Not Much Love

Comments

  1. Polls?

    • Here ya go…

      https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

      They’re still giving it 8% that Trump wins the EC and loses the popular vote. ::shudder::

        • Ah, Marilyn… Guiness Book of World Records holder for highest IQ (200+)..

          I know, I know.. IQ’s are shakey at best.. and being smart in one category or in certain tested categories doesn’t make you smart at everything… but damn… it’s hard for me not to respect the hell out of that.

          I’m no intellectual slouch, but my IQ isn’t even remotely in the same ballpark – though I wish that it were!

          I’ll note that the question isn’t “do you support the EC,” but rather “can you make an argument in favor of the Electoral College?” I can do that, too. I can argue that came case – that the coasts would run roughshod over flyover country without it. I could point out that rural interests are different and need protection from urban interests which would dominate without the EC.

          That doesn’t mean I think the EC a good idea – just that it’s not wholly without merit.

          Hell, I can “make an argument in favor” of pretty much anything. Hell, I can make an argument in favor of well-done steaks (less likely to carry pathogens!). That wouldn’t mean I think cooking a steak to a gray slab is a good thing.

          So, without putting words in Marilyn’s mouth, I will say that she has answered the request well, but that her answer does not imply agreement with the underlying debate.

          • Thats why its cool to be me. Give me a simple answer that makes sense, and I’ll buy it all day. No need for drawn out hypotheticals leading nowhere. Which makes me think….WHY do I read every word Mathius posts? That hurts my brain to even think about. Next…

            • Wait a damn second! I just noticed you got me! I wasn’t appealing JACK…I was showing a good argument in favor of…is there one for that?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes………… he was guilty of the Strawman Fallacy.

              • It was?

                How so?

                I was considering the link she posted and discussing the limitations of that article.

                It’s a good article which makes a (singular) good point in response to a request ot make exactly such a point. I accept this point as true, but consider it within the framework of (A) insofar as it might be an appeal to authority, she has not weighed in with her full opinion and (B) that the ability to make a single argument in favor of a point is essentially meaningless – very little is without any merit.

            • WHY do I read every word Mathius posts?

              Thank god someone does or this would be a lot of wasted effort!

              Give me a simple answer that makes sense, and I’ll buy it all day.

              That’s the problem with “simple answers that make sense” – they’re often inadequate to the complexities of reality.

              Give me a simple answer that makes sense, and I’ll buy it all day.

              So if I give the simple answer that the EC is bad because more people thought Clinton should be President than Trump, but, the EC ignored this fact and gave the decision to the minority based predominantly on where they live…. that’s a simple answer that makes sense, right?

              So now you’ll buy that all day?

              • Nope. You missed the part about each state has its own election. The electors usually vote how the state voted. Its not a winner take all deal.

  2. Mathius: If you make it harder for a group to vote – even if you are only cutting off one avenue – you are making it harder for that group to vote. And, all things being equal, that group will vote less. (do you agree?)

    The Colonel<: The Colonel does NOT agree. And before you ask me to qualify my statement, I will do so. If other avenues were open to offset the closing of one, then I do not agree.

    —–

    I find this counterintuitive.

    You presuppose that, with 100% perfect fidelity, everyone who would have opted for the now-unavailable 3rd option will switch to one of the others.

    Not one single voter will fail to switch over to another method.

    Two otherwise perfectly identical counties will have exactly the same turnout?

    I just… I can’t credit this.

    • One of the things about all this voting stuff that really irks me is it’s all BS because the Left (and you have fallen for it), especially the liberal media, pushing this crap to sow the seeds of chaos when Trump wins in a landslide. Because of all the crap being spewed by the Left, it’s almost a guarantee that it’s only purpose is to cause civil unrest after the election. This includes the same polls that were wrong in 2016, giving people false hope (again). Lately they are pushing a national poll, which is useless.

      • One of the things about all this voting stuff that really irks me is it’s all BS because the Left (and you have fallen for it), especially the liberal media, pushing this crap to sow the seeds of chaos when Trump wins in a landslide

        Just curious. If BIDEN wins “in a landslide,” do you think the Right is going to take it politely?

        [Anita – this is where you can use your Tu Quoque card]

        Because of all the crap being spewed by the Left, it’s almost a guarantee that it’s only purpose is to cause civil unrest after the election.

        Your bias is showing again.

        I love how you are biologically incapable of ascribing valid motivations to “the left.” No matter what it is, the only answer can be the most nefarious interpretation.

        No, no.. Democrats and the liberals aren’t expressing valid concerns about voter suppression attemps by the Republicans… no.. they’re just trying to ensure that when they inevitably lose like the losing losers they are that they can also ensure a hate-fueled civil unrest because they also hate America.

        This includes the same polls that were wrong in 2016, giving people false hope (again).

        I love how you naturally assume that because YOU don’t understand how polling works, that naturally there has been no progress over the last four years.

        And, by the way, that’s not to say all the polls were bad – most of them were pretty good – and at a national level, they were damned good. A few swing states did what swing states do and swung.

        It continually amazes me that you persist in pretending that a statistically improbable event occurring means the odds themselves were wrong. And reality failing to align with the odds that one time means that not only is the entire field invalid, but that it can never make any progress to become more accurate.

        Maybe the problem is that you imagine “polls” to be functionally equivalent to “soothsaying” rather than a statistical sampling and analysis aimed at projecting the likely actions of the broader group with an understanding that a “confidence interval” is a thing for a reason.

        Lately they are pushing a national poll, which is useless.

        You clearly didn’t look at the whole link. They post-national and state-by-state drill-downs, including clear illustrations of the margins within each state, each of which can bel clicked on to see the individual polls and adjustments which support that model.

        • Podesta and company have already war gamed the post election unrest. Not only did they war game it they published it.

          https://americanmind.org/essays/the-coming-coup/

          If you have any information that the right is planning any post election unrest, please show us the references.

          • ::digging down to the leaked document…::

            ok, got it…

            Claim from your leak: “The leaked report from the exercise darkly concluded that “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here,” promising that what would follow the November election would be “a street fight, not a legal battle.” ”

            Source:

            Everyone interested in protecting the legitimacy of the election and transition planning processes needs to make plans now for how to respond in the event of a crisis.
            • If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions.
            • Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.

            Gee. That’s a pretty twisted interpretation….

            Hmm… let’s review that, shall we?

            Your article is saying that the left is “promising” a “street fight, not a legal battle” should they lose.

            What they’re saying is that there could be a contested election and they should have a plan in the event that street fighting occurs. And that a reliance on technocratic solutions and courts, etc, is not the answer to how to deal with that.

            Source.

            Podesta and company have already war gamed the post election unrest. Not only did they war game it they published it.

            You say they’ve “war-gamed the post-election unrest.” And I consider this at least partially true.

            They’ve imagined that social unrest may occur in light of a contested election.

            Frankly, that’s just an obvious thing to consider.

            Are you doubting that, in the event of a contested election, there might be unrest?

            Or that that unrest might be in the form of “street fighting”?

            Is your suggestion that the campaign should ignore the possibility and make no plan for how they might deal with such an eventuality?

            Or that, having a planned response implies they are rooting for this eventuality or helping to make it occur?

            If you have any information that the right is planning any post election unrest

            I have no such evidence.

            Nor do I have any such evidence of the left.

            What I do have is evidence that some on the left have considered a plausible event and are taking steps to plan in advance an appropriate reaction because “events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions.”

            Does this not seem logical?

            If you think a thing might reasonably be expected to occur, is your plan to have no plan and turn a blind eye to the possibility?

        • Just curious. If BIDEN wins “in a landslide,” do you think the Right is going to take it politely?

          The Right will not burn down their cities and towns, loot, attack people, scream at people and act like freaking savages. So, yes, they will politely disagree.

          because YOU don’t understand how polling works…..

          I do know how polling works and they can be skewed easily to obtain a desired outcome.

          You clearly didn’t look at the whole link.

          My comment had nothing to do with the link, it’s based on a recent one released saying Biden was up by 10 points. It doesn’t matter what a national poll says, not to mention how easy it is to get to the desired outcome when conducting them. Let me add, I won’t answer a poll and most folks I know wouldn’t either. My personal poll is that I see 10K plus at a Trump rally and none at a Biden event. Just like 2016.

          • My personal poll is that I see 10K plus at a Trump rally and none at a Biden event. Just like 2016.

            Translation: I don’t believe in math and science – I prefer anecdotal evidence filtered through my own biases.

            • Nah. Its a believe what you see with your own eyes kind of thing.

              • Thank You Anita. When the science and math are skewed, is it really math and science?

              • Nah. Its a believe what you see with your own eyes kind of thing.

                This kind of thing is exactly why science exists.

                Human brains are magnificent machines, but they are, ultimately, just improved monkey brains.

                Science exists as a tool to cut through the failures of our biases and intuition. And, no, it’s not perfect, nor is it always right. But it’s better.

                If I based my opinions of the outcome of this election of MY anecdotal experiences, I’d say that Biden is going to win by 90 points. If I base it on my anecdotal experiences of my time on SUFA, I’d say Trump is going to win by 90 points. If I base it on the best available information I have by intelligent and competent analysts whose primary interest is to present the most accurate data (538), then I’d say Biden is STATISTICALLY LIKELY to win by a comfortable margin.

                Our monkey brains aren’t equipped to weigh the probability of 300mm people voting across fifty states during a pandemic and all the 1,000’s of other complicating factors. Anecdotal evidence – believing what you see – just doesn’t cut it. It’s not that it’s “wrong” – it’s just insufficient to paint the whole picture. Polls are, too! But they’re LESS bad.

                When the science and math are skewed, is it really math and science?

                Translated: When I don’t understand the science or it disagrees with my intuition, preferred narrative, or cognitive biases, the only possible answer is that the science is flawed or biased and therefore I am justified in continuing to believe the things I already did.

  3. Biden and Harris hold a campaign event in Arizona and the local news can’t believe that not one supporter showed up! pic.twitter.com/JKj0fPi6Jj

    Hey, look! Gman sharing Fake News™.

    The claim contains an element of truth — it did show a Biden-Harris campaign stop — but it ignores that the campaign didn’t invite the public, or release any details about the event because of the pandemic.

    Oh my goodness! “local news can’t believe” that people didn’t show up to an event they weren’t told about and weren’t invited to! Let’s use this to imply that Biden and Harris can’t get a crowd in Arizona because they have no support.

    (Gman: I didn’t say that.)

    No… but you damned well implied it.

    (Gman: No I didn’t.)

    ::points irately at the title of this page::

    • So the campaign says it scheduled an event, but didn’t tell anyone, because of the virus….and you of course believe that bullshit. This isn’t exactly uncommon as Biden events look more like a funeral for a serial killer that nobody cares about.

      • So the campaign says it scheduled an event, but didn’t tell anyone, because of the virus….and you of course believe that bullshit.

        It should be relatively easy for you to demonstrate that he DID advertise it, shouldn’t it?

        I mean, he’d have sent flyers or put up ads?

        Right?

        • Yes, because having a campaign event for nobody has been so effective in the past. SMH!

          • It was a campaign event for a handful of tribal leaders. Who were specifically invited. Who collectively represented the interests of some 500 Native American tribes nationwide. To meet inside a museum. Where they, amongst other things, gave input into a draft regarding the Biden/Harris platform as it applies to tribal nations. Which was released a few days later.

            Would this have been better served by turning it into a public rally?

            Is every Trump campaign event open to the public?

            Jesus.. what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to see everything in such a biased light?

            • I’m just giving what the local media presented. First, they didn’t tell nobody, now the story has changed, so can you see why I’m skeptical. What is their truth later today? I’m sure it will change again. Now, what happens at the next stop when nobody shows up to support them?

              But back to the original story. Where are the supporters with signs that always show up around Trump visits. Absent, just like his support.

  4. Nothing, nothing I tell you is more effective at stopping modern day police brutality issues than tipping over statues of people dead for a hundred years or more.

    Dripping sarcasm aside, obviously, statue-tipping is not an effective way to do… anything..

    So….

    (A) Does America have a problem (to ANY degree) with police brutality?

    (B) If so, what is the right way of addressing it?

    • Finally, a good topic 🙂

      I’m going to make an assumption on (A) for the purpose of this debate. I will assume that police treat young black men with a higher degree of an attitude that may lead to violence versus other races.

      The claim is that it is caused by racism, I say BS. I think I may know the answer, but to properly address it we should have a survey conducted, one that asks the police the right questions and one that is totally anonymous. There are companies who provide this online and can be hired by the Feds to conduct such a survey. We can discuss the questions that should be asked if you want.

      Once the results are made public, which they would need to be for anything to work, then we can discuss a solution.

      • Why wait? You can hire Gallup or someone comparable to conduct any study you want.

        • Thats not my job. If the problem is as bad as some say and it’s caused by racism, let them prove it.

          • I meant that WE could prove it.

            Let’s hire a poll team for a SUFA poll. We can write the questions and choose the target demographic ourselves. No filter whatsoever, all the raw data at our fingers. No bias, nothing.

            You want answers? So do I. So let’s get answers.

            D13, who is rich, can fund it.

            • OK, I like that idea 😀

              • I especially like the part where the colonel pays.

                Can you do the legwork to find a polling company and find out how much it will cost to ask a bunch of cops nationwide a few questions about racism?

                If it’s not outrageous, I say we do it. I have absolutely no idea what this kind of thing costs.

              • I can. My cousin is in charge of HR and a company who hires a company to evaluate management via a anonymous survey 😀

            • D13, who is rich, can fund it.

              Without admitting to rich……come on down and I will fund it to the extent that I think it is worth.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A) Well since you included to any degree I will say yes. But what we have is a problem with laws and law enforcement, not “police” brutality. Other than a few bad apples or a dept. here and there.

      B) Solution is to legalize drugs to get a more stoned and thus compliant population. Less resistance, less violent response by police.

      • But what we have is a problem with laws and law enforcement, not “police” brutality.

        Why can’t it be both?

        Other than a few bad apples or a dept. here and there.

        I TEND to agree…

        I TEND to think that there are three kinds of people who become police (A) idealists who just want to serve their community (B) Average Joes who just want a good steady paycheck with decent benefits and (C) bullies and assholes who are attracted to the power.

        And I think Group C is a tiny minority. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be an outsized problem.

        Other than a few bad apples or a dept. here and there.

        I would argue there’s a further problem of the police closing ranks and protecting those bad apples.

        If they just fired them and banned them from the industry, well, I think we’d have less of a problem… not only would it get rid of those bad apples, but it would send a message to other potentially bad apples that they can’t get away with being bad apples.

        But as long as they can get away with it…?

        Other than a few bad apples or a dept. here and there.

        I’ll remind you – the expression isn’t “a few bad apples ain’t so bad”.. it’s “a few bad apples spoil the bunch.”

        Solution is to legalize drugs to get a more stoned and thus compliant population

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Police closing ranks to protect bad apples: YES, that is a problem. But one that does not appear to be as big as it used to be. On the other hand, it seems we now have a large number of AG’s or City Attorneys willing to charge cops with crimes before even knowing all the facts. And sometimes despite the facts.

          You may be correct about the types of those seeking these jobs, although I would add that the second type probably includes a little of the first type. I have a nephew who was the first type. He made lots of friends in the force. But after a few years he bagged it and started doing construction. He was exactly the type of person we need in law enforcement. Why did he leave? For the reason I think that most police brutality issues are not rooted so much in who is hired but what happens to them after they are hired.

          What he was exposed to on almost a daily basis is the worst society has to offer. Then there was an incident where the officer behind him, who had served in Iraq, correctly read a situation that was not seen by him or the other officers. The guy behind him pushed him out of the way as they went down a hallway, looking for a bad guy. Within seconds the bad guy appeared around the corner but before he could fire the Officer behind him shot and killed the bad buy. Despite all his training and a few years on the job, my Nephew did not see it coming. Neither did his companions. Except for the VET who had Spidey Senses thanks to his time in combat. Colonel steps in here to say HELL YEA—– Spidey Senses are REAL.

          More to the point. My nephew felt his view of his fellow man eroding and becoming darker. He decided to escape this situation for the sake of his sanity and his families. I have met many cops, especially those from Orange County, CA (yes they all seem to have moved here) who did not quit. They have the most jaded view of people I have ever seen. The racism just flows off their lips. But if you listen you realize it is not a racism based on ignorance of others but life’s experience of seeing the worst in those groups. On almost a daily basis.

          Which leads me one more step, to a solution I have offered before. Police usually have a 20 year retirement program. This is to long to stay an environment I described. We need to figure out how to rotate field level officers in and out of these situations. Just think what a soldier would be like if we kept them in a combat situation for 20 straight years. Oh wait, we are seeing some of that affect. By rotating them we can require they work 30 years like the rest of us before getting a retirement check that is bigger than their working pay.

    • Breitbart… blech…

      Parts of it, however, read like a manual for staging a coup rather than a guide to preventing one:

      Ooorrr… if you read the damned thing, it’s clear that the paragraph it quotes next is about RESPONDING to an attempted coup – that is, a false declaration of victory.

      Another section urges activists to stop American life from continuing if the election does not go their way (original emphasis):

      Ooorrrr… you could read the header of this section which is “Organizing to Prevent a Coup”

      It’s saying that, if people quietly acquiesce to a coup, the leadership will entrench and the coup will succeed. Which, duh.

      The signal for action will be if President Donald Trump is declared the winner on Election Night

      Because context is for chumps when we’re trying to cherry pick our narrative..

      “The Narrative Around Fraud
      We will see clear signs on Election Night or the next day whether the Republican playbook will claim all uncounted votes are fraudulent. Trump may try to declare himself the victor before the votes are counted, or Fox News might call the race.”

      So, no… the “signal for action” is not if Trump is declared a winner, but whether he declares himself the winner and attempts to fraudulently suppress uncounted votes… basically… if TRUMP ATTEMPTS A COUP.

      ———-

      Blech… I need a shower.

      The supporting document (along with it’s terrible font choice) seems like something cooked up by a group of basement-dwelling poli-sci majors with dreams of leading the crusade to stop the rise of fascism.

      The Breitbart article is even worse – it looks like it was written by Breitbart.

      • Mathius, once again you get into the weeds and miss the bigger picture. For four years there has been a continuous coup attempt to remove Trump from office, first with the phony Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the Russia hoax which Mueller and team knew was hoax from the very beginning, to the impeachment attempt. Obama, Brennan and company used the CIA, FBI, and DOJ for their political goals.

        Now the blue team is projecting that Trump will attempt a coup if the election is contested. There is absolutely no evidence that he will. Yes he is assembling a legal team to cover election issues but so are the Dems. However, I have seen no evidence that he is preparing his supporters to demonstrate or riot no matter what the out come is. The two documents I have linked today are proof that the left is preparing for unrest should they lose .

        You continue to argue that Repubs suppress voting in blue cities but the voting in those cities are controlled by the local blue team. Repubs on the other hand point out that election fraud is significant. You claim no evidence but there have been multiple examples of election issues in the last few months including video tape of actual fraud on a large scale in Minneapolis and an admission by a fraudster in NJ.

        • Your definition of “coup” continues to baffle me.

          I keep asking, but no one ever answers me… what the hell is an “attempted coup” in the context of any of this?

          Was it a “coup” when the Republicans impeached Clinton?

          Is a coup attempt just “any attempt to get rid of the guy who won”?

          Now the blue team is projecting that Trump will attempt a coup if the election is contested.

          Maybe they wouldn’t have those concerns if he didn’t play games and committed to the peaceful transition of power if he loses.

          Yes he is assembling a legal team to cover election issues but so are the Dems.

          I have no problem with this. That’s what courts are for – duke it out there.

          However, I have seen no evidence that he is preparing his supporters to demonstrate or riot no matter what the out come is.

          No? He’s been shouting fraud nonstop for months. And he’s been clear that the only way he believes he’ll lose is by fraud. And he won’t commit to stepping down peacefully if he loses.

          The obvious conclusion here is that, if he loses, he declares it fraud. And then we are left to wonder if he’ll go quietly or try to hold onto the reigns when he believe he was cheated out of his victory.

          I think you’ll agree that he’s probably not a very good loser.

          The two documents I have linked today are proof that the left is preparing for unrest should they lose .</b.

          Preparing, yet. Planning to cause / instigate, no.

          I see no harm in being prepared for a distinctly plausible outcome.

          The first (and far more reputable) dealt with having a plan to deal with potential unrest if it occurred. That later had a plan for dealing with it if TRUMP attempts a coup.

          You continue to argue that Repubs suppress voting in blue cities but the voting in those cities are controlled by the local blue team.

          Again, just sticking with the ballot box and the post office – these aren’t driving or controlled by Blue Team.

          Repubs on the other hand point out that election fraud is significant. You claim no evidence but there have been multiple examples of election issues in the last few months including video tape of actual fraud on a large scale in Minneapolis and an admission by a fraudster in NJ.

          I’ll help you out here – of course there’s fraud.

          How much, and how significant….?

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Re: Your comment above that criticized GMan over Dem behavior, where you say that Dems just have legit issues with voter suppression.

    Well this morning the Dems are crying Voter Suppression because there were long lines during the first day of “early voting” yesterday. Got that? Long lines in the first day of voting that runs from not until November.

    Despite mountains of evidence you continue to argue the same tired old argument. You just cannot accept the fact that the Dem party has used the accusation of voter suppression as a “get out the vote” mechanism. Let alone one to try and keep the African Americans in their corner.

    Does this mean all concerns voiced over this are false? No. But the evidence is there that the majority of the concern is just made up, speculation, hypothetical. And of course while howling at the moon over it they fail to acknowledge their own efforts to manipulate things to their favor, using the same tools.

    • You just cannot accept the fact that the Dem party has used the accusation of voter suppression as a “get out the vote” mechanism.

      I don’t believe I’ve ever made this argument.

      The Blue team absolutely does use it as a get-out-the-vote mechanism.

      That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any truth to the assertion, however.

      Does this mean all concerns voiced over this are false? No

      Thank you.

      But the evidence is there that the majority of the concern is just made up, speculation, hypothetical.

      Maybe.

      I could argue the same about your fears of voter fraud.

      What I can say is that one side seems desperate to reduce turnout.

      And of course while howling at the moon over it they fail to acknowledge their own efforts to manipulate things to their favor, using the same tools.

      Let me be as clear as I can here.

      The Blue Team is absolutely – 100% – as shitty and manipulative and sociopathic and win-at-all-costs as the Red Team. They can, have, do, and, will, use all the same tricks whether legal, gray, or flat out illegal.

      With that said, I do believe that the Red Team is actively manipulating things to reduce the vote in this election with a particular eye to reducing the minority and urban votes. Why? Because those are the Democrats’ demographics.

      If the shoe were on the other foot and the urban / minority vote were likely to help Red Team, it would be Blue Team working to reduce turnout there. It’s not that Red Team does it and Blue Team doesn’t – it’s that Red Team is currently in a position where it helps them and Blue Team is in a position where they would be hurt by it – it’s not that they wouldn’t – it’s just not in their interest right now.

      Though I haven’t really seen anything to support this, I would be SHOCKED to find that, where it is advantageous to do so and where they have the power to do so, that the Blue Team isn’t up to exactly the same kinds of dirty tricks.

      I’ll bet you even have some links on tap where a Blue-controlled swing state is suppressing the rural vote or disproportionately favoring the urban vote. Don’t you?

      And to the extent that this is true, I explicitly and emphatically condemn it as well.

      • Most elections are run at the county and city levels. So if there are problems, in blue cities and counties, why is it the red team responsible?

        • So if there are problems, in blue cities and counties, why is it the red team responsible?

          Well, Blue Team doesn’t control the post office.

          Nor did they decide that a blue county in Texas with 4.7mm people should only get one drop-off point.

          So if there are problems, in blue cities and counties, why is it the red team responsible?

          Blue is responsible for the actions of Blue.

          Red is responsible for the actions of Red.

          • The whole post office thing is a bunch of BS. There are plenty of places to mail a ballot. They are even in the groceries stores. You can also go directly to the local PO which is probably closer to you than the lonely drop box. The sorters being removed were old and not fully utilized. Removal allows room for more modern equipment. Besides, I suspect the postal union is a bigger threat than post office management.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You claiming I have “fears” about fraud is an effort to dismiss, only slightly veiled, my view that fraud exists.

        IT EXISTS, although we should be careful using the term fraud, because what we are talking about is all actions taken the fix the outcome if possible.

        Efforts to dismiss its existence are in themselves fraudulent. Which then feeds into the loop of accusations, proof and condemnation. Like R says “see the fraud”, Dems say “not true”, R says “See the Dems are covering it up”, then the D says “well OK but it is so small it doesn’t matter”.

        IT EXISTS Mathius. It has existed since the time the idea of “elections” was invented.

        So I do not have “fear” of fraud because I know it exists. The question is to what extent and does it affect outcomes. Then of course, is some of it baked into any system democratic in nature or can it really be prevented. And if so………..at what cost.

        Let me address another often used claim. Well it is small and local. This ignores the long term outcome of local results that are fixed. There was an article written some time back that indicates Kamala Harris may have won her first election by nefarious means. So once in office, she would have to be absolutely awful to not get re-elected and then to move up the food chain of power. How many members of Congress got their start or even their seat by less than honest means? I am betting the number is greater than ZERO.

        • So I do not have “fear” of fraud because I know it exists. The question is to what extent and does it affect outcomes.

          Of course it does – I don’t think I’ve ever suggested otherwise.

          To me – again – the way I look at is that we HAVE TO ERR either by allowing fraud or disenfranchising legitimate voters. There’s no way to hit the bullseye perfectly.

          I think Red Team is deliberately erring on the side of preventing fraud to the point where it will suppress votes because it believe this will help them.

          I believe Blue Team is deliberately being cavalier about fraud both because it facilitates legitimate votes and because they plan to commit some fraud (as do the Red Team!) and they’d like to get away with it.

          Then of course, is some of it baked into any system democratic in nature or can it really be prevented. And if so………..at what cost.

          Well, that’s the $64,000 question!

          If we can prevent fraud by reducing the number of ballot boxes (something I don’t doubt), the question is “is that worth is when considered in light of how many people might not vote as a result of that decision?”

          Yours and my interpretation of “is that worth it” is different from the parties who make that determination based on “does this help me win?”

          Well it is small and local. This ignores the long term outcome of local results that are fixed.

          All politics is local!

          There was an article written some time back that indicates Kamala Harris may have won her first election by nefarious means. So once in office, she would have to be absolutely awful to not get re-elected and then to move up the food chain of power.</b.

          Let me help you out here.

          She did.

          Of course she did.

          You know how many of them ran perfectly clean campaigns? I'll give you my life-savings right now if there's even a single one in congress right now.

          At best – AT BEST – there might be a handful who kept their own hands clean while allowing others to act unethically on their behalf.

          Maaayyyyybbbeeee… maybe there's an innocent spouse holding a dead spouse's seat. But even then, she got that seat because he got that seat and he got it by being a scumbag. So that doesn't count.

          I think they should all be rounded up and charged for their various crimes (and the willful complicity thereto). And everyone who help them, too.

          Biden. Harris. Trump. Pense. The lot of 'em.

          How many members of Congress got their start or even their seat by less than honest means?

          Damn.. I really should read first, then respond.

          But, oh well, the answer is zero.

          I am betting the number is greater than ZERO.

          Well, then… I guess we agree!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        “What I can say is that one side seems desperate to reduce turnout.” WRONG

        Well not that you can say it, because you say a lot of things. But it is a FALSE premise that only one side is desperate to reduce turnout.

        BOTH sides play this game and they do it via many means. Polling itself is one way. Although maybe less successful than in the past. Another is controlling the number of polling locations and/or time the polls close.

        I will add that you are also assuming, because you have before, that many of the accusations made by D’s regarding voter suppression are valid. Like requiring and ID. Or as the example I gave this morning………..oh my God…..there was a long line. Or in your case, because there is only 1 drop box at the county court house. Distance or “easiness” is now the measure of “suppression”.

        Try to drop your bias and look objectively at the various election policies and procedures, method, or what have you. There are legitimate criticisms regarding suppression. You mostly hang your hat on the phony ones.

        • I look at “suppress” as a headwind. Or maybe an uphill climb. It’s not going to stop everyone unless you block them outright. It’s just going to make it slightly (deniably) harder or inconvenient such that juuusstt enough of the wrong people don’t vote.

          I don’t need to make it so hard that none of your side votes… I just need to shave off a percent or two who will look at those long lines and say “fuck it.” And viola, my narrow loss is now a narrow win.

          ry to drop your bias and look objectively at the various election policies and procedures, method, or what have you. There are legitimate criticisms regarding suppression. You mostly hang your hat on the phony ones.

          So what are the “legitimate ones”?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Proof of Citizenship
            Proof of residency
            Proof you are who you claim, see first two.

            Polling locations are monitored by “officials” serving “under oath” subject to prosecution for violating such oath.

            Proof that each ballot was completed by the voter who was supposed to vote, again see the first three on the list.

            Proof that ALL ballots and ONLY legitimate ones were counted.

          • Just a thought on the long line issue. It’s safe to say that these are mostly occurring in high population areas generally run by Crats.

            When I voted in Youngstown, I voted on the way to work at the local Catholic school where our precinct voted. Lines were minimal at worst. The big lines appear to be in the Blue run areas. So explain the suppression nonsense that’s happening there and how can any of the Republicans be the cause of it?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              In the same way the grocery store is “suppressing” purchases by holding a week long sale instead of a one hour sale at midnight on Sunday.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You say headwind is suppression. I say that is Bulldookey. Life itself is a headwind.

            Overcome, adapt, improvise. Git er’ done.

            You claim any resistance or “harder” is suppressing. HOW MUCH HARDER????

            For God’s sake man, you establish the ever unachievable standard. Thus ANYTHING short of reading your mind where you stand and registering your vote accordingly is “suppression”.

            • JAC, don’t worry, if Biden wins then we have the Green New Deal. Mathius will have to ride a horse to the polls.

              Mathius, think about this. Northern tier states, November is snow time. In the old days, to get to the polls they rode horses and took buggies. Today, they have to drive, in some cases many miles. If people do not have the get up and go to get to the polls or to get to a mail box, I have no pity for them. Stop making excuses.

            • Look, I’m a reasonable man.

              I understand there are realities of life surrounding voting which means that no two people will share exactly the same “convenience” or “hardship” of voting.

              My problem comes in when the State (in the form of either party) starts making rules designed to systemically make it easier or harder for specific people to vote with the goal of encouraging certain voters while discouraging others in order to skew the outcome.

              Much like gerrymandering, it’s the State picking the constituents, not the other way around.

              All you have to do is take it to the extreme and you can see that what I’m saying is true, and that the only difference between our positions is where “acceptable differences” ends and “deliberate efforts to skew the vote” starts.

              What if Texas banned all ballot boxes and early voting and mail-in ballots. Everyone has to go to the polls and vote in person. Oh, and there’s only one polling place per county. And it has a state-mandated maximum occupancy of 10 people at a time. And masks are prohibited (for security, of course!). Will this cause liberal / urban voters to vote less? The line in rural areas is 30 minutes – in Harris, the queue would take months to clear.

              What if they put in a poll-tax? 55c (a stamp) isn’t too bad. Now it’s $5. Maybe some poor folks are wondering if it’s worth a half-hour of their income. $15? Are poor people going to stop voting? Maybe not all of them. But enough to alter the outcome? $100? Now only the most political or the wealthiest are going to vote. $1,000 and the only voters are the rich.

              What if they require a valid ID? No biggie. Almost everyone has that. Two forms of ID? A passport? A utility bill in your name? An affidavit from your neighbor that you live there? A notarized form filled out in triplicate and signed in blood and personally stamped by the governor?

              Maybe a “literacy test” or a “civics test” with questions that are harder for some and easier for others? Your test is to recite the Constitution, verbatim, from memory (including all the Amendments) while juggling running chain saws. My test is to name the first President.

              I mean, of course this gets silly. I mean, sure, all of these have been done to one degree or another in the past as a way to keep the “uppity” population from voting. But they’re not being deployed like this anymore. The VRA, reduced as it is, still exists and prohibits the worst of this.

              But the point is only that this is a sliding scale from “tough shit, life isn’t fair” to “hell yea, we’re gonna use this pretext to stop you from voting – fuck you!”

              Where you drop the pin and say “the line must be drawn HERE – this far, no further” is something you and I will never agree on. But that there IS a point where it shifts from one category to the other IS something we should agree on.

              And, further, we should be able to agree that we are against politicians / the State manipulating valid voters into not voting by playing games with the ease or difficulty of voting. The voters should choose the state – not the other way around.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                “My problem comes in when the State (in the form of either party) starts making rules designed to systemically make it easier or harder for specific people to vote with the goal of encouraging certain voters while discouraging others in order to skew the outcome.”

                I agree and share this concern. I have given examples over the years of things I think to to this issue.

                I just do NOT believe that the drop box issue in Texas is such an example. Because you assume to much and you only focus on comparing small counties to one county. Which happens to be pretty much Houston. You presume these city folks will have a harder time dropping off ballots that someone living a little closer or just as far away from their rural town hall.

                Gerrymandering is a animal of a different sort. Because boundaries should be based on population and location of counties/cities. But instead it has become a racial demographic issue. Which I showed you once has resulted in “over representation” among African Americans in certain circumstances. Sometimes the lines are drawn based on where the artist thinks certain political party folk live. Trying to dilute one party over the other. But what about the “independents”?? Judges have ignored them in siding against party driven gerrymandering.

                I am not interested in your hypotheticals as anyone can create a long list of them making any case they wish. Their only utility here is to re-enforce the reality that Govt. decisions affecting elections have a gradient of impacts. Picking one as the criteria for obstruction becomes pretty much arbitrary at some point.

                As for disagreement, so far it is primarily your complaint about “easy” with respect to the drop boxes. Picking a singular box at the County Courthouse is not a manipulative thing. The size of the county is a random factor. Unless you WANT to create it as an issue, and rationalize it to death to justify your point. It would be no different than Govt. picking any other “method” and implementing it equally across the board but by some chance it turns out that using those methods are harder for some than others. This is why I said it is essential to be able to provide evidence of intent to obstruct the voting.

                So I am not sure we are so far apart. You just went a bridge, or maybe two, to far for my liking.

  6. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    I just read where the “left” fears Judge Barrett will end liberal policies so naturally it is repeated from the House to the Senate to the TV media, radio media and internet media.

    It is Absolutely a threat …. but to something known as “Extra Constitutional Governance”.

    Now, the left should not be too upset here. They moan and groan (as we did) about Presidential Executive Orders. I suspect the new, more conservative court will in fact knock down a whole lot of executive orders be they from Trump. Obama, Bush or Clinton and dump them back in the lap of congress where they belong. A return to sanity and “Constitutional Govennance”.

    Of course congress will denmand a raise since they might have to actually WORK instead of PANDER and POSTURE.

    • They moan and groan (as we did) about Presidential Executive Orders. I suspect the new, more conservative court will in fact knock down a whole lot of executive orders be they from Trump.

      That’s be nice.

      I loathe EO’s.

      A return to sanity and “Constitutional Govennance”.

      Fine by me.

      Just as long as we don’t start shifting into Handmaiden’s Tale territory.

      Of course congress will denmand a raise since they might have to actually WORK instead of PANDER and POSTURE.

      I’d happily pay Congress triple if they’d do their fucking jobs and serve The People.

      I’ll offer you this option: we pay them $10mm each, but if there’s even a whiff of pandering, divisiveness, immaturity, giving in to lobbying, partisan bullshit, or anything unethical, that congressman gets summarily executed, his wealth gets reabsorbed by the treasury, and his head is displayed on a pike on the Mall.

      The decision will be made by a panel consisting of you and me with ties broken by USW if anyone can find him.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        We should DRAFT the members from the general population of each State. Then provide room and board, along with travel expenses from their home to D.C. Nothing more.

  7. Colonel,

    Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Duncan said the lower court erred by failing to view the governor’s order as part of a broader initiative aimed at making it easier for Texans to vote amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

    Without having read the ruling, how does it “make it easier for Texans to vote” by removing ballot boxes?

    Seems Orwellian…

      • Typical Crat response, “Good for me but not for thee”.

        One would think they would have learned their lesson after Harry Reid changed the rule in the Senate from 60 to majority for Judges. Dumb asses, the lot of them.

    • Sir Mathius….I have really thought hard about this. You mention Harris county and its millions.of people but you did not answer my question ( or I missed it ) about rural counties who have to drive much further and wait longer than Harris County….60 or 70 mile drives to just vote.

      Orwellian…..I don’t know…..maybe a touch but I think the change of ballot box out weighs the inconvenience. I think, because Texas did have a problem with fraudulent voting. This is why there are the types of ID forms needed to vote. It disenfranchises no one. One ballot box will be monitored by paid officials to ensure several things. That the ballots represent the person dropping them off, and that one person, one ballot. No one can bring a hand full of ballots to a drop box. Secondly, I am told, that there will be facial recognition software. This is where I am not sure that I can agree….this seems Orwellian to me. But the fraud in Texas is greater than the effect of Covid. So, sometimes, drastic measures call for drastic changes.

      Remember, there is a lot made of ballot drop boxes. Ballot drop boxes have been in Texas for decades….I, personally, would like to have ballot drop boxes outlawed in its entirety…but I do not get to make that call. But, you have three weeks to early vote….you have absentee voting available, you have voting day available, and you worry about a single drop box where we know the fraud takes place…..There is no logical reason to not be able to vote other than laziness….The single ballot box has a far greater effect on the Red Counties than the Blue ones.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    A friend created a great analogy last week, campfire and whiskey does that sometimes, about the proper function of govt.

    He said it should be like an operating system. In the background, allowing all the applications to function for the user. Out of sight and mostly out of mind.

    It is the applications that solve the daily problems. The operating system allows them to function. It should not try to do the job of the applications.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    The ultimate irony of all get out the vote efforts, or making voting super “easy”, is they are designed to get those who would not otherwise vote to do so.

    Now what are the odds that those who would normally not vote are fully up to speed on those running and the issues of the day? Do you think these the most informed and thus the most competent of voters?

    And since the D’s like to make fun of the intellect of the R’s, it is the D’s behind the greatest efforts to get those who do not or would not normally vote to the polls. Even going so far as to mail them the ballot and then pick it up for them.

    The “right” to vote carries with it “responsibilities”, as with all rights. Those responsibilities include educating oneself on the issues and candidates, making sure to vote, AND not voting if you really don’t care or don’t know.

    I still think that we might see higher turn out if “None of the Above” was on the ballot and BINDING if it won.

  10. Is the fact checking and suppression of conservative messages on FB and other tech platforms an in-kind donation to the Ds?

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Question for the resident computer wizards.

    Isn’t the security of Block Chain tech dependent upon the individual users protecting their access codes?

    • Eh. Maybe you could phrase that a bit differently?

      At the end of the day, you need an access code (private key) to authenticate your ownership of a block before a transaction can be authenticated and added to the chain.

      So if you lose your code.. or someone steals it and uses it.. well.. yea.. that ship has sailed.

      This has happened, by the way, many many times. People who “own” tens of thousands of dollars of bitcoin don’t have their codes, so they can’t prove they own it, rendering it useless. Do you “own” a thing if you have no authority over it or ability to make any use of it? Or codes have been stollen from people’s computers and used and then… poof.. those coins belong to someone else now and there’s no way to get them back without finding the thief and beating the new code out of him.

      People talk sometimes about putting things like mortgages on blockchains which is great in theory until you lose your code and your house isn’t yours anymore and now belongs to Vlad in Minsk and no one has the power to help you.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You answered my question so I will not rephrase it. Bottom line, the experts are arguing about how “safe” Block Chain tech is and how it is going to revolutionize the way we do business. Which I agree it has great potential in this regard.

        But what struck me was the need for the access key. Which means you have to store it somewhere. Computer or paper. Either is subject to theft. Of course you could probably store the key on a block itself and have secondary keys to access that. But those must also be kept somewhere or made simpler so the user can remember it.

        I was giving some thought as to how this tech could be used for electronic voting. Especially if the keys for that were linked to GIS locations and Citizenship/Residency data bases. I know there is at least one outfit looking at it to reduce fraud. But I am thinking more along the lines as a means of replacing the existing system with a new one that has almost perfect protection.

        This might add a new level of security to voting. But of course it would make voting more “difficult” for us Country bumpkins who don’t have access to consistent and reliable internet with Block Chain capacity.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    From The Hill: “A landslide victory for Joe Biden is now a realistic possibility.

    The Democratic presidential nominee has a lead of around 10 percentage points over President Trump in national polling averages, and he is up across almost all the battleground states.

    Trump faces low job approval ratings, bad marks for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and an ever-decreasing number of opportunities to change the direction of the race.”

    I am still standing by my original prediction that Mr. Trump is toast. Not that he can’t still win, I just see the tide as very strong against him. His ability to win depends on some unseen factors breaking his way.
    1. A large unknown number of voters not included in any of the polling, who support Trump.
    2. That those voters will vote, and
    3. Many of those polling for Biden don’t show up.

    Anyone else noted that with the exception of Portland the rioting has suddenly subsided? I am sure there is no connection to the Dems suddenly waking up and speaking out that “this is going to help Mr. Trump get elected again”. Sorry for my obvious cynicism there.

    So the next big question yet to be answered is if Mr. Biden does win, and the D’s take both houses, will the R’s learn from the lessons of the past 4 years and double down on the D tactics? In short, will the next 4 years be even more awful than the last 4 years?

    I also stand by my prediction that IF Mr. Trump does win, all hell is going to break loose. Between the rhetoric of the Democratic Party leaders and the media I just don’t see how it would not happen. What is hard for me to see is if the D’s lose, which faction will rise to the party leadership. Will the actual moderates throw out the radicals or the other way around? The youth factor and the BLM connections lead me to think the radicals win. But the “silent majority” in the country is huge. And it includes those who consider themselves “moderate” Democrats, not just those identifying as Republican. Maybe all those “Independents” will realize they need to be in a party to make a real difference and will rejoin the Dem side in order to keep the radicals at bay. The crystal ball is not so clear on all of this part.

    Now if Mr. Biden wins I think there will be some fireworks on the R side as well. But I think that anger may be aimed at those who have consistently told their viewers, listeners, etc. that Mr. Trump was winning, despite all evidence to the contrary. In short, I think it will be turned against the R establishment, potentially further tearing at the Party’s solidarity. The “never-Trumpers” will NEVER be allowed back in. Unless the R’s lose most of those 60 million voters for good. Then say hello to ONE PARTY RULE for the foreseeable future.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      P.S. I forgot to list one of my unknowns.

      4. The ability of the Trump campaign to identify, isolate and turn out votes in support. In other words, the effectiveness of those computer programs and algorithms, that Mathius discussed here a couple months back, to get supporters to vote.

      Note: This unknown could be part of the other unknown, the number of supporters who will vote that are not being counted.

    • Not that he can’t still win, I just see the tide as very strong against him. His ability to win depends on some unseen factors breaking his way.
      1. A large unknown number of voters not included in any of the polling, who support Trump.
      2. That those voters will vote, and
      3. Many of those polling for Biden don’t show up.
      4. The ability of the Trump campaign to identify, isolate and turn out votes in support. In other words, the effectiveness of those computer programs and algorithms, that Mathius discussed here a couple months back, to get supporters to vote.

      1. 2016 showed us that liberals / Democrats are up to twice as likely to respond to a poll than than Republican (and, if I recall correctly, this is even more pronounced amongst Trump supporters who are naturally averse to the “MSM”). Polsters are aware of this and are factoring into their models – though of course, hitting the bullseye on this is challenging to say the least. It is possible, consequently, that this could cut either way – that perhaps pollsters have over-sampled Trumpist.. or that the “shy voter” remains undercounted. Who is to say? Not I.

      2. My assumption is that Trump will get 99% turnout from his base.

      3. I would strongly expect this. Again, the pollsters aren’t stupid. They saw how many Clinton-voters failed to, you know, vote. And they are accounting for lethargy, apatheticness, and – yes – voter suppress in their models. As with #1, this can of course, cut both ways. It is possible, consequently, that the model over-adjusts for apathy and that the turnout will actually be higher (in the vain of “we learned that lesson the hard way) or, conversely, they’ve under adjusted and the support for Biden fails to materialize just as it failed for Clinton. Seeing the early voting and the… shall we call it adamance.. in the non-SUFA circles I travel, I would be surprised if turnout isn’t strong. But will it be strong enough?

      4. Those damned things are NO FUCKING JOKE. If Trump wins, my money is bigly on this being the main driver.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I have seen no adjustments in polling for what you call the apathetic voter. In fact. several of the latest polls used “registered voters” and had huge Democratic bias in the samples. But even adjusting for this, Biden was still ahead by a couple of points. But not 10 or 14.

        The usual means of adjusting for apathy is using “likely” vs. “registered”. I have seen some polls which ask if you actually voted last time. Those are the only ones counted instead of “likely”. But of course “likely” requires honest answers or scary algorithm data on the individuals responding to the polls.

        I did see a couple of polls that assume the “youth vote” would turn out at actual historic levels and not those always expected. But again, Biden still leads in those polls.

        The difference at this point, per the polling, appears to be the middle class white women living in the suburbs. Which means it goes back to demeanor and not policy issues which could determine the outcome.

        • I did see a couple of polls that assume the “youth vote” would turn out at actual historic levels and not those always expected. But again, Biden still leads in those polls.

          I’ll tell ya.. the “youth vote” is frenetic in a way I’ve never seen.

          Top item in one of my feeds today…

          Top comment (with 587 upvotes): “Even then, we’ll still need to drive accountability. Straight gas from here til the end of time.”

          The one guy who said Trump2020 got himself 91 downvotes and buried in the Bad Comments section.

          And I assure you this is very par for the course over there.

          SUFA has, what? 7-8 users? That post alone had 4k upvotes on 120k+ views. Demographic is 70-80 male Millenials.

          These people are fired up.

          It remains to be seen how this translates, but I wouldn’t bet on the youth vote staying home this time.

          • *70-80 PERCENT male Millenials.

            In other words, it skews heavily into the youth vote, with millions of users… so we should consider that, sure, maybe it’s an echo chamber… but it’s a damned big echo chamber full of young males who are rabidly anti-Trump and have been adamant about voting and not being complacent.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I do not count Millenials as part of the “youth vote”. I do agree that those over 30 seem pretty motivated and energized. That include here in our town, where they are mostly Republican/Libertarian types who ran here from somewhere else.

            I also do not use internet chatter as an indicator of much of anything except confirmation of the Echo Chamber.

            Now the important question. Since early voting is supposed to be under lock and key, HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT DEMS DOMINATED EARLY VOTING?

            Also, lets assume that is true. This does not mean the R’s don’t show up later. By bragging about it they could in fact energize the few remaining “complacent” R’s.

            • HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT DEMS DOMINATED EARLY VOTING?

              Are exit polls not a thing where you live?

              Also, lets assume that is true. This does not mean the R’s don’t show up later.

              True.

              By bragging about it they could in fact energize the few remaining “complacent” R’s.

              True. And also making other Blue voters complacent (thus the above post).

              Also, lets assume that is true. This does not mean the R’s don’t show up later.

              One more phenomenon to consider: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/brace-blue-shift/615097/

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                There are no exit polls done for mail in ballots.

                However, I did find a story which described how the party machine, locally and State wide, use their “lists” of potential voters and then canvass them via phone calls. Part of this is to eliminate early voters from the phone list to be called in the last two weeks.

                But part of it is to get an idea of “who voted”. They assume that if “their” people voted that they voted for “their” person. Probably a safe bet but not perfectly safe. The slightly offensive part of this was that they “knew” who had requested mail-in-ballots, by name.

                So apparently this is public information. My issue is this is much like the old days when you had to get in THE LINE for your favored candidate to vote. Allowing everyone to see who was voting for whom. Allowing the public to see the names, and I assume addresses, of those requesting ballots seems to violate the concept of private and secret balloting.

                At the same time this information has to be available in order to check on fraud, abuse and outright theft of votes.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                YES, the provisional ballots are an increasing area of concern. Especially when they are so heavily tilted one way. Combined with how close elections seem to be these days.

                I suspect much of the cause of Blue in the shift is as speculated by the person in the article. Those voting at the last minute tend to be those who vote for Democratic Party candidates. But that fails to address other issues with this method of voting.

                Namely validation of each provisional ballot. In larger states, like CA, the provisional ballots are in the tens of thousands. We are to believe that EACH of these ballots was validated as to the person’s citizenship and residency status, and identity. Noting here that provisional ballots have been one of the areas of accused fraud when it is found folks voted twice. Once with regular or mail in and then with provisional.

                IF and I stress IF, the local election boards can in fact validate these votes then I have no issue with them being counted. Even if it plays out in favor of the Dems. As I said earlier, part of the broader issue of elections is this expectation we have the results immediately.

                Greater security, creating less abuse, would inherently slow the system down. I would rather have slow and accurate/honest, than fast and corrupt.

                Let us also not forget that the real weak link in the system is the County Clerks or Board of Elections and all those folks who “volunteer” to run each polling site. There are many ways to corrupt the system if corrupt people sneak into the system.

    • I also stand by my prediction that IF Mr. Trump does win, all hell is going to break loose.

      I will agree.

      I will add my own prediction that IF Mr. Trump loses, but claims victory citing fraud, all hell is going to break loose.

      • If Trump loses and there is lots of evidence of fraud, then what?

        • Then those who committed fraud should be arrested, tried, convicted, and duly sentenced.

          The case will, no doubt, be heard by SCOTUS and ruled on accordingly and, whether I agree or not, that is the law.

          If they say Red wins, then Red wins. If they say Blue wins, then Blue wins. If they say redo, then redo. If it’s a Constitutionally grounded logical ruling, great. If it’s naked partisanship, too bad. (related.)

          And, just to be clear, if Red wins because SCOTUS makes what I view to be a shitty ruling and just gives hands him a second term despite a resounding popular vote loss, I’m going to accept that that’s the law and that he’s reelected and gets to serve a second term. But, make no mistake about it, I’m going to be pissed about it.

    • One party rule is absolutely scary especially if it is of radical left/socialist kind. We had one party rule in the 1830s before the Whigs were formed. Back then people still had a strong independent streak in them so we survived. The R/D party did splinter easily. We have examples of one party rule in our big cities and some of the states. I can say for sure that it is a failure in CA just as it is a failure in NYC, Chicago, LA and elsewhere. At a national level, I fear the radical left will gain power. They will move to take permanent power by creating more states, packing the court, interpreting the Constitution to fit their will. Eventually our freedoms will be restricted. We will get even more leftist indoctrination in our schools. Mathius will initially be happy with the results but eventually he will long for the days of free and open exchange on SUFA. Of course the rest of us on SUFA will labeled reactionaries and either muted or re-educated. Since many of us are gray hairs, we will eventually be gone and forgotten.

      What gloom you are spreading JAC. I need a shot.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    I have long thought Dick Durbin an ass-hat. This is just more proof. He is a candidate for the skin em’ and hang their hide on the fence club.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/520837-barrett-wept-with-her-daughter-after-the-death-of-george-floyd-very-very

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    I have been noticing that many new young Repubicans running for office are touting “tax cuts” as an issue or “promise”.

    I say BS. We do not need more tax cuts. Caveat: I prefer tax cuts to direct payments if Congress is going to send out more money for the fun of it.

    WE NEED Congress to get serious about the damn DEBT and DEFICITS. Keep the tax rates where they are and cut the budget to create a “surplus” to be used to pay down debt.

    Since they are incapable of creating a newer, simpler and more fair tax code, then leave it alone and deal with the spending side.

    Like Willie said….. just a pissin in the wind.

    • WE NEED Congress to get serious about the damn DEBT and DEFICITS. Keep the tax rates where they are and cut the budget to create a “surplus” to be used to pay down debt.

      Well, don’t you worry about this, then!

      As soon as Biden wins, all the Republicans will suddenly rediscover the urgency of the national debt and the deficit and be gung-ho for fiscal conservatism.

      If Red Team holds onto the Senate, there won’t be a single penny available anywhere for any Biden priority.

      • Neither side gives a crap about the debt or deficit. Maybe it has something to do with every other country not giving a crap. If China says “pay up” and we say stuff it, then what? War?

        Nothing new, people can’t get along anyway.

        • All tax money collected goes to pay the entitlements. The discretionary money used to actually run the government is virtually 100% borrowed. Things get worse when you shut down the country and then spend trillions to mitigate the man made recession.

          Every year we use baseline budgeting to come up with a new budget. This means every department gets 100% of their previous funds plus whatever they decide on to increase the budget. Often this figure exceeds inflation. To get control, we need to do away with baseline budgeting and determine what each department needs. Budget increases should be negative but never more than 1% less than the inflation rate. On top of that, we need to look at each department and ascertain if their mission is still relevant. For example DoE was created to make us energy independent. Mission accomplished. I would like to see a drastic reduction in this department like 10% each year for 6 or seven years. Same goes for the DoEd. The federal government should not be involved in a big way in education. That is a state and local function. Other departments could be trimmed as well including some streamlining at DoD. I am sure there was plenty of mission creep along the way. Get back to the core business.

          The government has lots of assets not being used. These should be sold off and the proceeds used to reduce the debt.

          Once the budget is under control, a tax policy that actually grows the GDP should be implemented. By growing the GDP, tax receipts will increase thus further reducing the deficit. Eventually you get to a position of paying down the debt. The debt issue will improve as inflation will reduce the real debt although care must be taken to prevent high interest rates as this will eat up all the gains.

          Above all else we must avoid any more ACA fiascos, shovel ready job boondoggles, pandemic shut downs with their trillion dollar bailouts AND unnecessary wars.

          There I have solved the problem, you all can take the rest of the week off.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        That is probably true. Please note that the Senate is not just caving into Mr. Trump’s desire for more large stimulus, however.

        Time to remind everyone that the only time we even seriously “pretended” to address the deficit was when we had a Democrat POTUS and Republican Congress.

        But even then the cries of “surplus” were BOGUS Bulldookey. But at least some real effort was made.

        • I think there comes a point in the life of a business where you look at your balance sheet and income statement and have to just accept the inevitable.

          The national debt is 27 TRILLION dollars.

          There is no way to “fiscal conservativism” our way out of that.

          There is no way to “eat the rich” our way out of that.

          The interest alone would be cripling and insurmountable to say nothing of principle.

          And that’s just while interest rates are basically just free money at this point.

          The ship is fatally holed.

          Red cannot stop it.

          Blue cannot stop it.

          The dollar is going down.

          Whether it goes down to major inflation / hyper-inflation or whether it goes down to simple default, I can’t say.

          But they’re just different flavors of the same thing.

          ::quietly buys some more gold::

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            It is MATHEMATICALLY possible to get out of it.

            It is POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

            The future seems certain, but I am sure others have thought the same before and been SURPRISED by the actual outcome.

            OR………………… it is just a matter of how long does it take for the full collapse to happen.

            • OR………………… it is just a matter of how long does it take for the full collapse to happen.

              I don’t know about “full collapse.”

              Just… full collapse of the dollar.

              Sometimes countries survive hyperinflation… sometimes it goes very poorly.

  15. I heard a small snippet today that the Senate should be working on Covid relief not the ACB hearings. There are 22 senators on the committee. What are the other 78 doing?

  16. A study by the CDC examining adults infected with COVID-19 concluded the vast majority wore face masks or coverings frequently in the weeks leading up to becoming ill.

    “In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report states.

    14% of those surveyed said they wore face coverings “often,” which means 85% of case-patients regularly donned masks.

    On the other side of the mask-wearing spectrum, only 4% said they “rarely” or “never” wore them.

    The study, published in September, confirms many reports released over the past few months showing wearing a face mask is ineffective at preventing COVID-19 infection and could even increase one’s chances of contracting the illness.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Must be lies! All lies! Who do they think they are, scientists?

    • I have some chicken wire out in the shop. I think I will advertise it on ebay as mosquito screen.

      • A simple question for you T-Ray: I may have COVID and am about to cough directly into your face.

        Would you prefer:
        (A) no masks
        (B) me masked, you not
        (C) you masked, me not
        (D) both masked

        • I prefer you cover your cough.

        • How many times in your entire life has an adult coughed directly in your face? I don’t think that has ever happened to me.

          • It’s illustrative, not literal.

            A cough spews out a cloud of vapor containing the virus. Whether someone coughs directly into your face or just in your vicinity isn’t really the point.

            The point is whether you would prefer I wear a mask when coughing around you.

            So answer the question. I may have COVID and am about to cough directly into your face in your immediate vicinity.

            Would you prefer:
            (A) no masks
            (B) me masked, you not
            (C) you masked, me not
            (D) both masked

            It’s a simple question. The answers are A, B, C, or D.

            • Typical, when science agrees, be all for the science, when it doesn’t revert to emotion.

              • Typical, when science agrees, be all for the science,

                Science says masks work. They aren’t a panacea. They are one layer of protection that helps. Better masks work better. Proper use works better. Taking them off at restaurants (which is what this study was getting at) reduces their efficacy.

                There are a million studies with conflicting results. I have read several that suggest they DO help. I have read a handful that fail to prove their efficacy. But I am not an expert. I am not an epidemiologist. I am not subcribed to the journals. I have not read all the studies. Most of them I only skim. I don’t have the time or the expertise to really know what I don’t know.
                Am just a guy who is reasonably science-literate. I’m not QUALIFIED to weigh this evidence and reach a conclusion. But you know who is? The CDC. The concensus opinion by the doctors who review these millions of studies at the CDC have concluded “wear your fucking mask.”

                You’ve picked up one study which fails to prove a thing, and you are using this to suggest that its failure to prove a thing proves the inverse (this one particular study doesn’t prove masks work, therefore that proves masks don’t work). This is a false dichotomy. If I fail to prove you aren’t a murderer, that doesn’t prove that you are.

                It’s also one of those things where being wrong one way means potentially killing people and being wrong the other way means a minor nuisance, so in terms of cost-benefit, this is a no-brainer.

                when it doesn’t revert to emotion.

                But, no, this isn’t an “emotional” question. It’s a simple question about what you believe: if masks don’t work, and you believe that, then you should be agnostic to the above options. Yet you aren’t. Are you?

              • QED

            • The point is whether you would prefer I wear a mask when coughing around you.

              I would think common sense would prevail. YOU should wear a mask if you know you have Covid…..the same with a common cold, or the flu. Keep your ass home until you get over it …but if you go out, then cover your face.

              Common sense and personal responsibility but quit trying to play the Jewish Lawyer……I know it is a difficult concept for you to grasp…but try.

              • quit trying to play the Jewish Lawyer

                DEATH FIRST!

                YOU should wear a mask if you know you have Covid…..the same with a common cold, or the flu.

                What if you don’t know, but think there’s a very good chance you might?

                YOU should wear a mask if you know you have Covid…..the same with a common cold, or the flu.

                What if you don’t know, but think there’s a slight chance you might?

                YOU should wear a mask if you know you have Covid…..the same with a common cold, or the flu.

                What if you have it, but don’t want to risk other people giving it to you?

    • Ok, the first thing to note is that people are lying liars who lie a lot. If you contracted the virus, just by pure speculation, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that a lot more people are going to say “but I was so careful!” rather than “yea, I was reckless.”

      These results are gathered by asking people what they did. If you asked my brother in law, he’d say he is in the “always” group, too, and that would be a L-I-E.

      If I believed these self-reports and assumed that they were representative, it would mean that only 8% of the population are refusing to wear masks. I think we both know the number is higher than that. People are lying – and as much as they are lying to others, they’re also lying to themselves.

      So, anyway, what sayeth the report?

      Looks like, yes, you’ve found a study which fails to show a statistically significant correlation between cloth masks and contracting COVID. And no, in NO WAY does it suggest that wearing masks might be worse.

      Congratulations.

      You’ve shown that a study exists which relies on self-reports which doesn’t prove masks are effective. Would you like a cookie?

      Then again, the upshot of this study was “Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities.”

      In other words… masks are one thing.. but if you take them off at a bar or restaurant, then they aren’t as effective (which, I mean, duh).. ::back of the napkin math::.. looks like about 40% of respondents went to a bar or restaurant… if the lesson of the study is “bars and restaurants need added protections because they render masks ineffective,” then it seems odd to conclude from the non-result of mask-efficacy in a mixed dataset that maks aren’t effective when used normally/properly. Methinks thou art grasping at straws.

      • Objection, facts not in evidence, calls for speculation.

      • Yeah, that really sucks if you’re the bar or restaurant owner. First, you’re limited in capacity to 50% or whatever the number may be. That means you’re lucky to cover the overhead. Gretchen Whitmer now says that you can drink while sitting at a table, but not standing at the bar to drink. That’s a smart virus. It can decipher whether to attack or not, depending on if you’re standing or sitting. The same virus won’t attack at the voting booth. It also won’t attack at a riot. Won’t attack in the breakroom at Amazon. It will only attack what the government deems it will attack. 🙄

  17. This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation and is non political.

    But it is a good example of why you should always carry a laser pointer. 🙂

  18. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4839/htm

    More science that shows the futility of solar and wind energy sources.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, just gonna admit it. I have developed a serious crush on the soon to be Assoc. Justice of the Supreme Court. Maybe it is because she reminds me of Spousal Unit Leader.

    • Same here. There isn’t enough time in the day to be able to keep up with hearings. I’ll be listening to the hearings for some time after her confirmation, just to be able to catch it all. She’s not at all intimidated by any of them. They try to trap her , especially on follow up questions, but every time she says something like ‘ you didn’t ask me THAT, you asked me THIS and I already answered THIS so don’t say I said THAT.’ They try to get her opinion on future cases, she swats that question away every time. She’s keeps them all in check. She really made Harris look small and irrelevant. I hope to never hear Harris speak ever again.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Proof that once again we here at SUFA are on the cutting edge. Looks like someone else has noticed as well:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/what_happened_to_the_riots.html

  21. The NY Post puts out a story with emails and pictures that are bad for Biden and Fakebook and Twitter censored anyone from posting it. I think that this will cost both in the long run as their protection under law from lawsuits will be revoked. Since they are not considered media or publishers, it may also be looked at as a campaign donation worth millions (although I doubt this will fly).

    This story however, sure makes Biden look like a serious liar. Emails can be forensically proven, unlike made up dossiers.

  22. thelonestarconnection says:
    October 15, 2020 at 11:31 am
    Question for SUFA…………Is Facebook and Twitter guilty of censorship in blocking selective stories? They are each a private company. Does the right of free speech apply to them as well as the right to censor to private individuals.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      As I have said before, users who are blocked need to SUE THE HELL out of them for violating the contract they had to agree to when signing onto the service.

      As a PLATFORM I believe they are in violation of the protection the Govt. has provided. But to answer you more directly, if a newspaper does not carry a particular story or editorial are they “censoring” folks.

      I know there is a difference here as what they are doing is blocking individuals based on their own bias as to that person’s content. But the LEGAL issues are murky in my view.

      What is NOT MURKEY is that they are acting as operatives for and on behalf of the Democratic Party and what they perceive as “acceptable”. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

      Congress should remove any and all “govt. granted privileges and protections”. This includes the myriad of Patten rights granted over the most inane and miniscule tech. differences, especially software.

      • As I have said before, users who are blocked need to SUE THE HELL out of them for violating the contract they had to agree to when signing onto the service.

        I don’t need to even read the TOS to know that there’s no way in hell FB didn’t give themselves unilateral authority to ban anyone for any reason without any recourse.

        Sue away, but ain’t nothin’ there.

        As a PLATFORM I believe they are in violation of the protection the Govt. has provided.

        I believe you are correct.

        As a platform rather than a content curator, they have almost no liability or responsibilities with regard to what gets posted. But once they start sticking their nose into it.. I’m pretty sure that changes things.

        I’m not an expert in this area of law, however.

        What is NOT MURKEY is that they are acting as operatives for and on behalf of the Democratic Party and what they perceive as “acceptable”. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

        False.

        What they are doing is acting as a business which believes that its best incentive is to ban certain people for certain reasons.

        FB doesn’t give a shit about the Democrats. It cares about money. And for that, it needs users to sell to advertisers.

        They are doing nothing more and nothing less than protecting their bottom line.

        If that happens to coincide with the agenda of the Democrats, well, sometimes that’s the way it goes. But they’re not being operatives of the Democrats any more than a coal company is an agent of the Republicans – it’s just how their interests line up.

        Congress should remove any and all “govt. granted privileges and protections”. This includes the myriad of Patten rights granted over the most inane and miniscule tech. differences, especially software.

        That’s a bigger conversation.. but can you enlighten me on why you think they should lose their patents? Or are you just of the opinion they shouldn’t have been granted in the first place?

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Ms. Barrett made a statement yesterday regarding “severability” that bothered me a bit. It was in regard to grilling over the ACA. She stated that just because one part of the law fails Const. Muster does not mean the whole law fails. Now this is true and I do not disagree ….. depending on what it is and how it is included in the law itself.

    But what she said was that the Court should consider whether Congress would have supported the remaining part if it stood alone. My first thought is ………… SO MUCH FOR ORIGINALISM. Just like Scalia. The concept is more a guideline than a methodology.

    What bothered me most of all though was not her comment. It was comments from R’s on the panel. They stated that NOBODY expects the ACA to be overturned by the pending litigation. That NOBODY expects the plaintiffs to win.

    REALLY???? So the R’s are admitting that the whole effort to litigate the ACA is a FRAUD. Well I say to them PONY UP THE TAX DOLLARS USED TO PERPETUATE THIS FRAUD AND RETURN THEM TO THE TREASURIES OF YOUR RESPECTIVE STATES.

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Colonel

    Oh how strange life can be. The Cowboys are now depending on a QB and Offensive Coordinator who played against each other in college (TCU v Boise State).

  25. Canine Weapon says:

  26. Would someone tell me that what is written is racist?

    The Eyes of Texas are upon you, All the livelong day. The Eyes of Texas are upon you, You cannot get away. Do not think you can escape them At night or early in the morn –The Eyes of Texas are upon you ‘Til Gabriel blows his horn.

    This song is sung to the tune of….. “Iv’e Been Working on the Railroad”.

    Now, the School song of the University is considered racists as is the tune……go figure.

  27. https://www.facebook.com/WendyBellRadio/

    Watch her show for today (Thursday 10/15)

  28. Alright, folks.

    I try not to recommend long left-wing video rants. I know many of you will have a visceral reaction to the host of this video. I know.

    Get over it.

    Watch it.

    This is how The Left feels right now.

    Regardless of how YOU feel, regardless of what YOU think, regardless of whether YOU agree. Regardless of whether you feel like he’s being unfair or biased (and often is – sometimes because, you know, bias, and sometimes for humorous effect), it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the fact that you’re going to be screaming “bullshit!” at your screen until you have to clean the spittle off of it in order to continue, it doesn’t matter.

    I come to this lunatic asylum to get my brain around what you wingnuts think and HOW you wingnuts think. If you want to know what The Left is thinking and feeling right now, here it is. You will not find a better encapsulation.

    Plus, damnit.. the guy IS funny. Makes me think of Andy Rooney.. only alive.. and younger.. and on speed.

    • I got through about half of it. What a pile of horse dung. Another ignorant modern liberal that sucks in the propaganda put out by the MSM instead of listening and thinking for himself.

      Mathius, please watch the video I posted above. Biden has and will continue to sell out this country for his own financial gain. Biden is not the better of the two “evils”.

      • Yea yea yea..

        If you want to understand The Left, this video is it.

        If you don’t want to put the effort in, that’s cool, too.

        • Well, I watched it. The overriding point, that the progressive left doesn’t like Biden but they think he’s better than Trump, I already understood.

          • I didn’t watch because Mathius had already posted previously that no one on the left wants Biden, they just really don’t want Trump. Saw a video Kaitlyn Bennet posted, where the college kids said exactly the same thing.

      • I watched it yesterday. “What a pile of horse dung. Another ignorant modern liberal that sucks in the propaganda put out by the MSM instead of listening and thinking for himself.” pretty much says it all about the guy. How he feels about Biden makes sense. He’s a boring, cheap nut that has little or no excitement about voting for him. Hate doesn’t win elections, nor do the lies that propagate the hate.

        As far as Biden’s Town Hall, what a bunch of boring nonsense. Not one question about the recent release of emails, just more proof the Liberal MSM is carrying the water for the Crats.

        Trump, on the other hand, had to debate the moderator before getting any questions. Of course she had to ask the question about white supremacy, which has long ago been debunked (except in the minds of the brainwashed Left). At least it was more interesting than Biden’s bumbling, boring town hall full of softball questions.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Do YOU really think that many if not most of us here DO NOT know how the left feels? What they are thinking?

      Just because we focus mostly on the brainwashing doesn’t mean we don’t understand how it impacts them.

      I do find it odd that you seem to be associating yourself with this mindset.

      Here, let me help you out. The MAJORITY of the voters in the USA are thinking “WTF??”

      “Will I ever get a chance to vote FOR someone who I really support instead of AGAINST someone I can’t stand?”

      At the same time, “most” American voters are “emotional” voters. I mean how else do you explain people who claim more conservative values willing to vote for Biden because Trump is just such an ass?

  29. Wifey couldn’t bring herself to vote for Biden. She went libertarian.

    • That requires a subscription.

      • Ok… well then… let’s try this….

        Bonnie and Clyde were… not good people… they were armed and dangerous and had a well-established record of being violent criminals.

        Michael Reinoehl was suspected of having killed a far-right Trump supporter in August and was a well-established radical ANTIFA type (you know, the way you think all ANTIFA supporters are, but actually that). In September, he fled to Olympia where he stayed at a friend’s house while hiding from the arrest warrant.

        In 1932, a pair of Texan lawmen tracked Bonnie and Clyde down. They assembled a posse, hid in bushes along the highway near Sailes, LA. and set up an ambush. As the duo drove by, the posse opened fire, shooting over 150 bullets into the car, killing both. There was no chance of arrest, of surrender, or survival. This was not a “lawful” action – this was just murder. That the victims of that murder were bad guys does not change this fact one iota.

        In September of this year, US Marshals tracked down Michael Reinoehl. They allowed him to reach his car before a pair of SUVs rolled up and boxed him in. Marshals immediately jumped out of the car and fired no fewer than 37 bullets into the vehicle. He was wounded, but managed to exit the vehicle on foot. Another SUV approached from the other direction, a marshal exited and fired the fatal shots.

        No marshals claim he fired at them. He was in possession of a gun – which was found in his pocket – and a rifle which was found in a bag in the car. The officers claim a mix of “he was reaching” and “furtive movements” and “he had a gun.” The officers also claim they shouted warnings, announced themselves, and told him to surrender. Of the 20-something witnesses interviewed, all but one said there was no such warning – that the marshals jumped out and immediately started firing. One said he heard yelling, then gunfire, but couldn’t tell what was yelled – he thought it might have been a neighbor fighting.

        Now, I might be tempted to be generous in my interpretation. The guy was a suspected murderer. And he was, after all, armed. Perhaps he did pull the gun (and then put it back in his pocket?) or reach furtively in a way that caused the marshal to fear for their lives and subsequently fire 37 bullets in his car and then more as he fled. I mean, “heat of battle” and all that – I don’t really like putting myself in the armchair quarterback position.

        All the same, it sure doesn’t appear that he had a fair chance to surrender. This sure looks like a straight-up ambush. And an “ambush” by cops on us citizens who, by the way, are innocent until proven guilty, is not “law and order.” It’s “extrajudicial murder.”

        But, again, maybe I’m being uncharitable.

        I know! As with all things, let us consult with the oracle!

        “We sent in the US Marshals, it took 15 minutes (and) it was over. They knew who he was; they didn’t want to arrest him, and in 15 minutes that ended.”

        So speaks the oracle – the living embodiment of Law and Order.

        It’s just one little thing is bothering me… it’s probably nothing… but “they didn’t want to arrest him.”

        Now, look, if they wanted to arrest him and the situation didn’t allow, well… thems the breaks. I might argue they were overly aggressive or could have taken a different tact with a higher probability of success or or or… but I’m not going to necessarily kick and scream about an armed suspected murderer dying in an interaction with the police. I’m not going to applaud it either.. but I’m not going to call it a world-ending emergency either. All things being equal, it just… is what it is.

        But if they DIDN’T want to arrest him. If they deliberately set up the situation for such failure or if they intended to kill him. If our almighty oracle spake the truth – that “they didn’t want to arrest him” – that, by clear implication, they wanted him dead, well then… that sure feels like a problem to me.

        • Your blue link doesn’t work.

          • Boo! Tryin’ again…

            It’s just one little thing is bothering me… it’s probably nothing… but “they didn’t want to arrest him.”

            • but “they didn’t want to arrest him.” If the story is true, it sure looks like it….but we are talking about journalism here….

              • Can’t blame “journalism” for this.

                If they “didn’t want to arrest him,” how is this not extrajudicial murder.

                Just straight-up murder.

                It’s no different than if they took him out with a predator drone.

                If this happened in Turkey, you’d be calling it a death squad.

              • Agreed Mathius……but you are drawing your conclusions from a printed record….we all know that truthful journalism is dead….I do have a question for you…..why are you so bent on calling this murder? You were not there, you did not see it….you are taking a printed word for it. Are you one of the “band wagon” persons that see bad policing everywhere?

                I do wonder what the true circumstances were though….but we will never know aside from a printed record from the less than honorable profession of journalism.

    • Ok, I read it and have seen others like it…….I think that a simple sniper bullet would have done it. The military would have taken this guy out with one shot, one kill. I am sure you wish to expound upon the no warning given scenario…(which I find suspect) but I am an advocate of if there is an identified criminal element that has used violence before….not just suspicion but a truly identified element…..take ’em out, No good morning sir, no get out on the ground….Understand that this is my personal opinion and why I am not a police officer. I would not make a good one. I do not have the patience with the public. Besides, as a private citizen with the right to protect myself, why would I want to burden myself with a Miranda Warning,,,,,or any warning for that matter.

      • I think that a simple sniper bullet would have done it. The military would have taken this guy out with one shot, one kill.

        Sure would have been easier and more efficient… and would have avoided all risk to bystanders and property and law enforcement.

        But would it have been “law and order”?

        I am sure you wish to expound upon the no warning given scenario…(which I find suspect) but I am an advocate of if there is an identified criminal element that has used violence before….not just suspicion but a truly identified element…..take ’em out

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

        as a private citizen with the right to protect myself, why would I want to burden myself with a Miranda Warning,,,,,or any warning for that matter.

        I mean, sure, whatever.. but these weren’t “private citizens.” These were US Marshals.

        —————

        Mr. The Colonel,

        SUPPOSING that your directive is to capture this suspect alive, and you are tasked with this, how would you proceed?

        Reminder: this is a US law enforcement action on a US civilian who is innocent until proven guilty – you are not fighting insurgents in Fallujah.

        • you are not fighting insurgents in Fallujah. Damn…

          SUPPOSING that your directive is to capture this suspect alive, and you are tasked with this, how would you proceed? If my orders were to capture this man alive, if possible, then you try to do so as expedient and as safe as possible without harm to your team. Your team comes first above orders. ( Please understand that it is really hard for me to think civilian. But, I would still try to accomplish my orders to the best of my ability.) The other thing about this is if they wanted this dude alive, there are plenty of rounds available to render this man unconscious. ( no, not rubber bullets or bean bags..those DO NOT work ) We used them to capture Vietcong, North Vietnamese, and Russian officers all the time.

          However, if the orders were to terminate with extreme prejudice…..then you do so. Here is the problem I have with wannabe swat team members. The police DO train with a mindset of that like military. I think it is wrong…..the mindset, I am talking about, You can train swat to react with out trying to emulate Special Forces Operations. The only thing that I find really suspect here, is the number of rounds fired. Surround the vehicle or area and let a sniper take one…simple…shot. You Do not have to endanger bystanders.

          If I were a swat team leader and I had a suspect surrounded and that suspect pulled a weapon, I would have only two designated shooters aside from the confronting officer. That is how I would do it. A HD 50 cal round will go through a windshield and appropriately remove the head from the torso in one easy trigger pull. And no one else needs to fire. I am not particularly fond of police commando raids because I feel that they are not properly trained for such tactics. But since we cannot use military for civilian operations…voila.

          When I was in the 5th Group and later in black ops, we trained for months, every day for 12 hours per day. So much so, that even a bonafide Texan got tired of shooting. But our training was so precise for kill shots and not a “plethora” of ammo in the air. We did not expend magazines on a single target. Designated shooters and not a bunch of Marshall’s that want to ventilate something.

          BUT, you civilian lefty types would have a heart attack if the military was training breaching tactics to civilian swat.

          • Soooo…….

            To answer the question….? I know it’s hard, but putting yourself in the mind of law enforcement tasked with bringing in the suspect as unharmed as possible (while protecting your team and bystanders to the maximal extent possible), how do you do this?

            If it helps you – just pretend that he has valuable intel, so you don’t want to hurt him if you can avoid it.

            I didn’t really get your answer about “plenty of rounds possible” but not rubber bullets?

            I mean, the easiest thing is to just snipe him in the leg as he’s walking to the car (yes, I know it’s a harder shot that center of mass – but you can hire a Texan to make sure you hit). Then just wait until the fight goes out of him and pick him up. But that’s not really “law enforcement” either.

            So, if you’re in charge of this team and you get carte blanch to set this up – how do you do it?

            • Just like I told you……isolate the man either in his car or outside the car….Have a team of two shooters with rifles. They are the ones that will shoot if they see anything out of line…mannerisms, movement, etc. If within 35 yards, use a wax bullet that disintegrates upon impact and the wax is coated with a substance (yes, the substance is real. We stole it from the Russians) to render the person incapable of responding. It is almost immediately effective…..about 25 seconds. You cannot use your arms and then the legs go. The shooter with the wax bullet is your third sniper. While the first two are totally zeroed in for the kill….not center mass but the forehead or base of the neck. It eliminates hitting body armor. BUT, my orders would be, if the guy so much as farts….end his farting days. Guys like this do not give up….do not give them the chance to take one of you down with him.

        • But it really is on the level of fighting insurgents. I’ve read where Antifa leaders are trained by para military groups. We’ve seen other videos where every move is coordinated before hand. Using the “moms” group as shields. The next line is the umbrella brigade. The next line is the frozen bottle throwers. This small band covers the next band. Antifa IS a terrorist group, with worldwide chapters. Check out this video. Everything is coordinated. Maybe Trump didn’t want to arrest him, because he is a terrorist, not the guy next door who happened to go to a protest.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Per that article it doesn’t look good for the US Marshalls. However, that organization does not behave that way. AND, lets remember how reliable all the “eye witnesses” were with the “hands up don’t shoot” BS.

      The most telling is that the investigators found the pistol in his “pocket”. Then again, there is an empty casing in the car.

      Just love how the NYT made this guy out to be some normal guy just helping out BLM and ANTIFA. They publish his BS statement that he killed the guy in “self defense”, when there was video showing completely otherwise.

      But again, if these statements and evidence hold up there is some serious issues and possible losses of jobs, maybe charges against those that conducted the operation. It will all rest on whether those that started the shooting actually thought they saw a weapon.

      • There was a casing in the car. But I’d be willing to be there are casings in your car, too. I’d wager that every time Gman opens his door, they flow out like the Dick Van Dyke walnut scene.

        That said, (A) no officers claimed he shot at them and (B) it’s hard to imagine being shot at while seated in your car, getting your gun, firing one shot back, then putting the gun back in your pocket, and then exiting… that’s just…. I mean, who the hell knows… but as a juror, I’d have a hard time buying that.

        Also, not for nothing, but why the hell wasn’t there cam footage of this? Shouldn’t this kind of thing have live cameras for evidentiary purposes?

        But again, if these statements and evidence hold up there is some serious issues and possible losses of jobs, maybe charges against those that conducted the operation.

        Ok, fine, but of the President of the United States’s assertion/boast that “they didn’t want to arrest him”?

        • I have ZERO empty casing in my truck. I reload, therefore pick them up for reuse, being a conservationist and all 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Re: POTUS making a claim. I do not believe he had any idea whether they wanted or did not want to arrest the guy.

          Just another example of him trying to be tough on crime by popping off when he shouldn’t.

          If I am the lawyers for the family or the prosecution, should charges be made, then I am going to try and find out what POTUS did or did not know.

          Speaking from our experience with Federal assassinations, it is probably a supervisor up the line that gave the commands and keyed the field officers up to shoot at the slightest movement. Such was “Ruby Ridge”. ATF tried to hang it all on the sniper, but the truth came out in trial.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      One other thought. Whoever he stayed with in Olympia is in deep trouble. The arrest warrant on this guy was public knowledge and his “friends” knew he was wanted.

  30. SAN FRANCISCO, CA—In a last-ditch effort to stop negative stories about Joe Biden and his family from spreading, Twitter shut down its entire social network Thursday.

    After seeing account after account tweet out one particularly bad story, CEO Jack Dorsey realized he had to take action. Dorsey smashed a glass box in his office reading “Break In Case Of Bad Publicity For Democrats.” Inside the case was a sledgehammer for smashing Twitter’s servers.

    “Red alert — shut the servers down! Shut them all down!”

    Dorsey ran downstairs and started smashing as many computers as he could, but he did need to ask for some help, as the hammer was pretty heavy. None of the programmers could lift the hammer, either. Eventually, they managed to program a robot to pick up the sledgehammer and smash the servers.

    After hearing the Twitter employees talk about critical theory, the robot got woke and began attacking all the cis white males.

  31. Canine Weapon says:
    • Of course, a dog…a YANKEE dog would submit a photo of weapons being fired by pseudo Texas….but isn’t it strange that there is no recoil from the weapons and no smoke nor heat signature from the weapons…..sigh. And those Walmart Cowboy hats……..come on.

  32. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    https://www.marlinfirearms.com/lever-action/model-1895-big-bore/model-1895sbl

    This model be rated for bear, dear, hog, moose, and… somethin’ unusual.

    Guess I’ll be needin’ meself one..

    • Wouldn’t a SS barrel be too soft?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Would think that is only the exterior finish. As opposed to normal “blueing” or a more rustic “brown rust” finish. Some rifles even have “camo finish” these days. Most fancy commemorative models have the SS finish.

        I do wonder how it would hold up to serious shooting though. Cause the exterior of the barrel gets damn hot as well.

    • A T rex, huh……

  33. Canine Weapon says:

    It’s too quiet around here…

    • “nuff said..

      • Why isn’t this written in crayon?

        • If you will notice at the top of the page it says United States Marines…….they don’t know how to use crayons….too many choices. A number two pencil is all they can master. And the navy, they can use water colors. The Air Force…well….they have not graduated to number two pencil yet….

          NOW…the Army…we mastered the 64 box of Crayola’s and can stay in the lines. Sometimes we eat the crayon’s but that is because we are always hungry.

  34. Canine Weapon says:

    Still too quite… I’m recommending this for Mathius’ ludicrous bathroom.

    • “Biden crime family emails”

      I just… I want to make sure I understand this correctly….

      Hunter Biden, who lives in LA, flew to Delaware.

      There, he dropped off his water damaged Macbook with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it at a repair shop.

      The person who dropped this off – who was never identified – never retrieved or paid for the computer.

      Ah… he wasn’t identified because the shop owner had a “medical condition” that prevented him from seeing who dropped off the laptop. But he believed it was Biden’s because of the sticker. (did the guy not leave a name?)

      But, don’t worry, he got better. Which is good, because otherwise, repairing the laptop might have been pretty hard. I know that I rely heavily on my power of sight while fixing broken laptops in my career.

      He repeatedly called Biden about the repaired laptops, but never got a response. Because, again, Biden cared enough to bring them in, but not to pick them up OR answer his phone.

      So, the repair shop owner – an avid Trump supporter – then did the completely normal thing of contacting federal authorities about the laptop and hard drive. (As opposed to what every other repair shop would do, which is reformat the computers and sell them for a tidy profit after a 30-day abandonment window.)

      For some reason, despite volunteering to provide the laptop and hard drive to the FBI – who were now involved for some reason – they issued a grand jury subpoena ordering him to appear with both the laptop and external hard drive.

      Mathius now pauses to note that apparently both the laptop and hard drive were water damaged. Hunter Biden is very careless.

      Oh.. .wait.. it’s THREE Macobook pros and an external hard drive. Why does Hunter Biden have three wet Macbooks? That’s just weird. But ok, whatever. It’s three. And an external HD. And they’re all water damaged. And he cares enough about them to bring them to a repair shop, but not enough to retrieve them or take phone calls about them.

      Well, anyway, the FBI goes ahead and confiscates the laptops and does… nothing with them.

      Which would be too bad for us truth-seekers, except that our friendly repair shop owner had the foresight to make a copy of the hard drives.

      Mathius pauses to note that for the last several years – and in open defiance of government demands – Apple encrypts hard drives by default. Meaning, you can copy them all you want, but it ain’t gonna mean anything to you without the passwords. (this wouldn’t apply to the external hard drive, however, so he much have back up his emails there!)

      So, since the FBI didn’t do anything with the hard drives, the shop owner did the completely non-suspicious thing of giving them to…. Rudy Giuliani.

      Giuliani sits on this for several months then, just before the election, produces a nearly perfect smoking gun. J’accuse!

      Did I get all this right?

      Oooh… and for the icing on the cake, the guy who signed the FBI subpoena is named Joshua Wilson. Now, of course, that’s a fairly generic name, and there might be more than one Joshua Wilson working at the FBI, but oooh, it’s it just perfect that there’s a Joshua Wilson who investigates child pornography! It’s the trifecta… err.. bifecta! Both Ukraine and child porn.

      Which is also weird.. because the shop owner (John Paul Mac Isaac) reported in an interview that he didn’t see any child porn. Which, you know.. leaves open the question of why he felt the need to call the feds about some abandoned hardware and now, doubly-so, why the child-porn investigation guy is getting involved.

      Anyway, Rudy goes ahead and give the smoking gun email to the post, but doesn’t dump the contents online or allow anyone to review the metadata. But that’s ok, because this whole story makes so much sense that it absolutely MUST be true, and we should all believe it and vote accordingly. How I wish I hadn’t already mailed in my ballot! ALAS!

      • Maybe it should remind you of the Steele dossier. At this point, whether it’s real or not, payback is a bitch.

        However, until it’s proven to be true, the efforts to quash it on Fakebook and Twitter, when they did no such thing 4 years ago, is very telling, telling that it’s all probably true. But, I’m not going to commit to it being true until it’s actually verified. Of course, Joe Biden’s bragging of getting the Ukrainian Prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma is well known and gives some cred to the emails concerning Ukraine.

        • At this point, whether it’s real or not, payback is a bitch.

          I love how you persist with your attidude everything that your side does to the left is “payback.”

          As if the sides haven’t been smearing each other for time immemorial.

          No, no! The poor, blameless right are the victims in all this. They’re just paying it back.

          However, until it’s proven to be true, the efforts to quash it on Fakebook and Twitter, when they did no such thing 4 years ago, is very telling, telling that it’s all probably true.

          YEA! HOW DARE THEY WORK TO KABASH AN OBVIOUS SMEAR!

          I INSIST THEY USE THE SAME POLICIES WHICH FAILED FOUR YEARS AGO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HELP MY SIDE.

          Of course, Joe Biden’s bragging of getting the Ukrainian Prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma is well known and gives some cred to the emails concerning Ukraine.

          Of course, you persist in ignoring that firing the guy is what western Europe, the World Bank, and US policy wanted. And that it was against the interests of Burisma. But, yea, ok.

          At this point, whether it’s real or not, payback is a bitch.

          • I do enjoy getting you tiled up. 😀

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You commit journalistic homicide. What a bunch of bull man.

            Trying to claim that Twitter and Facebook were just trying to quash “obvious smears” is pure speculation. Yet you claim it as fact.

            There are serious questions about this whole thing. But saying it was an “obviouis smear” is garbage itself at this point.

            BESIDES………….. smearing was not the reason given by Twitter for deleting all posts by anyone, including the POTUS Press Secretary, which linked to the story of a major Newpaper. They claimed it violated their policy against using “hacked material” WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE this information was gathered via hacking.

            IN FACT, Twitter allowed the spreading of the story which linked to Trumps tax returns far and wide. Despite those returns having been OBVIOUSLY acquired illegally.

            You raised many good questions with your sarcastic diatribe. The same questions have been raised by Conservative pundits. But apparently this thing is not as phony as you might like it to be.

            One other thing. There were apparently TWO FBI agents involved in the first contact. And that one of them has been involved in pedophile cases does not mean that is all he handles. In fact would not anything nefarious of a computer related nature wind up initially at the same office with the same agents? I don’t have a full and accurate answer to that. And I know you don’t either.

            • If it were real – which it isn’t – it is definitionally hacked.

              The guy admitted he stole data from a hard drive belonging to Hunter Biden and released it without permission.

              That’s hacking.

              Hacking is… leafs through CISSP study guide… the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer or deliberate accessing data in excess of what is permissioned or appropriate, or alteration, deletion, and denial of appropriate access thereto.

              These are “hacked materials” if they are real. They are lies if they are fake. Either way, they are in violation of the TOS.

              IN FACT, Twitter allowed the spreading of the story which linked to Trumps tax returns far and wide. Despite those returns having been OBVIOUSLY acquired illegally.

              Yup.

              You are correct.

              One other thing. There were apparently TWO FBI agents involved in the first contact. And that one of them has been involved in pedophile cases does not mean that is all he handles. In fact would not anything nefarious of a computer related nature wind up initially at the same office with the same agents? I don’t have a full and accurate answer to that. And I know you don’t either.

              I mean, the FBI is a big shop… but if you have a cyber issue, it wouldn’t be shocking to me to find that there’s a go-to guy in the cyber department for ::whatever::

              I deal with major corporations like Goldman Sachs and it’s always amazing to me when I talk to someone else and they’re like “yea, I know Bob at Goldman Sachs! He’s the only guy I call when I have an issue” even though the team has 1,000 people on it.. Bob’s THE guy, and the people who know what they’re doing know to call Bob. So his name is on everything.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                HOLD ON THERE MATHIUS

                You previously admitted that the shop owner was also the owner of the hard drive per industry standards. As in when it was abandoned.

                Now as to who actually left it and/or owned it, there has been nothing published on that.

                So once again, your sarcasm is not a replacement for facts. It is noted but that doesn’t make it true either.

                Now try addressing todays revelation via emails. Bidens and China per the emails of a Hunter Biden associate. Can’t claim those are hacked.

              • You previously admitted that the shop owner was also the owner of the hard drive per industry standards. As in when it was abandoned.

                You’d have to consult with a lawyer, but I’d be willing to bet good money that you get the hardware, not the data.

                State and local laws, and the individual contract will affect this of course. Still, privacy laws exist.

                If Scarlet Johannsen leaves her phone at my house and doesn’t pick it up, maybe I can wipe and sell it – but I can’t hack it open and start auctioning off her nude photos.

              • If Scarlet Johannsen leaves her phone at my house and doesn’t pick it up, maybe I can wipe and sell it – but I can’t hack it open and start auctioning off her nude photos.

                Yes, you actually can do this….and I will provide the link for you as soon as I find it. I will write it down and put it on here because, you know, I am a computer illiterate and can barely turn the damn thing on.

      • During the whole Russia hoax thing, I kept waiting for real evidence to be produced. None ever was. It was all innuendo, anonymous leaks and supposition. With the Biden corruption there is a documented money trail through Ukraine, Cyprus, and Latvia; plus sworn testimony of many individuals in the Ukraine and elsewhere. There are dates and other information that can be cross checked. There are photographs of Joe and Barisma big wigs. Like the Clinton foundation and the Hillary emails the detailed public domain information certainly warrants a thorough unbiased investigation. If this is true and Biden is elected, he must be impeached immediately.

        But I am sure, that like the other scandals, (Clinton foundation, email, Russiagate, spygate, and the impeachment hoax), you Mathius will whitewash this scandal as well. If this corrupt cabal is returned to power, this country is doomed. In a crowd of ogres, Trump is only a troll.

  35. Some interesting questions that one day might be answered:

    With numerous false positive covid tests coming from the NFL, are the false positives still counted in the number of US cases statistic?

    Who really needs reformed, police tactics or inner city young black mens attitudes?

    Instead of demanding a living wage for low income jobs, why don’t people demand a better education from the Liberal Union run public schools?

    Why are so many on the Left still so brainwashed and repeating the same debunked lies?

    When will the Liberal media and Big Tech get nailed for “in kind” political contributions? I’ll leave this one as is.

    When will the Left grow up and stop wanting to change the rules because they can’t win under them?

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Serious question for your wife. If she was willing to vote Libertarian then I do not understand how her choice was Biden vs. Libertarian.

    I could understand Trump vs. Libertarian but just not the other way around.

    It would seem to me that Biden vs. NOT VOTING would make more sense.

    What say she?

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    I am sure all this “money” is above board and coming from small individual donors………..RIGHT!

    Montana has a law requiring publishing out of state donors. The ex Dem Governor pulled in 28 MILLION last quarter for his Senate Race. 28 million dollars in a State with less than 2 million people, half of whom are Republicans.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    The Supreme Court has agreed to fast track a decision on Mr. Trump’s efforts to prohibit any information including undocumented Aliens (ILLEGAL ALIENS) from being counted for purposes of apportionment.

    This is going to be very interesting. Plain textualism = Trump loses 8-0 or 9-0.

    Originalism = Hmmmmmmm How can you say it was the Founders “intent” to count “whole people” including “illegal immigrants” when they had no concept of an “illegal immigrant”. Given that we did not start trying to manage immigration until the late 1800’s what would the Founders think now? I still think Trump loses this one but maybe 7-1.

    Living Document = Oh the ironic twists that will occur here. Each Dem appointment on the Court should rule in favor of Mr. Trump. Since after all, immigration control did not exist when the Const. was written. And since times have changed and the US Govt. has in fact decided that immigration should be “legal only” then would not a living document theorist UPDATE the constitution to exclude “illegal aliens” from the apportionment count? So if applied properly, Mr. Trump loses on a technicality 4-4, allowing the lower court ruling to stand. Which found his rule contrary to law.

    Now that I have had a little late Friday afternoon fun, REALITY: Trump loses 8-0. I suspect they take it up before the new Justice is approved.

  39. Mathius, on the Hunter Biden emails, you are suggesting that this is Russian disinformation. Is this from the same CIA and FBI that fed us the last round of Russian information. At this point in time, I will not take their word for it. Show me the proof.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      For all but the MOST incredibly STUPID, would it NOT make more sense for the Russians to leave a Don Jr. laptop in the repair shop filled with nice cozy foreign golf course/resort deals?

      I officially doble down on the MOST STUPID comment. Whether that applies to anyone on this site makeing the absurd allegation or not I cannot say.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Heh, heh, heh ………As Murray Rothbard summarized it, the progressive movement brought about a profound transformation of the American society: from a roughly free and laissez-faire society of the 19th century, when the economy was free, taxes were low, persons were free in their daily lives, and the government was noninterventionist at home and abroad, the new coalition managed in a short time to transform America into a welfare-warfare imperial State, where people’s daily lives were controlled and regulated to a massive degree.

  41. Mathius

    But before we get on our high horses, we can’t pretend that some in right-wing media don’t do this as well. In many cases, conservatives in the media have “nut picked” rabid, purple-haired feminist types and made it seem as if they represent the majority on the left. In reality, this is an inaccurate portrayal as many on the left can’t stand the constant shrieking and race-baiting.

    While this tendency exists on both sides, it might be more dangerous on the left. A study recently showed that right-leaning individuals understand left-leaning individuals’ beliefs much better than left-leaning individuals understand conservative views on the issues. This, of course, is because progressives control most of the nation’s institutions, including schools, universities, the media, and the entertainment industry.

    from Red State

    • But before we get on our high horses, we can’t pretend that some in right-wing media don’t do this as well. In many cases, conservatives in the media have “nut picked” rabid, purple-haired feminist types and made it seem as if they represent the majority on the left. In reality, this is an inaccurate portrayal as many on the left can’t stand the constant shrieking and race-baiting.

      Thank you.

      While this tendency exists on both sides, it might be more dangerous on the left. A study recently showed that right-leaning individuals understand left-leaning individuals’ beliefs much better than left-leaning individuals understand conservative views on the issues.

      Link to study?

    • Anita…..Texas has now identified over 200,000…yes, that is two hundred thousand illegal voters last time around….this is why the screws have been tightened. The majority of them in Houston and Dallas…..and the illegal votes did affect three (local) house races last year…

      So, in order to get a handle on this, Texas does not wait for slow moving courts….it solves the problem and then fights activists judges and challenges the authority of the Federal system. It has to start somewhere. This might be our new Alamo (fighting election fraud) this time around, but we will win the battle in the long run. We know how to do that.

    • What gets me is just how greedy and egotistical these people are. All Joe had to do was to stay in retirement and live off the ill gotten gains. But no, he had to make one more run for the WH. I hope they all end up in jail. In the mean time, what do we do about the D ticket? Joe should step down now, but I do not know the ramifications of that. At least 1M have already voted including Mr. & Mrs. Mathius.

      Will this put a coffin nail in the MSM? I doubt it. They will downplay the story as much as they can and shift to Harris, another unqualified, inexperienced one term senator.

  42. Canine Weapon says:

  43. Canine Weapon says:

    This might be our new Alamo (fighting election fraud) this time around, but we will win the battle in the long run.

    Like you won at the Alamo?

  44. Canine Weapon says:

  45. I’m going to set up a new thread and post it. I will post here to let ya’ll know when it’s up.

%d bloggers like this: