced Obama said people didn't build their own businesses when he was clearly talking about the businesses didn't build the public infrastructure they use.

Her division "targeted" political groups applying for status as non-political groups. And if you read carefully they "targeted" progressive groups as well as tea party groups in their additional scrutiny. And the extent of the targeting was asking the groups to fill out a form detailing their non political status despite their political sounding names. The people forming these groups weren't selected for audits. The groups themselves weren't audited. They were asked for more information to get cleared as a non-political nonprofit.

Lois Lerner resigned for cause. She directed the IRS to target tax-exempt GOP groups and a token handful of Democrat groups to stop their influence before the 2012 elections. My Senator, Carl Levin, wrote letters to the IRS instructing them to ramp up inquiries on them. "IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller acknowledged in an interview that Senator Levin's effort did, in fact, have an effect on the IRS' internal proceedings." Levin camouflaged his attacks on GOP supportive groups by acting as if Democrat-supportive groups should also be audited.

Barton Hinkle wrote in 2014: "...ince the IRS scandal broke Republicans and their conservative supporters have been looking for the smoking gun that would prove Obama ordered the agency to seek and destroy conservative social-welfare groups. The U.S. has a long and sordid history of presidents trying to sic the IRS on their political foes; that was even one of the charges of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

In this case, however, the GOP's Obama Derangement Syndrome might be pointing it in the wrong direction. Granted, the administration did laughably appoint an Obama campaign donor to investigate whether Obama critics had been treated fairly. But much of the impetus for the IRS' abuse of conservative groups seems to have come from Congress.

That becomes apparent from a complaint filed this month with the Senate's ethics committee by the Center for Competitive Politics. The complaint asks the committee to investigate Sens. Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, and several others for improperly trying to sway IRS deliberations and obtain confidential taxpayer information.

Admittedly, asking the Democrat-controlled committee to investigate Democrats for targeting Republican-leaning groups is a Quixotic pursuit. But Quixotic is not the same as meritless. And the complaint contains mountains of merit.

The complaint details several letters Levin wrote to the IRS in which he insisted that "a message needs to be sent" to social-welfare groups "on an urgent basis," and that the message should make it "crystal clear" they needed to restrict their political activities."

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 27, 2022, 10:09:36 AM »
1- A COVID vaccine would be expedited to prevent the deaths of a “cool million” Americans. (per DonaldD).
We now know the CDC requested Big Pharma not to release the finished vaccines before the election, to deny Trump that success. They were ready to announce the readiness, which may have cost many lives as they sat on their hands waiting for the election.

2- N-95 masks would be abundant, because Democrats, unlike Republicans, don’t like to kill people (a concern for Y-22).
Masks are a sore point with many, since the John-Hopkins research has recommended against using them to prevent Covid. At any rate, there appears to have been no lack of them from the beginning.

3- Government needed to rigorously enforce COVID containment policies, economic devastation be dammed, to prevent “avoidable” deaths.
You're correct that containment was enforced with a heavy hand. We all noted that those places who resisted it did better.

4- The hilarious news story of a blind computer technician, who claimed to have an abandoned laptop owned by Hunter Biden, would be discredited as “Russian misinformation” (per virtually all leftists on this forum, taking a cue from Joe).
The FBI knew from the beginning that the laptop was real and exposed the Biden Crime Family. This resistance helped sway the election. The latest polls show that Biden voters said by 17% that they would not have voted for him if they knew the truth. This disinformation also helped when the media ignored the whistleblower Bobulinski who was an eyewitness to the Biden's crimes.

4- Speaking of Joe, we were not concerned about his age, or that he could not keep his pajamas dry, because Kamala would be waiting in the wings to save the day (per Y-22).
Now we know Biden has problems - age related or not. What is worse is the elder abuse from his staff, and habitual lies and plagiarism. Harris a horror and laughing stock.

6- America would be safe for Democracy, because Republicans foster an inordinate fear of voter fraud which prevents well meaning, but in-ambulatory, Americans from reaching a ballot box through their own devices...
The Democrats have no fear of vote-scamming. Their only fear is legislation that may stop their scamming.

I am no Democrat - but neither am I a registered GOP. I calls them as I see them, and all independents are in the same boat.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 24, 2022, 05:37:20 PM »
So nothing from the Trump supporters about this?

What's to be said about it? The President has the total control of classification. Trump said he declassified all the papers he wanted to have control over, and ordered his staff to do any paperwork to document and declassify the papers going to his storage at Mar-A-Laga to back that order. This was done before Biden was sworn in. Done deal.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 24, 2022, 05:28:23 PM »
It's why I consider the idea of the army holding control over the US to be so extreme. We all laugh at the idea of Russia holding control over Ukraine with it's 40 million odd residents. The US is the size of a literal continent and has hundreds of millions of residents. The needed size for an occcupation army alone is laughable, you think the people themselves would put up with it? Molotovs for every government office, which I will note is becoming more commenplace in Russian "recruitment" offices these days.

The Founders were concerned about a small community of citizens who could protect themselves from either local elements trying to seize power in small lots, or outside agents coming in to steal power or treasure. We are no longer a small community, but Lincoln accepted a war to prevent the dissolution of the Union which could protect itself, because local issues solved by military force is not a solution we wanted to endorse.

Biden said: "...if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun." That is why there are armories all over the country to provide those modern heavy-duty weapon systems that local citizens wouldn't have. Given the millions of arms in the hands of the public, it would be foolish for any outsiders to believe they could just walk in easily.

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 05:11:11 PM »
And by being extra careful, I mean finding ways to remove the body or car camera coverage they have. Supreme Court said twenty years ago that it was allowed to reject police officers for too high an IQ. Why would that ever be the case?

It wouldn't be. Can anyone believe there would be any legal basis for only wanting dullard police? Can you imagine the lawsuits to be generated by overly smart victims?

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 05:05:27 PM »
The issue isn't the jokester - but the logic behind the law. A University official said: "...Utah law doesn’t distinguish between jokes or terroristic threats that are not attempted or not possible. Just don’t do it: Don’t post a threat on social media. We have a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of threats,” said Chief Jason Hinojosa. “In the age that we’re living in, we have to take every threat seriously.”

What law says a joke must be found criminal, regardless of whether it was or not? Shouldn't the law be about the intent, and whether harm was done? Growing up, there were kids who pulled fire alarms in school to get out of tests. That was criminal. Threatening to do something is wrong if it causes fear or problems for anyone. Judging non-threatening threats as criminal seem to cause more problems than the joke. There is nothing wrong with shaming someone who causes problems on purpose - but promoting cancel-culture is worse than most problems they claim to be concerned about.

By the way, policy is not part of the criminal justice code. Policy is only something designed for the benefit of the policy-maker.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 22, 2022, 03:26:57 PM »
Most of the "machine changed my vote" accusations have to do with touchscreen calibration and in many cases simply voter error. This is one of the reasons why the narrative of suspicious machines is so dangerous.


Could this be done maliciously? At least on some machines. But to allege that enough people were doing this to flip multiple states without detection is ludicrous. Hordes of people would be describing getting checkmarks on the wrong candidates. Examination of the machines by election officials would expose the conspiracy.

can be, not has been

Is it right to be worried about these issues and trying to make the system foolproof? Of course there is. But let's get a grip. It reminds me of the non-political hand wringing over the exposure of memory cache to programs that should not have access on Intel platforms running windows. A researcher proved that it was possible for a hack to extract meaningful information, some of which could be very sensitive data. But nobody had ever actually done it, it would require a massive amount of effort and technical sophistication.

All electronic and physical security is about making intrusion difficult - not impossible. And once you start to have a wholesale distrust for all elections officials, I'm not sure what system will keep you from claiming unproven fraud. Even if people were marking ballots with sharpies, you could blame the calculation machines, the operators of scanning devices, or just the reported precinct totals themselves.

Well reasoned and honorably posted. There are several responses to your statements of fact. Firstly, The machines can be programmed to cheat - either with simple thumb drives that can be plugged into the machines locally, or purpose-written script that can be hooked up remotely.
Here are some bits of info that may be interesting. The last one is particularly worthy to study as it comes from the Gateway which makes an effort to admit Conservative leanings - but insists all claims be transparent and well documented. Maybe someone here can explain why the Edison totals differ from the State totals. "The Edison state data supplied to the media and the county data supplied to the state don’t mirror each other and don’t agree until very late in the process – these results should mirror each other at all times accounting for timing issues".

The Edison state data supplied to the media and the county data supplied to the state don’t mirror each other and don’t agree until very late in the process – these results should mirror each other at all times accounting for timing issues:
"Government Admits Dominion Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking in 16 States.

Dominion voting machines have the potential to be breached, according to an advisory from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

These, of course, are the machines that caused controversy in the 2020 election.

The Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities, according to the Friday advisory."


The CISA advisory is based on a report by computer scientist J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan. He has previously argued for multiple safeguards to be put in place for voting machines and has said that hand-marked paper ballots are the most secure way to vote, according to the AP.
Hartman noted that while it’s difficult to carry out a hacking, it can happen.

True the Vote on 2000 Mules ignored case:

Data Supporting the Reported Results of the 2020 Election Does NOT Reconcile with Data in Voting Machine Files

Also interesting is that FOI request have returned finally which show there were zero investigations of election fraud which contradicts the official claim.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 22, 2022, 11:07:17 AM »
William Lambert has killed a dozen people and eaten their feet. We know this is true because people can be killed and people have eaten other people's feet before, so clearly this is plausible.

Another smarmy and ridiculous post. You should have said I was not a probable feet eater because I have never done such things, but the people who accuse me of depravity are, themselves, individuals with a history of depravity. It is not me who weaponized the DOJ to destroy political opponents, nor apologized for those I know are dirty. You should look in a mirror more often. There is a rumor that you have broken all the mirrors in your domicile.

Look, It is only the Democrat Party who want to get votes from cemeteries, non-citizens, and prison inmates. It is Democrats who make up rules that allow vote-scamming. It all goes to the root foundation of people who believe the ends justify the means. Republicans and Independents generally believe in honor and justice, realizing they are in the majorit so needn't cheat.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 22, 2022, 10:25:19 AM »
The only evidence needed is that their guy lost.  What more do you want?

Again, smarmy and wrong. The point was that the results from EM are not reliable and the government agency assigned to verify them warned 16 states they are not to be trusted. How does that make Lindell's statements implausible? It does not matter who caused the machines to change votes. The results say they can be changed and the court says there is proof of that changing. Outside of the rubber walls of the EM invincibility, the math has never made sense. A person can propose many different people who may have caused the changes, but there are so many candidates that the individuals who actually rigged the votes are buried underneath the conspiracy claims. We know someone did it, but the agencies that should be investigating the criminal hacking seem to be more invested with claiming conspiracy than investigating what happened.

I am satisfied that the EM bandits have been proved, yet not individually named. I also find it amusing that Dem apologists only look at the conspiracy attacks on concerned citizens than be angered by the obvious cheating and want to get at the root of it. Look at Arizona. The bill to make voting safer is happening - even though Democrats fought to block that bill from taking affect. We should be on the same side. As a further example on what is wrong on the macro scale, There will never be any DOJ investigation with results on Hunter unless the red wave takes control of the Legislative branch. Doesn't that bother anyone?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 21, 2022, 02:11:55 PM »
...You're intermingling court cases. Do you mind letting me know what election was overturned as a result of hacking/voting machine error? Do you understand that is not the same as the defamation case against Lindell? Do you understand Lindell isn't being sued for saying that machines are potentially hackable?

Do you not understand the defamation case is based on the judge stating Lindell's charges were not probable, but rather implausible? Why did he accept the statement from the EM companies that it was impossible to hack them when it was proved in court that they can be either hacked by an outside source - or privy to faulty software than can completely change the results of elections?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 21, 2022, 02:05:41 PM »
Wm, just because you have no sense of humor does not mean it was not funny.  You wouldn't know something funny unless it was Trump making fun of someone with a disability.

For attempts to insult and demean people, using untruthful disinformation is not funny, no matter how smarmy the response is.

What is funny about accepting the pejorative attacks from those who have lied and conspired to harm another? You know Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier, largely the imaginings of a Russian sleaze-monger on the FBI payroll. You know Sussman got Hillary's go-ahead before lying about Trump having a secret line to Alfabank. You know the FBI lied about the laptop and lied to the FISA Courts to get a warrant to spy on Trump. Now you know the vote machines are not unhackable. Do you also deny that many, many potential witnesses against Bill and Hillary were said to have suicided on the way to their depositions with gunshot wounds to the back of the head? Do you deny the emails of Strzok and Page confirming they would stop Trump from being elected with a guaranteed plan? Do you deny the Biden Crime family got rich from illegal money from Russia and China? Do you deny the 14 whistleblowers within the rank and file of the FBI exposed their own bosses?

No, you are not funny.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 21, 2022, 01:36:16 PM »
William, again, PLEASE find better sources. You are woefully ignorant of the actual details of the legal cases in question.

I read the official court transcripts. What did you read? As I said, the three companies claimed it was impossible for them to be hacked.

The judge used two terms. That was if the charges by Lindell were probable vs. implausible. The vote result was reversed because the Dominion machines gave an erroneous result. One candidates vote total was completely erased. How does that not make Lindell's charges probable?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 21, 2022, 01:10:11 PM »
It is quite obvious. The machines CAN be hacked. Trump lost and we don't like that. So the machines  WERE hacked is also obvious. What more proof do you need?

Another smarmy attempt at sardonic humor? You are not very good at it.

Yes, The machines are hackable. That was proved in court. Therefore the three software companies lied - because they stated that they were secure. Apologists often rationalize around it by saying that they can only be hacked locally, because there are no internet connections. However; all these machines do have internet connectioned. The court cited nine vulnerabilities. Pick one and hack it, then claim you never did. Welcome to the Democrat Party.

There have always been engineers and coders who claimed the voting machines could not be trusted yet there are enough paid-for disinformationists who claimed such talk is a conspiracy. The court said otherwise and reversed an election because the machines gave the wrong candidate a stolen victory. Sidney Powell and Giuliani repeated the facts they knew from the truthful engineers and coders - yet the Democrats mounted a "Conspiracy" conspiracy to claim anyone who doubted them were liars. They said Powell and Giuliani couldn't prove what they said, so could not be allowed to present their case.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 20, 2022, 06:22:42 PM »
Former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann has a theory about why they don't want to specifically declare which documents Trump declassified.  Basically, it is because Trump can lie as much as he like to the public and specifically his followers, but if he lies to the courts, he'd be in legal jeopardy.  Not to mention his lawyers.  ;D

You are kidding, right? Weissmann? The "pit-bull dis-informist from the Meuller investigation? I though he had been disbarred. Just wishful thinking, I guess.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 20, 2022, 06:15:31 PM »
I am not talking about Dominion. Why do you keep going back to them?

I'm curious. Did you see his presentation on the EM election results? The judge who would not dismiss his pleas to dismiss evidently did not either. According to the facts Mike had and presented as proved and accurate, the collusion aspects of the voting machines was probable - not implausible. The interrelated software from Smartmatic, Dominion, and ES&S were used on similar machines. When the the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency posted advisories that Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities and 16 states were endangered, are you saying that all three software companies who claimed being perfect are still believable?

The problem is that the coding written for voting machines are not easily verified, because the software companies hold that the work product must be protected because it could be stolen if totally released to the public or to courts. What the judge ruled on is that the company claimed it was unhackable. Since Dominion was proved to produce incorrect totals, why should that broad-based claim from all three software companies be trusted? Reminds me of the FBI lying to the FISA courts to secure warrants to spy on Trump when they knew their affidavits were untrue, or that they leaked untrue info that damaged those they targeted. How could anyone use their reputation after that? Individual state voting officers who have also come up short n their statements be trusted?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 20, 2022, 04:39:05 PM »
And Lindell said that Smartmatic was running those machines. And Smartmatic only ran machines in 1 county. 1 county in the whole USA.  If Lindell did not use all of the social media I would say he was a Luddite, but he is just ignorant (well was ignorant. Now he is willfully stupid).

"Government Admits Dominion Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking in 16 States.

Dominion voting machines have the potential to be breached, according to an advisory from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

These, of course, are the machines that caused controversy in the 2020 election.

The Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities, according to the Friday advisory."


General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 20, 2022, 11:37:25 AM »
Please remember that in 2020, The electiom machines sent their digital count to Spain, where it was sorted and counted.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 20, 2022, 11:36:08 AM »
Wm why do you change the subject of what the story was about. This is about Smartmatic, which has been lumped into the same group as Dominion. Smartmatic was used in one county in the whole country.

No, the government said machines in 16 states were proved to be hackable from external sources. Even if someone had local access, the safeguards already employed did not work and the results of elections had to be reversed, the machine selected winner tossed out of office and replaced by the actual winner from hand counts. It was the government agency charged with election security that said only paper ballots were safe.

Now, how again is Lindell in any jeopardy?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 19, 2022, 08:51:35 PM »
We're talking about people who think the burden of proof has been met for a dozen Clinton murders, pedophile pizza parlors, and JFK Jr rising from the dead.

Not a dozen Clinton murders. There were more like a hundred Arkancides (where a potential witness against the Clintons were found dead before being able to testify. The Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as "suicides" or "accidents." Many of his Arkancides were called suicides with bullet wounds to the back of the head. No pedophile pizza parlors - but Clinton was a regular at Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile island. And JFK didn't rise from the dead, But the Daley machine in Chicago did secure his election from the cemeteries there.

Well the MyPillow guy tried to get the Smartmatic suite dismissed and was not able to.

I wonder if he will learn that if he gives discounts to his business while promoting faleshoods, that is not a First Amendment issue. Also, lying is not protected  by the First Amendment in civil cases.

What falsehoods? He only asked for the unread affidavits to be recognized. He also nailed Dominion to the wall with their claim that their machines could not be hacked - and that any claims otherwise was conspiracy theory. But then again, this past primary season, a voting machine was proved to have been hacked. The courts established that one candidate received zero votes, and ultimately took the win away from the machine winner, and gave it to the real winner. The court said the machine was hacked - so it is now confirmed that the claim of non-hackability was the lie. The official court decision is that paper ballots are the only way to have secure votes.

"Government Admits Dominion Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking in 16 States.

Dominion voting machines have the potential to be breached, according to an advisory from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

These, of course, are the machines that caused controversy in the 2020 election.

The Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities, according to the Friday advisory."


General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 18, 2022, 07:27:08 PM »
Of course, if he'd cleaned it up the first time, he wouldn't be in this mess.  ;D

Sort of true, actually. however; the full truth is that the Swamp is so deeply embedded in the bureaucratic world, that going through that world to eradicate them is generally futile. The greatest fear is the Red Wave which will allow brooming the Dems from power positions. Moreover - many of them should be wearing prison orange and apologizing for all they've done to hurt the country and the world.

One of the posts above by one of the small group of Dem apologists, here, said no Trump attorneys made any legal claims of election fraud. Of course we all know there were many claims attempted, by Trump attorneys, as well as private citizens acting as Poll watchers and whistleblowers which were blocked from originating suits because they were said to lack standing. They official attorneys trying to go through the courts were blocked because these same witness affidavits were never looked at.

The reason the Special Master is scaring the Left, is that the FBI has lied so often, as in FICA applications, and their leaking of prejudicial lies have ruined their credibility.

We know because it has been admitted, that the FBI refusal to allow info on Hunter's laptop to be released did affect the election. The number stated is 17% of voters who voted for Biden would not have done so. That is huge.

Lies and disinformation. The Dems accuse Trump's supporters of that - but they are the ones who will not admit that Hillary and the Dems paid Russian sources to invent untrue pejorative charges against Trump. ...That they lied to the FISA courts to spy on Trump's campaign; and are now attacking any Trump supporter with no verifiable basis. Even the raid on Mar-a-Lago has shown no nuclear documents like they leaked to the Media as rationalization for doing so. ...And none have admitted that Trump unClassifed these documents to protect them from the Dems. It was all political. The DOJ must be cleansed, and the perps should  be indicted.

How can any of you continue on these proven-wrong attacks that just keep on coming?

Will one of you reject the official Biden statement that the border is secure?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 15, 2022, 08:26:11 PM »
The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics...

...The police don't bother to protect people, but that doesn't mean that you get to own a tank and a grenade launcher to protect yourself and your family. It just means that you have to acknowledge that your safety is never and can never be wholly guaranteed.

Correct, except for police "not bothering" to protect people. The response time after a call for help to the police is too long for immediate security. The most general response is for the police to arrive after the crimes are committed, and interview the victims to find redress. The most frequent response is to use a clipboard and call in forensic teams when they can be useful, to chase down the perpetrators and recover stolen property. The recommendation has always been for people to be armed and protect themselves. There are many training classes used to teach people what they can and what they should do. The biggest advice people always remember are to drag a deceased parp over the threshold, so he's in your home, and not outside - and not to try to hold a gun on a perp while you wait for the police to come. (There may be an unknown assailant one doesn't know about who can sneak up from behind.)

there's no question that their were legal improprieties involved
Oh, please. That's true in the same way that eating apples has been known to kill people.

Look, I know Crunch doesn't believe his own arguments, and I know Lambert does. On which side of the Tucker Carlson divide do you fall?

The Founders wrote the amendment as they did for the reasons spelled out in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

They wanted the populace armed with the same weapons as any federal or state standing army or national guard. If soldiers had machine guns - the people should have the same. They also provided armories so the armed populace could have access to the larger and more powerful team weapons, such as tanks, artillery, or anti-aircraft. The assumption was that retired soldiers who knew how to use them would be a part of the general population when needed.

The connection was made by our Founders that we needed such an amendment to cause a tyrannical domestic government to never arise and threaten the people. As mentined by others, there are far more armed non-soldiers than soldiers.

This was never about hunting or recreation. Back then, our Founders understood that living in the wilderness required people to be armed - if just for protection from wild animals, snakes and things, or foreign invaders coming across the border, or tribal warfare.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 10:49:02 PM »
I see. Several replies - but no one had the moral courage to say scamming the vote is bad.

The only real response was to try to find any off-hand remark that may look sinister by any GOP.

The reason any intelligent person wants a smaller vote is because that would indicate less vote-scamming. Last election, Trump broke all records for votes won. Far more than Obama or Clinton. He also had huge inroads in the voting blocs that Democrats needed to win. It was Pelosi's first bill when she gained the House majority that enabled ballot-harvesting. It was in the planning for two years, and miraculously - even though Trump's huge numbers in every group should have cemented his victory.

In other words - there are no election deniers, but there are vote-scammers. You know they did it, but their long-time planning protected the scamming. Trump graciously stepped-down rather than cause problems - not like Hillary who never admitted she lost because of her incompetence, and spent his entire term blocking and mocking his every action. When Biden was sworn in, he spent his entire time blaming Trump for his own ineptitude.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 12, 2022, 09:20:00 PM »
Something about Lambert?

I mean that both Lambert and Drake can talk about how brave Snowden and Trump were when they did what they did, and then fled to Russia.

Quite Smarmy, neh? Not down to the level of Tom and some of the other Dem apologists. Do you guys get paid for being so outstandingly smarmy? For four years they created a strawman of Trump and then lampooned that strawman instead of dealing with truth. When the truth revealed itself, they somehow neglected to revisit their incorrect zealotry. Did you notice how he pretended Trump routinely does things illegally or immorally then attacked Drake and me as if their own thinking is what others do. Of course, we will see no apologies, Smarmy.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 09:04:04 PM »
It's worth noting that Wisconsin Republicans are working very hard to ensure that volunteers cannot help people who lack the funds and/or transportation to vote.

Really? Who told you that? If you mean to stop ballot harvesting, that is a good thing - not a bad thing. Volunteers are always allowed to provide transportation and information. What they can't do is scam the vote. Democrats are famous for giving voters "walking-around money" to get them to the polls.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 09:00:36 PM »
...I know you like to believe that these people are only doing these things from the purest of intentions, but you have to admit, with the timing, the quantities of requests, the identical wording of many of the requests, the fact that some of the people don't even know what they are requesting--that this isn't about the information.  It's about straining the resources of election departments, in order to cast doubt about the results, in order to make sure that your vote doesn't count and that they can dictate to you who "actually" won.

No, it's not that there aren't some people who game the system on all sides. But maligning the good people who just want the voting to be legal is wrong. Like I said you are on the wrong side.

The reason the requests were made in the way they were is because Mike Lindell learned about the deadline rather recently without enough tine to do anything in other than a rushed manner, and generally asked for help. Your surmise that straining the resources of election departments, in order to cast doubt about the results, is in order to make sure that your vote doesn't count and that they can dictate to you who "actually" won - is specious. Any election department is already charged with securing a legal voting list. Any help given them is a benefit - not a hindrance. Wouldn't you prefer to err on the side of honesty and legality than allowing vote-scamming?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 08:24:53 PM »
TheDrake and Wayward Son, your posts are both reasonable except for the main idea.

Yes, any law can be gamed - but you want the gaming only on the Democrat side, with the main targets of the law: dead people, non-citizens, and non-registered names to be allowed to vote. One law does not fix all the possible problems - but doing nothing guarantees the problems continue. If there is a problem with the mechanics, let's fix them - but doing nothing is far worse. If there is a database that does not establish their eligibility to vote correctly, then fix the database. As you said, the 35-day rule was put in to guarantee a valid voter can't be excluded unfairly. What you want are allowing the few exceptions that are fixable to allow vote-scamming for the rest of the ineligible voters. I'm sure the three or four people who recently won their citizenship which don't show up on some database can benefit from volunteer help from your party for far less cost than what was used to allow illegal votes.

As for the laundry list of states affected by the law, it is the idea that all states should be legal - not just some of them

You guys are once again on the wrong side. You want 50,000 or more illegal votes who all vote Democrat, because you fear four or five can't figure how to ensure their votes will be acceptable. You have no confidence on who is able to do simple things, and if they can't due to funds or travel - then a few volunteers would help them do what the law established to fix any hard-to-anticipate exclusions.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 01:15:21 PM »
Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Evidently, Amy Gardner and Patrick Marley, the authors of this propaganda hit piece were attacking Mike Lindell's efforts to generate the cast vote records before the tasking period before the Labor Day weekend expired. No mystery there. They used the term "Election Deniers" as a pejorative insinuating an effort to Block the work of election officials rather than fix bad and illegal procedures. Why would anyone want to not have fair and honest elections?

One reason they are fighting the fixing of what is wrong is the same reason a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge barred Arizona officials From enforcing new law to remove dead voters, non-residents, and non-citizens from voter rolls:

Stop the complaining and personal attacks and please explain why anyone wants these illegal voters left on the rolls.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 12, 2022, 12:58:20 PM » of the persons who had control of your wallet was not trustworthy.

You keep saying that the laptop could not have been tampered with because there was an unbroken Chain of Custody.  But we don't know how trustworthy the computer repairman is.  And we don't know how securely he kept that laptop.  For these reasons, while there is a "chain of custody," it does not reach the legal standard of a Chain of Custody of evidence that could not have been tampered with.

Do you understand my point?  Or do you think you should be put on the sexual predator list for the rest of your life in the example above? :)

Again, snippets of information - but not much understanding. Chain of Custody says that the supervision of the item was there. At this point, any legal actions using the laptop is admissible. No "lack of standing to hide it from viewing. If there is an issue with the contents - then the contents may be contested - but not its admissibility.

No issues have been raised about Mac Issac's supervision, nor adulteration of the contents. suspicion is not admissible.

One important aspect that you apologists always avoid, is that this all occurred well before the election, and there was never any hint of anything that made the laptop suspect. The sole reason for stopping all reporting of an open story was to protect Biden. Remember, at the time, the FBI already knew there was no Trump collusion with Russia. there was not even a suspicion of wrong-doing - except their own.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 11, 2022, 09:31:01 PM »
We now think we know why the FBI was so desperate to raid Mar-A-Lago.
Trump is more than welcome to publicly announce the contents of any documents he wants to assert that he declassified while in office, of course. There is no reason for him not to share that information now.

Of course there is. He wanted to protect the evidence until he had a real government he could work with. Wouldn't you? These are the same people who went after him by lying, disinforming, and leaking unproven stories.. Why expect them to change their spots?

The Epoch Times noted further that Ratcliffe did not go into specific evidence regarding his claims, however.

First he has to find out if they shredded, buried, or destroyed “the evidence.”

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 11, 2022, 08:27:22 PM »
I am still waiting for Wm to answer the question: Where did Trump get the power to declassify? Where in the Constitution?

the question you should ask is where classification came from. It is not easily pulled out of the Constitution because it is an Executive-level action solely created and maintained by the President's branch of government. No other branch really enters in to it. Other branches may have secret papers, but that is philosophically unwarranted. The Legislative and Judicial are pledged to be transparent for the people, and the Executive handles the implementation of that legality. If Schumer or Pelosi have something secret they don't wish to be revealed they are probably in violation of some law. Remember they are supposed to be open, and vote on laws for the Executive to implement.

We now think we kn ow why the FBI was so desperate to raid Mar-A-Lago.

Fron Newsmax: "President Trump has now admitted what he expected from the ‘swamp’ or administrative state, who would be likely to destroy the very documents that exonerated him in the highly political Russia probe of his candidacy, campaign, and presidency.

Trump indicated that he didn’t trust the new Biden administration, so he rushed to declassify important documents in his final days as president,
And he was, of course, met with massive resistance from the DC insiders, who refused to respect his authority as President and carry out his executive orders."

Those reports were confirmed by other media sources.

“Trump, believing the documents would expose a “Deep State” plot against him, told several people that he was concerned that incoming President Joe Biden’s administration would “shred,” bury, or destroy “the evidence,” Rolling Stone reported Wednesday.

Trump and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows worked to declassify information right up to when Biden took the oath of office, Rolling Stone reported.

But the Federal government worked hard to resist Trump and made a mess out of declassifying his documents, thereby leaving a bizarre loophole open for the Biden administration to exploit with abuse of power."

Rolling Stone reported one month after FBI agents raided Trump’s Florida looking for ’11 sets of classified documents”  that the DOJ had probable cause to conduct the search based on possible Espionage Act violations.

Trump and his legal team have insisted that the documents were declassified.

“I think they thought it was something to do with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax,” Trump told Newsmax in a Sept. 1 interview.

Federal Judge Orders Biden Admin to Hand Over ‘Misinformation’ Emails From Fauci, Jean-Pierre
“They were afraid that things were in there — part of their scam material,” he said.

John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. congressman from Texas whom Trump tapped to serve as director of national intelligence, told Fox News last week that the bureau “didn’t find what they were looking” for, based on his observations.

“I was a former federal prosecutor, United States attorney. Let me tell you what this is about. Good prosecutors with good cases play it straight. They don’t need to play games,” Ratcliffe said, in reference to Justice Department officials. “They don’t need to shop for judges, they don’t need to leak intelligence that may or may not exist.”

The Justice Department’s arguments against having a federal court appoint a special master to review allegedly classified documents “tells you that the government didn’t find what they were looking for,” Ratcliffe continued.

“There weren’t nuclear secrets” at Trump’s estate, he noted further, “and they’re trying to justify what they’ve done. They’re not playing it straight before the American people. I think that that’s going to play out.”

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: September 09, 2022, 08:17:26 PM »
Yeah, the judge ruled against the Trump motion to bring suit against Clinton - primarily because it's too old. Since the Clinton lie about Russia! Russia! Russia! is still being used in news to attack Trump, how exactly is the crime not ongoing? Since it truly is, and since the judge and Ty Cobb both linked it with the idea that the 2020 vote was scammed, the judge's argument seems to miss the point - and aim at something else entirely.

Look, perhaps this is too simple for apologists to get. Hillary tried to affect the election by paying for the Steele Dossier and Sussman's allegation about the Alfabank.. The Hillary advocates in the DOJ protected her before and after the election and continued the attack. Is there anyone who doesn't understand that? She knew and kept it up after the truth hit her square in the face.

But she wasn't the only one. Look at the 2020 election, when the laptop was hidden away for months before the election. They couldn't even claim they held up to not affect the election, there was plenty of time. Nor only did the DOJ and the FBI not fulfill their duties and reveal the results of the investigate of the laptop, but they also blocked news sources and social media from even discussing it.

Then there was Big Pharma ready to distribute vaccine shots before the election, and the Clintonite Fauci, the CDC and others requested they hood off the announcement that the vaccines were ready until after the election, so Trump couldn't showcase the success of Operation Warp Speed.

The election interfering was not just the 2,000 Mules accusations, it was all the above. No one really argues that, do they?

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: September 08, 2022, 08:21:59 PM »
...the main use of political media these days is to strawman issues and people....

That is a true supposition - but please add to that the media's use of non-coverage to help pet issues not be viewed pejoratively.

In Vegas, this week, Jeff German's probable murderer was arrested by Clark County police when his DNA was found. According to The Las Vegas Review Journal ( Robert Telles was arrested. It seems Jeff German did his job and uncovered massive dirt and criminal acts by Telles, which led to the Democrat's loss at the polls. A few days ago he was slashed to death. A suspect was videoed walking down the Street in an oversized Panama Hat and Bright pink thigh-length smock, evidently masquerading as a woman.

Telles was seen sanitizing his vehicle, that was also witnessed leaving the scene. His DNA was found at the scene, and German's blood was found on Telles' shoes. The wide-brimmed Panama hat was found cut into pieces. Great visuals for any story that covered it.

The point to ponder is why this particular crime is not being discussed. The only TV coverage I've seen is from a Fox News political pundit. Where is the wall-to-wall coverage? The Saudi Prince gets 24/7 diatribes from USA media launched against him for the murder of a reporter who was not even US - but this gets nothing?

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: September 08, 2022, 12:41:27 PM »
Oh his golf cheating is well known and documented.  Many players have said that he is good though, and he really did not have to cheat, but did it anyway.

WM needs to hear about Trump's compulsive cheating and lying.

Best quote from the talk. The reporter asked people if they ever called Trump on his BS: he said Trump always gave the same response:
"I cheat on my wives, I cheat on my taxes, you don't think I'm going to cheat at golf at my own course."

I don't now much about golf, nor Trump's ability in it. I looked up Jack Nicklaus' take on him I'm not much impressed by Rick Reilly's credentials, because I've never heard of him, and so many Trump-haters make up so much. I've got the book on order to fix my ignorance on it, but don't expect too much, based on the tendency of all Trump haters to blatantly lie. I will take Nicklaus's view of his golf game, for now.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 06, 2022, 12:51:21 PM »
...Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.(Emphasis mine.)

As I mentioned before, I was the senior Art Director at the Criminal Justice Institute, 6001 Cass Ave, Detroit MI, designing the training programs to teach judges, AG's, and all responsible investigators in the Criminal Justice genre how to implement and maintain Chain of Custody for all judicial proceedings. I don't know what you think you know - but I taught whoever it was that gave you the pieces of info you posted snippets from. Mac Issac had an unbroken Chain of Custody. It does not have any gaps or discrepancies, except for bogus innuendoes by court flunkies who should know better. When a firefighter throws a melted plastic milk bottle of leftover gasoline out the window of an arson scene to protect the personnel at the scene, it breaks the chain of custody when it is left unsupervised outside. As long as the item is under supervision or under lock and key - which the lap top was - it fulfills all aspects of Chain of Custody. When one supervisor hands an item into another's keeping a signed affidavit goes with it, maintained thereafter by the Criminal Justice organization that received it.

What you misperceive is that the untrue chatter that Russia spoofed the laptop was ever a legal finding. The FBI has announced the laptop is real. They knew it from the onset. There never was any doubt of an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. The discrepancies came from evildoers trying to game the system.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 06, 2022, 12:26:18 PM »
When asked to supply the evidence Truth the Vote claims to have about election "mules" in AZ they did not hand over the evidence to the authorities who asked for it.

You are on the wrong side, the side of evil and darkness. True the Vote is calling out the Arizona AG and the Criminal Division for over a year of “good faith attempts to work together,” You've been played for suckers. Anyone who believed the stories out of the AG's office should really reexamine their fundamental zealotry of anything that seems to discredit the truth. Please read the Arizona Sun Times' article:

Nor only did the AG's office lie about their meetings with True the Vote, but they disappeared the hard drive especially made for them and handed over in a meeting. They also published the names of whistleblowers which resulted in their being threatened.. "The AGO released its own case notes to the Associated Press — including the names of whistleblowers. [True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and lead investigator Gregg Phillips of the OPSEC Group, an election intelligence company] said, “One of the people named was a whistleblower shown in the 2000 Mules movie. That’s when we stopped communicating.” One was a judge, and another has received threats as well as being the victim of a tire-slashing incident.

Once again, you have disparaged and smeared the truth by believing the pejorative disinformation from what you want to believe. Too bad for your honesty and morality.

Once again, 2,000 Mules was a legitimate proof of election fraud, which was hidden from sight by those who didn't want to investigate it. There is little you can say that will salvage their impropriety.

General Comments / Re: The Book Banning Begins
« on: September 01, 2022, 05:15:13 PM »
Conservatives in a Michigan town wanted all LGBTQ books removed from the local library.  The library board refused.  So they defunded the library.

The Patmos Library in Jamestown Township outside Grand Rapids will lose 84% of its $245,000 annual budget with the failure of the millage renewal in Tuesday's primary election, said Larry Walton, the library board's president. The millage failed with 1,905 no votes to 1,142 yes votes.

A small group of conservative residents campaigned against the renewal because the library refused to remove all LGBTQ material, Walton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

This one has a happy ending, though.  They opened a GoFundMe page and made up the difference, with the help of Romance novelist Nora Roberts who donated $50,000 to help cover the shortfall for the year.  In fact, they beat their goal, and will have more money this year than last for running the library. :)

That's fine, so long as the library handles the books appropriately. My example of The Valley of Horses was an example of lazy librarians - not activists trying to push an agenda on kids. The title let it get past librarians who never read it, or even suspected thay ought to. Librarians are librarians everywhere. There is no Michigan exception to the norm. As a matter of fact. the University of Michigan is a very progressive place that sends many Left-leaning librarians into the world. Books should be available for those who want to read them - but inappropriate books should not be in the kids' section.

One of the books that more posters in this thread should read is The Existentialists Café by Sarah Bakewell.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: August 31, 2022, 05:44:07 PM »
God, William, please stop relying on stupidly disingenuous sources.

Are you unable to read? I asked you to ignore the source - but nope - you zeroed in on it like a moth to a flame. The image was what was important, and it wasn't available from CNN or MSNBC. Take a cleansing breath and answer why the FBI threw the material on the floor, took the picture, then leaked it. The submariner who took pictures of his workplace got jail time, even though they were never in danger of being revealed. The FBI actually leaked it.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: August 31, 2022, 12:28:00 PM »
The photo was not leaked was it?  it was part of the response by the DOJ to Trumps filing asking for a special master.

Remember who publicized the raid. It was not the FBI or the DOJ.  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the Warrant to be released?  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the affidavit to be released (technically it was not Trump but he did socially)?

You have no proof that the picture was staged other than to show all of the government documents that Trump says he did not have. I am no talking about classification.  HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE GOV. DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS. Not with out going through the process of requesting them, like all previous Presidents have done. The PRA requires this.

You mean this picture? ( I know the source will disturb you, but it is the first image of it I could mark for you.

General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: August 31, 2022, 12:24:54 PM »
1. You don't have any evidence.
2. If you have evidence, it is made up.
3. If you have evidence and can prove it, it still isn't a crime.
4. If you have evidence of a crime and can prove it, your evidence was obtained illegally.
5. If you have evidence of a crime obtained legally, somebody else did worse and wasn't charged.

The excuses just get longer and more elaborate as they keep getting knocked down just as fast as Trump's election lawsuits.

On the contrary: Timothy Thibault resigned after being dismissed from the supervisory role by FBI Director, Christopher Wray, and nothing was said at the time about his ‘retirement’. The media tried to lessen the dismissal as a retirement, where every retiree gets walked out. As Grassley cited: "...Timothy Thibault, likely violated several federal regulations and Department guidelines designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations and FBI social media policies. … ASAC Thibault has demonstrated a pattern of active public partisanship, such as using his official title for public partisan posts relating to his superiors and matters under the FBI’s purview, that is likely a violation of his ethical obligations as an FBI employee.”

BTW; your listing should pertain to what you regularly do when attacking Trump. You didn't care about Russiagate. You didn't care about Hillary's entire staff getting immunity. You didn't care about Comey telling the world that Hillary was dirty - but no prosecutor would indict her because there was no intention, even though intention is not allowed to affect the felony code she violated. You didn't make an issue of Hillary paying for the Steele Dossier and pushing Russiagate when she knew it was phony. You didn't care about Joe and Hunter's pederasty. You didn't care about quid pro quos internationally that put money in the Biden Crime Family's bank accounts. You didn't care about all the stupid Executive Orders that launched our current financial nightmares. And you didn't care about all the dead bodies that the current administration is responsible for. I wish you apologists would stop trying to give them shelter.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: August 31, 2022, 11:55:20 AM »
It's worth noting that Ornato has resigned and taken a job in the private sector (with an as-yet-unknown employer) to dodge a subpoena. Again, everyone who's willing to defend Trump's version of events to a credulous media appears to go out of their way to actually avoid testifying to that effect.

Yeah, who wants to go through what general Flynn did. Go into bankruptcy, lose your home and all your money for legal fees over lies that were corrupt in themselves.

When the Red Wave flushes out the Swamp, how fitting would it be for Flynn to be picked to run the very departments that came after him?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27