You know what is BORING? (Warning: TL/DR)

Nothing to see here...

 
SCOTUS has not shown that they have the guts to stand on principle in a long time. I'd love to be surprised. But Roberts sets the docket. And he's the coward that let it get this far in PA.

My concern is they fall back to the "we don't want to over turn the will of the people". Even if a faulty election is not truly the will of the people. The status quo has a resilience that we may not have the momentum to overcome. Honestly, they don't need to prove their case to SCOTUS. If you want real change prove it to the public first then the pressure gets put on SCOTUS. And the way you prove it to the public is through the media. The odds of the media doing the right thing are less than the odds of SCOTUS doing it.

The state legislatures acting is the worst option IMO, but might actually be the most plausible. Since they will be privy to info that might be kept from the public. Not that I think there is a great chance of it. And the consequences of that are dangerous to public safety and political careers.

Politicians across the board are mostly cowards who want to lead from the rear. And when politicians wait, and the media does not; the media sets the narrative that drives the lead from the rear cowards. My cynicism is deepening on anything happening. I hope it comes to light one way or the other.

I'd love a good explanation for how Rep's did far better than expected, Dem's did far worse than expected, Trump had enough votes to have coat tails, but Biden had enough votes to win. There is not enough drop off in a normal election to account for that. And if this election was a referendum on Trump it would have manifested down ballot as R losses. Instead, the people and things Trump supported largely won down ballot. None of the bellweathers and norms hold in this election. It does not pass the smell test for me.
Thomas Alito Cavanaugh Barrett and Gorsuch...... I count 5 and please note that Roberts is not in that list. The USSC in 2000 was far less principled, btw.
 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh and Barrett are on eggshells right now. They arent going to do anything because they risk being "illegitimate" or threatened by angry leftists.
 
Kavanaugh and Barrett are on eggshells right now. They arent going to do anything because they risk being "illegitimate" or threatened by angry leftists.
If this is so, then they will be worthless as USSC judges. I don't believe it is so, but if it is, they will be complete and total failures. A decent judge has to have the attitude of Clarence Thomas, who says "I love the fact that they can't touch me now."
 
If this is so, then they will be worthless as USSC judges. I don't believe it is so, but if it is, they will be complete and total failures. A decent judge has to have the attitude of Clarence Thomas, who says "I love the fact that they can't touch me now."

You can bet that there will be behind the scene conversations we will never know about. I’d love to hear Thomas and Alito in those talks.
 
Thomas Alito Cavanaugh Barrett and Gorsuch...... I count 5 and please note that Roberts is not in that list. The USSC in 2000 was far less principled, btw.

I hope you are right about them. They are not exactly tested on that level. And just did some digging before I posted. It takes 4 to vote to hear a case. That makes be feel a bit better than having Roberts making those calls like I thought happened for some reason. 4 of them held the PA decision unconstitutional IIRC. But a 4-4 vote tossed it back to the state. Roberts is a coward.
 
@georgel gave you watched the Dobb’s interview with Sidney Powell and listened to her interview with Mark Steyn? If not, do that then let us know what you think.
I haven't had a chance to watch these yet, but I did see the Maria Bartiromo interview. She's the real deal and she strikes me as old school. Don't ask a question you don't already have the answer to and don't make a statement that can't be proven and supported.

I think the discussion about going to the SC may be moot. It's the states that must certify their votes and if enough doubt is cast on the integrity on each of states electoral processes, they can't or won't certify. They don't have to prove anything definitive, just that it has been compromised in some way. The burden of proof is on the electoral processors. They must validate that the machines were not compromised, which is next to impossible considering all the holes in the system spoken of by Powell and investigated by DEMOCRATS before the 2020 election.


Oh, you know that "Most secure election ever." Statement issued by DHS? Well it was a statement crafted in conjunction with the CISA (The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) and guess who's a member? Dominion Voting Systems.

ETA: Clarification - Dominion Voting Systems is a member of the CISA's Sector Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council.

What the agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems is a member of CISA’s Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council, one of two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA.
 
Last edited:
I bet you thought that I would say what is tiresome is the endless recitation of how this or that guy is a "white hat" and the predictions that Hillary is in jail by (pick your date) and the constantly evolving theories of how point a shows the super plan is working out.......
That stuff can get boring.

But what is REALLY boring is the constant "Weeping Susan" moans and a conspiracy theory of corruption and indolence and hopelessness and despair which makes the most ridiculous conspiracies in the bowels of "Q-dom" look tame by comparison. That is just as boring as sitting watching a cesspool belch out gas bubbles, and just about as enjoyable. Boring despair of the Eyoore type finds reason for loss of hope in the best of news, and NEVER EVER sees encouragement in the real elements of societal change, as it is focused like a laser on the big institutional corporate and political structures with their constant drivel. If you are a weeping Susan, then all is lost if the CNN anchors are not reading Atlas Shrugged aloud and praising Donald Trump....., or at least Mike Pence. You just don't "get it" that Trump did not start this fire. Trump is a RESULT of the fire, and if he were dead tomorrow, someone or someones would take his reigns. Rush Limbaugh was the same way. There is a restless urge for freedom, and an increasing willingness to resist and talk back to tyranny. There is a huge MARKET for this in America, and these guys just found it. Trump is just the effervescence of that boil.

Nowhere are weeping Susans more on display than their attitude towards this election. There is a constant moaning and despondent acceptance that all is lost. After all, they say, does not a casual reading of history show us that corruption, tyranny and grinding despotism are the normal progression of events? Uhhhh, no. No it doesn't. Muttering about how the march of tyranny is going to come and grab your guns, and dreams of forlornly battling on a hilltop (shouting "WOLVERINES," no doubt!) is not "realism." It is foolish cynicism and ridiculous, frankly. The history of humanity is filled with wicked men who come to power, but it is equally filled with people who resist that power and see wicked men fade and crumble. I believe we are in a time like this, and the hysterical and frantic attempts to grab power are not so much a portent of doom for us as they are a recognition that the left is losing the REAL battle. They are convinced the REAL battle is who has the levers of institutional power. I am equally convinced that the REAL battle is for the hearts and souls of men and women. On that front, we are winning, and we always win when the choices are clear and our eyes are open.

The FACT is that there has been a huge surge of support for liberty in the past few years. I saw it in Ron Paul and the tea party movement and the consequent tidal wave of Trump. If anything, that wave surged in November. The institutions of power are frankly terrified of it and have resorted to outright, blatant, open and transparent fraud in a desperate attempt to clutch on to it.

While this is dangerous, I find it exhilarating. It means that the robes are coming off, the left is showing its fangs, and people are more informed about the nature of the choices. People in this forum like the old car racing dude, stuck in a fantasy world of "good" being our institutions and "bad" being threats to them.... those people are fading away like mold and mildew before bleach. This is very very good.

As for the election itself, I do believe Trump will take a second term. The reason is that NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, matters before December 14 (the date when the electoral college votes), except the courts. That is where everything goes down. Trump (and some vocal cheerleaders) SAY they have incontrovertible evidence that the election was stolen. That is what courts are all about. EVIDENCE is the only thing that matters. If you have demonstrable computer code showing vote rigging, affadavits declaring that ballot tampering was happening and when and where these events occurred, sworn testimony of persons excluded from their rightful tasks of overseeing correlating with huge swings in voting, multiple claims of mysterious ballot delivery in large quantities, combined with statistically impossible odds of voting patterns..... those are EVIDENCE, and the courts can rule on them, throwing out votes as invalid. Republican state legislatures (Michigan and Wisconsin, particularly) can have a basis for refusing to validate the electoral votes. One of these two are not only possible, but PROBABLE. Again, it depends solely on the evidence. If it is solid, Trump will win a second term. If not, then all is still not lost. The left will go hard core, attempting to seize power in a manner which will maybe even result in a civil war (it could happen), with "red country" outside cities becoming essentially "no go" zones for bureaucrats.... but I think this unlikely. Hard core leftozealots are full of bravado but have no stomach for true imposition of power on people who say "no" and mean it. If they do succeed in stealing this election, they are likely lighting a match that will spark a result they never envisioned.

Either way, it is cause for real hope here, and I say that EVEN as I consider my own passport status.
YMMV

Mmmmm...maybe.

But you're hinging all of your bets that a couple things are going to happen:

1. The courts are going to get involved.

2. The courts will actually adjudicate in some fashion which is not only favorable to Trump, but favorable enough to land him the significant number of electoral votes he needs to take the election.

Them's mighty slim pickins there.


And quite honestly, I don't see anything reliable coming through any sources which aren't already in serious jeopardy already. How many legal challenges have already been shot down? Frankly, I haven't been keeping track.

The one thing that really, REALLY p*sses me off about all this bruhaha is this:

I've been saying for a number of years now that the ONLY way "our" side will make any significant progress with various factions of people (mostly those being ones who are not already politically skewed...the "fence-sitters" or whatever you choose to call them) is NOT to play the games the Left plays. By that I mean WE CANNOT GO AROUND BLOWING SMOKE UP PEOPLE'S *SSES WHICH CAN BE PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

When people do this, all anybody outside watching what's going on is that we're doing EXACTLY the same thing those on the Left are doing...lying, cheating, making sh*t up, and getting caught out in the BS and lies as a result.

All these radical claims that have come out about various evidences of voter fraud? Some of which seem "too good to be true"? While many may be true, or at least have a basis in truth, those that are BS and lies or falsely exaggerated are going to undermine "our" efforts.

That's why every single time cr*p like this come out (like for example all the "we've finally go the evidence that's going to convict Hillary and lock her up" stuff we see pop up now and again) my response is "I'll believe it when it happens and not before."

Why? Because even if we DO have such evidence, we ALL know that trying to convict, or otherwise hold responsible, ANYBODY who is powerfully connected is like trying to win a wrestling match with an angry, greased eel.


It would be great if Trump DID win when the Fat Lady is finished singing. But she ain't finished and I'm not placing any large sums on it.
 
Oh, you know that "Most secure election ever." Statement issued by DHS? Well it was a statement crafted in conjunction with the CISA (The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
And the talking box is saying this morning that the head of CISA is out of a job as of last night.
 
I think rogue legislatures / electors are Trump's only hope at this point. My prediction is courts won't decide this... there is simply too much flipping to be done (even if it needs to be done).
 
Crap. If I was a good predictor, I would not have sold my ETH at 465. I don't claim to know the future. I just try to say "there is this and there is that and there is this, and some people are saying that" and place my bets accordingly. My wife is in real despair, as she bought into the hopium of "America restored" big big time, and the threat of things coming apart in USSA as a socialist nation is extremely threatening to her. I hate to see the possibility of it happening, but I am nothing if not a contingency planner. I hope to run and run and run and run and try to hide until I can't do anything BUT fight, and then I will probably die. For me, that is a delicious thought... dying, I mean. It means all I long for in this hollow, vapid, empty, frustrating, lying, debauched and perverted world will in fact be realized, and all the refuse swept out the door. I recognize that this hope will be mocked, and I used to be one of the mockers. That is ok. Either way, I win, even if times are excruciating until then. Injustice does not mean justice is gone, just delayed. YMMV
 
In most cases the court (judges) do not like plaintiffs trying their case in the public, presenting their evidence in public. The courtroom then becomes a circus. Probably Giuliani & Co. have neutered a lot of their case.

However SCOTUS has ruled in favor of First Amend rights of lawyers. Muddy waters ahead.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom