192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
BillW
 
  5  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 10:26 am
Why is theRump and supporters always, always wrong. Such wrongs that just one of them in my life would cause me to hang my head and hide - for a long, long time! I realize that cj will come back on me with her childish and projectionist retorts; but, it changes nothing to fact this is so true - always very wrong.

Really sad, isn't it. Not the whole of Republicans, not all Senators and Congress persons, but a large % of them. The whole of it is the American way, to not be is unAmerican, nonDemocracy.

Shame, Shame, Shame!
oristarA
 
  1  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 11:36 am


‘There’s no place for them to go’: ICU beds near capacity across US
coluber2001
 
  2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 11:41 am
The Atlantic
America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent
Zeynep Tufekci 11/6/2020

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent
  © Scott Olson / Getty
Updated at 12:04 p.m. ET on November 7, 2020.

Now that Joe Biden has won the presidency, we can expect debates over whether Donald Trump was an aberration (“not who we are!”) or another instantiation of America’s pathologies and sins. One can reasonably make a case for his deep-rootedness in American traditions, while also noticing the anomalies: the early-morning tweeting, the fondness for mixing personal and government business, the obsession with ratings befitting a reality-TV star—the one job he was good at.

From an international perspective, though, Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms: by criminalizing dissent, suppressing or demonizing the media, harassing the opposition, and deploying extra-legal mechanisms whenever possible (Putin’s opponents have a penchant for meeting tragic accidents). Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.

He campaigned like they did, too, railing against the particular form of globalization that dominates this era and brings benefit to many, but disproportionately to the wealthy, leaving behind large numbers of people, especially in wealthier countries. He relied on the traditional herrenvolk idea of ethnonationalist populism: supporting a kind of welfare state, but only for the “right” people rather than the undeserving others (the immigrants, the minorities) who allegedly usurp those benefits. He channeled and fueled the widespread mistrust of many centrist-liberal democratic institutions (the press, most notably) —just like the other populists. And so on.

But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else on that list. The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again.

In contrast, Trump is a reality-TV star who stumbled his way into an ongoing realignment in American politics, aided by a series of events peculiar to 2016 that were fortunate for him: The Democrats chose a polarizing nominee who didn’t have the requisite political touch that can come from surviving tough elections; social media was, by that point, deeply entrenched in the country’s politics, but its corrosive effects were largely unchecked; multiple players—such as then–FBI Director James Comey—took consequential actions fueled by their misplaced confidence in Hillary Clinton’s win; and Trump’s rivals in the Republican primaries underestimated him. He drew a royal flush.

It’s not that he is completely without talent. His rallies effectively let him bond with his base, and test out various messages with the crowd that he would then amplify everywhere. He has an intuitive understanding of the power of attention, and he played the traditional media like a fiddle—they benefited from his antics, which they boosted. He also clearly sensed the political moment in 2016, and managed to navigate his way into the presidency, though that probably had more to do with instinct than with deep planning.

Luck aside, though, Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections. He seems to have been as surprised as anyone else that he won in 2016. While he hates the loser branding that will follow him now, he’s probably fine with the outcome—especially since he can blame it on fantastical conspiracies involving theft or ballot-stuffing or the courts—as long as he can figure out how to escape the criminal trials that are certainly coming his way. (A self-pardon? A negotiated pardon? He will try something.)

Trump ran like a populist, but he lacked the political talent or competence to govern like an effective one. Remember the Infrastructure Week he promised? It never happened. Remember the trade wars with China he said he’d win? Some tariffs were raised here and there, but the jobs that would bring relief to America’s decimated manufacturing sector never resurged. In Wisconsin in 2018, the president announced “the eighth wonder of the world”—a Foxconn factory that was supposed to employ 13,000 in return for $4.5 billion in government subsidies. However, going into this election, the building remained empty, and the president lost Wisconsin in the Electoral College. (Foxconn hired people in the final weeks of 2019 to fulfill quotas for the subsidies, and laid off many of them right after the new year.) Most populists globally deploy wide patronage networks: state spending that boosts their own supporters. Trump’s model remained attached more to personal graft: He encouraged people to stay in his hotels and have dinner at Mar-a-Lago in exchange for access, rather than develop a broad and participatory network that would remain loyal to him for years. And when the pandemic hit, instead of rising to the occasion and playing the strongman, rallying the country through a crisis that had originated in China—an opportunity perfect for the kind of populist he aspired to be—he floundered.

[Anne Applebaum: Trump’s forever campaign is just getting started]

Erdoğan has been in power nationally since 2003. After two decades, he has arguably lost some of his political magic, evinced by increasing missteps and a deteriorating situation around democratic rights. Still, he is among the most talented politicians in Turkey’s history. He has been able to navigate multiple challenges, including a previous global financial crisis. In Russia, Putin has won many elections, even managing to subvert term limits. In India, Modi has also been reelected. One could argue that these elections were far from perfect, but they were elections. Brazil’s Bolsonaro has bungled his country’s response to the pandemic but is giving the poor emergency aid and increasing his popularity. The CARES Act did the same thing, providing a significant subsidy to businesses and improving household finances, especially for people with low incomes, but it ended right before the election; Trump erratically tweeted about having nuked a new deal.

I suspect that the Republican leadership is sanguine, if not happy, about Trump’s loss. It’s striking how quickly Fox News called Arizona for Biden, and how many Republican leaders have condemned the president’s rage-tweeting and attempts to stop the count. They know that Trump is done, and they seem fine with it. For them, what’s not to like? The Supreme Court is solidly in their corner; they will likely retain control of the Senate; House Republicans won more seats than they were projected to; and they are looking at significant gains in state Houses as well, giving them control over redistricting for the next decade. Even better for their long-term project, they have diversified their own coalition, gaining more women candidates and more support from nonwhite voters.

And they have at their disposal certain features that can be mobilized: The Electoral College and especially the Senate are anti-majoritarian institutions, and they can be combined with other efforts to subvert majority rule. Leaders and parties can engage in voter suppression and break norms with some degree of bipartisan cooperation across the government. In combination, these features allow for players to engage in a hardball kind of minority rule: Remember that no Republican president has won the popular vote since 2004, and that the Senate is structurally prone to domination by a minority. Yet Republicans have tremendous power. This dynamic occurs at the local level, too, where gerrymandering allows Republicans to inflate their representation in state legislatures.

The situation is a perfect setup, in other words, for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him, and someone whose wife looks at him adoringly instead of slapping his hand away too many times in public. Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections.  

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism—without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent—is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president. He will not be so clumsy or vulnerable. He will get into office less by luck than by skill. Perhaps it will be Senator Josh Hawley, who is writing a book against Big Tech because he knows that will be the next chapter in the culture wars, with social-media companies joining “fake news” as the enemy. Perhaps it will be Senator Tom Cotton, running as a law-and-order leader with a populist bent. Maybe it will be another media figure: Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, both men with talent and followings. Perhaps it will be another Sarah Palin—she was a prototype—with the charisma and appeal but without the baggage and the need for a presidential candidate to pluck her out of the blue. Perhaps someone like the QAnon-supporting Representative-elect Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who first beat the traditional Republican representative in the primary and then ran her race with guns blazing, mask off, and won against the Democratic candidate, a retired professor who avoided campaigning in person. Indeed, a self-made charismatic person coming out of nowhere probably has a better chance than many establishment figures in the party.

What can be done? First and foremost, we need to realize the nature of the problem and accept that elite failure cannot be responded to with more of the same. A good deal of the Democratic Party’s messaging has been wrapped in nostalgia. But populism’s resurgence is a symptom of the failures of the past. Pearl-clutching for the good old days will not get us out of this. Yes, it’s important to highlight the value of norms and call for the restoration of democratic institutions. But what we need in order to move forward goes beyond more politeness and the right rhetoric. The failures of the past aren’t to be yearned for. They’re to be avoided and, crucially, understood and fixed. There will be arguments about how to rebuild a politics that can appeal to the moment, and how to mobilize for the future. There should be. Our American crisis cannot be resolved in one sweeping article that offers easy solutions. But the first step is to realize how deep this hole is for democracies around the world, including ours, and to realize that what lies ahead is not some easy comeback.

At the moment, the Democratic Party risks celebrating Trump’s loss and moving on—an acute danger, especially because many of its constituencies, the ones that drove Trump’s loss, are understandably tired. A political nap for a few years probably looks appealing to many who opposed Trump, but the real message of this election is not that Trump lost and Democrats triumphed. It’s that a weak and untalented politician lost, while the rest of his party has completely entrenched its power over every other branch of government: the perfect setup for a talented right-wing populist to sweep into office in 2024. And make no mistake: They’re all thinking about it.

coldjoint
 
  -3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:01 pm
@oristarA,

Quote:
3 Studies That Show Lockdowns Are Ineffective at Slowing COVID-19

Quote:
1. The Lancet, July

A study published on July 21 in The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal founded in 1823, indicated that government lockdowns were ineffective.
2. Frontiers in Public Health, November

Similarly, a study published by Frontiers in Public Health several months after The Lancet paper found neither lockdowns nor lockdown stringency were correlated with lower death rates
3. Tel Aviv University Study, October

Research from Tel Aviv University published in October on the website medRxiv said that strict lockdowns may not save lives.

The bigger the lie the more it is repeated and eventually believed. Keep in mind 99.7% survive.
https://fee.org/articles/3-stuies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:45 pm
Quote:
GOP Rep. Mike Kelly: Supreme Court Case "Alive And Well" After Emergency Order Denied

Quote:


“All that happened is we were not granted temporary injunctive relief,” Kelly told Newsmax on Wednesday.

“The case is still alive and well.”

Quote:
Kelly’s case argued that Pennsylvania’s Legislature acted in an unconstitutional manner by passing a law—known as Act 77—last year to expand the usage of mail-in ballots. His lawyers said Pennsylvania lawmakers violated the state Constitution.

But the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the request for relief.

“The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied,” said the court’s single-sentence order. It did not offer a dissenting opinion.

Following the Supreme Court’s denial, Kelly stated what they “can do now is we petition the court to hear (our) case. It’s called cert.”

“That’s what we’re asking the court to do. Hear the lawsuit based on its merits. That’s all we’re asking: constitutional, unconstitutional. Then make a decision afterwards of what are those findings and what are the remedies,” Kelly said. “Play up to the whistle. Play up to the echo of the whistle.”


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gop-rep-mike-kelly-supreme-court-case-alive-and-well-after-emergency-order-denied
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:48 pm
Quote:
Citizens For Free Elections Launches Brutal Ad To Pressure State Legislatures To Ensure Only Legal Votes Count

Quote:
The non-profit electoral integrity group Citizens for Free Elections put out a damning advertisement video today which will be used to pressure battleground state legislatures to act in support of ensuring only legal votes count in the 2020 general election results.

The ad will begin running on Fox stations in addition to other media outlets and online.

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/politics/2020/12/09/citizens-for-free-elections-launches-brutal-ad-to-pressure-state-legislatures-to-ensure-only-legal-votes-count/
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:51 pm
Fact check: Does the WHO Now Agree With Donald Trump on Ending Lockdowns?

Quote:
The Claim

President Donald Trump has claimed the World Health Organization (WHO) has "admitted" that his anti-lockdown stance amid the COVID-19 pandemic was correct, stating the measures are "killing countries all over the world."

"The World Health Organization just admitted that I was right," he tweeted Monday. "Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. Open up your states, Democrat governors. Open up New York. A long battle, but they finally did the right thing!"

In the space of 13 hours, Trump's tweet was retweeted almost 70,000 times, liked by nearly 202,000 users, and sparked 17,4000 comments.

The World Health Organization just admitted that I was right. Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. Open up your states, Democrat governors. Open up New York. A long battle, but they finally did the right thing!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020



The Facts

It was not clear what the president was referring to in his tweet. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment.

Dissecting Trump's tweet, the president seems to be referring to lockdowns as "killing countries" in metaphorical terms in regards to the economic harm. By saying the WHO "admitted" he was right, Trump seems to imply that the organisation previously did not hold a position that lockdowns cause economic harm.

The second half of his tweet appears to draw on one of his favourite lines: "The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself." He then goes on to encourage states to open their economies.

Unlike many other countries, the U.S. did not have a mandated national lockdown. Instead, the White House issued guidance for preventing the spread of the virus for 15 days, later extended to 30. This included advising individuals to stay home if they were sick, vulnerable or living with someone who had tested positive.

Americans were also encouraged to avoid social gatherings of more than 10 people, practice personal hygiene, use pick-up or delivery services instead of going to restaurants or bars, working from home when possible, and to follow guidance from state and local authorities.

Lawmakers in their respective states made decisions about whether to introduce lockdown measures, such as shutting bars and other venues.

Is it true that WHO 'admitted' Trump was right that lockdowns are 'killing countries'

The president's tweet followed news reports in recent days that David Nabarro, a special envoy for the WHO director-general, had spoken out against lockdowns.

Some news outlets reported remarks by Nabarro in an interview with Spectator TV on Thursday to suggest the WHO itself had reversed a pro-lockdown stance. But that is not the case.

On Monday, before Trump sent his tweet, Nabarro told Newsweek via email that his words were taken out of context.

As was reported by various outlets, Nabarro did tell Spectator TV: "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus" and "we really do appeal to world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary control method."

But Nabarro made the comments after Spectator TV host Andrew Neil asked him to elaborate on what the special envoy had described as a "middle way" of dealing with the virus. Neil also asked whether lockdowns were still the way forward for countries now that more is known about the virus, and it appears rarely fatal for young people.

Nabarro said a number of approaches are needed to ensure there is a robust defence to quickly suppress outbreaks if there is an uptick in cases.

The "backbone to controlling this kind of thing is always testing, contact tracing and isolation," at a local level, he said. The second is dealing with small spikes locally, and ensuring the public is on side and practicing disease prevention measures such as physical distancing.

East Asian countries have been relatively successful in this, as well as Germany and Canada, Nabarro said. "That's the approach that we believe should be adopted."

"We think lockdowns only serve one purpose, and that is to give a bit of breathing space to stop everything, the virus stops moving, and while you've got that breathing space you should be really building your testing, building up your contact tracing, build up your local organization, so that as you release lockdown you're bound to get more cases but you can deal with it really, really elegantly," he said.

Nabarro went on: "The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large we'd rather not do it." He pointed to regions where tourism has suffered, the effects on farmers, and poverty levels.

"We really do appeal to world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems, for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember lockdowns just have one consequence you must never ever belittle and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."

Over the course of the pandemic, the U.S. has struggled with some of these aspects, including mass testing.

WHO officials have said throughout the pandemic that lockdowns should not be the only approach taken by countries to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

In a statement emailed to Newsweek, a spokesperson said: "WHO has consistently said that measures to control COVID-19 depend on local risk assessments. National lockdowns shouldn't be the default control measure, but movement restrictions may be among a range of measures governments can consider in certain geographical areas.

"We should implement the range public health measures that we know are effective for preventing transmission, including hand and respiratory hygiene, physical distancing, mask wearing, staying home if you're sick, etc. as well as having robust systems for testing, isolating, tracing and quarantining contacts, etc."

What have other WHO officials said?

Nabarro's comments mirror those made by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in March. At a press conference on March 25, he said many countries had introduced lockdown measures at "significant social and economic cost" and were assessing when and how to ease the measures.

Their decisions would depend on how they used the time bought by lockdowns to implement other approaches to prevent the spread of disease, he said.

"On their own these measures will not extinguish epidemic," he said. "The point of these actions is to enable the more precise and targeted measures that are needed to stop transmission and save lives."

In April, Tedros reiterated the points, saying lockdowns can "help to take the heat" from a country's epidemic, but they would not stop the spread entirely. He said testing, tracing and isolating were key elements to ending the pandemic.

At a press conference on Monday, Tedros addressed the idea of herd immunity, or letting the virus spread unchecked in a population without a vaccine, stating that it has never been used in the history of public health and would allow for "unnecessary infections, suffering and death."

He said countries do not need to choose between "between letting the virus run free and shutting down our societies. Persist with the same tools that we have been advocating since day one," he said.

Do lockdowns work?

Professor Dame Anne Johnson vice president at the Academy of Medical Sciences, told Newsweek on Monday lockdowns "undoubtedly" have been shown to "dramatically suppress the amount of transmission."

She said: "I think the problem is that we're seeing this kind of polarization between almost lockdown or let it go, just let it go."

One study published in the journal Science in April found that steps taken by China in the first 50 days of the COVID-19 pandemic likely prevented 700,000 from catching the virus. And a model by Columbia University released in May found 54,000 fewer people in the U.S. would have died if from March 1 the country had brought in social distancing measures and locked down metropolitan regions.

Rating: Mostly false

It was not clear what President Donald Trump was referring to in his tweet. The WHO has not publicly "admitted" Trump was right, as it has not released a statement referring to him or his views.

The element of truth to Trump's remark is that WHO does recognise the economic impact of lockdown measures, although the organisation has always noted this. WHO has not admitted to a formerly incorrect stance as Trump's tweet might have implied.

In the past few days, some media outlets suggested the WHO had done a U-turn on encouraging countries to implement lockdowns. The reports were centred around comments made by WHO special envoy Dr. Peter Nabarro. He told Newsweek his words were taken out of context.

The remarks Nabarro made in a Spectator TV interview did have similarities to Trump's tweet suggesting lockdowns were "killing countries all over the world," pointing to economic suffering of various industries and rising poverty levels.

However, WHO officials have previously acknowledged that lockdowns can cause economic harm. That is why they have encouraged countries that implement lockdowns to use the time that buys them in slowing the virus spread to strengthen other parts of their response. These include infrastructure for testing, isolating, tracing and quarantining contacts.

newsweek
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:57 pm
@coluber2001,
Quote:
Now that Joe Biden has won the presidency,

The article starts with a lie. What do you think the rest of it is worth?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:00 pm
@hightor,
Quote:

Fact check: Does the WHO Now Agree With Donald Trump on Ending Lockdowns?

More voluminous propaganda, and right on cue. Fact checkers are just lie enablers. Facebook's fact checkers come from China.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:04 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Facebook's fact checkers come from China.[/color]
That's the reason why Facebook is blocked in China since 2009, right?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:06 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
I realize that cj will come back on me with her childish and projectionist retorts;

I am not the one posting pictures of unhappy children, you are. I am not the one posting in caps saying "you lost, you lost ha ha". That is you.

Do not talk to anyone about being childish. You are a frustrated group think slave and a troll.
0 Replies
 
Rebelofnj
 
  2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:12 pm
The Kraken Is Dead: Sidney Powell's Final Lawsuit Just Got Dismissed

Quote:
In Norse mythology, the Kraken is a fierce sea monster that looks like a giant squid. But in MAGA world, the Kraken turned out to be little more than a damp squib.

In a series of lawsuits filed by former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell she promised to “release the Kraken” by making explosive claims about widespread voter fraud in four states.

But on Wednesday night, Powell’s Kraken was finally slain: a judge in Wisconsin dismissed the fourth and final lawsuit, noting that it is voters, not judges, who decide who goes to the White House.

“Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country,” U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper wrote in a 45-page ruling.

“One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the ‘why.’ But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks.”

Just like her colleagues in Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona before her, Pepper was faced with a lawsuit that was littered with baseless allegations and conspiracy theories, as well as typos and factual inaccuracies — which the judge was only too happy to point out.

In a footnote to the judgment, Pepper pointed out that Powell had sought 48 hours’ worth of surveillance footage from the TCF Center — which is in Michigan, not Wisconsin.

She also pointed out that Powell misspelled the name of her lead plaintiff, referring to William Feehan, a would-be Trump elector, as “Meehan.”

Finally, the judge highlighted the fact that the plaintiff appeared to have made up a quote purporting to come from a decision made by Pepper’s own colleague Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. The quote simply doesn’t exist.

“The plaintiff asserts that these words appear on page 4 of the Swaffer decision: ‘even though the election has passed, the meeting of electors obviously has not, so plaintiff’s claim here is hardly moot.’ The court has read page 4 of Swaffer three times and cannot find these words,” the ruling read.

Just hours before Pepper handed down her decision, a federal judge in Arizona dismissed another of Powell’s Kraken lawsuits.

“Not only have Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims, but they have wholly failed to establish that they have standing for the Court to consider them,” U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa said.

“Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.”

Powell was originally part of Trump’s “elite strike force,” a team of lawyers who have spent the last four weeks filing dozens of spurious lawsuits on behalf of the president across the country. So far, the team has had just a single minor victory, while 55 lawsuits have been dismissed.

Powell was removed from the tea after an unhinged press conference where she repeated multiple QAnon conspiracy theories. The Trump campaign has distanced itself from another lawyer, Lin Wood, after he urged Georgia voters not to vote in the Senate run-off election. Meanwhile the remaining members of the “elite strike force” — Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis — have both contracted the coronavirus.

With the Kraken slain, how did Powell react? By posting a meme of her client, the recently-pardoned former national security adviser Michael Flynn engaging in a gun battle with George Soros, of course.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpypz/the-kraken-is-dead-sidney-powells-final-lawsuit-just-got-dismissed
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

coldjoint wrote:
Facebook's fact checkers come from China.[/color]
That's the reason why Facebook is blocked in China since 2009, right?

Could be. The Chi Coms do what they want in their country, much like yours. You people are not citizens. You are subjects and seem to love it. Anything else Walter?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:15 pm
@Rebelofnj,
Quote:
The Kraken Is Dead: Sidney Powell's Final Lawsuit Just Got Dismissed

The Kraken can appeal. How dumb is the guy who wrote that and how stupid are the people who believe it?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:25 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
You people are not citizens. You are subjects and seem to love it.
There seem to be strong different meanings of those two terms in your language and how it is used here.
But you're correct: we like our Basic Law (70th anniversary last year).
0 Replies
 
Rebelofnj
 
  3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:28 pm
@coldjoint,
If you like, the VICE reporter is active on Twitter. You can speak to him regarding the article.

https://twitter.com/daithaigilbert?s=20
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:31 pm
Quote:
Ted Cruz To Argue Texas Lawsuit Over Election Results That 18 States Now Back…

Cruz has argued before the SCOTUS nine times. He has won and he has lost. Results have also been mixed with somethings going his way and some not.

The experience alone and the respect of his legal prowess can go a long way in a case that should be easily proven.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/460565-ted-cruz-to-argue-texas-lawsuit-over-election-results-that-18-states-now-back/
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:33 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
The Kraken can appeal.
Directly to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, I suppose.

coldjoint
 
  -2  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:33 pm
@Rebelofnj,
Rebelofnj wrote:

If you like, the VICE reporter is active on Twitter. You can speak to him regarding the article.

https://twitter.com/daithaigilbert?s=20

I would not go on Twitter if you paid me. And talking to a hack will not change his mind. He is a trained attack dog, not a journalist.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:44 pm
Quote:
Ron
@CodeMonkeyZ
·
Dec 7
On July 12, 2019, GA Gov Kemp met Houston Consul General Li Qiangmin at rumored Chinese spy hub consulate in Houston.

On July 29, 2019, GA signs contract for Dominion Voting Machines statewide.

Coincidence?

Sources:
http://uschinews.com/20190712/25697
https://statescoop.com/georgia-buys-n
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:23:48