Election Results

[LetterRip]

Aris,

he may have been lying, it was an unsubstantiated claim.  He claimed that it information was provided by a third party at Bain capital.

An unsubstantiated claim isn't a lie per say.  If you knowingly say something false it is a lie.  If you speculate about someone such a way that it sounds like it is something you have been informed of it is a lie. I'd say passing on a claim by a party without reasonable access to the truth or who has a history of lying is bearing false witness - which is also a form of lie.  I'd also suggest repeating otherwise unsubstantiated claims from a person with a malicious motive, even if they might plausibly have access to that information, is risky hough not a lie or bearing false witness - perhaps unduly credulous.

He definitely didn't accuse Romney of tax fraud.  He apparently didn't claim zero tax liability in the then current or prior year, nor even zero liability during any year.  So he wasn't proven wrong and his claim is plausible though unverified and no evidence has been provided against it.

An unsubstantiated claim might be a lie. An unsubstantiated likely claim is reasonably likely true though could be a lie. An unsubstantiated and highly implausible claim is probably a lie but could be true.

If it was a lie - then the main difference is Reid does it rarely enough and plausibly enough that he can do so and be believed by those who aren't easily fooled and who are willing to evaluate the evidence.  Whereas Trump lies so frequently and implausibly that nothing he says should be given credulity.

[Fenring]

Romney really could have not paid taxes for 10 years. 

Monkeys really could fly out of my butt.

The CIA really could have killed Kennedy.

Trump really could have won the election. 

I like how people routinely include something that is either plausible or else probably true in an attempt to show a list of ridiculous claims

Not really addressing your main point, move along citizen.

[TheDeamon]

While I personally would say that this year was an exception due to a pandemic, I personally believe that the vast majority of voting should take place in person, on election day, whatever day that falls on, and that some form of voter ID should be required.  I don't believe this is new.  This is The Way. And it used to not be controversial until somebody saw that it could be turned around and politicized.

I'd hedge this one slightly.

In Person voting is the gold standard in my book. If it happens over the course of 1 month or 1 day makes little difference to me. Getting the act of voting to take place in a venue that all involved parties are able to be at least aware of, even if they're unable to muster people to monitor it, is important.

Which is the the biggest complaint I had this election cycle about the explosion in mail-in voting this election cycle. Not a fan of vote by mail in anything except exceptional circumstances, even if it is popular with many groups for various reasons. It leaves too many proverbial doors open.

And to be clear an "exceptional circumstance" just means it is happening as an exception, not as a matter of routine, normal activity for a majority of voters in any election cycle.

[msquared]

I like this name. The sedition caucus

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/what-republicans-are-doing-worse-treason/617538/

[msquared]

Saw this on Twitter

2 Republicans die an go to heaven.
They ask God if he would answer on question.
"of course" God says
The asked how the Dems rigged the 2020 election.
"It wasn't rigged" God replied.
The Republicans look at each other and one says "This conspiracy goes higher than we thought."

Even if Trump told his followers today he had been lying, they would not believe him.

[TheDrake]

While I personally would say that this year was an exception due to a pandemic, I personally believe that the vast majority of voting should take place in person, on election day, whatever day that falls on, and that some form of voter ID should be required.  I don't believe this is new.  This is The Way. And it used to not be controversial until somebody saw that it could be turned around and politicized.

I'd hedge this one slightly.

In Person voting is the gold standard in my book. If it happens over the course of 1 month or 1 day makes little difference to me. Getting the act of voting to take place in a venue that all involved parties are able to be at least aware of, even if they're unable to muster people to monitor it, is important.

Which is the the biggest complaint I had this election cycle about the explosion in mail-in voting this election cycle. Not a fan of vote by mail in anything except exceptional circumstances, even if it is popular with many groups for various reasons. It leaves too many proverbial doors open.

And to be clear an "exceptional circumstance" just means it is happening as an exception, not as a matter of routine, normal activity for a majority of voters in any election cycle.

I ask again, why is in person voting the gold standard or necessary for security? I can have a document notarized online, with ID. Why do you want to make voting more difficult than it has to be? Because you can't manage to trust non-partisan county officials and that somehow a paper trail will thwart their nefarious plans?

[Grant]

I like this name. The sedition caucus

Meh.  I still like Tom Nichols.  I used to love him.  He's usually right, deep down.  But Tom has also basically become something of a drama queen.  A bit histronic.  He caught TDS pretty bad, though in his case it wasn't really Trump Derangement Syndrome, but Trumper Derangement Syndrome.  His deep seeded need to correct every nut Trumper rando online or every MAGAite he meets at a gas station, bar, or family reunion, and his frustration at not having his superior intellect and expertise acknowledged by morons, caused him to lose some balance.  He's the opposite of sanguine. 

Case in point is his use of "sedition caucus".   It sounds neat but it's inaccurate.  Sedition is by definition a call for violence against lawful authority.  The 12 Apostles of Trump in the Senate are not calling for violence.  They are initiating something of a constitutional crisis by abrogating the role of the states in deciding the Presidency, but they are not calling for violence or the overthrow of the Constitution or government.  Constitutional crises do occur within Congress.  This is bigger than most, but they usually are pretty big.  The role of different branches of government can be civil disagreements.  So far all the 12 Apostles want is a vote, that they know they are going to lose, to save face among their Trumpy constituents.  "He/She FIGHTS!"  will be their rallying cry come 2022/24.  Just like L'Orange.  "He FIGHTS".  Because you know, Ryan and Romney and Bush and McCain, they didn't FIGHT.  AKA, they didn't try and cheat and were not gauche goblins. 

That being said, everything in the article is correct. But the whole thing is colored by Tom's histrionics. 

[TheDrake]

Sedition can be non-violent as well. Ghandi was arrested for Sedition. It is a refusal to obey the government authority.

The Judge wished to give his verdict immediately after Gandhiji had pleaded guilty, but Sir Strangman insisted that the procedure should be carried out in full. The Advocate-General requested the Judge to take into account “the occurrences in Bombay, Malabar and Chauri Chaura, leading to rioting and murder.” He admitted, indeed, that ‘ in these articles you find that non-violence is insisted upon as an item of the campaign and of the creed,” but he added “of what value is it to insist on non-violence, if incessantly you preach disaffection towards the Government and hold it up as a treacherous Government and if you openly and deliberately seek to. instigate others to overthrow it?”

These gentlemen in the sedition caucus may not be calling for violence, but they definitely are encouraging it. Gandhi himself acknowledged this.

It is a painful duty with me but I have to discharge that duty knowing the responsibility that rests upon my shoulders, and I wish to endorse all the blame that the learned Advocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the Bombay occurrences, Madras occurrences and the Chauri Chaura occurrences. Thinking over these things deeply and sleeping over them night after night, it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages of Bombay.

He is quite right when he says that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I should have known the consequences of every one of my acts. I know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk and if I was set free I would still do the same. I have felt it this morning that I would have failed in my duty, if I did not say what I said here just now. I wanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered had done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I am here, therefore, to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.

[Grant]

Ghandi was arrested for Sedition.

1. Ghandi still advocated the overthrow of the British Raj, the current government of India.  Peacefully. 

2.  Ghandi was wrongfully convicted of sedition because the British believed they could nip the Indian insurrection in the bud by getting rid of him.  They were right.  When imprisoned the Indian Independence movement split into factions. 

It is a refusal to obey the government authority.

What kind of definition is that?  All crime is a refusal to obey government authority. 

I think you mean that sedition is a refusal to acknowledge the authority of the government.  That's still rather broad.  I would be hesitant to say that every action that expresses the refusal of the government to have authority in certain cases is sedition.  You're going to be arresting a whole bunch of people. 

In the case in point, the 12 Apostles of Trump are stating that a particular branch of the government has a particular authority.  They are not refusing to acknowledge the authority of the government as a whole, nor are they advocating the overthrow of the constitution as a whole, violently or otherwise. 

These gentlemen in the sedition caucus may not be calling for violence, but they definitely are encouraging it. Gandhi himself acknowledged this.

I think you should re-read the quote.  Gandhi is not talking about the 12 Apostles of Trump.  He's making himself a martyr and throwing it back into the Judge's face that he would do it again.  He is acknowledging the law of unintended consequences simply to make his act of martyrdom more powerful. 

Think hard before saying that an individual is responsible for the violence of another individual, despite not advocating or calling for violence.  You're going to have a bunch of people in prison. 

[TheDrake]

Well, yes, you're right that I overstated what sedition is, and yes you can't blame all violence created by a non-violent entity on that person.

But let's look at what is going on here. The sedition caucus is refusing the states authority to run their own elections. Period. They are trying to use a ceremonial step to overturn an election certified by those states. The house vote isn't supposed to be a commentary on how that state operates their elections. It is solely there to determine that they are truly getting the results of the electoral college vote from the proper authority.

[Grant]

But let's look at what is going on here. The sedition caucus is refusing the states authority to run their own elections. Period. They are trying to use a ceremonial step to overturn an election certified by those states. The house vote isn't supposed to be a commentary on how that state operates their elections. It is solely there to determine that they are truly getting the results of the electoral college vote from the proper authority.

I'm just a stickler for words.  Words have meanings.  I don't think it's sedition, but you can continue to use it if it makes you happy.  I just like accuracy.

I personally like the "12 Apostles of Trump" moniker that I developed, but of course I'm attached to it because it's mine.  If "caucus" must be a part, how about "colostomy-bag caucus"?  I feel this is accurate and descriptive. 

[TheDeamon]

While I personally would say that this year was an exception due to a pandemic, I personally believe that the vast majority of voting should take place in person, on election day, whatever day that falls on, and that some form of voter ID should be required.  I don't believe this is new.  This is The Way. And it used to not be controversial until somebody saw that it could be turned around and politicized.

I'd hedge this one slightly.

In Person voting is the gold standard in my book. If it happens over the course of 1 month or 1 day makes little difference to me. Getting the act of voting to take place in a venue that all involved parties are able to be at least aware of, even if they're unable to muster people to monitor it, is important.

Which is the the biggest complaint I had this election cycle about the explosion in mail-in voting this election cycle. Not a fan of vote by mail in anything except exceptional circumstances, even if it is popular with many groups for various reasons. It leaves too many proverbial doors open.

And to be clear an "exceptional circumstance" just means it is happening as an exception, not as a matter of routine, normal activity for a majority of voters in any election cycle.

I ask again, why is in person voting the gold standard or necessary for security? I can have a document notarized online, with ID. Why do you want to make voting more difficult than it has to be? Because you can't manage to trust non-partisan county officials and that somehow a paper trail will thwart their nefarious plans?

Tell me how you can have a secure anonymous ballot which generates an adequate paper trail capable of being audited in your scenario?

Online banking, and a number of other legal functions, which are deliberately not anonymous produce audit trails which can be easily followed up on. Although even that particular system is vulnerable to exploitation.

Your proposal only works if you abolish the secret ballot.

[TheDeamon]

And it also goes without mention, that if I find mail-in balloting in general to be suspect due to abuse scenarios (mostly involving the elderly and mentally ill), how come you'd think I'd find a virtual voting option to be any more acceptable than mail-in?

At least mail in voting has a methodology which can be used to keep things reasonably anonymous. No such provision would exist for something that is entirely digital.

[Grant]

Tell me how you can have a secure anonymous ballot which generates an adequate paper trail capable of being audited in your scenario?

It depends on what you are trying to audit.  There are two aspects of the security of the ballot. 

1.  That the person voting is in fact who they say they are, and that they are a legal voter.

2.  That the vote of the ballot is tabulated correctly. 


Part 1 is probably the hardest.  In an anonymous mail in ballot, you check the signature on the ballot to ensure that the signature matches the signature on record.  You go through several steps for this.  Machine and in person checking etc.  If the ballot passes inspection and matches the signature on the register, that portion of the ballot is separated from the rest of the ballot.  Now, you keep this portion, and can audit the signatures over and over and over again.  The problem is that if you find NEW problems you can never really correct them.  But you can check and find out how many you missed from a particular group. 

While this is difficult, this is nothing new.  Checking signatures is the historical way to figure out if someone was entitled to vote anyways.  If they came back and later figured that your signature did not match the one on file, and you voted by machine, your vote is still separate from your identification.  It's no difference.  It was no different when everybody just would drop an unsigned ballot into a box.  The key is to have good security at the gate. 

You can go back and audit the signatures all you like.  But you can't do anything if you find a new instance of fraud.  Georgia went through a signature audit back in December.  You can read about it. 

2.  Tabulating the vote correctly is easier.  You can go back and audit the paper votes as often as you like, over and over, which every state that was close has done.  Often you get different results, but never enough to make a difference.  I think Fulton County had multiple discrepancies to the maximum of 800 votes out of 100,000, or something like that.  The good news is that your new count simply replaces your old count. 

[DonaldD]

Why is absolute anonymity in voting (as opposed to effective anonymity) necessary anymore, anyway?  There are ways to make electronic voting effectively anonymous while still allowing the ability to link votes to IDs for the purposes of auditing.  The government, insurance companies, social media companies, corporations... they all have far more critically personal and invasive information than one's voting decisions, and there is not the same angst about the security of those data.

[msquared]

So when does Congress do the elector counting thing? What time?

[Grant]

So when does Congress do the elector counting thing? What time?

1 pm EST is Pencemegeddon

[msquared]

Dominion just filed a defamation suit to the tune of $1.3 Billion against Powell.

[msquared]

Surprise, surprise Trump just said he would not attend Joe Biden's Inauguration.  Maybe he plans on a rally elsewhere in Washington where he can tell his supporters to go break  up the Inauguration.

[DonaldD]

At this point, Trump attending would probably detract from the proceedings, anyway.

[DonaldD]

Dominion just filed a defamation suit to the tune of $1.3 Billion against Powell.

Oh my...

[NobleHunter]

I would not be surprised if someone is killed at the inauguration. I'm not sure if I expect it or not. On the other hand, will there be much of a crowd given there's a pandemic going? Maybe it'll be low key enough to avoid any excitement.

[DonaldD]

The set of:

• Candidates who have lost the presidential popular vote twice;
• Lost re-election (lost as the presidential incumbent);
• Impeached or resigned;
• Impeached twice^*

^*TBD

This very specific Venn diagram gets more and more interesting...

[wmLambert]

The hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors had nothing to do with the Capitol Building incursion: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/worrisome_signs_the_capitol_breach_was_planned_to_discredit_trump_supporters_an_eyewitness_account.html

the Dems planned this.

[msquared]

Did you watch the videos?  MAGA stuff all over the place?  Trump signs and flags everywhere.  Known Trump supporters live streaming their breaking in and committing crimes in the Capitol building.

Your alternate reality is subject to facts.

[DonaldD]

I think you misunderstand the nature of his alternate reality...

[Aris Katsaris]

wmLambert, I am still waiting on the "goods" you claimed that the good guys had after the supposed raids in Frankfurt and Spain (when the DoD battled the CIA mercenaries) supposedly proving election fraud.

Or will you finally admit that these supposed raids never actually happened?

[TheDeamon]

wmLambert, I am still waiting on the "goods" you claimed that the good guys had after the supposed raids in Frankfurt and Spain (when the DoD battled the CIA mercenaries) supposedly proving election fraud.

Or will you finally admit that these supposed raids never actually happened?

He's communicating with us via quantum tunnel, this is causing problems reconciling the divergent realities.

[wmLambert]

Idiots! Have you missed the identification od the AntiFa activist that led the incursion. The hundreds of thoudsands of Trump supporters were not a problem. Several have been arrested and identifies. We think that the Drmocrats engineered the whole thing.

[NobleHunter]

We must have, why don't you provide a link identifying them?

[msquared]

Wm

Were they thousands of Trump supporters there who were honest protester?  Of course there were.  Were there hundreds of Trump supporters/protesters who became a mob and stormed the Capitol?  Yes with out a doubt. Could there have been some type of infiltrator?  I guess, but so far no evidence, other than anecdotal, supports that.  All of the people who stormed the Capitol who have been identified so far are Trump supporters. Every single one.

And if they were lead astray by AntiFa plants, boy were they like sheep.  Did you hear any comments about standing back, about not entering the Capitol? That what they were doing was wrong?  Of course not. Trump had just basically told them what to do.  Just like Guliani. Trial by Combat.

[DonaldD]

We must have, why don't you provide a link identifying them?

What, you're not on Parler?

[rightleft22]

Wm

Were they thousands of Trump supporters there who were honest protester?  Of course there were.  Were there hundreds of Trump supporters/protesters who became a mob and stormed the Capitol?  Yes with out a doubt. Could there have been some type of infiltrator?  I guess, but so far no evidence, other than anecdotal, supports that.  All of the people who stormed the Capitol who have been identified so far are Trump supporters. Every single one.

And if they were lead astray by AntiFa plants, boy were they like sheep.  Did you hear any comments about standing back, about not entering the Capitol? That what they were doing was wrong?  Of course not. Trump had just basically told them what to do.  Just like Guliani. Trial by Combat.

You don't understand it only takes one questionable identification with some other questionable shadow conspiracy to, if not validate the actions of the followers, at least excuses them. The devil made me do it. I was following one devil but got confused by another.  Not my fault.

Anyway you can't blame Trump followers for following that's what followers do. Not their fault if the are easy led and don't pay much attention to who or what they are following. The ends justify the means and who has time to verify the method or information they lap up?

Facts are for kids, silly rabbit.

Fenring argues that the problem is the system that has undermined our ability to discern what is true. We can't blame Trump or hold him accountable because he's just a symptom of that problem. Even if he manipulated and feeds the problem like some cancer he is only a symptom and their is no point in holding him accountable and cutting out the cancer. As for his followers, they are just followers of the symptom of the problem. Nothing can be done here other then shake our heads and frown at the problem of our inability to discern fact from fiction. 

The followers feed the symptom, but not their fault.  If they get it wrong it must be conspiracy, one they are to smart to fall for, except for the ones they fall for.

[wmLambert]

I apologize. To be idiots you would have to not know what you were talking about. You are something else. You do know that Big Tech and the MSM have conspired with the Democrats to deny any knowledge from getiing out. You do know the black out on anything that dissuades the Democrat mantra, and in going along with it, you are certainly not idiots. Just so you can't deny knowing a few limited facts, te FBI has stated that busloads of AntiFa activist, dressed uo=p like Trump supporters wheeled into towm - and with their bullhorns convinces innocent  protestors into crossing the line and following them into the Congress building. Yes, many have been identified, with pictures of them in this event juxtaposed with them at earlier riots, with them breaking windows and starting fires. Yes, with hundreds of thousands of protestors, they probably did get a few Trump supporters involved. But - and this is primary - those who caused the problem were not Trump supporters.

Yet the Democrats want to impeach Trump for calling off those who invaded the Capitol, when they ignored their own enabling and praising the riots all over the country, where a dozen people were killed. One of those was Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden never denounced their actions. This is just another Democrat attempt to seize total power, in a population that is growing against them.

If you go to YouTube, you will see the hundred Guillinai Common Sense podcasts removed, as is all links to Sidney Powell's court evidence that the courts never looked at.

Look at Parler. It is specifically non-partisan - but since they don't delete pro-Trump information, they are persona non grata['i] and are being attacked. This is electronic book-burning and you are all in it up to your ears in the ashes. What is your rationalization for supporting this?

They blocked Trump, but when The kill Pence twitters stayed on, you can't deny the plan.

[wmLambert]

... it only takes one questionable identification with some other questionable shadow conspiracy to, if not validate the actions of the followers, at least excuses them. The devil made me do it. I was following one devil but got confused by another.  Not my fault.

Anyway you can't blame Trump followers for following that's what followers do. Not their fault if the are easy led and don't pay much attention to who or what they are following. The ends justify the means and who has time to verify the method or information they lap up?

I guess you missed the identification of the many AntiFa activist that came in on a bus that the FBI noted. I guess you missed the many eyewitness reports of the AntiFa activists being called aout by the Trump supporters, and being physically dragged away from the building.  You are on the wrong side of this.

[NobleHunter]

So we can count on you to provide a link to the statement from the FBI?

[TheDrake]

Strange, I can't seem to find any statements about busloads of Antifa on fbi.gov. Just witness lamberts actual provided link to understand what he thinks is proof. Trump fan fiction on a random blog. I'm sure Q probably did post something about the fbi seeing loads of Antifa. That's good enough for him.

[rightleft22]

... it only takes one questionable identification with some other questionable shadow conspiracy to, if not validate the actions of the followers, at least excuses them. The devil made me do it. I was following one devil but got confused by another.  Not my fault.

Anyway you can't blame Trump followers for following that's what followers do. Not their fault if the are easy led and don't pay much attention to who or what they are following. The ends justify the means and who has time to verify the method or information they lap up?

I guess you missed the identification of the many AntiFa activist that came in on a bus that the FBI noted. I guess you missed the many eyewitness reports of the AntiFa activists being called aout by the Trump supporters, and being physically dragged away from the building.  You are on the wrong side of this.

Even if you could prove that the reports you have about AntiFa are based on any factual evidence - beyond the 'trump media' pointing to self referencing "proof".  Does not excused Trump or his followers   

But that's your game. Get people to talk about Antifa in any way and you win. Create doubt, deny, deny, deny and you win. Not just a symptom of the the problem of being able to believe the media, but the creating of the problem you will then use as proof of your "facts" you can't prove and thus justify and excuses your own actions. Not your fault

[Wayward Son]

William, stop passing along false stories.  You only make yourself look ridiculous.

And if they really aren't false stories, made up with the intention of riling up people like you, show us the links so we can evaluate the evidence ourselves.

We've had four plus years of this BS.  Put up or shut up.

[DonaldD]

Rep. Kevin Brady
^{@RepKevinBrady}

Those calling for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment in response to President Trump’s rhetoric this week are themselves engaging in intemperate and inflammatory language and calling for action that is equally irresponsible and could well incite further violence.

It sounds like Brady has given up on arguing that Trump supporters weren't violent, and has settled on "don't piss them off, they'll only get more violent".

[DonaldD]

Remember back in the day, when Mitch McConnell was upset with the sedition caucus for threatening to force votes on the Electoral College certification, and for putting Republican incumbents in an awkward position and harming their chances for reelection in 2022?  Ahh, the good old days...

[kidv]

But let's look at what is going on here. The sedition caucus is refusing the states authority to run their own elections. Period. They are trying to use a ceremonial step to overturn an election certified by those states. The house vote isn't supposed to be a commentary on how that state operates their elections. It is solely there to determine that they are truly getting the results of the electoral college vote from the proper authority.

I'm just a stickler for words.  Words have meanings.  I don't think it's sedition, but you can continue to use it if it makes you happy.  I just like accuracy.

I personally like the "12 Apostles of Trump" moniker that I developed, but of course I'm attached to it because it's mine.  If "caucus" must be a part, how about "colostomy-bag caucus"?  I feel this is accurate and descriptive.

'Member  back in the day, when people had a humorous discussion about whether "sedition caucus" was an inapt and overly harsh description?  Ahh . . .

[TheDeamon]

'Member  back in the day, when people had a humorous discussion about whether "sedition caucus" was an inapt and overly harsh description?  Ahh . . .

Still is, if advocating for Congress to undertake potentially unconstitutional actions was an act of sedition, most of congress would be in prison.

[Aris Katsaris]

Still is, if advocating for Congress to undertake potentially unconstitutional actions was an act of sedition, most of congress would be in prison.

Not all unconstitutionality was created equal. There's sometimes minor overreach of one branch of the government or another, and then again there's this which was taking a massive dump on the entirety of the constitution and on democracy as a whole, in support of a dictator-wannabe.

[TheDrake]

Remember when conservatives asserted the absolute right for a state to have total control of their election process when they railed against the voting rights act? Now they want to set aside several states results that have been certified by their board of elections, secretary of state, board of elections, state legislature, and governor.

[msquared]

American Thinker, who has been peddling the election fraud stuff, when faced with a defamation suit, prints a retraction.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/statement.html

[Wayward Son]

Do you think the American Thinker will now publish an editorial on the culinary differences between chicken and crow?  

[wmLambert]

[quoye]James, brother of accused leftist provocateur John Sullivan, claims 226 Antifa members started Capitol riots[/quote]https://noqreport.com/2021/01/15/james-brother-of-accused-leftist-provocateur-john-sullivan-claims-226-antifa-members-started-capitol-riots/?fbclid=IwAR1A5ZTqw1m2aZQCBxf-Ov1vX2i_aOQdE2lApPNEk1nnbEAF1bMl7HHvQcU

[msquared]

Wm

Wrong thread I think and your formatting is all messed up.

[DonaldD]

In an unexpected result of the election, and one that is being overshadowed by the rest of the sh!tshow that is this presidency, the current administration is rushing to execute as many people as possible in an orgy of killings before the Biden inauguration.

Since he lost the election, Trump has had more inmates killed than had been executed by other administrations in more than 60 years.  This is completely arbitrary, and completely obscene.