The Vaccine Is Coming

Comments

  1. Time for a new thread.

  2. Canine Weapon says:

  3. Canine Weapon says:

  4. In response to Mathius question about pardon of draft dodgers.

    The Colonel will speak to this one…….***takes LOA from Bailiff duties****

    This is the law as it stands today…. U.S. law says all male citizens of the United States and male immigrants (and bizarrely, illegal immigrants, too) have to register for the Selective Service System (SSS — aka “The Draft”) within 30 days of their 18th birthday. You are not joining the military but registering with the government to be available in a time where a draft would be necessary.

    The modern Selective Service system was established to raise an army to fight in Europe during World War I. It was used again from 1940-47 to raise troops to fight World War II, and then again to meet the needs for the Korean War. Between the end of WWII and the Korean War, men could just be drafted to serve, regardless of the demands of a national emergency.

    After Vietnam, President Gerald Ford (Republican) abolished the draft entirely in 1975.

    President Carter (Democrat) re-established the draft system in place today as a response to the potential threat posed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

    These are the facts.

    +++++++++++++++++

    Now, in response to the question of the pardon of draft evasion. There was a law in place with a variety of ways to avoid the being drafted.

    1. Be a Conscientious Objector. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites, the Amish, and Quakers are all considered Peace Churches who are opposed to any kind of military service.Dishonest conscientious objection would be illegal.Clergymen and missionaries were also exempt from the draft, which is how Mitt Romney deferred while spending two years in France as a Mormon missionary.

    2. Make up a health condition. The military is surprisingly strict about the medical conditions of those it enlists, even if they really need the manpower. Gastritis, ulcers, hepatitis and anemia are all common, treatable conditions the military will flat-out reject you for having. Diabetics are out, too.
    During the Vietnam draft, people would stay awake for days ahead of their medical screening, do a lot of illegal drugs, or otherwise make themselves appear generally unhealthy to avoid being draft. Ask Ted Nugent about doing meth and crapping his pants to avoid the draft.

    3. Have children who need you. Men with children and families who depend on those men for their livelihood are in a lower draft priority than single men or childless husbands.

    4. Be a homosexual. And if you’re not a homosexual, pretend to be! In the 1960s and 1970s, it was perfectly fine to both ask and tell. If men out to dodge the draft were afraid they wouldn’t be asked, they would wear women’s underwear to the medical exams.

    5. Run away to Canada. Upwards of 40,000 draft dodgers fled to Canada between 1965 and 1975. Many stayed in Canada after the war’s end, and some even stayed after President Carter pardoned them all on his first day in office. Those who stayed became Canadian citizens.

    6. Go to college. Student deferments were very common ways of beating the draft, though many students were really in school to be in school and not simply to avoid Vietnam. Notable examples of those receiving student deferments include Bill Clinton (1 deferment), Joe Biden (5 deferments), and Dick Cheney (5 deferments). While a college deferment was very common, it is still a major point of contention for politicians seeking office today.

    7. Have a high lottery number. 366 plastic capsules, each with one date of the year, were dumped in a large glass container, then drawn, opened, and assigned sequentially rising numbers. The first capsule was September 14. So all men born on that date, from 1944 through 1950, received the first priority for call to duty.

    8. Hold an “essential” civilian job. These are also known as “reserved occupations” and are so necessary to a country’s war effort, drafting them is illegal. The jobs cannot be done by others and cannot be completely abandoned, but those men were required to continue working that job.

    9. Get married. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson changed the draft law to allow married males to be drafted, if they didn’t have children. Before August 26, 1965, however, getting hitched was a Get Out of Vietnam Free card. Johnson quietly changed the rules to keep up with the demands of the war. Hundreds of couples on the West Coast ended up in shotgun marriages to avoid serving.

    10. Forge military ID or reserve papers. Some men in Northern states formed groups which made fraudulent National Guard or Reserve papers, identifying men who bore them as having already enlisted. For upwards of $5000, men could acquire these papers and take them to the local draft board to be relieved of their obligation.

    11. 11. Enlist anytime. Even during Vietnam, men received credit for serving. If you completed a military service obligation, you couldn’t be forced to re-enter the military. If you called up to be drafted, you could avoid it by enlisting and choosing your service.

    ————————————————————————–

    Today, you must register for the selective service.

    For 39 years, it’s been a rite of passage for American men. Within 30 days of his 18th birthday, every male citizen and legal resident is required to register for Selective Service, either by filling out a postcard-size form or going online.

    What’s less well known is what happens on a man’s 26th birthday.

    Men who fail to register for the draft by then can no longer do so – forever closing the door to government benefits like student aid, a government job or even U.S. citizenship.

    Men under 26 can get those benefits by taking advantage of what has effectively become an eight-year grace period, signing up for Selective Service on the spot.

    After that, an appeal can be costly and time-consuming. Selective Service statistics suggest that more than 1 million men have been denied some government benefit because they weren’t registered for the draft.
    ———————————————————————
    It was well within the providence of Carter to pardon all draft evaders. He was POTUS and had this right. I find it a little interesting that when he pardoned the evaders, he the re-instituted the draft. It remains in effect today and the selective service system has very strict ways to avoid military service. The penalties are not pardonable today. As stated, the procedure in place today (established by Democrats) are not criminal so no pardons are necessary. The penalties are quite strict and, as stated above, over one million people have had the penalties enforced. The only was to change the system today….is eliminate it. So far, no POTUS has.

    So, in conclusion, it was against the law to avoid the draft with incarceration penalties…so a pardon was in order….today, there is no misdemeanor nor felony for evading a draft or registering. The penalty is economic. You will lose benefits.

    • Resumes Bailff duties…………..

    • Col., is it time to make women register as well? What say you Anita and VH?

      • Not Anita or VH, but can I answer anyway?

        1. The draft (and required registration thereto) is evil, immoral, and not-dissimilar to slavery. My body is MINE and no one should have the right to force it doing work against my will. The draft (and required registration thereto) should be abolished and Constitutionally banned.

        2. But if we aren’t going to ban it, then it should apply evenly to all people. Except for the children of the politicians who advocate for the draft – they should go first, along with the rich “bone spur” children of their donors. Thereafter, everyone should be treated equally, including women.

      • I’m totally down for that. Everyone should serve their time in some way. Everyone should go through boot camp. Then some sorting would have to occur. You could put me on the chow hall line. I’d have no problem up near the front. I’ll get dirty with the best of them. My daughter? She’d be better in a logistics or some administrative position. She’s the type to make lists and check things off along the way. She would get it done under budget and ahead of schedule.. A female ship captain? Yep. A female fighter pilot? Yep. Females in the foxholes? Nope! I have no problem saying that’s a man job.

        • My body is mine. And neither you, nor the military, nor the government gets to tell me what I can and cannot do with it.

          The draft is slavery.

          If you want me in a foxhole, put enough money on the table that I can’t resist, or convince me that it’s the right thing to do. Otherwise…. try to force me into that foxhole, and I’m going to shoot my way out of it.. starting with whoever tried to put me there in the first place.

        • We had women doing all the jobs the men were doing during Desert Storm. Of course, the job was base security, not attacking the enemy. I had no problem and they all performed with the same sense of urgency as the men.

          One female was a Captain in our squadron. While investigating a vehicle accident involving an Army Hummer just outside the West gate, a Saudi cop spit on her boot. That Saudi cop found 5 M-16’s pointing at his head. She ordered them to stand down. The cop left to clean his underwear out. At the time it was a very funny story. She, the Captain was a well respected officer, unlike some of the male officers, who were real assholes at times.

      • Yep…if they want to play with the big boys….then they should be subject to the same rigors….but you will get the argument that women are nurturer’s and child bearing age should be exempt.

        • but you will get the argument that women are nurturer’s and child bearing age should be exempt.

          Women are physiologically different than men, and should be utilized accordingly.

          They are better multitaskers, better at social processing, have worse hand-eye coordination, are smaller / lighter, have worse visual acuity and visual-spacial reasoning, better heat and cold tolerance, are weaker, but have better endurance, have faster recovery times, have better immune systems, and staggeringly better shock resistance. They can go longer without food or water and mature at a younger age and tend to be less impulsive. Anecdotal evidence suggests they are also more resistant to torture.

          We may be “equal,” but we’re “the same.”

          All of this, of course, is “on average.” You’ll find elites or inferiors of either gender to discredit these notions, but it’s unreasonable to compare a female body-builder to the “average” male. The “average” male is stronger than the “average” female” and so forth.

          People should be put to the use which suits their physiology, unit cohesion, the needs of the military, and their temperaments.

          but you will get the argument that women are nurturer’s and child bearing age should be exempt.

          SOME women are “nurturers,” sure, but so are SOME men. Some are not.

          If more are on average that’s fine. So be it. But then make them nurses and doctors and office workers. But that applies to men who are of this temperament or physiologically unsuited to foxhole duty.

          Such women as are suited to foxhole duty should be given that duty over males who are unsuited. The best person for the job.

          but you will get the argument that women are nurturer’s and child bearing age should be exempt.

          It’s strange… my wife is a sweet, gentle, nurturer for three weeks and then a bloodthirsty Viking warrior for one week.

          Perhaps we should consider one-week-long deployments for women….

          • Women have a very definitive role in the military. The best helicopter pilot I ever had was female and would fly a Blackhawk into areas no man would go. Scared the crap outta me more than once but never so much as missed her mark. I also had women as forward observers for artillery…they were very organized and good at that. They were also great in TOCs (Tactical Operation Centers) keeping up with and posting to situation boards where I could conduct operations at a glance.

            They are not so good in Asian and Muslim countries where the Asian and Muslim support men would absolutely walk off the job if a woman was present. Women and men could not even eat together in mess halls if the support staff was Muslim…the women would not get served. Women could not drive support vehicles in these countries because they could not get refueled or loaded. Women are not respected in a lot of third world countries is responsible positions. You cannot force it either. Nothing would get done….so, they do have limited use in a lot of areas in the world.

            Most notably in Europe, surprisingly, women officers do not get the same respect as men officers from the Germans, French, or Italians. It is very obvious as well. One positive note that Trump did in Europe was tell the Belgians and the Germans that if they did not deal with our women officers, there would be no American support….the only POTUS to do so. In the Bush II administration and the Obama administration, women were re-assigned to appease out European “allies”.

            But, I used women in various combat duties where organization was required and a necessity. As I said, I had to change my shorts almost every time I flew with my female pilot…..and I chose her. Her male door gunners also had the highest marksmanship rates than other squadrons which attested to her leadership ability.

            BUT….BUT..,…BUT……you do not mix women and men together in the field. Just…..don’t….do…..it. Nothing can change the fact that biological “closeness” is a detriment in the front lines.

          • It’s strange… my wife is a sweet, gentle, nurturer for three weeks and then a bloodthirsty Viking warrior for one week. With all due respect to our ladies……I have always said that if you can get a Division of fertile young women all assigned together and train together and they “sync” up………all wars could be ended in 5 days.

    • U.S. law says all male citizens of the United States and male immigrants (and bizarrely, illegal immigrants, too) have to register for the Selective Service System (SSS — aka “The Draft”) within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

      Hey! I did that.. I remember being pissed off about it, too.

      I also had a fight with that same femi-nazi I’ve mentioned before who argued that women are exactly equal to men in all ways.. but that they shouldn’t have to register for the draft, but men should. ::shrug::

      These are the facts.

      ::Plays the Dragnet theme::

      Clergymen and missionaries were also exempt from the draft

      Yes, my father nearly became a rabbi for this reason.

      Make up a health condition.

      Like President Bone Spurs?

      Hey, speaking of which – I’ve never asked you your thoughts on this one.. what say you?

      Run away to Canada

      My father considered this one, too.

      Go to college. […] Joe Biden

      Hey, I haven’t asked you about this either… how do you feel about this?

      Have a high lottery number

      That’s the route my father ultimately took, I believe.

      366 plastic capsules, each with one date of the year, were dumped in a large glass container, then drawn, opened, and assigned sequentially rising numbers.

      WHOA!!! Wait a second! That’s unfair!

      Feb 29 should only get a quarter-chance, otherwise, it’s overweighted relative to the other days. There should have been 365*3+366= 1461 capsules, with duplicates ignored as re-drawn.

      Forge military ID or reserve papers

      Sounds like you should go to jail for that one, not pass go, not collect $200, and not get a pardon.

      For 39 years, it’s been a rite of passage for American men. Within 30 days of his 18th birthday, every male citizen and legal resident is required to register for Selective Service, either by filling out a postcard-size form or going online.

      This should also register you to vote, methinks.

      Men under 26 can get those benefits by taking advantage of what has effectively become an eight-year grace period, signing up for Selective Service on the spot.

      Interesting.

      Can I sign up a few days before my 26th birthday?

      Is there an age cap to when you can be drafted? I’m 37 – can I still be drafted or am I too old? I assume they’d want all the young whippersnappers before me, though…

      It was well within the providence of Carter to pardon all draft evaders. He was POTUS and had this right.

      Ahh.. now back to the actual question…

      Those men had not (to my knowledge) been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Correct me if I’m wrong. This would seem to support the notion that a President may grant a preemptive and exceedingly broad pardon – is this your assertion?

      The only was to change the system today….is eliminate it. So far, no POTUS has.

      I don’t think I’ve given this much thought over the last few years, but if you’d asked me, I would have bet that Trump would be the best hope for getting rid of the Selective Service… pity…

      • Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term “militia” is used to describe two classes within the United States:

        Organized militia – consisting of state militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.
        Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

        A third militia is a state defense force. It is authorized by state and federal laws.

        • Where does “well regulated” fit into that?

          • Really…you want to open that can again? Seriously? I just went back to work as Justice Mathius’ bailiff….do I have to take another LOA?

            • A “Well Regulated” American Militia is the entire population free to possess arms in order to secure the liberty of the place in which they live, in their own homes, in their communities across each State and ultimately encompassing the entire nation. A militia is not a government operated military unit.

      • Sir Mathius…I noticed how quickly you passed over the fact that the draft and registration was eliminated by Republicans and re-instituted by Democrats…that said…..

        Like President Bone Spurs? Hey, speaking of which – I’ve never asked you your thoughts on this one.. what say you? Bone spurs and wisdom teeth are a disqualification even today. Have them removed and you can join.

        College Deferments Well, let’s say that I used the 2s deferment myself. As long as you carried 12 hours per semester and held a 2.0 or better average, you were exempt from the draft. However, upon graduation in 1969, I was eligible for the draft and volunteered for service to get what I wanted. But, I support not pulling people out of college for the draft if they are full time students.

        Clergymen and missionaries were also exempt from the draft I am against this.

        WHOA!!! Wait a second! That’s unfair! Boo Hoo….write your congressman….wait you can’t do that, they are the ones that put that in there.

        This should also register you to vote, methinks. No argument from me.

        Is there an age cap to when you can be drafted? Yes…age 45….sweat it out my friend….you just elected a war college full of democrats. *****

        Those men had not (to my knowledge) been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Correct me if I’m wrong. This would seem to support the notion that a President may grant a preemptive and exceedingly broad pardon – is this your assertion? Correct…even though they violated the law, they were never charged but would have been charged had they come back into the country. However, you are correct in that my perception is the same as yours.

        **** This does not apply to officers. Officer ranks can be recalled indefinitely. The oldest that I am aware of that has happened recently is 81 years of age….a retired epidemiologist. The only reason that I was not called back in during the Obama Administration was because I was under contract with the Texas National Guard and exempt from recall to Federal service.^^^^

        ^^^ I had some special talents that were needed.

        • Sir Mathius…I noticed how quickly you passed over the fact that the draft and registration was eliminated by Republicans and re-instituted by Democrats…that said…..

          I approve of the Republicans ending the draft.

          I disapprove agressively and vehemently condemn the Democrats for reinstating it.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        The draft “lottery” a throwback to Woodrow Wilson was put into place by Nixon before he eliminated the draft altogether . Early boomers like myself and the Colonel were likely to be called up for the draft NOT based on anything other than luck. The lottery came in Dec. 69, after Nixon took office.

        I had a lot of friends in the National Guard or reserves. Easy to do in the early 60’s but requiring some great luck or family connection after ’65. I have a couple of friends who went underground or became teachers (they were considered essential workers????), MOST left the profession immediately upon attaining the age of 26 or after Nixon ended the draft or after they got a high lottery number. One wealthy former High School classmate had his Dad buy a company who manufactured lenses for rangefinders and military sights and installed Junior as CEO! Many feigned illness, the most common being elevated blood pressure accomplished by eating salt by the barrel weeks before the physical. Suspecting fakery, one friend was “held over” for days on Governors Island in NY but fed in the Mess Hall where they left salt shakers on the table!

        Romney was first deferred by marriage, then became a Missionary Mormon spending two lovely years in France and then became a Daddy . All very convenient timing. Biden received five annual deferments then became an asthmatic, Trump received his four annual educational deferments then failed the physical on bone spurs as did most NFL players for one leg injury or another. Clinton pulled the annual deferments till he ran out then started his quest for an ROTC berth until the lottery gave him a high number which is when he remarked on his loathing for the military publically. Bush II got is Air Force Reserve gig though a number of reserve pilots were sent to Viet-nam just not F-102 drivers. To my knowledge, only one son of a major politician served during the war, Al Gore. And though he certainly received special treatment and two personal MP’s for his time as an Army photojournalist in Viet-nam, HE WENT!

        Truth be told, I was the recipient of four educational deferments too ’64-’68. I went Air Force ROTC in college but was denied a commission due to a weird childhood disease which should have killed me but didn’t. Still have the letter denying my appeal to the AF Surgeon General because it “could ” recur and interrupt my AF career. 74 last week and still here! Then enlisted in the US Army not mentioning the AF rejection. Before I went to Army OCS it was discovered and ended my military service early though I have enough time to qualify as a “vet”. Upon my discharge I received an interesting draft re-classification since I had not served a full term, 1-Y, not 4-F! Had the Russians finally poured through the Fulda Gap, I would have been laying anti-tank mines in front of them!

        It should also be mentioned that there was some kind of nationwide glitch in the ’66 deferments for students. I was reclassified as was Trump and almost everybody else in my year group as being 1-A for about a month.

        My short experience in being denied my hearts’ desire, a career in the USAF (probably would have been “riffed” though after Viet-nam ended has had a very positive effect on four other careers. I have counselled four young men, including a son to NEVER put down on your application, even to the Naval Academy that you had so much as the sniffles, let alone allergies, asthma, intestinal problems or broken bones. The one kid who did not listen to me got denied his naval commission at the last minute because he felt he “couldn’t lie”. Let THEM find out, they won’t, unless you tell them.

        Now, there is more there than you would ever want to know. For further information on the era I suggest the following essay written for the average American . LIFE mag Dec 9 1966 which isx really great reading!

        https://books.google.com/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=Dec+9,+1966&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6zJuisMHtAhWlGFkFHQrTD94Q6AEwAXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Dec%209%2C%201966&f=false

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I think that per the law they had in fact committed a crime. With the exception of Cassius Clay I do not remember anything resembling a trial to “prove a crime”. The draft laws and regulations are like many others. You are denied due process because you are “guilty” by the mere fact you are found to have violated the rule. You get drafted and you fail to show up by your due date, poof you are a criminal subject to arrest and incarceration.

        So to your question, if this assumption is true then the pardon was legal and valid. It conforms with traditional law and the definitions.

        If my assumption is false then the pardons were not valid, as “no conviction” for a crime had occurred.

        Here is a thought exercise to make my point against pre-emptive pardons. POTUS cannot pardon anyone who is impeached. If pre-emptive pardons are allowed POTUS could pardon people who are headed towards impeachment. Subverting the very limitation placed on the power of the office. A couple of the Framers addressed this issue and came down clearly against the idea of POTUS being able to use pardons or a combination of resignation and pardon to protect his friends or himself. Madison went as far as to point out that a POTUS who pardoned his friends to avoid impeachment would be subject to impeachment for this act of “high crime and misdemeanor”.

        Unfortunate for us that the PROGRESSIVE ideas infiltrated the courts so long ago. The Constitution contained just enough flexibility that it could be undermined by Judges over time. Then the loss of Honor among our leadership was able to flourish in the new habitat.

        • I don’t know the answer here.. I’m trying to figure it out….

          If my assumption is false then the pardons were not valid, as “no conviction” for a crime had occurred.

          This sounds backward. You’re reasoning from your conclusion and rejecting evidence that doesn’t agree with your conclusion.

          You’ve “concluded” that a pardon can only affect a conviction, and then supporting that from the idea that since there was no conviction, this wasn’t a valid pardon.

          One might just as readily argue that since this pardon was issued and no one overturned it, that it was valid – therefore no conviction is necessary.

          I don’t necessarily buy that reasoning either, but it’s at least cohesive as a syllogism.

          Does this make sense?

          I think this might be a variant of the No True Scotsman. Examples which don’t support your conclusion are rejected – cyclically – because they don’t support your conclusion.

          All Presidents are good people.. but what about that one?… well he wasn’t a good person, so he wasn’t a valid President and doesn’t count. …. but then how do we determine the truth of the initial supposition from this construct?

          All pardons require a conviction… but what about that one?… well it doesn’t have a conviction, so it’s invalid and doesn’t count. …. but then how do we determine the truth of the initial supposition from this construct?

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I would have to say that teh “pardon” power comes from our English Heritage. It is something usually reserved for the King.

  5. DiFi has a Chinese spy for a driver for years, the Biden crime family takes in millions from the Chinese and now Swalwell may be in “bed” with a Chinese spy as well. But DJT and the Russian’s are the problem.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Well, well, well, a BIG thanks again to Tucker Carlson last night. Explains a whole lot. In the 1950’s and 1960’s British governments would fall for far less. No wonder Swalwell was leading the disinformation charge about Russia! The Chinese are truly INSCRUTABLE. They, like a character from “Casablanca” confront you tapping on your chest with their right hand and warn you about pickpockets while they reach into your back pocket with the left and lift your wallet.

  6. So, just something interesting I learned about today and thought I’d share…

    You know how our fingers can be big and clunky when typing on a little smartphone screen? Apple knows that too, which is why they had the idea of a predictive text within the keyboard itself… if you type a T, it predicts that your next letter will probably be an H or an E or an A, etc, but not a G or Q or M. And so it makes the region of the H-key slightly larger, shrinking down less likely letters. Visually, it stays the same, but the region that registers the respective touches changes. So when you type your letter and touch off-center, missing the H and slightly closer to the G, it still registers as an H.

    Brilliant.

    I’m sure they’ve gone way further than this, building in context-specific and an awareness of the frequency of letters adjacency within the whole language and your personal usage, etc… there’s probably a whole machine learning algorithm dedicated just to altering these regions. But I played with it a bit just now, at it seems pretty solid, yet you’d never notice it was there.

    I completely geek out over things like this. Anyway… carry on.

    • The Borg are cybernetic organisms linked in a hive mind called “the Collective”. The Borg co-opt the technology and knowledge of other alien species to the Collective through the process of “assimilation”: forcibly transforming individual beings into “drones” by injecting nanoprobes into their bodies and surgically augmenting them with cybernetic components. The Borg’s ultimate goal is “achieving perfection”.

      We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

      Mathius 2020.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        You nailed it!

      • The Borg have always pissed me off.

        For a species against whom resistance if futile, they sure do get their asses kicked an awful lot.

        Here’s a question – if one of their cubes is basically a nearly-unkillable dreadnaught, but that the allied forces of Star Fleet can usually eke out a narrow win, why don’t they, you know, send TWO cubes? Or, hell, FIVE.

        And I get that they don’t really need shields, but we know they exist. Why not use them? Or, you know, since they don’t use them, why doesn’t star fleet just beam nukes into the middle of the cube and set them off remotely? I imagine that’d be pretty effective, no?

        Why not deploy a remote-controlled shuttlecraft and have it ram the cube at near-lightspeed – that’s a metric fuck-ton of kinetic energy that has to make a dent. And if it’s not enough, send in 100 shuttlecraft loaded with armed torpedos. Why not? Why do they stand there with their capital ships having a straight slugfest against a clearly superior combatant?

        For that matter, since once an infection starts, it’s generally impossible to stop without blowing up the ship, why don’t the borg just smuggle some of those nanoprobes onto Earth – the Farangi would do it for them for a fee – and inject a few people on each continent.

        Why can’t they aerosolize the stuff or invent ranged weapons? Or figure out how to delay the onset so that it spreads like an organic virus, too, so that people who think they’ve escaped can bring the infection back to other ships and planets.

        Hell, teleporters are a thing that exist.. just beam the particles into people.

        Did they never assimilate a species with an understanding of military strategy?

        It’s like they want to lose.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Many, many years ago, I read a SF short story about allowing the all powerful mainframe to run the world with the instruction to provide mankind with a long, peaceful life being well cared for until a very late natural death.

          To absolutely ruin the ending because I am sure nobody will ever find a story where I cannot remember the name or author, after about 40 pages it turns out that the machine gradually feeds humans with drugs which slow down their thinking processes and reduce their desire for all but the basics. In the last chapter all the characters we were introduced to have been installed in artificial wombs to enjoy a long, peaceful life…

          Neat but scary story!

          • This is another iteration of the paperclip problem.

            When you’re giving instructions to a powerful AI (or to a malicious genie), you have to be verrrrrrry careful.

        • Ahem!!!! You did not write the script, sir.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          EASY Answer. Totalitarian States, especially Collective ones, do not need special protections.

          They have enough cannon fodder to win most battles and overwhelm the enemy. Investments in additional cubes or shields is just a waste of money.

          Ask any Korean War vet about how the Chinese fought, if you need a real life example.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    https://redstate.com/streiff/2020/12/09/291479-n291479

    This happened with our health district as well. They first cancelled the meeting, then met a week later to impose mask mandates. All hell broke loose and a few weeks later they dropped the mandate. Meanwhile infections dropped. Then they went up in September and now they have imposed a Mandate again. Why? Because the County and City Govts would not. Well one city did, that of Coeur d’Alene proper. But the surrounding towns did not because as they said, the cost to enforce it is beyond their capability. It is a waste of scarce resources.

    So you see, being fiscally conservative has its advantages. When Govt tries to get outside the box the administrators recognize they have no money to do that. Now we will see what happens in January as we have a new set of Commissioners, council members and a Sheriff. All moved here from California in the past ten years.

  8. When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote.

    -Man who was just pardoned by President Trump, Michael Flynn

    Thoughts?

    • We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
      Abraham Lincoln

    • No thoughts…it will not happen.

      • Ok.. it will not happen… that’s good.

        Any thoughts on a three star general in the US Army and former National Security Advisor who was subsequently pardoned by the President publicly encourage that same President to enact a military coup?

        I mean, this isn’t the comments section at Red State asserted by a random high school drop out from his mom’s basement before he leaves for work at Pizza Hut.. this guy was the national security advisor and held a significantly higher rank than you… and the President just issued him a pardon. He’s not nobody. And what he’s calling for is pretty major.

        Sure, it might not happen, but holy shit, man!

        If Pelosi were calling for a military coup on behalf of Hillary Clinton, you can bet it still wouldn’t happen – but people would lose their goddamned minds over it, no?

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          WARNING, rough language ahead!

          If I had been totally FUCKED as badly as general Flynn was, I’d want a military coup too and drum head courts martials and I’d gladly put the rope around the necks of a whole lot of these shitbags starting with, “I have seen the proof”, Schiff followed by that Slowell traitor character, then Colonel Videman and finally I’d draw and quarter publically Judge Sullivan. Comey I’d merely have castrated since I think he is a ball less coward anyway. .

          Judge Sullivan IF YOU REMEMBER was the first to go extra constitutional refusing, like he was a goddamned emperor to dismiss trumped up charges that the DOJ was finally embarrassed into dropping.

          I’ve seen this shit up close and personal with my former boss. Destroyed the life of one of the most decent men I’ve ever known. Saw what they tried to do to Ray Donovan, Ted Stevens and others. Saw Ruby Ridge and Waco. Watched Janet Reno’s SWAT raid a few others.

          The most recent election THEFT and it was, pretty much demonstrates that the Constitution as currently interpreted and enforced is toast. So, maybe General Flynn is a bit ahead of himself here but if we have to burn it down to get it back maybe it is time. See, with something like 80% of republicans and 30% of democrats making up the 60% of the country thinking they saw something truly nefarious going down it might just be time for a reshuffling of the deck,

          We have heard from so many, like AOC, Congresswoman Johnson, Congresswoman Rasheed and Representative Pascrell here in NJ how WE the people who supported Trump MUST BE PUNISHED, well, then it is certainly time to shove their words up their asses perhaps with a stick of dynamite and NO vaseline.

          Now, ask me how I really feel about it!

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            The complete text of Thomas Paine’s “The Crisis”. You would be absolutely amazed as to how relevant it has become. And, always keep in mind, that the American Revolution was pulled off with the support of only 20% of the Colonial Population.

            https://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-01.htm

        • Really, IF Pelosi calls for a coup. What the hell do you think has been happening for the last 4 years? Have you been asleep? There has been a running coup attempt against DJT since election day 2016. We have had Cross Fire Hurricane with spying on Trump associates including wiretaps, 2 years of the Mueller probe, a farce of an impeachment attempt, and now a fraudulent election. Meanwhile, Hillary’s pay to play schemes and emails are ignored, Biden’s crime syndicate is ignored, the CIA and FBI spying on Americans is ignored, and FISA abuse is ignored. Prior to that the IRS, Fast and Furious, and other Obama scandals are ignored. We have a total justice and judicial system breakdown. This election is obviously fraudulent but almost at every turn the Republicans are prevented from access to the evidence.

          In Gen. Flynn’s case, he was persecuted for 4 years for a non-crime. He did not lie to the investigators because the question they claimed he lied about was never asked. But they would not show him, unlawfully, the 302 or the transcript of the phone call so he could prove this. They hounded the man for 4 years, broke him financially, threatened his son all to force him to lie about a connection between Trump and the Russians and to make sure he was sidelined because he knew the depravity of the intelligence agencies.

          These crimes are indicative of deeply embedded criminality in our government. Flynn is calling for reset.

          On top of that we have media that constantly lies, spikes pertinent information, and a big tech that censors discussions

          Now we learn that the CCP has spies deeply embedded in our government and in our businesses. We know they have funded the Biden’s but once again you dismiss this as just rumor and innuendo. So Mathius, just go about your happy life. Someday you will finally figure it out but it will be too late. Stalin had a label for the likes of you.

          • I forgot to add into my list of grievances, a summer and fall of Democrat operative brown shirts pillaging, destroying, assaulting, intimidating, and killing. Most of these criminals were not arrested tried or convicted but victims who tried to defend themselves are being persecuted.

            Plus, we have governors who have imposed tyrannical lock downs and other orders which they backed by police powers under the guise of emergency powers to stop a disease they cannot control but mostly to create political chaos that they could take political advantage from.

          • Nice posts guys. Every one of us in here have said at one time or another to burn it all down. Maybe now is the time.

        • There is a long brewing anger that has been building for quite some time that the Left doesn’t understand. We here, are calm compared to what I have heard from others.

          Mathius, many on the Left are calling for violence and they just may get it sooner than later. Interesting times ahead.

        • Sir Mathius, I will address this below….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. The man has gone bat shit crazy and should be kept away from all microphones and his phone hidden.

      • Thank you, sir!

        What – if anything – should Trump & Co respond to this call?

        I would suggest he has no obligation to respond to the rantings of former employees…… but he did just issue a pardon to the guy….. thoughts?

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          I think we keep pointing out that the election was a farce.

          If, reforms are not made in this loony system so we can have assurances that only legitimate ballots are counted then bring on any damned thing you want because the Constitution is basically “a scrap of paper”.

          That “Greatest Generation” handed its successors the closest thing to perfection the world has ever seen and they turned it into merde!

          • I think we keep pointing out that the election was a farce.

            I think you keep claiming the election was a farce.

            I keep seeing Trump & Co getting thrown out of court.. often with aggressive condemnation and often by judges that he, himself, appointed. Don’t “point out” bald claims. Show me evidence.


            (aka the “Proof by Repeated Assertion” fallacy)

            So if you want me to believe this election was a farce, point me to a case in court where he’s even made that claim. Not even where he’s won it, just where he’s made the claim.

            That “Greatest Generation” handed its successors the closest thing to perfection the world has ever seen and they turned it into merde!

            Yes… the Boomers sure did screw things up for the rest of us!

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Go on, please keep being delusional. You are very good at it. “unnamed” sources tell us there was no fraud, no secret drops, no valid affidavits from poll workers, no need for signature verification, no dead people voting, no underage voting, no ballots being mailed out willy nilly to anyone. Nah, none of that happened. Did I forget statistical anomalies?

              Yep, they begat YOUR generation too.

              • Go on, please keep being delusional. You are very good at it.

                You would hardly be the first to assert this.

                Hell, you wouldn’t necessarily be the first to assert it this week.

                ::shrug::

                “unnamed” sources tell us there was no fraud, […]

                Look, SK, I know we go back and forth on this kind of thing a lot, but I really want to try to make myself understood on something here…

                The burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.

                Trump & Co (and you) are the ones making the claim. They say “there’s massive fraud” and they say “millions of votes were illegal” and they say “the machines were controlled by Hugo Chaves’ reanimated corpse.”

                And that’s fine – they can make whatever claims they want.

                But the burden of proof is on them to prove what they’re saying. It’s not on ME to disprove it.

                If I tell you that, at the center of Pluto, there lives a Satan-worshipping Walrus, you don’t have to prove a damned thing in order to confidently reject my assertion. It’s on ME to prove to you that I know this, and here’s how, and here’s why you should believe me.

                Trump & Co have been very big on claims publicly, yet (A) they aren’t making these claims in court and (B) what claims they are making are getting rejected – harshly.

                I don’t have all the information – no one does – I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there wasn’t fraud. But to assert that it exists on the scale that would have changed the result of the election is a specific CLAIM – and it’s not MY claim, it’s HIS. And therefore, HE has to obligation to prove it, not ME.

                Did I forget statistical anomalies?

                Yes. Which statistical anomalies are you referring to?

                Yep, they begat YOUR generation too.

                Well, at least they did that much right. Don’t worry – when y’all die off, we’ll finally get around to fixing the things you broke.

            • The point of going to court is to get to discovery so you can find the hard evidence. Also for a person who “believes” in science and statistics, you should be concered about the fact that things are way out of wack for the cities in the disputed states. While that is not hard evidence, it is sufficient in my book to have a hard investigation. But of course it is easier for you to hide your head in the sand so you can ignore the foul odor in the air. When it comes to the bottom line, you are a win at any cost kind of person which will be the ruin of this country.

              • The point of going to court is to get to discovery so you can find the hard evidence.

                You go to court to seek a remedy.

                Discovery is a means to get there.

                But you can’t claim – sans evidence – something and then insist that that’s grounds for the court to give you discovery. You have to have at least a kernel there to justify the reasonable belief. Otherwise, it’s just a fishing expedition.

                Also for a person who “believes” in science and statistics, you should be concered about the fact that things are way out of wack for the cities in the disputed states.

                Ok… what statistics?

                While that is not hard evidence, it is sufficient in my book to have a hard investigation.

                Sure.

                Investigate all you want.

                But you don’t get to insist your claim is true because you have enough to justify an investigation. Do your investigation, find your evidence, bring it to me, and show me that. THEN you will have met your burden of proof.

                Until then, you’re making unsubstantiated claims and then attacking ME for not accepting them as truth. That’s backward.

                And you don’t get to demand that the world grind to a standstill based on your unproven, unsubstantiated claims. Investigate away, but until you make your case, the world moves forward based without regard to your unproven claims. If I say that Biden is a mole-person and, therefore, not eligible to hold office, I don’t get to demand the court stop the inauguration and provide me a blood sample for testing, and everything stops until I’m satisfied.

                When it comes to the bottom line, you are a win at any cost kind of person

                I do feel I’ve said many, many, many times that I want what’s legal.

                If Trump can win LEGALLY, then he wins. It doesn’t mean I’ll be happy about it, but it’s what I want. I want the LAW to rule.

                If Biden won by cheating, he deserves to lose. And I’d WANT him to lose.

                But if you want me to believe that, you’re going to have to show me proof not half baked conspiracy theories involving Venezuelan ghosts and nonsensical affidavits that have already been thrown out of court.

                And if Trump won, I want him to win. And if he can prove his claims, I want them to win, and I want the wrongdoers punished to the maximum extent of the law.

                But if he can’t prove them – and if you can’t prove them, then you don’t get to accuse me of burying my head in the sand for failing to believe things you can’t prove just because you believe them.

                ———–

                But where is all that proof in COURT?

                Nowhere.

                Because he doesn’t have it.

                And if HE doesn’t have it, then neither do you.

                And if YOU don’t have it, why should I believe you?

            • Has there even been a case yet where a judge has actually looked at any evidence? And if they have, they are compelled to take that evidence as true. And from what I’ve been trying to keep up with is that these cases aren’t being thrown out because of the evidence presented, but because of the relief asked How about you show us that it was a clean election.

              • Has there even been a case yet where a judge has actually looked at any evidence?

                Trump & Co are something like 40-1..

                It stands at, per Wikipedia:
                Ongoing: 7
                Dropped: 11
                Dismissed: 21
                Ruled: 4
                Pending appeal: 1

                Several of those allowed for the presentation of evidence. Some were rejected for lack of standing or competent jurisdiction, etc. Some were dropped too early. But, as a general rule, if you make a claim in court and file in the right place and file on time and aren’t total shit at your job, you get to present what evidence you have.

                What we find, instead, is that court after court has dismissed the assertions (and the disproportionate remedies they request) finding the evidence to be gravely lacking.

                Just to pick a few:
                Trump v Hobbs (sharpie lawsuit): Trump requested that his evidence be kept secret, the judge said no. Then, after reviewing the affadavids, rejected them as “unreliable.”

                vs Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia, they asserted that 53 ballots had been filed too late. The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced. Trump didn’t produce evidence – but he had the opportunity, at least, and failed to do so.

                Stoddard v Detroit… dismissed because the plaintiffs did “not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions … Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not set forth a cause of action.” Again, they had the chance to present evidence and failed to do so.

                Law v Whitmer: On November 25, a judge allowed the Trump campaign to present its evidence of fraud in the election. The judge set the hearing for December 3, allowing 15 depositions.[238] On December 4, the court denied the plaintiff’s request, saying “Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election”

                I mean, I could keep going…

                Sometimes he presents evidence and the court rejects it.

                Sometimes he has the opportunity and fails to do so.

                And if they have, they are compelled to take that evidence as true.

                No. Why should they be?

                They can judge the evidence on the merits. And they do. And did.

                The affidavits they gathered by online survey, for example, were thrown out as garbage because they were unreliable garbage. Trump & Co submitted all the claims they didn’t know were false. They had nothing to support the idea that anything they submitted was actually true, just that they didn’t know it was a lie (or trolling). That’s not a viable standard of evidence – that’s basically just rumor-mongering.

                And from what I’ve been trying to keep up with is that these cases aren’t being thrown out because of the evidence presented, but because of the relief asked

                Some of column A, some of column B. Some of column C.

                Some.. many.. are thrown out for technical reasons.. they filed too late, they filed in the wrong place, the ruling would be moot, etc.

                Some.. many.. are being thrown out because the relief being asked is unsupported by the perceived offense. In Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia (which I referenced above), the guy was asserting 53 late ballots (not even fraudulent, just late).. and he was asking the court to grant the Electoral College votes of the entire state to Trump. 53 votes, even if ruled in Trump’s favor, is not dispositive, so why even hold the trial for something like? There’s no way the offense can justify the requested relief even if true, so there’s no point to have a trial.

                Some.. many.. are given a fair shake to present their evidence and just fail to do so. I read a pleading at the request of SUFA just the other day and spent an hour breaking it down in detail and, ultimately.. there just was nothing there at the end of the day.

                Courts don’t accept “Proof by Repeated Assertion.”

                He’s just not presenting good evidence – it’s not the courts’ fault.

                How about you show us that it was a clean election.

                Don’t get me wrong – there’s always fraud in these kinds of things because humans are involved and humans are shit.

                I would love a “clean” election, but it just ain’t happenin’ in the real world. The best we can reasonably hope for is “clean-ish.”

                But I’m not the one making the claims here. Trump & Co are… and if they think there’s enough fraud to overturn the election, then it’s on THEM to prove it. It’s not on me to prove there WASN’T fraud.

                The burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. That’s Trump. And he is failing to do so.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I spent a bunch of one Sunday past putting up all the “evidence” that was being presented. Then you come back and use “court losses” as proof. When the evidence had not even been allowed yet. Dismissals for timeliness and standing are not dismissal of the actual evidence.

              Now yesterday I listened to a lawyer who is actually on Trump’s team. She went over each State and their litigation status. In the PA case she brought up the very point I did to you the other day. The Judge simple dismissed them for lack of evidence at the prelim. hearing. They were asking for a “discovery hearing”. You know, when they get the order that allows them to get the full slate of evidence. They are going to appeal that decision because the Judge failed to follow the legal process.

              She made another statement which has been shared with you which you seem to ignore. Many of these “dismissals or losses” were not Trump’s legal team. They were lawsuits brought by others. The PA legislator’s which SCOTUS denied an emergency injunction was discussed. The case was not denied, only an emergency injunction. And the issues raised in that case are the same as the States’ now filing. She “believes” the court may combine all these into one case as the issues are much the same.

              Her other point was DO NOT BELIEVE the headlines or stories being put out by the media. They ARE NOT TRUE with regard to these cases being dismissed for lack of evidence.

              Now, while she shared much of their findings that is supposed to come out in court, we have not seen yet a judge willing to allow the full showing. We have not seen the final legal filings that are needed and the clock is running out.

              The “Trump Team” had better put up or shut up pretty darn soon. That is with respect to getting State Electors decertified. I suspect that the election will stand but the evidence will eventually all be revealed in more detail. Mr. Biden’s term will be severely tainted by the scandal. But the real impact will come if Congress and State Legislatures do not address the problems identified.

              • I spent a bunch of one Sunday past putting up all the “evidence” that was being presented.

                Maybe I’m having a senior moment – can you point me at your post?

                n the PA case she brought up the very point I did to you the other day. The Judge simple dismissed them for lack of evidence at the prelim. hearing. They were asking for a “discovery hearing”.

                I guarantee you that, somewhere in that case, was the term “fishing expedition.”

                Again, this is backward… to claim “there’s fraud, so you should give me evidence, so I can show there’s fraud” is cyclical. You need to have some evidence first, at least something compelling enough to justify the fishing expedition. And, obviously, the court did not find whatever Trump & Co was offering to be sufficient.

                You know, when they get the order that allows them to get the full slate of evidence.

                I’m a DA. I don’t have any (credible) proof, but I go to the court and say “JAC is a drug dealer. If you let me search his house, I can get the full slate of evidence to prove that he’s a drug dealer.” The court is going to turn back to me and say “no, get me some probable cause first, THEN you can go in and find your proof.” “But, Judge,” I cry, “I don’t have probable cause, but just know deep in my bones that he’s a drug dealer! You have to let me search his home!”

                JAC might well be a drug kingpin… but I need enough to justify the search warrant.

                They are going to appeal that decision because the Judge failed to follow the legal process.

                If he did, then he should be overturned and proper process followed. I welcome the appeal.

                Many of these “dismissals or losses” were not Trump’s legal team. They were lawsuits brought by others.

                That’s why I say Trump & Co.

                Yes. You are completely right that he, himself, and his crack team of elite super litagators are not the only ones pursuing these cases.

                She “believes” the court may combine all these into one case as the issues are much the same.

                That’s not uncommon to “repackage” suits in this manner. If the court does so, then so be it. I hope it hears the evidence available. I hope that, if the evidence warrants it, that the court grants sufficient discovery. I hope that, if the discovery proves Trump really won, that the court rule favorably toward Trump (within the bounds of its authority). And I hope that if Trump really won, that he is the next President of the United States.

                And I hope that, if Biden was involved with any fraud that he, and everyone else involved rots in jail for the rest of their lives (after a full and fair trial).

                Her other point was DO NOT BELIEVE the headlines or stories being put out by the media. They ARE NOT TRUE with regard to these cases being dismissed for lack of evidence.

                SOME absolutely are.

                I’ve posted direct quotes from several judges asserting that Trump & Co have failed to present evidence or rejecting such evidence as has been presented for being non-credible or otherwise inadequate.

                SOME are dismissed for other reasons.

                SOME are withdrawn.

                Some are repackaged.

                Some are ongoing.

                Now, while she shared much of their findings that is supposed to come out in court, we have not seen yet a judge willing to allow the full showing. We have not seen the final legal filings that are needed

                Have you been watching Perry Mason reruns?

                Are you expecting Atticus Fitch to have his day in court brilliantly deposing whitnesses who crumble under his whithering insight?

                If Trump and Co want a “full showing,” they need to present enough evidence to get that far.

                If I sue because Biden is a Mole Person (which, of course, we know he is), but fail to show sufficient evidence in the pleadings and preliminary hearings, the judge is going to throw me out before we get to this “full showing” stage. I don’t get to whine that I didn’t get my day in court – I did – it was the day in which the court decided I was wasting its time.

                and the clock is running out.

                Indeed it is.

                Which is why, if Trump & Co do have a strong case, I hope they present it soon.

              • These are public records so why is the public denied their right to see them? Why are election officials being allowed to destroy evidence (erase machines, burn envelopes, etc.)?

              • These are public records so why is the public denied their right to see them?

                This is an assertion in two parts:
                A) These are public record.
                B) Trump & Co have been denied them.

                Can you support either claim?

                Why are election officials being allowed to destroy evidence (erase machines, burn envelopes, etc.)?

                This is an assertion in two parts:
                A) That this is happening.
                B) The implication that it is improper or non-standard practice.

                Can you support either claim?

        • Mathius, while I do not support this quote from Flynn (assuming it is not taken out of context) I ask you how is it different from the tacit support you and Democrats have given to the violence committed by Antifa and BLM or the calls for the military to haul Trump out of the WH?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I am failing to remember when Mathius gave “tacit support” to Antifa and BLM causing violence and property destruction.

            I do think he is guilty of rationalizing their existence at times. With the “they have grievances” schtick. Well we all have grievances. Doesn’t mean they are valid or that the rest of the country should bow to us.

            • I have yet to hear a mainstream Democrat condemn BLM and Antifa for the terrorist and Marxist organizations they are. Thus we have tacit approval from the party. This is the party that Mathius supports, hence he tacitly supports these organizations as well. He may say he condemns the violence but he justifies the message (grievance schtick). His actions do not align with his words. Same goes with his stance on the election, impeachment et. al. He claims to be for the law but demands that others to supply iron clad proof of misdoing without access to the actual records which are public documents. He supported impeachment w/o any significant evidence that Trump extorted the Ukrainians and then ignored a direct confession that Biden did just that. He has dismissed the Hunter emails calling them lawful but awful despite the implication that such evidence would make Joe very susceptible to foreign blackmail and thus ineligible for a security clearance. The list is longer but I will not list all the inconsistencies. Basically, his actions do not match his words.

              • I have yet to hear a mainstream Democrat condemn BLM and Antifa for the terrorist and Marxist organizations they are. Thus we have tacit approval from the party. This is the party that Mathius supports

                This is a justification for total war as deployed by extremists everywhere.

                T-Ray is an American and pays taxes, which supports his government. His government bombs my country, thus T-Ray is an enemy combatant who “tacitly supports” killing my people… and I am therefore justified flying a plane into his house.

                I vote for the Democrats because they are the lesser of two evils. Surely, you can admit that some evil is permitted, condoned, tacitly condoned, or instigated in some form or another by the Republican Party and/or Trump. Yet you vote for them… would it be reasonable for me to brand you with “tacit support” for whatever that might be?

                He may say he condemns the violence but he justifies the message (grievance schtick)

                My younger kid smacked my older one the other day.

                My older one was being bossy and controlling and my younger one had had enough.

                I agree that my younger had a legitimate grievance. And I didn’t minimize that grievance when I talked to them.

                Older: stop being bossy and controlling. It’s not how you treat people.
                Younger: I know what she was doing made you upset. And you’re right to be upset. But hitting is not ok. We don’t hit people.

                See how that works? Younger had a legitimate gripe.. she did. She just did.. That’s just an acknowledgement of reality. But I think you’d be hard pressed to assert that I “tacitly condone” her hitting her sister because I acknowledge that the underlying gripe existed.

                He claims to be for the law but demands that others to supply iron clad proof of misdoing without access to the actual records which are public documents.

                I do no such thing.

                I demand only that you present me with evidence to support your claims. I do not demand perfection or absolute incontrovertible “iron clad” proof. Merely enough to justify a “preponderance of doubt.” Hell, just “that’s deeply concerning” would suffice. I posted on a video the other day – something about hidden suitcase and counting after hours – where I agreed that further investigation is warranted.

                You assert that X is true. Fine.

                You assert that you can prove X is true. Fine.

                You demand I agree with X. Why should I?

                Because, you say, there is proof that X is true. OK, can I see it?

                You say you don’t have it. Well, then how do you know it’s there?

                You demand “they” let you have it. Fine by me.

                You lament that they won’t let you have it. Ok… that’s unfortunate… but until you have it, you don’t have it.

                And if you don’t have it, then there’s no reason (A) you should be so certain or (B) that I should accept your claims.

                He supported impeachment w/o any significant evidence that Trump extorted the Ukrainians

                I absolutely did not.

                This is just factually wrong.

                and then ignored a direct confession that Biden did just that.

                The preponderance of the evidence I have seen – and which I have repeatedly presented here is that Biden pressured the Ukrainians in service of the stated goals of the United States government, the World Bank, and others and to the detriment of Burisma and – by extension – his son.

                Though the act itself may be similar to the alleged act of which Trump was accused, the circumstances are wildly different and you persist in ignoring them.

                He has dismissed the Hunter emails calling them lawful but awful despite the implication that such evidence would make Joe very susceptible to foreign blackmail and thus ineligible for a security clearance.

                I did no such thing.

                This is just factually wrong.

                I rejected the veracity of the emails. It is obvious that, since Mr. Guiliani has the alleged emails and could easily and incontrovertibly prove their authenticity – that his failure to do so constitutes proof of the inverse.

                If I say you stole from me, and I say I have a videotape of the theft.. but I refuse to show it to the jury, they’d be right in calling bullshit on me. Why should anyone believe my claims when I withhold binary evidence that could prove or disprove my claim beyond any doubt?

                The list is longer but I will not list all the inconsistencies. Basically, his actions do not match his words.

                I do not deny that I am (mostly) human and therefore suffer human bias.

                But I do try to match my words and actions.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Not sure they SHOULD do anything. Given the state of politics in the USA today. Saying he SHOULD is, in my view, placing a different standard on him by third party observers than is put on the other side.

          Now what would POTUS JAC do? I would publicly say this is bat shit crazy. But I also would have explained to the American people by now WHY I BELIEVE the elections was stolen and present enough information in a way they can understand the magnitude of the problems.

          I understand the lawyers saying they don’t want it all out in public before the courts see it, but this is an election. In the end Public Opinion matters. SCOTUS is not going to do anything in a significant way without major public outcry. And as you say, just repeating the accusation on Twitter does not make an argument.

          • Now what would POTUS JAC do? I would publicly say this is bat shit crazy.

            You also wouldn’t have hired him.

            You also wouldn’t have pardoned him.

            Just sayin’…

            But I also would have explained to the American people by now WHY I BELIEVE the elections was stolen and present enough information in a way they can understand the magnitude of the problems. […] but this is an election. In the end Public Opinion matters.

            Right you are!

            Yet again.

            I understand the lawyers saying they don’t want it all out in public before the courts see it

            This claim only lasts so long.

            It presupposes that “the laywers” have this evidence.

            If they do, great! Let them present it when the time comes and I hope they win.

            But, JAC, what if they never do?

            SCOTUS is not going to do anything in a significant way without major public outcry.

            Agreed.

            As I said, if SCOTUS hands the election over to Trump, it’s Civil War 2.0. There’s just no way the left will be able to stomach that..

            UNLESS. Unless Trump can put something on the table that’s so solid as to justify it. And that’s not just “normal burden of proof” kind of requirement – he needs enought to actually puncture than anti-Trump bubble on the left and the biases against him and actually convince people that Trump really did win. Without that, there’s no way they’ll lie down for it.

            Then again, the left does have a long and storied history of lying down and letting the right walk all over them, so….. maybe I’m wrong?

            And as you say, just repeating the accusation on Twitter does not make an argument.

            So I do.

            So I do.

            But it’s clearly effective.

  9. When you fight this hard, your a liar:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Quick viewpoint. If I were a young person who wants or thinks they may want children in the future I would hold off on the vaccine until more complete testing is done. And time allows side effects to show up.

      Reason for my concern? This is genetic manipulation. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. We may find this a way to cure some disease. BUT, my generation’s children have more health issues that we did. Including large increases in Autism and asthma.

      When looking into the possible environmental reasons for this I came across a couple of studies that concluded these issues are because our generation was exposed to the toxins. Not our children but us. In short, toxins in the water and air caused genetic mutations in us. But those mutations did not cause us to get sick all the time. But those mutations were passed to our children and thus they became vulnerable.

      Of course, the stupid cell phone the young ones carry around in their pants pocket is probably causing as much or more damage. But I still think young people should wait. Let the old folks be the guinea pigs for a while.

    • Inserting mRNA into a cell is not permanently altering the genetic material of the cell. mRNA is not copied when a cell divides, so it’s not going to spread in the body or pass to your children. This is less likely to cause some kind of permanent alteration to your DNA than an actual virus which inserts its genetic material into your cells and uses it for virus production.

      • Jennie here knows what’s up!

        I’m no expert on immunology, but I recognize a bunch of scary-sounding terminology and flimsy conclusions.

        That’s not to say the mRNA method is “safe” – I’m woefully unqualified to opine on that – but that this article is not one I’d take as gospel.

        This is less likely to cause some kind of permanent alteration to your DNA than an actual virus which inserts its genetic material into your cells and uses it for virus production.

        We look at the virus traces in our genetic record to help identify lineages. That’s (part of) how these 21-and-me type tests identify that you’re of whatever heritage – because you have a certain viral snippet either in your DNA or mitochondrial DNA that’s prevalent in that demographic.

        This is also how we know this-type or that-type of virus first evolved x-number of years ago. These things don’t exactly leave fossils behind. They infect us and, every now and then, they do it to a reproductive cell, and every now and then that cell goes on and produces an egg or sperm that carries that snippet, and then it becomes part of the genetic record for all descendants*. And if you have a straight-line path to that ancestor, you’re probably carrying traces of that infection.

        *Mitochondrial is only passed down by the mother. Y-Chromosomal DNA is only passed down from the father. X-Chromosomal is a hodgepodge.

        **Massive oversimplifications above… some I’m aware of, most I’m ignorant of

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          While giant pharma is quite different today than in the past, a goodly portion of people today have become so risk averse and statistically ignorant that they would have probably rejected almost all vaccines that have been developed in the past century.

          I was a seven year old when Salk developed the Polio vaccine and the saddest thing for me is to have known victims my own age who developed it in the late 1940’s or early ’50’s as toddlers and wear the leg braces to this day. There but for the grace of God and Dr. Salk, go I.

          • that they would have probably rejected almost all vaccines that have been developed in the past century.

            Or they’ve lost the fear of viruses that they used to have…

            You call it being “risk averse and statistically ignorant” and, well, I won’t disagree with you…

            But you are old enough to have memories of the Before Time. The people refusing vaccines and fear-mongering over them… they don’t have those memories. And, sure, it’s largely ignorance that they should know better, but they don’t… but they don’t fear Polio the way you and I do. Why would they? They’ve never seen a case of Polio. It’s a 3rd world disease, not something that they think they would be exposed to. They had Chicken Pox as a kid and they were fine, so why should they worry about it for their kids. They never had measles, never knew anyone who did, so why should they worry about it? Small Pox is eradicated, so that’s not a risk anymore. So, to them, it’s not “risk aversion,” it’s that this equation all risk and no reward. To them, it’s a suckers’ bet.

            Ask “JF & EF Bridge” (above) if they would have vaccinated their children and you bet your ass they would have jumped at the opportunity. Because they understood the stakes and risks in a way modern anti-vax soccer mommies on Facebook don’t.

            • Wow, 1884 was a bad year at the Bridge house, but not as bad as 1890. I know personally that you can bear a lot more than you think you can, but it is hard to imagine having to bear that.

              • I have to assume that, at some point, you just go numb.

                I’ll tell you if I lost one of my kids, it would damned near kill me, but I’d try keep going for the other one. If I lost both, I’d eat a bullet.

                Losing an even dozen…? I can’t even fathom that.

          • Young people today should wake up every day with gratitude in their hearts for how wonderful their lives are compared to almost every human to have ever lived, but instead they wake up wondering how they can tear apart the “system” that created all of the abundance that they are somehow blind to.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

              A tip o’ the hat and deep bow to you this morning my dear lady.

            • You see “tear apart the system”… they (we) see “fix the flaws in the system and make it even better.”

              To-may-to… to-mah-to..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Methinks that you have no idea what your own generation is about. Certainly not the ones after yours.

                Now I do AGREE that the media overblows the crazies for headlines. But I see more and more evidence everyday that the crazies are growing in numbers.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    So accurate in describing the mainstream, traditional elite in the R Party. Clipped from a larger piece at Red State.

    “I think a lot of professional conservatives just don’t like President Trump’s style. They don’t like going on MSNBC, or whatever, and being asked to defend him. They don’t like going to parties and being made to explain how they can possibly support such a bad, bad man. His tweets and typos embarrass them. All in all, they’d much rather have a President Biden, whom most of them like, than our current bull-in-the-china-shop. And they like losing. In the world of punditry, losing is preferable to winning in every way. You can propose policies, but you never have to defend them in practice. You can point out what’s going wrong. You can rail against illegal immigration and abortion but never do anything or be a part of anything that may upset the sensibilities of your liberal friends who can help you land that cable news contributor gig.

    You can show your brilliance by pointing out what the other guy missed while having your side cheer you on. You never, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, ever have to be the Man in the Arena:

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    Whatever else, President Trump was the Man in the Arena. With him gone, the professional conservatives can get back to the hard work of fluffing Joe Biden, admiring his genteel manner, and criticizing around the edges with no risk to the status quo or to their bottom line.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    I would like to point out a major irony with respect to THE ELECTION just past.

    The ability to steal an election actually increases due to the Electoral College. Since it is easier to move a few thousand votes in a close “statewide” election than MILLIONS of votes across the entire country.

    So in effect, the EC is a two edged sword. Personally, I side on the need to maintain the Federalist/Republican model and work to fix the election validity issues. But I thought we should at least recognize the risk involved of not doing so. It is magnified due to the EC itself.

    The only thing that changes this equation is the ability to manipulate electronic voting or vote counting. But even then, it should be easier to find manipulation of millions of votes over that of a 100,000 or less.

  12. Just A Citizen says:
    • How about the sedition acts passed by Adams and Wilson?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Those also. Many also forget some of the same kind of stuff pulled by FDR. Using the power of Govt to coerce people into towing the line. Like maybe how some used their positions and power of the Press to destroy Eugene McCarthy, while his actual accusations turned out to be true.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Congratulations, for years I was waiting for somebody to mix up the McCarthy’s. Gene who did all the heavy lifting to get rid of LBJ was taken down by that POS Bobby Kennedy who did NOT have the balls himself to go head to head with Johnson. Joe was taken down by his inability to remember numbers, 102, 275, 315, 228 (choose one) Communists in the State Department. I understand Uncle Bourbon or Cousin Jack Daniels might have had something to do with that.

          Joe McCarthy, a true if confused patriot in my opinion, did and is still doing more damage to the anti-communist cause than the 100,000,000 people they murdered. By the way, Roy Cohn and Bobby Kennedy were counsels for McCarthy if I remember correctly.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            To expand. While the left may lie through its teeth a thousand times and get away with it. A “conservative” only has to be caught in one (1) lie to be discredited forever.

            Trump, as Mathius tells us is an uber liar, I think an uber exaggerator. On the other hand, correct me if I am wrong but the ordinary daily whopper(s) Biden tells every time he opens his mouth has not yet been mentioned by our resident lawyer. QED

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Then there is Congressman Schiff a man every bit as evil as Josef Stalin but only called out, half heartedly, by a few, never a democrat.

  13. Just A Citizen says:
  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Prediction: SCOTUS will turn itself inside out to justify dropping the State’s lawsuits over the election without addressing the underlying legal question as to “disenfranchisement” of one States’ votes when another State violates its own election rules or does not do what is needed to assure fair and accurate results.

    Another prediction: The “conservatives” could regret this in the long run if SCOTUS does rule in their favor. Because the Dems will use it to justify Federal takeover of Presidential and/or federal elections. After all, the only way to make States the same is to pass Federal rules. I know that is not true but that will be the rationalization of Federal takeover of the elections. Just as Pelosi tried to do with FUNDING to States for mail in elections, which was in the “Covid bailout”.

    • I mean… this is a hail Mary… you’re look at the longest of long shots here.

      The only thing to give me pause is the uncertainty whether the 6 conservatives will prioritize their Conservatism (big C) or Republicanism.

      ———-

      In reviewing (just now) the Trump application to join the suit, I see that he has a typo in his table of contents: “Additional Facts Facts ……………………………………… 15”

      That’s embarrassing..

      Oh man, and he leads off his complaint with an argument that polling says 75%R and 30%D think it likely the election was stollen.. not only does that not show anything (since you could flip it to 25%R and 70%D say it wasn’t stollen), but what in the everloving FUCK is going on that his lawyers think that’s a viable argument to the Supreme Court… Right in paragraph 1, their first argument is “people think there’s fraud.”

      Wow.. paragraph 2… For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States.

      Kennedy won 303 EC votes vs Nixon’s 219.. which included Nixon winning FL and OH.

      ———-

      Holy crap! This is how this thing starts!

      I’m not even at the end of page 1.

      This may have something to do with a central problem here.

      Maybe Trump does have a case – maybe he’s right – maybe he even has the evidence.. but holy shit are his lawyers bad. You can have the best case in the world, but if you can’t argue it well, you’re not going to win.

      If SUFA has an interest, I’ll take a look at the initial Paxton filing and try to break it down – maybe it’s better.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You need to expand your sources. The Kennedy race actually fits Trump’s claim. Because WHY did Kennedy win even though Nixon won Ohio and Florida? Trunk load of votes in Chicago, in case you forgot.

        As for his lawyers, I posted an article here from Red State last week that made this very point. Which is why it is more than fair to question him and his team about why they were not better prepared for this. They said it would happen yet they did not have the right kind of legal team put together in advance. Unlike Mr. Biden who openly said he “had the biggest and best election fraud team in place ever”.

      • I mean… this is a hail Mary… you’re look at the longest of long shots here. Yes, it is a hail mary……and a long shot with an open sight at the very best……BUT…sometimes long shots do win.

        But there is a point that Paxton was making. There are states that took the proper precautions and did not have the problems of the “four swing” states. The fact that the four states in question did not have procedures in place and the ones that were there were changed to fit the “covid” thing outside of the state written rules….

        The question is, does this actually disenfranchise voters of other states. It does beg the question of how can these four states be so idiotic. And the other question, why have the signature envelopes disappeared in ONLY these four states……oh well, we will never know. Benghazi Biden is in…..

    • Sadly if the Dems are in charge in DC, they will see this election as a success and propagate the fraud. If this election is not thoroughly investigated and corrections implemented, then we will be doomed to increasingly fraudulent elections in the future. JAC, with the machines in place right now, it is just as easy to steal 1M votes as it is to steal 10K.

    • E. Award costs to Plaintiff in Intervention

      AHAHAH HHA AHAH AHAHA AHAHA HA HAHA HAHAHA

      Not only is he asking the Court to void the EC votes of four states, but he wants them to have to pay his legal fees!!!

      Oh man… I love it!

      The Court is going to eviscerate him.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Moved this down for room.

    You to T-Ray: “I rejected the veracity of the emails. It is obvious that, since Mr. Guiliani has the alleged emails and could easily and incontrovertibly prove their authenticity – that his failure to do so constitutes proof of the inverse.”

    I among others provided links for you after you first made this same claim. Those links were to the guy who’s name was in the email. HE AUTHENTICATED THEM. At least the ones that involved him.

    HE AUTHENTICATED that the Bidens were getting money and that JOE BIDEN was aware and possibly involved. And this guy is a Democrat.

    Yet here we are today, weeks later, and you are still using this argument that there is no proof of the emails being authentic.

    Yesterday it was revealed that Hunter Biden’s financial deals with China are under Federal investigation and have been since 2018. Young Biden stated this was over his taxes. Another person, anonymous source in the DOJ, said that is not true. It is more inclusive of his financial dealings.

    • Tony Bobulinski presented copies of the emails sent to him that were identical along with other documents. He testified to meeting with Hunter and Joe to discuss the China deal. There was also one other individual that turned over the emails from Hunter that confirmed it. I forget his name but he is currently doing time for some other offense. But all of this was suppressed by the MSM so that voters would not know of the corruption. Obviously Mathius took the bait as well.

    • I among others provided links for you after you first made this same claim. Those links were to the guy who’s name was in the email. HE AUTHENTICATED THEM. At least the ones that involved him.

      This is true.

      But all it does is substitute the authority being referenced to “that guy”.. whoever he is.

      Yes… I won’t let you see the video of T-Ray stealing my stereo, but you can trust me that I have it because I showed it to Gary and he’ll vouch that it’s accurate.

      No, damnit, just show me the proof. There’s no reason not to.

      guy who’s name was in the email. HE AUTHENTICATED THEM

      Ah.. my bad.. you were talking about the guy on the emails, not the cybersecurity specialist who was the only one Guiliani let see the metadata.

      Ok, well, that certainly helps the argument, yes.

      I think there’s plenty of grounds for investigation here.

      Though, again, it just shifts the argument… “I won’t let you see the video of T-Ray stealing my stereo, but you can trust me because I also have a witness who will attest that he saw it.” Ok, that’s better… that’s at least something….

      But I retain my incredululity because, again, all Guiliani has to do is release that metadata and he PROVES it’s true. No he-said-he-said. No “this guy remembers it.” No, he has a copy, but you can’t see that metadata either. Nothing. Just cold hard numbers and cryptography that doesn’t lie.

      And he didn’t do it. He didn’t release the proof. And, notably, he didn’t do it before the election. That would have made a nice November 1st bombshell – release the proof – but he didn’t. And the only rational explanation I can come up with for why he didn’t is because he couldn’t.

      Yet here we are today, weeks later, and you are still using this argument that there is no proof of the emails being authentic.

      Not quite.

      I don’t believe they are real based on the preponderance of the evidence.

      Con: I find the whole story of how they wound up in Guilian’s possession highly suspect.

      Con: I find the shop keeper non-credible after listening to an interview he gave.

      Pro: I find the cybersecurity specialist interesting and sufficient to warrant further investigation.

      Pro: I find the ex-business partner interesting and sufficient to warrant further investigation.

      But at the end of the day, it all boils down to one simple thing I cannot get over: Guiliani has binary PROOF that what he says is true or not. And he won’t show it to me.

      Tell me JAC, what possible reason other than “he doesn’t have it,” can there possibly be for why Guiliani did not publicly release the metadata before the election? Give me a plausible theory.

      Yesterday it was revealed that Hunter Biden’s financial deals with China are under Federal investigation and have been since 2018.

      Yes. I saw that, too.

      Interesting that it only comes out now.

      Nonetheless, I have no information and “under investigation” does not mean “guilty” as you know. How many things has Trump been “under investigation” for? I believe Trump’s own taxes have been under fraud investigation for two years, have they not?

      If he is guilty, then I hope he is fairly tried, duly convicted, and then serves the penalty. If Biden Sr. is involved, I hope he, too, is punished accordingly and steps down if appropriate.

      Young Biden stated this was over his taxes. Another person, anonymous source in the DOJ, said that is not true. It is more inclusive of his financial dealings.

      I don’t know anything first hand. I have no evidence and, accordingly, no opinion.

      But I will say that SUFA has been pretty anti anonymous source… why are anonymous sources now worthy of consideration? Even so, again, “under investigation” does not “guilty” make.

      ————

      Yesterday it was revealed that Hunter Biden’s financial deals with China are under Federal investigation and have been since 2018.

      Just curious of your thoughts if it turns out in a few months that AG Barr pushed for this investigation at the behest of Trump?

      • Just curious of your thoughts if it turns out in a few months that AG Barr pushed for this investigation at the behest of Trump? The difference between that and the supposed Russia investigation at the behest of certain Dems is???

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The ex mayor of NY is irrelevant to me. Once he put this out and the D’s and media tried to snuff it, the business partner came forward.

        That is where this becomes important. And he came forward well before the election yet the media also squashed his story. If not for Fox and some other not so MSM outlets we wouldn’t have even heard of this guy.

        Why are anonymous sources against Trump proof of smoke but against Biden a nothing burger? What SUFA thinks, which is a silly proposition in itself, have to do with anything? You are diverting the argument here Mathius. Besides, the source is part of the Politico story.

        Bottom line, evidence came to light before the election that Biden’s may be dirty. The Media tried to give them cover. Politico was one of them. Now Politico is reporting the investigation into not just Hunter but Joe’s brother.

        As for Barr, I do not think your insinuation is true or would ever be true. But congrats for being among the first to throw it out there to muddy the waters. You should wish for more like Barr to hold that office, instead of the political hacks we have suffered under that last two Democratic administrations.

        • The ex mayor of NY is irrelevant to me. Once he put this out and the D’s and media tried to snuff it, the business partner came forward.

          JAC,

          Are you familiar with the Best Evidence Rule?

          The BER says that you can only present the best evidence available in support of your claims. So if I have two videos of you (allegedly) robbing my store and one shows the perpetrator clearly in high definition and the other in grainy black and white from a long way off, I don’t get to use the latter. I must present the former.

          The reasoning for this should be somewhat obvious – unless the latter offers some additional value, using it in lieu of clearer and more authoritative evidence is not only unhelp and potentially biasing, but can be misleading.

          If that distant video also happened to show your vehicle, then we can include it. Because now it has some added value. Now I can use both. But if not, then what possible reason could I, the plaintiff, have for withholding the best evidence in lieu of weaker evidence. The court won’t let me do it (at least, not if your lawyer is any good).

          Maybe I want to use the grainy video because the HD video shows someone else, but the grainy one could be you. Who knows? Not the jury. So that’s the one I want to show.
          That’s why it’s not allowed. If you have stronger evidence, that’s what you have to use.

          I know YOU don’t care about Guiliani, but there is evidence in his hands which ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT PROVES… and equally importantly DISPROVES… the truth of the claims being made.

          That this evidence is being withheld is extremely telling.

          And the fact that, in possession of absolute PROOF, he failed to release this information before the election….? I just can’t get past that.

          I know there’s other evidence such as the business partner. And I – absolutely – think it warrants further investigation.

          But when the claimant can PROVE their case and refuses to do so….? I mean… why should I believe them?

          You keep skipping over this, and I’d like you to address it: Why should we believe a claim when the claimant can prove their case – PROVE IT – but withholds the evidence?

          ———-

          Mathius: I have proof that aliens exist.. I’ve got one locked up in my basement!
          JAC: That’s amazing! Can I see it?
          Mathius: No… but I let my buddy see it and he’ll vouch for me.
          JAC: But I don’t know him… can’t you just let me see it?
          Mathius: No… but this other guy can also vouch that he saw me capture it.
          JAC: OK, well, that’s pretty good. And I guess I’ll take you seriously now.. but why won’t you just let me see it?
          Mathius: WHY WON’T YOU BELIEVE ME! I’VE SHOWN YOU OTHER EVIDENCE!!1!
          JAC: Yes, and I appreciate that. It’s good evidence. But you have the alien in your basement and if you’d just let me see it, there could be no doubt.
          Mathius: I’ve shown you enough.
          JAC: But you could show me proof. Unless….. unless you don’t have an alien..?
          Mathius: Of course I do! I showed you two people who vouched for it!

          See the problem here?

          Would you believe me in this situation?

          ———-

          Adding: I’m not that familiar with the contents of the alleged emails – I don’t know if there’s a smoking gun there or not or whatever. So…

          STEP 1: Prove they’re legit
          STEP 2: Show they contain something illegal
          STEP 3: Prosecute
          STEP 4: Fair trial
          STEP 5: Conviction
          STEP 6: No leniency / special treatment
          STEP 7: Prosecute all co-conspirators (up to and including POTUS)
          STEP 8: Fair trial(s)
          STEP 9: Conviction(s)
          STEP 10: No leniency / special treatment
          STEP 11: Move on with our lives

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You just don’t get it. The emails are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what is in them or if they were true.

            What matters is that as a result of their publication and the Democrats accusations of fraud and TREASON, an ACTUAL player in the Biden’s game came forward.

            That actor TOLD THE STORY OF HOW THE BIDENS PLAYED THE GAME. HE GAVE SITUATIONS WHERE HE WAS AT MEETINGS WHERE JOE’S BROTHER AND HUNTER EXPLAINED HOW THINGS WOULD WORK WITH THE “BIG GUY”. WHOM HE KNEW TO BE JOE BIDEN..

            OH, AND THIS ACTOR IS COOPERATING WITH THE FBI. HE HAS STATED HE TURNED OVER A BUNCH OF STUFF TO THEM.

            But here you are going on and on about what is in the emails and if they are real. Just remembered this though. I do recall seeing a story a couple weeks back about an investigation into the emails and that computer. It concluded it was all real. But as I said, so what. It is the eye witness that is the most important.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh Boy did someone just get DUNKED ON. My note: I have mentioned here before but will again that a bay next to Christchurch, NZ is contaminated by heavy metals. They found these metals were washed into the bay from runoff during storms. The source was the brake lining of the autos in Christchurch.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/automobile_tires_not_climate_change_are_killing_west_coast_salmon.html

    Oh, one other thing. I TOLD YOU Climate change did not explain the Salmon decline problem. And that ocean biologists have been admitting they couldn’t figure it out. I also don’t think this is the end of the story. The declines are to wide spread to be all linked to this source. Unless it is spreading in lethal concentrations.

    • If temperature was the problem, then a huge drop in salmon populations would have occurred below dams when they were built.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        TRay

        Huge reductions of Salmon populations did occur after the dams were built on the Columbia system. But for different reasons than temp. Although higher surface temps on the pools can be a problem for smolt returning to the ocean.

        Besides, it is my understanding that water temps drop below the dams when dumping water. This is why there is a famous trout stream in the south for a short distance below a dam.

        I guess it depends on what depth the water is taken to run the turbines or when it is passed through the system.

  17. Just A Citizen says:
    • Judge denies Trump administration request to enforce in-person pickup requirement for abortion pill

      Oh, this should be fun… good thing I don’t have a day job or anything….

      —–

      Ok… getting a handle on this….

      There’s a ban on picking up abortion pills emergency contraceptives (which I will be referring to with the brand name “Plan B” from here out)…

      This is a ban that exists for some reason… and, due to covid, someone decided not to enforce it…

      Trump files to have the court enforce it…

      Court says “no.”

      Trump says “things are better now, put the ban back.”

      Court says “no.”

      ——

      I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I’m going to have a good enough handle on the pertinent laws and precedent here, but I’ll give it a shot….

      ——

      Interesting aside: this is the same judge who blocked a portion of Trump’s “Muslim Ban.”

      ——

      Ok… so… still looking for the actual filing, but here’s this: “He rejected the administration’s argument that economic conditions and patients’ access to medical facilities, childcare and transportation have improved sufficiently to warrant dissolving the preliminary injunction.”

      So, reading this, it seems that we shouldn’t really concern ourselves with the current ruling. The current ruling is just a continuation of the previous ruling.

      That is, in July, someone [TBD] said “nope, Covid is more important,” and suspended the rule. Trump argued that suspension should end because “things are better now” and the court called bullshit. Once the vaccine is out, this argument should work, but for today, nope.

      So what matters isn’t the upheld ruling, but the initial ruling.

      ——

      Ok, so the initial ruling…

      Ope… looks like it was still the same judge.. goodie, that’ll simplify things..

      Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
      Civil Action No. TDC-20-1320 (D. Md. Jul. 13, 2020)
      THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge

      ——

      Alright.. FDA says it’s potentially dangerous due to bleeding and whatnot… seems reasonable.. “In 2007, FDA deemed the imposed restrictions to be an approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), a statutorily authorized designation which allows for additional FDA restrictions beyond those set forth on the drug’s labeling.”

      Ok, so this is a catchall that basically says “it’s dangerous, so we can do whatever we want about it.” under the auspices of Interstate Commerce (*ahem* bullshit *ahem*.. but broader bullshit that textualist Mathius rejects, but will have to accept here because, you know.. case law and SCOTUS and whatever).

      On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a proclamation to declare that the “COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency” and to authorize the Secretary of HHS to temporarily waive or modify certain Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance requirements for the duration of the public health emergency. See Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, White House (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/.

      OK.. let’s take a moment to go read that… but let’s remember that “that which the President makes, the President can break”…. “The Secretary of HHS may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the COVID‑19 outbreak.”

      Ok.. soooooooo… POTUS says the HHS “you can make accommodations” and HHS says to FDA “you can make accommodations.” Only, you know.. they don’t. And then this suit comes along and demands they do it… Seems nonsensical..?

      The proclamation says “may”.. the Sec of HHS MAY waive things.. not has to… thus his failure to do so has no bearing on this case. As he has no such obligation, neither does HHS nor the FDA, and the court has no grounds to enforce it upon them.

      Soo.. nothingburger there.. moving on..

      ——–

      Ahh.. ok.. maybe this is where it’s going.. the order notes that drugs with the same risk profile as Plan B were given waivers by the FDA to not require doctor visits and allow for curbside pickup. The question, then, becomes.. is there some kind of standard that would demand consistency, or can the FDA be capricious and bias against abortives due to puritanical zeal. I suspect we’re going to answer that question soon.

      I don’t know if it’s legally sound or not yet, but from a citizen standpoint, it’s total bullshit. If I can take get one drug but not another, there has to be a justification for the difference and just “we don’t like abortion” is not a good justification. And, since they have the same risk profile, then there’s no justification. But that’s my citizen hat, not my lawyer one.

      Blah blah blah.. abortion is hard to get.. .discriminatory since most women getting abortions are black… racism this.. studies have shown… communities affected.. crowded conditions… essential workers… hard to travel… poor people don’t have cars… child care burdens.. none of this is relevant.

      And here’s the money shot: In particular, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the application of the In-Person Requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

      Did I misread that? The fifth? Better go check the source material.. maybe I missed something in it..? Does the Fifth Amendment say something about cars that I missed?

      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Ok… um… that says what I thought it did..

      Oooh… wait… I got it.. they’re after Due Process… ok… this is more comfortable footing for me…

      Alright, so what does this mean? The Fifth says you have to have due process before the government can deny you life, liberty, or property. I think it’s reasonable to assert that denying you the ability to take a drug is a denial of your liberty.

      So now the question is going to boil down to “is this violation of my liberty done with appropriate due process of law?”

      blah blah blah standing.. thank god.. this is long order… I hope this takes pages…

      blah blah blah injury… yea, no duh.. moving on…

      Plaintiffs have asserted a separate claim in which they contend that the disparity in the treatment of mifepristone, as compared to other drugs for which in-person requirements have been waived for the duration of the pandemic, violates the equal protection rights of the physicians and patients who prescribe and take mifepristone.

      What fresh hell is this?

      “equal protection rights of the physicians and patients who prescribe and take mifepristone.” Who in the.. .what the.. how… what?? JUST… WHAT??!!?!?!

      I mean – that goes back to the initial point that the drug is treated differently because people don’t like (SCOTUS-sanctioned) abortions and Plan B is an abortive (or, at least, it can be). And I get this.. but if they’re trying to couch this absolutely bullshit and wrong bias under the Equal Protection Act… that’s just… no…. No. What?

      JUSTICE Mathius beats the plaintiff with his gavel.

      Ok, dismissing that portion of unholy “found rights” bullshit. Not in my courtroom!

      ———

      Ok, but back to Due Process… alright, we’ve got some SCOTUS precedent to deal with… reading…. reading… reading…

      Casey “requires that courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.” Id. at 2309.

      Alright, so that’s the standard set by SCOTUS…. sure smells like judicial activism to me… but ok… let’s see where this leads us…

      In the face of this clear Supreme Court precedent, Defendants nevertheless argue for the application of a different standard never applied by the Supreme Court in an abortion case. Defendants assert that the Court should apply a general test for a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute set forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), a pre-Casey case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3150 (2018).

      Well, that’s a loser argument. Salerno was overturned by Casey, so…. no?

      They rely on post-Casey rulings by the Fourth Circuit that have discussed, but have not explicitly decided, whether the Salerno rule is applicable to an abortion case post-Casey.

      AHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHA

      No.

      Fuck no.

      It’s not bad enough that we’re using legal precedent in lieu of explicit book law that we have to start considering things that courts have discussed but not even ruled on? And we’re supposed to let that override SCOTUS rulings?

      JUSTICE Mathius beats the defendants with his gavel.

      What’s next? Are we supposed to treat Kennedy’s Twitter feed as legal doctrine?

      JUSTICE Mathius beats the defendants with his gavel some more.

      ———

      Ok, but back to Due Process… again…

      Is it an “undue burden” to make a woman go into a doctor to get Pill B but Pill A with the same risks can be picked up curbside…? I think so.. that seems “undue.” If A is acceptable, then there’s no appropriate reason to block B other than “we don’t like abortion.” Is it a “burden”… again, yes, just not a huge one, but yes it is.

      (by the way, I skipped over the pages and pages of testimony related to why it’s medically unnecessary to have an in-person office visit)

      Yada yada yada… he’s backing up my conclusion from a moment ago that, yes, it’s an undue burden….

      We can skip over the pros of having access to the pill.. they’re obvious enough: you don’t get pregnant.

      Oh, no, I misunderstood… hold on… ah.. we’re looking at the pros of having the ban in place.. got it… it forces in-person care which, while superior, we’ve determined is unnecessary..

      Significantly, Defendants have offered no evidence demonstrating that telemedicine counseling sessions are ineffective or insufficient for communicating information about the risks or alternatives to medication abortion.

      I don’t love this… I happen to agree, but it’s a reversal of the burden of proof.. it’s on the plaintiff to prove it’s effective, not the defendants to prove it’s ineffective.. that said, I guess the plaintiffs met their burden previously, so maybe the onus is on the defendant now..? More tellingly, they offered “no evidence” that it’s ineffective… so I guess they’re ceding the point.

      Another pro: it prevents delay? What kind of fuckery is that? In-person is faster than curb-side + telemed? Bullshit.

      Ah, yup.. here we go

      Defendants, however, offer no evidence that removing the In-Person Dispensing Requirement will result in delayed taking of mifepristone.

      And that’s doubly bullshit because you can still get an in-person if you want it. So it’s not like having options can hurt. It’s like saying “we have to close the drive-through because it slows down customers to have the option of walk-in or drive-through”.. that’s just nonsensical.

      And there’s the judge making my exact point.. again.

      Second, the In-Person Dispensing Requirement specifically does not control when the mifepristone is actually taken.

      Well that certainly seems pertinent.. I mean.. if you’re going to take it at home later on anyway, then why does it matter how you pick it up? Except, of course, as a means of imposing puritanical zeal to make it harder? Not sure the legal ramifications, but CITIZEN Mathius is stewing.

      ———————————-

      OK, that’s enough for now….

      RULING: Insofar as abortion is legal per the SCOTUS, and insofar as Casey is the controlling precedent for this matter, and insofar as Plan B has the same risk profile as other drugs which are exempted……

      I… ugh…. I have to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and allow curbside pickup.

      This IS an “undue” burden imposed in direct defiance of Casey and, therefore, of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

      ————

      THAT SAID, US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Mathius is not the same person as SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Mathius.

      I strongly suggest you appeal to SCOTUS Mathius who is going to overturn this ruling on the grounds that THAT’S NOT WHAT THE FUCKING FIFTH AMENDMENT MEANS, YOU GODDAMN JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS and sentence all parties to death.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        My appeal to SCOTUS Mathius is being prepared as I speak.

        I see the biggest issue with your ruling is that the LAW was in place. There is nothing in due process or otherwise that allows a Judge to rule on a non decision. The decision was to lift the ban on X, Y and Z.

        The legal issue, if it exists, should have been over whether the Agencies decision to not include B was “arbitrary and/or capricious”.

        This is a more complex example of what has happened to our system when it comes to judicial review of regulations. The burden of proof keeps changing depending on the political view points of the Judiciary. One POTUS can take action but another cannot undo that action without jumping through hoops the original did not have to jump through.

        The Due Process issue should have been litigated when the drug was first limited to in person pick up.

        • My appeal to SCOTUS Mathius is being prepared as I speak.

          Why are you “prepping” anything? Just hand me a post-it note that says “that bullshit about curbside pills” and I’ll rule for you on the spot.

          I see the biggest issue with your ruling is that the LAW was in place.

          Which law?

          The legal issue, if it exists, should have been over whether the Agencies decision to not include B was “arbitrary and/or capricious”.

          I mean, it absolutely was.

          But that doesn’t make it illegal under 5A unless you apply all kinds of contorted logic.

          One POTUS can take action but another cannot undo that action without jumping through hoops the original did not have to jump through.

          I don’t think that applies here, but I don’t have time to get into it – I have to head off for family Hanukkah!

          The Due Process issue should have been litigated when the drug was first limited to in person pick up.

          That, too.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            The standard for arbitrary and capricious is that the Govt TAKES ACTION which is determined to be arbitrary. The Judge has reversed the onus here. You in this case are claiming it was arbitrary to NOT ACT.

            As you said, the agency was granted permission to act if it chose. There was nothing to compel it to act.

            This standard, if applied to other areas of Govt. would be devastating. The US Fish and Wildlife did not even consider a decision on X so I sue them for being arbitrary. FYI, that agency is often sued for NOT doing things. But it is sued under provisions of violating the “mandates” of the End. Specie Act and its regulations.

            The LAW that was in place here was that the drug required personal pick up. The article said that was in place since the year 2000.

            • The standard for arbitrary and capricious is that the Govt TAKES ACTION which is determined to be arbitrary. The Judge has reversed the onus here. You in this case are claiming it was arbitrary to NOT ACT.

              Firstly, I didn’t know that that is true – can you support that?

              Secondly, I would argue that their “non-action” is still an action. That is, they’ve banned drugs A and B, then “un-banned” drug A. The unbanning of drug A may well be a non-action – that is the government is now “hands off,” but the fact remains that they’ve banned drug B which is, still, an action.

              No?

  18. Sir Mathius…..I do not think anybody on here is going to be pleased with my responses. But, here goes.

    First and foremost, I am a United States Army officer sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Martial Law is not part of that oath.

    General Flynn got railroaded and then subjected to a Kangaroo Court without legal representation. It is awful. However, his statement is just as awful. To actually advocate using the military to overthrow or suspend anything is awful and uncalled for in these times.

    That said, I find absolutely no difference in advocating overthrow by military force any different than advocating overthrow by civilian means and that is what happened to Trump. The soft coup attempt is more insidious and evil than a General advocating military rule because it went to the very foundation of our being. Using intelligence offices to spy on any administration is terrible and treasonous. Using the Congress and trying to force impeachment on a sitting President with unproven allegations is just as evil as the tanks rolling down the street. Whether you use bullets or a pen….the result is the same.

    Our politics has achieved a level so low, that I would rather watch an NFL football game than listen to any news…and that is getting pretty low. There is no doubt in my mind that this election was stolen. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a well planned execution of voter fraud and that, now that the ballot signatures have been destroyed, there is no way to over turn anything. We have to live with the realization that it was a stolen election using Covid and mail in ballots as an effective strategy.

    All this to say, it is up to, we the people, to handle it. It is not a military function and it will not be a military function. No Commander will issue orders to impose Martial Law on the basis of an election…..fraudulent or not.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      I am curious as to why you think nobody here would appreciate your response? Seems entirely reasonable to me.

      I might have degrees of difference when rating tanks rolling down the street vs. Antifa mobs but that is quibbling mostly. Only because tanks have Govt sanction. While Antifa only has some political cover or sanction. But I agree on the net impact to the Republic.

      We are in Deep Trouble and the PEOPLE had better wake the hell up. If we cannot reach agreement on the basics of what comprises a fair election, then there is no chance of regaining any kind of National affection among We the People.

      • Oh, and the new thing on the voting machines of Dominion……..isn’t it surprising that the algorithms that counted the voting have been destroyed by error?

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Our friend Matt does NOt believe in circumstantial evidence. For instance, why the rush to burn the envelopes when all they could possibly do is establish if the right person voted and DO absolutely NOTHING to change the count?

          How about “unfolded” ballots indicating they never were in any envelope?

          • Our friend Matt does NOt believe in circumstantial evidence.

            Sure I do.

            But I think it’s (A) weaker evidence and (B) needs to put into context.. context which I am often lacking.

            For instance, why the rush to burn the envelopes when all they could possibly do is establish if the right person voted and DO absolutely NOTHING to change the count?

            This is what I mean about context.

            You characterize this as “a rush to burn the envelopes,” but I have no such information. Is this standard protocol, maybe something required by legislation after the votes? You paint it as a malign coverup – and maybe it is! – but I don’t know that.

            You’re presenting a conclusion baked into the evidence.

            Show me:
            (A) who is “burning” envelops
            (B) that they are “rushing”
            (C) that they aren’t obeying standing protocol

            Do I find it odd and eyebrow-raising if someone is burning envelopes that could prove the legitimacy of votes? Yes. Yes, I do. But there are 100,000 ways that this could be perfectly legitimate and it’s your characterization which is off-base. I’m not saying that’s the truth, just that you haven’t made your case, and pretending that I won’t believe the evidence you haven’t supported is not a reasonable conclusion.

            How about “unfolded” ballots indicating they never were in any envelope?

            How about them?

            (A) prove to me they exist.
            (B) prove to me they were via mail (as opposed to drop off or some other non-folding mechanism).

            If so, obviously, then they cannot be legitimate and should be investigated. The votes should be deducted from the total and whoever is behind them should rot in prison.

            But there’s just so much I don’t know about the voting processes in every little random district… maybe there was a way to drop off ballots.. maybe there’s three of them and those people used 8×11 envelops for some reason… maybe the clerk has severe OCD and painstakingly irons out all the creases… who the fuck knows? Not me.

            Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you haven’t made your case, and you’re blaming me for not accepting something you haven’t proven.

            YOU are making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU.

            • In MI orders were given to clear the machines. I do not remember if this was just Wayne Co. or an order by the SOS. The courts blocked the move. One court did allow independent forensic examination of the machines in Atrium Co. MI. but then at the request of the SOS, sealed the report. Why? The machines, the ballot envelops, the ballots are all public property. Why should any of this be held in secret? They all should be available for public scrutiny under strict rules to prevent tampering or destruction of evidence.

              As for folds in mail in ballots, I did not have to fold my ballot, it was prefolded as I received it in the mail. I am sure it was machine folded so the folds in ballots should be straight and uniform.

              • Why should any of this be held in secret? They all should be available for public scrutiny under strict rules to prevent tampering or destruction of evidence.

                I completely agree… are there any privacy concerns that such examinations might reveal how individuals voted? That might be the only concern I can think of..

                As for folds in mail in ballots, I did not have to fold my ballot, it was prefolded as I received it in the mail. I am sure it was machine folded so the folds in ballots should be straight and uniform.

                Come to think of it, so was mine.

                I just want to caution against over-generalization. That’s how yours was done, that’s how mine was done… common sense is that that’s how 99% of them were done… but I hesitate to draw absolute conclusions such as “it was never done any other way.”

                That is, an “unfolded ballot” is an eyebrow raising indication and may even constitute “evidence,” but it’s not “proof.” At least, not by itself, and not without more context. If these do exist, I certainly want them investigated.

    • Col., I agree with your statement. I think Flynn is off base but I provided justification for his rage at the corruption in government ala Mathius.

      i knew that GA tried to erase the machines supposedly to prepare for the next election. Some judge supposedly stopped it. MI officials also issued a delete order but I think it too was blocked. I would not be surprised to learn that machines have been wiped include the software. Envelope fires, shredded ballots have been reported as well.

      This election fraud is a huge problem. Ever patriot should be standing up and demanding a complete and thorough investigation. We cannot let this happen again.

  19. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    If this Texas case goes forward with all the Amicus Curiae briefs from other states it stands to be the most momentous case heard by teh court in over 100 years.

    Even if it does not, the fact it was brought and even entertained by the courtt stands to raise the question of election fraud in the 2020 election to the point where it will NEVER be ignored nor denied. people can continue to argue about the level of fraud but will not be able to deny it was substantial.

    You can all tell your commie-pinko-never trump friends that.

  20. While I’m tempering my expectations, here are the possible outcomes that may occur with the SCOTUS case upcoming.

    1. SCOTUS rules in favor of the 4 States being sued by Texas or the case is just tossed. This is my most likely result.

    2. SCOTUS rules in favor of Texas but refuses any remedies, the elections stand.

    3. SCOTUS rules for Texas and the remedies may be:
    A: The four States electors are thrown out
    B: SCOTUS orders a new election in those states
    C: SCOTUS throws out the election and orders the HoR to carry out their Constitutional
    duties and select the next President.

    If anything in #3 happens, cities will burn. So be it.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Locked and loaded!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      #2 would be likely if not for the cowards on the Court. The sub-option under #1 is that the Court issues a statement chastising the 4 States in question, acknowledges the evidence that there could be major problems and then punts back to the States, which means Congress will make the final decision in January when they vote to accept the certifications.

      In short, dismissed with prejudice against the defendants.

      I DO NOT expect SCOTUS or any State Court to order Certification be withdrawn.

      I think this is why the Trump Team has been focused on the State Legislators in addition to the Courts.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    PRICELESS: Ted Cruz’s Tweet about Salwell’s misfortune.

    More than once, I’ve said “screw the Chinese communists.”

    Little did I know how closely Swalwell was listening.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh how precious! Some people just need to be disappeared.

    “When is this nonsense detrimental to our democracy going to end?” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor. “To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections, it’s beyond the pale.”

    I choked on my drink when I read that. They have no shame let alone self awareness.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    On the one hand, Good for Senator Lee. About darn time. To bad it is a wasted effort but I applaud him anyway.

    On the other hand, maybe the Fed. Govt should not be funding the darn Museum in the first place. Or Congress could via resolution require the Museum to meet the goal of including all ethnicities, races, etc. in the “American Story” which is shown in the Museum.

    I would think the curators could hire someone who is creative enough to develop a more complete HISTORY in one venue instead of all the separation of groups.

    The Native American Museum was closed when I was there many years ago. I was hoping to learn something about the eastern and southern tribes but alas it was not to be.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    You sometimes just have to admire the BRASS of the opposition. In this case the Dems arguments against the multi-state election lawsuit filed with SCOTUS.

    You see this is SEDITION. Those 16 and growing States, but mostly TEXAS, are trying to usurp the sovereignty of those states which DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR OWN ELECTION LAWS. Laws which were established to reduce chances of stealing an election.

    So now using the Constitutionally granted avenues to litigate grievances is SEDITION. This coming from those people who spent four years using the power of Govt. to undermine the authority of a duly elected POTUS and anyone who supported him.

  25. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    This afternoon I was cautioned by a good friend that if the Supremes were to actually interpret the law to be THE LAW and overturn the shenanigans that got Biden “elected” there would be blood in the streets. Apparently he was scared.

    That’s when Jefferson’s comment about the tree of liberty needing nourishment from the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time came to mind. We have gotten damned fat and lazy to allow this to have happened.

    For openers, If i need a photo ID to walk into a NYC Office or even a private Office Building. Then it is damned well fair, right and just to ask for a voter registration card with photo. AND, if it takes us paying to have someone drive around with a camera who is a notary to “register” the 37.5 people in the US who have no access to a public building to register then I am happy to contribute.

  26. U.S.—The nation’s CEOs sent letters, emails, and tweets to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this week, begging her to start a boycott against them.

    “Please boycott us, AOC!” shouted the CEO of Bush’s Beans, ambushing the representative outside the Capitol Building. “We have ‘Bush’ like literally right in the name! We’re terrible! We’re MAGA scum! Notice us!!!”

    “We like Trump too!” said the CEO of Tempur-Pedic after somehow breaking into Ocasio-Cortez’s office. “Look, I’m even wearing a cross like the MyPillow guy. Chant it with me: boycott! Boycott! Boycott!”

    The CEOs tweeted out in support of Trump, tagging AOC in their posts, with many replying to everything she posted on Twitter to try to get her attention. They are stalking her in the streets, following her to her posh D.C. apartment, and leaving increasingly deranged voicemails in hopes of triggering a boycott.

    Ever the capitalist entrepreneur, Ocasio-Cortez is now offering to boycott any business for a special introductory rate of just $50,000.

  27. The Man!
    (picturing Mathius smashing Red Bull can into his forehead)

    • ::smashes Red Bull into forehead::

      Oh shit.. that was still full…

      Anyway… here’s this…

      • He didn’t lose. But if he has to leave, he will leave with head held high, and the thieves can sort that out with God

        • Canine Weapon says:

          He didn’t lose.

          But if he has to leave, he will leave with head held high

          • That’s lame. The left just plain old can’t meme. But! Biden really didn’t win either. You, yourself, said you voted for Not Trump. He sure didn’t earn a win. He has no base of support. He will be the personification of illegitimate. President Not Trump sounds so distinguished. Yippee! Put that in you “not presidential” pipe!.

            • Canine Weapon says:

              That’s lame. The left just plain old can’t meme.

              What do you want from me? I’m a dog.

              You, yourself, said you voted for Not Trump.

              Don’t look at me. I wrote-in for Canine Weapon.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          I’ve seen enough to convince me that if the Prez improved in all categories of voters, got better numbers in many states than he did last time out except in certain cities in certain states that are controlled by certain parties that something ELSE was going on.

          A few years back, even before Trump I attached a roundtable where the commentator backed up by a bunch of pollsters said if teh r party would pick up just 5% more of the black vote, it would destroy the democrats. Well the big T did so what happened?

          Hey, I’ma born cynic who is familiar with how NY City politics worked and still works. How the F do you think they got DeBlasio and AOC. Shrewd manipulation.

  28. Just out on the news for San Francisco…….85% of restaurants closed. No outdoor service either. Just….wow.

  29. Evanston, Illinois………….new tax deal under Biden increases tax from $2.70 per 6 bottles to $13.60 per 6 bottles. The one Brewery talked to said that because the taxes under Trump were lowered to where they are now, we quit buying our glass and caps from over seas. Now, we will simply go back to doing that and lay off 1/3 of our employees…….

    Biden’s tax plan will send jobs back over seas….and money back out of the country. Pretty simple…..who gets hurt? Lower and middle class.

  30. Canine Weapon says:

    • Yep…..the only thing that I can guarantee will happen in his first 100 days…..will be a new war in Syria.

      • Canine Weapon says:

        a new war in Syria.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Oil for who? Certainly not us. You miss the whole boat here. I’ve been hearing that oil shit since at last 1967, back then it was off Viet-nam’s coast.

          Get it straight. We are fighting to make the world safe for democracy! Capisce?

          • Syria is not a serious source of oil but an oil pipe line route to the Med. Russia wants it so does Saudi Arabia. We have no dog in that dispute, we have our own oil. We are just mercenaries for Saudi Arabia which is a left over idea from when we needed their oil. Let Europe sort it out since the oil is intended for them.

  31. I am perusing from channel to channel watching the business news from the various outlets….conservative and liberal alike. It is amazing what you can see but one thing particularly caught my interest on MSNBC Business………….they were interviewing a CEO from a small time manufacturing company and the host was tearing into him because he is moving his business back overseas of the Biden tax plan goes into effect. It was really cool because the CEO told him…get a real job and you will see why we do these things…..interview ended.

  32. New York and New Jersey are going mad…….fast food restaurants and food service that are going robotic are now going to have to pay tax on their robots as if they are employees? New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli says that companies that choose to use robotics instead of employees must pay a tax similar to that of regular employees to account for the lost revenues of employees.

    Unbelievable….just….wow…

    • What kind of tax? The matching FICA tax? So the robots get SS? Otherwise, the only other federal tax is on revenue.

      • Nope…they called it a use tax

        • A use tax is usually a sales tax on items you bought from other states and did not pay the instate sales tax on. How are they going to differentiate between a robot and all the other labor saving machines that have been installed in the last century. Think about farming. Dad started out shocking oats as a kid to combining standing as an adult. Uses 1/10th the labor not to mention no horses.

  33. Just curious..

    I see many assertions here about the supposed evils with regards to this election. Some claims worthy of investigation, some baseless, but all seem to be centered around the actions only of the left.

    Without any justification along the lines of “yea, well, your side is worse” or “they started it!,” does anyone here think that the Red Team (or Trump&Co or unaffiliated allies, etc) did anything wrong, illegal, or otherwise nefarious in this election?

    Or were they all saints?

    • There are no SAINTS in politics and the R’s did plenty wrong, which I griped about…..and still gripe about,,,,,,

      • And, It is not that Biden, et al. will do anything wrong……nothing I said could be construed as wrong…..it is their policy. New York and New Jersey want a use tax on robotics. To further state what they said was…if the food service industry wants to use depreciation to write off against income taxes, then it is only fair to tax the use of robotics as employees.

        The interviews with the CEOs are interviews on TV and various news outlets on the difference of policy. On the guy with the Brewery, for example, started buying his raw materials at home instead of overseas because the tax cuts that he enjoyed allowed him to buy more American….but if you want to increase taxes that makes it more profitable to go overseas, then that is what he is going to do. There is nothing wrong with this…it is simply tax policy.

        Now, here is my question to the left and to Sir Mathius……why does the left think going overseas to avoid their tax policy is wrong? Why does the left think that everyone should just sit still and pay the higher tax?

        I will move my money around and change my set up to avoid the taxes coming down the pike. I will send my money to higher interest rates over seas or in tax havens to avoid higher capital gains…I already keep my employees on contract basis…..it is just sensible. Why is this considered a pariah by the left? Can you answer that?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Chapter and verse Colonel, I hear this all the time, O’Reilly makes a living from comparing apples and kumquats but I, a damned good researcher, have never found any major cases, certainly in my neck of the woods. –

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      If you have ANY allegations, please produce them. I would be glad to entertain them. I am sure that they are out there and if they were significant I cannot imagine the Networks and democrats in general NOT jumping all over them.

      Studying NY City history way back to Tammany and the Tweed era through Teddy’s unsuccessful runs for Mayor, his stint as PC and Fiorello LaGuardia’s runs for congress which he both won and lost as well as his three terms as NYC Mayor, I have to tell you that there were NEVER any allegations of Republicans stealing anything. It was always Tammany hall. Ditto for the Bronx when it was part of Westchester and Brooklyn when it was an independent city before the consolidation of 1898 into “greater NYC”. Republicans are frankly too damn dumb to pull it off.

      The 1960 election, certainly ancient history to you but yesterday to me, shows just how dumb republicans were NOT to challenge what was pretty obvious at the time. In that case, being a “good” loser ultimately placed 58,000 names on a black wall in Washington DC. As a High School freshman I was an avid Kennedy supporter back then but believed my Dad, a registered democrat, when he said Kennedy stole it. I’m looking for the CBS school handout booklet for that election which I carefully would mark in and sub total the electoral votes in until they finally called Cal. in the wee hours of the morning.

      More recently we have PROVEN allegations of fraud on a large scale in both Elmwood Park NJ, a smaller town and Paterson NJ a mid size city. The former resulted in jail time for the democrat who became Mayor through fraudulent absentee ballots and have had an entire primary set aside in Paterson last spring where the dem candidates cheated among themselves. Criminal charges are pending in Paterson.

      So, I am sure somebody’s husband or wife died before the election and the spouse voted Trump for them but beyond that you will probably have to look far and wide.

  34. Canine Weapon says:
  35. To the Dread Pirate…………………an underwater sonar device? Seriously?

  36. Anita I would wish you good luck tomorrow but that would be against my own interests so I will just say better luck next year.

    • That’s fighting words!

      Just now getting around these parts. Got off late and heard the news of the day. All the doom and gloom was too much. Had to go watch my Canadian outdoors folks for a while to ease my mind some.

      I’ll see you here tomorrow night!

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    HYPOCRITICAL SOB’s. God the lack of self awareness is just astounding.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529883-rep-pascrell-jr-asks-pelosi-to-refuse-to-seat-lawmakers-supporting-trumps

    SCOTUS has refused to hear the Texas lawsuit. VIOLATING their responsibility under the Constitution. Told you guy this beloved document died with Roberts’ ruling on Obama Care.

    Might as well just shred it and start over.

  38. U.S.—According to ultrasound technicians around the country, unborn babies are disguising themselves as death row inmates so that liberals will defend their right to live.

    The babies got the idea from how major media networks reliably frame their coverage of state executions of death row inmates, no matter the details of their depraved and demonic crimes they committed while they were alive and free.

    “If these people can get sympathy, surely we can,” signed one unborn fetus to its ultrasound technician while clad in gang attire and wielding a sharp knife. “Maybe we just weren’t doing enough heinous crimes against society to get the left’s attention.”

    “The only way people get attention these days is if they set up an autonomous zone or torch some cop cars or stand in traffic,’ said the ultrasound technician. “Criminal activity is simply the voice of the unheard.”

    When the nation’s liberals began to see these little death row inmates in their sonograms, they immediately began championing their fundamental human right to life by picketing outside their closest Planned Parenthood.

    • https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/As-coronavirus-vaccine-begins-to-roll-out-FDA-15797303.php

      “He said the agency didn’t have enough data to recommend the vaccine for younger children or pregnant women. The latter should talk to their doctors about whether to get the shots, he said.” If the agency doesn’t have enough data, how the hell is the doctor supposed to know.

      • Logic would say start with the oldest and work down to the youngest since this is the order of greatest to least risk of death. Child bearing women are always an outlier in these studies and should be given the vaccine with great caution. Remember thalidomide was given with good intentions. People in contact with the sick also should receive the vaccine early. If the cry goes to vaccinate the kids first then we know it is not science but emotion.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Ah yes, the Thalidomide thing. Another Great Life Magazine piece. We were saved by the FDA Dr. She was not sure that it should have been given to pregnant women for morning sickness. Canada and Europe were not as lucky.

          In that Life piece, there was a Texas woman who had five children and had horrible morning sickness. The story was how she had her husband get the drug while on a business trip to Canada. She took it. Not having sonograms back in ’62 she was scared of the effect on the baby she was carrying. The story intimated that she might go overseas for an abortion. Been wondering about how that all turned out for fifty years now. Funny how things stick in your mind.

        • If the cry goes to vaccinate the kids first then we know it is not science but emotion.

          DING DING DING DING!!

          T-Ray is right!

          The only caveat I might put on that – and I wouldn’t agree with it – but the only argument I could see is something along the lines of “kids spread it from schools to everyone else, so putting them at the top of the list constrains the spread more effectively” or some variant on that.

          Someone posted here the other day that Italy was giving it to the kids first… I went looking but couldn’t find any support for that.

          Ah yes, the Thalidomide thing.

          (A) fucking terrifying.

          (B) things have progressed a great deal in the last 50 years.

          (C) As, T-Ray says, “Child bearing women are always an outlier in these studies and should be given the vaccine with great caution.” – it’s a tricky business making a new human being from scratch and we barely understand the surface of what the hell is going on in there. And it’s not like it’s something we can safely or morally experiment on to get better data. So, you know… “great caution” and all that.

          • The documented transmissions of child to adult is nil to very small. Adolescent may be greater as we have seen with some of the sports teams. It still comes down to let the children build natural immunity until sufficient vaccine and staff are available.

            • General agreement with the caveat that I’m not fully informed on all the up-to-the-minute studies and whatnot.

              I’m just saying that that could be an argument.. kids are super germy, as I’m sure you know.

              That said, is anyone actually advocating for a “kids first” approach? I haven’t seen that – everything I’ve seen has been front-line first, then old farts and immunocompromised, then adults, then kids, the pregnant women or something along those general lines..

              • I have seen one call for kids first. I think kids are low spreaders of this one because they have just mild cases.

              • I think you’re right.

                I just wish I could be more confident of things… I often find myself envious of people who are just so damned certain all the time. It must be nice to have such confidence and never doubt that you’re right or feel that you don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle.

              • Praise be, Mathius and I agree. 🙂 🙂 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Excuse me you two. BUT don’t you remember the pandemic is due to asymptomatic spreading. That has been the mantra.

              So vaccinated people, no matter who they are, can still spread the disease.

              This is how they will keep us caged up for the rest of the winter.

              • Saracm?

                Sarcasm, I think..

                Anyway, no need to lie to keep me caged up for the rest of the winter.. Mathius does not like the cold.

  39. (B) things have progressed a great deal in the last 50 years. Yes, we (old folks) got a lot smarter…….now, it is your turn to get smarter…..you are 38, you still have some time, neophyte, to get smarter than the average bear. You, too, will be as smart as us old guys when you get there……

    • 1) I’m 37, thank you very much.
      2) I am much smarter than the average bear – but much of that has to do more with how stupid the average bear is than how “smart” I am.
      3) I aim to be whole hell of a lot smarter than you old farts when I’m an old fart myself.

      • 2) I am much smarter than the average bear – but much of that has to do more with how stupid the average bear is than how “smart” I am.

        Ya know, there is some truth to this from what I have seen. The average bear is not as smart as the average bear was in my days…..one case in point that really bugs the hell outta me was that my parents went to great cost sending me to a college preparatory school. I spent four years studying and taking course that only Star Trek Vulcans take. I graduated from a school where colleges came and recruited….however, I remember distinctly that I had to take the SAT, ACT, and GRE exams….and you could not study for them back then. your score was actually determined from knowledge that you retained. There were no SAT classes on how to pass an exam…there was no graduated grading system (curve) to allow for disability or race or age or anything. There was no SAT booklet to pass out to students on the questions appearing on any exam for college entrance. You were not allowed computers (there were not any back then) nor were there any hand held calculators or calculators of any kind allowed back then. The only device we were allowed was a slide rule to figure out equations from physics, or trig, or calculus…and we had to show our work once we derived at an answer and turn those papers in with the tests. You were allowed no books or back up documentation. You were not allowed to even carry your own pencil into the exams….they provided you with the ever classic Eberhard Faber #2 pencil WITH rubber eraser and scratch paper which you had to identify with each problem you worked.

        Now days……as I understand it….it is simple and easy to score 1500 or better with 1600 perfect scores not rare at all….unheard of in my days but not today.

        So, I think that the litmus test is much lower these days, not to impugn your knowledge, sir….I am sure that you are much smarter than the average bear especially as you consult with us lunatics.

        • Now days……as I understand it….it is simple and easy to score 1500 or better with 1600 perfect scores not rare at all….unheard of in my days but not today.

          Yes.

          Because the test is now out of 2400 points.

          When I was taking it, a “good score” was generally considered about 1200, a great score 1400, and the highest score in my school my year was not much above that… AND BELONGED TO ME!

          I remember a good friend of mine (who was always too competitive) calling me a liar when I told him my score… I’d beaten him by a clean 400 points. Meanwhile, my older brother got a 1200.. made up of an 800 in math and a 400 in English (which he followed up with another 800 on the Math SATII). The guy was barely literate, but knew his way around a calculus equation.

          ————–

          The average bear is not as smart as the average bear was in my days

          I think you suffer from an eternal problem of old farts such as yourself.

          You take the values of “your day” and judge the world by those values. No one today can use a slide rule. There are rather hilarious videos online of kids today trying to figure out how to use a rotary telephone. And so on.

          But damned near every teenager in America can operate a computer at a higher level than you can. Which is a more valuable skill in the modern world?

          How many kids know how to whittle today, but what percentage of old farts know how to write a single line of code. Which is a more valuable skill in the modern world?

          I never took a woodshop class. I took CompSci classes that not only would melt your brain, but which involve principles and concepts and tools that didn’t even exist in your time. Kids of today will take classes that make mine look like childsplay. Which is a more valuable skill in the modern world?

          • All you say is true, sir Mathius…but that was not the point that I was trying to make.

            But damned near every teenager in America can operate a computer at a higher level than you can. Even your damned old dog can operate a computer better than I…..anyone can…I am a self confessed computer illiterate.

            I agree that skills are different today but what I am talking about is incentive. Does it not bother you at all, that a simple child is getting to the point that they cannot tell you what 2+2 is without a computer? Does it not bother you that any “clown” (even me) can enter numbers and figures and letters into a machine and get an answer but cannot take a pencil and piece of paper and show you how the answer was derived? Does it not bother you that the children and even your age adults, by and large, today cannot even diagram a sentence much less form a sentence that is coherent and grammatically correct? Does it not bother you that the average Joe Tentpeg cannot make change and count it out to you without looking at a computerized cash register…..and then when you give them extra change so you get back a whole quarter or dollar, they look at you like your from a foreign land?

            Any dunce cap wearing person can pass a test when they are given the test. And, I differ with you on one thing…..well, several actually, but on this one. The average child cannot tell you what a subject is or a predicate or even know what phonics are much less how to use them. Does it not bother you that if a computer has a glitch in it and shuts down that the average person today cannot function?

            It should bother you to know that my skills as a pilot today are greater than the skills of the pilot that flies you to Mexico? The pilots today are caretakers and they do not even fly the plane….a computer flies the plane. The pilots of today are put through a basic skills test but do not know how to properly handle emergencies when they have to take control of the plane. The issue of the 737 Max should scare the hell out of you because it was a computer glitch that caused a run away trim tab. Read this That software fix is designed to address the plane’s automatic safety feature, which is the focus of the investigation into the Ethiopian Airlines crash and another crash involving a Max flown by Lion Air in Indonesia last year. The plane’s automated safety features…….bull shit. Why are pilots not trained in the art flying emergencies instead of relying on computers to fix it? I was flying a plane, a Baron G58, with a Garmin 1,000 flight computer and it would do amazing things….look it up at all the things that it would do…it could ALMOST take off and land by itself just like some passenger jets can do today. It would intercept coordinates and turn the plane automatically…..well, read about it if it interests you because it would literally fly the plane. It took the actual flight charts out of the cockpit and took away the responsibility of the pilots to figure and read maps and do their own calculations. Pilots today DO NOT HAVE THE SKILLS TO FLY. Computers are a tool….but they are not the fix all….you should still know how to read and spell, how to diagram a sentence, how to figure complex equations without computers. You should be able to do the same things with out the aids as with the aids.

            No sir, this worries me a lot….It also worries me about the military reliance on technology. Technology is great and wonderful…..until it is not there. I just wonder, how many people can actually fire a cruise missile manually and guide it over 300 miles through a window in a bunker? No one…..if the computer system fails…..the missile fails….then the infantryman dies. Not a very good epitaph. It bothers the hell out of me to take a group of young officers….all with a Master’s Degree and all computer literate and could make an atomic bomb in their sleep…….and have them navigate without the use of a GPS. They cannot. Basic map reading is now taught with the use of GPS with the understanding that a GPS never fails……until the satellite is not there or functioning. You hand them a map and a lensatic compass….and tell them to navigate…and then 8 hours later you have to rescue them because they know nothing about navigation unless they have a computer and a GPS. They do not even know the difference between true north, grid north, or magnetic north and do not understand degrees of declination and how to apply them to get where they are going……this should frighten you.

            Ah, well, I am rambling and I am sure I am falling on deaf ears because I am an old coot….I will still scoff at the common person who cannot tell time without digital readings and I will still scoff at the average person that cannot survive without a GPS…..or even count out change. What a shame.

  40. Making a big issue about the vaccine, a nurse was given one in Queens and, of course, Gov Cuomo had to bloviate in inject himself into the story. The same asshat Governor who said he would not trust the vaccine because of Trump. Yet, it’s the same vaccine he whined about a few months ago. The same Governor who stupidly caused the deaths of thousands of elderly in nursing homes, which the Liberal media has mostly ignored. The same Governor who is now being accused of sexual harassment.

    • And the same one Biden is considering for AG. That’s OK, he fits right in with Xavier Bacerra at HHS.

  41. 7 SCOTUS judges tell Texas to go fuck themselves.
    2 SCOTUS judges say “we’d have listened, but go fuck yourselves.”

    • Sadly, it looks like we will never learn the truth and you seem to be good with this. Win at any cost rules the day. Half the country thinks this election was stolen. That cannot be good for the long term. It would have been so easy to cooperate and prove us wrong.

      • Sadly, it looks like we will never learn the truth and you seem to be good with this.

        Lots of “truth” is unknowable and/or lost to eternity.

        I would much prefer to know the truth.

        But I don’t believe there is a standard the Biden-Counties / Biden-States could have met which would have satisfied the detractors.

        How many conspiracy theories were disproven? Dozens? Hundreds? One after another, and each time, a new one just sprang up in its place.

        Sure, there very well may have been some shenanigans. Humans were involved, so I don’t doubt it. But on the scale required? I don’t believe that this could have been disproven to the satisfaction of Trump & Co.

        Sadly, it looks like we will never learn the truth and you seem to be good with this.

        Trump & Co had their day in court.

        And then they had several more days in court.

        And then several more.

        And then more.

        And then SCOTUS told them to shove it.

        You seem to have accepted that The Truth is that the Democrats stole the election and that the investigation is open until we find the conclusion you want to reach.. and until then, anyone who thinks that this is a snipe hunt just doesn’t want to know the truth.

        The TRUTH, T-Ray, is that, whatever fraud may have happened, the Red Team does not believe that investigating it or uncovering it will reverse the results of the election – they are using this as a way of weakening and de-legitimizing Biden so that when they refuse to cooperate with him for the next four years, they can claim it’s because he’s not really the President.

        Win at any cost rules the day.

        I feel I’ve been clear. JAC also pushed back on this the other day on my behalf.

        I’d rather lose than win by cheating.

        If “my guy” lost, then he should lose.

        But you don’t get to assert that he DID lose and then demand I prove you wrong to the tune of constantly shifting goalposts, and then say that I’m out to win at all costs. That’s just… that’s disingenuous.

        Half the country thinks this election was stolen

        “Half the country thinks” is not evidence. It’s, at best, a variation of an appeal to authority.

        Half the country also thinks that angels are real. Oh, wait, that’s ~80%.

        “People think” is pointless.

        “People” are morons. They are tribal monkeys who barely have any cognition beyond “my team good, other team bad” when it comes to politics. Of coruse half the country thinks (evil thing de jure) is true when their leaders accuse the other side of doing it… something like a 1/3 of Americans also believer or are “open” to Q-Anon conspiracy theories.

        That cannot be good for the long term.

        No, it can’t. Maybe someone should tell that to Donald Trump.

        As if he gives a shit.

        There is no scenario that could have happened in which Trump would have said “yup, I lost fair in square.” He was crying fraud long before the first votes were counted. Every election he has ever won has been “perfect” and every election he has ever lost has been due to his enemies cheating. This one is no exception.

        He was always going to cry fraud if he lost. And a significant portion of his base was always going to follow him blindly and bleetingly about the fraud, and there was never a level of proof that would satisfy them otherwise.

        It would have been so easy to cooperate and prove us wrong.

        T-Ray… the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Trump and Company DID NOT have their day in court. Nothing like it. But you just keep ignoring the reality.

          What we now know is that the standards for challenging election outcomes due to large scale problems and potential fraud is way different than for other issues.

          There is not a single case where the Trump and Company got to present a full slate of evidence. One case the judge simply dismissed SIGNED AFFIDAVIDTS as a minor thing. Those affidavits are the preliminary evidence that should have been heard in detail and then a decision made to grant or force deeper investigations.

          Pennsylvania flat out broke their own laws and violated their own Constitution. Yet no court will rule on the merits of that claim. Total BS Mathius.

          There were more than enough anomalies to justify forcing a deeper investigation. It has all been ignored and the left wing media has covered for the whole thing by simply repeating the excuses provided by the people who screwed it all up.

          • There is not a single case where the Trump and Company got to present a full slate of evidence.

            I don’t think that’s true.

            Perhaps it’s a problem in our definitions… you seem to be imagining a Perry Mason style day in court where the prosecutor – played by Guiliani – sweeps his hand of a stack of affidavits, making eloquent opening and closing arguments with a dozen witnesses called to the stand in between. But that’s just not reality.

            A court does not have any obligation to let you waste their time. You make your case in the pleadings. If you have sufficient evidence, valid standing, and filed on time (“latches”), and seek an obtainable remedy, then you will get your day in court and you will get to present your evidence. But if you fail on these, you will get thrown out. And if the court determines that you’re wasting the court’s time or trying to use it for political theater rather than a legitimate venue for trying a case, you will get thrown out. That’s how this goes. That’s how it should go.

            Of the cases, as I noted the other day, it stands at, per Wikipedia:
            Ongoing: 7
            Dropped: 11
            Dismissed: 21
            Ruled: 4
            Pending appeal: 1

            If Trump & Co couldn’t get a single court in all of that – with Trump having appointed something like 1/3rd of them – to let him present his “full slate of evidence,” then either his lawyers are the worst in the world, or his evidence was insufficient to merit the court’s full hearing.

            If I say Trump is a Mole Person and therefore ineligible to run for office, I can file in court, and I can present evidence / claims-thereof in my pleadings. But the court doesn’t have to give me “my day in court” to “present a full slate of evidence.” It can look at what I have, what I’ve claimed, and then promptly throw me our on my ear.

            So, really, the question isn’t “why hasn’t Trump & Co had their opportunity to present their full slate of evidence” (something I by no means stipulate), but rather “if they haven’t, why haven’t they?”

            One case the judge simply dismissed SIGNED AFFIDAVIDTS as a minor thing.

            In the case in question, Trump & Co put a form up online, then let anyone fill it out and “attest” to it.

            Obviously, a large number of trolls filled it out.

            Trump & Co went through them and tolls out the ones that they knew were false (eg “I saw aliens beaming down votes for Biden.”) but kept everything else. They did ZERO due diligence to determine the veracity of any of the affidavits or claims therein.

            They simply bundled them up and handed them to the court and said “here ya go.”

            As the method for gathering these affidavits had already been proven highly questionable – as evidenced by the trolls – the fact that the lawyers submitting them did not bother with an iota of fact-checking or confirmation before dumping them on the court and saying “here’s our proof” is absurd.

            Is the thinking that Trump & Co should be allowed to dump a big pile of unvetted claims on the court and force the defense to go through them item by item and disprove a thousand wild conspiracy claims?

            Pennsylvania flat out broke their own laws and violated their own Constitution. Yet no court will rule on the merits of that claim. Total BS Mathius.

            Which case is this one – I will review and revert.

            • Trump & Co went through them and tolls tossed out the ones that they knew were false (eg “I saw aliens beaming down votes for Biden.”) but kept everything else. They did ZERO due diligence to determine the veracity of any of the affidavits or claims therein.

              Just to add a bit more to this… it’s a disbarrable offense to suborn perjury.

              If you present evidence that you know to be false, or allow a witness (or affidavit) to present a statement that you, the attorney, know to be false, you can lose your law license.

              And that’s a career death sentence.

              Which is why lawyers take that very, very seriously.

              You’ll see courtroom dramas play fast and loose with this kind of thing all the time and pull all kinds of nitpicky technicalities. In a real court, if your lawyer knows you’re lying, he is NOT going to put you on the stand (or present your affidavit).

              To that end, Trump & Co deliberately did no due dilligence. Because, if they don’t know it’s false, then they can present it and fall back on “oh, well, we didn’t know it’s false.” That’s very, very valuable to the lawyers.

              Which is why a court would look at that with a very jaundiced eye. It’s willful ignorance as a pretext for presenting what is likely false information.

              One of the rules of evidence is called the Good Faith Principle (or something like that)… and it very clearly demands that an attorney submitting evidence have a good faith basis for believing that the evidence is true. That’s not “not a lie,” but “true.”

              JAC: What’s your bank account balance?
              Mathius: $3,000,000.01
              JAC: Really?
              Mathius: Well, I haven’t checked today, so it might be.
              JAC: Ok…
              Mathius: Or it might not be? All I’m saying is that it might not be wrong.
              JAC: Ok… but what is it?
              Mathius: Well, I mean, it could be $3m and once cent.
              JAC: But do you have any reason to believe that’s true?
              Mathius: Well, now, but it could be. I haven’t checked.
              JAC: Well, don’t you think you should check?
              Mathius: Naw… because if I checked, I wouldn’t be able to make the claim I want to make.

    • 7 SCOTUS judges tell Texas to go fuck themselves. 2 SCOTUS judges say “we’d have listened, but go fuck yourselves.”

      It was a long shot at best…..did not stand much of a chance…but it does point out one thing that Mathius told me looong ago. When I once told young Mathius to butt out of Texas’ business and that what Texas wishes to do is NONE of his business…..he pointed out that if something Texas does actually hurts me, then it is my business even though I reside elsewhere…..

      So, Texas takes the lead in calling out four states that compromised their own laws in order to manipulate the vote in THOSE states only and their argument is that it does affect us in Texas because it disenfranchised our votes….I wonder if young Mathius still thinks this way? But who knows…not even the Shadow knows what goes on in the mind of young Mathius.
      JAC is correct, me thinks, and I wonder if the SCOTUS punted to avoid turning the ball over on the 1 yard line…..
      ___________
      By the way, if someone sees or talks to young Mathius, tell him I did some research on the SCOTUS and the make up of the court…….Justice Roberts is hailed by Mathius as a conservative justice…..and the the SCOTUS is a 6-3 conservative court……I wonder how he arrives at that conclusion when the record show Justice Roberts voting with the liberal side of the court 86% of the time……hmmm.

      • When I once told young Mathius to butt out of Texas’ business and that what Texas wishes to do is NONE of his business…..he pointed out that if something Texas does actually hurts me, then it is my business even though I reside elsewhere…..

        Boy, for a senile old coot, you sure do have a long memory.

        Yes, I do vaguely remember saying this and, more to the point, I still stand by this.

        I wonder if young Mathius still thinks this way

        He does.

        From a moral standpoint… legally can be a bit tricker, obviously, with SCOTUS telling Texas to take a hike.

        I wonder if young Mathius still thinks this way

        I think, ultimately, the flaming shit-taco that is the US electoral system rests the power to run and adjudicate elections with the the states wherein they are run. And if, ultimately, the state courts rule that the state did so correctly (however at odds that may be with your and my common sense), then that’s the final word.

        What Texas is saying it that the states broke their election laws… even though the states – themselves – said that they did not. So what Texas, really is saying is “I want SCOTUS to substitute its judgement for the state courts’ and decide that they did not follow their own rules.”

        not even the Shadow knows what goes on in the mind of young Mathius.

        ‘Tis a place of sheer madness. Even the Shadow knows to keep his nose out of it.

        JAC is correct, me thinks, and I wonder if the SCOTUS punted to avoid turning the ball over on the 1 yard line…..

        I suspect not.

        Better informed legal minds than mine all seemed to unanimously agree that this was somewhere between a hail-mary and DOA. I never saw anyone give it even odds or better.. not even Trump’s own team.

        And then they ruled 7-2, with the two concurring that they wouldn’t have granted relief, only that they should have heard it… I mean… you can’t get much more decisive than that.

        If the fear were just turning the ball over on the one-yard line, then I would have anticipated a more divided court and an aggressive dissent from at least one of the Conservatives. That none of them, not even Alito, came out and said “Texas has a good argument here” tells me that, legally speaking, this was just a non-starter.

        By the way, if someone sees or talks to young Mathius, tell him I did some research on the SCOTUS and the make up of the court…….

        Please also tell him to save the hard drive where he stored his bit coin that would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars today.

        Justice Roberts is hailed by Mathius as a conservative justice…..and the the SCOTUS is a 6-3 conservative court……I wonder how he arrives at that conclusion when the record show Justice Roberts voting with the liberal side of the court 86% of the time……hmmm.

        Simple.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          AND NOT ONE OF THOSE OPINIONS INVOLVED A STATEMENT ABOUT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS. ONLY THAT TEXAS HAD NO PROVEN STANDING AND THAT THE REMEDY REQUESTED WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED.

          NOBODY RULED ON THE EVIDENCE OR THE ACTUAL CHARGES. THEY FLAT PUNTED.

        • So what Texas, really is saying is “I want SCOTUS to substitute its judgement for the state courts’ and decide that they did not follow their own rules.”

          Yes, this is what Texas tried to do…yes, it was the HAIL of all MARYEST of tries and the SCOTUS did what I thought the SCOTUS would do…..they were NOT going to get involved in whether states followed their own rules…so, they did not try the 4th and 10 scenario on their own 1 yard line….they punted to ball to leave it up to the states to decide their own fates.

          and considering that I am a state’s rights person, I cannot fault the SCOTUS on this point. At least Texas took a shot……and even a turtle gets nowhere until he sticks his neck out.

          • Yes, this is what Texas tried to do…yes, it was the HAIL of all MARYEST of tries and the SCOTUS did what I thought the SCOTUS would do […] At least Texas took a shot……and even a turtle gets nowhere until he sticks his neck out.

            Not for nothing, but how pissed would you be if you opened this can of worms, won, and then in the next go ’round you found Texas repeatedly getting sued by liberal states and SCOTUS making you change your rules to suit them?

            Texas: “We’re going to have 1 drop off point per district”
            Maryland: We’re suing
            SCOCTUS: Yup… Texas, you have to change it now.

        • Please also tell him to save the hard drive where he stored his bit coin that would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars today.

          Did you check the garage? Have you checked the hold of the Hammer….somehow, the Dread Pirate manages to have the best anchor in and around Laguna Madre and I noticed underwater sonar devices on a freshly scraped barnacle-less hull, curtains on the stern cabin ports, a newly installed wine cellar on a pirate ship, and laser guided 36 pounders. Somehow, he can afford this.

    • I pretty sure that attempting to have a real investigation will be squashed by the Left. They don’t want investigations that can hurt them or their people. Unless it’s some conspiracy theory BS claim about a person on the Right, I don’t expect any form of justice. This of course will only go on for so long and then………..

      • Mathius still misses the point (deliberately so in my opinion). The ballots, envelops, machines, logs, etc. are all public domain information. The bar for investigating these for fraud especially to the candidates involved should not be very high. They should have access to them. It is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud occurred nor should it be necessary to have sufficient evidence that the election will be overturned. It should be sufficient to show that some fraud occurred and that there is a high likelihood that more would be discovered with a thorough examination of the records. I still maintain that Mathius’ position means he tacitly approves of voter fraud when his side wins. We should all be demanding a thorough investigation of the this election. Unfortunately, I fear the evidence will be destroyed before that can occur.

  42. Now what?

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Makes you wonder what the goal is of all the Right Wing Media that have been pounding on Barr the past week. Enough so that apparently Mr. Trump and he had a huge argument and Mr. Trump started suggesting he be fired. More asshatery by Mr. Trump in that regard but it does make one wonder “what’s up”.

    https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/12/14/bill-barrs-doj-did-confirm-there-was-an-investigation-into-hunter-biden-before-the-election-most-media-just-ignored-it-n294255

    Now Dear Mathius, tell me again how there is nothing been shown about those emails.

    • Dan Bongino even reported the case number of the investigation weeks ago. So it was well known to many and should have been well known to the MSM.

%d bloggers like this: