The Otherworldly Circus - The America Thread

[Sentinel]

Proving fraud is as hard as it gets. 2 weeks ? You look to have at least read the blog, that makes you exceptional on this Board. Our Kiwi blogger sets out the difficulties of proving fraud in the 3rd/ 4th paragraph. The Law requires far more than an 'I reckon', unless you live in China.

Bit hard to read it on the original website when the poster of it didn't provide a link beyond saying 'this is from a kiwi bloke's blog'.

 

[D Mitchell]

Some people in the KiwiBlog’s comments have links to articles but my main issue with his source is below.

I spend lots of time discussing this with Trump diehards in the US. I love NFL and we regularly talk politics. All the numbers he got were from officials who testified in an inquiry. The same officials could have repeated the same details in court prior to the inquiry but didn’t as they were under oath in court. Since they didn’t repeat the same details in court when given the chance, I discount ALL information that the author has used from that source. IF an official is given a chance in court and doesn’t even allege fraud or provide any data, then says in an inquiry a few days later a different long statement, then I am going to discount their statements as not factual.

Do you think it is reasonable to discard statements from officials that refused to say the same things in a court of law?
I certainly do. Your take?

Here 'tis

The four states were
(a) Wisconsin. Judge Troupis was under oath.

(b) Georgia. Trump Campaign (we’d say Scruitineer) Not in Enquiry or under Oath

(c) Nevada. Jesse Binnell. Under oath.

Why do you say that they were in or could have been in Court ? Where are you getting all this misinformation from ?

 

[LittleG]

Here 'tis

The four states were
(a) Wisconsin. Judge Troupis was under oath.

(b) Georgia. Trump Campaign (we’d say Scruitineer) Not in Enquiry or under Oath

(c) Nevada. Jesse Binnell. Under oath.

Why do you say that they were in or could have been in Court ? Where are you getting all this misinformation from ?

Under oath and under oath in a court carry different legal standards. There was no penalty available for the under oath in the enquiry....

Yes Fraud is incredibly hard to prove and IF you fail in court, there are major repercussions to your career.

 

[LittleG]

Proving fraud is as hard as it gets. 2 weeks ? You look to have at least read the blog, that makes you exceptional on this Board. Our Kiwi blogger sets out the difficulties of proving fraud in the 3rd/ 4th paragraph. The Law requires far more than an 'I reckon', unless you live in China.

Kiwiblogger is easily found via google. I just looked it up this evening after wayniac linked it.

 

[dogwatch]

Here's a brief article from Prof Mark Kenny on the backwash of Trumpism in Australia. Although it doesn't present any new revelations he summarises developments over the last 5-10 years quite well and contrasts them with the way politics was conducted with more honour and integrity about 30-40 years ago. Is it actually "Trumpism" spreading from the US to here or is it just a similar parallel development that hasn't (yet) plumbed the depths that it has in the USA? Maybe that's immaterial. Well worth a read anyway.

As Trump exits the White House, he leaves Trumpism behind in Australia

There is evidence Trumpist methodology has already been adopted by Australia’s political right.

theconversation.com

And just in case you're wondering about his pedigree here's his bio.

Professor Mark Kenny came to the Australian National University after a high-profile journalistic career culminating in 6 years as chief political correspondent and national affairs editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and The Canberra Times.

He is a fixture on the ABC's Insiders program, Sky News Agenda, and is a sought after commentator on radio programs across the country.

Before Fairfax, Kenny was political editor at The Advertiser having moved across from the ABC.

 

[The Buck]

From a great article in the New York Times recently:

Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.

The American Abyss (Published 2021)

A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.

www.nytimes.com

 

[King Harold]

Here 'tis

The four states were
(a) Wisconsin. Judge Troupis was under oath.

(b) Georgia. Trump Campaign (we’d say Scruitineer) Not in Enquiry or under Oath

(c) Nevada. Jesse Binnell. Under oath.

Why do you say that they were in or could have been in Court ? Where are you getting all this misinformation from ?

Move on young fella , your man lost. And a good thing for the planet it was.

The moon landing was certainly suss , what do you think ?

 

[D Mitchell]

Thankyou for the 'young fella' My man lost ? You're my man, you lost ? Oh, you mean Trumpie. He did his bit. We are the better for him. We have to endure the Northern Hemisphere and the vagaries of it's indigenes. See you after the game at the Exchange.

Move on young fella , your man lost. And a good thing for the planet it was.

The moon landing was certainly suss , what do you think ?

Read it first. If you don't accept it, then say why. OK, it takes a bit of time but this is a topic you are invested in, it's worth the effort.

 

[D Mitchell]

Bit hard to read it on the original website when the poster of it didn't provide a link beyond saying 'this is from a kiwi bloke's blog'.

That doesn't make it hard to read, If you don't agree with the contents, then that might be a reason why you'd reject it. It might also be a reason you'll want to enquire further. Read it. If you print it out it runs to 8 pages. It’s in black and white before your eyes. It takes a bit of time, but you can make up your own mind. Don’t rely on smart one liners from the don’t-confuse-me-with-facts-I’ve-already-made-up-my-mind brigade, make up your own mind. Look at the responses that followed the extract, they all dismissed the contents of the article. None of them had read it. I don’t think even LittleG read it, apologies to him/her if he/she did. The Kiwi gives the source of his information, names names, gives exact figures. Of course it could all be made up but you have to read it first. There are supposed to be another 3 parts still to come. If they are anything like the first, then it's not the ramblings of a idealogue, too much hard work has gone into it.

Read it.

 

[D Mitchell]

Kiwiblogger is easily found via google. I just looked it up this evening after wayniac linked it.

You can read it in its original form, just in case wayniac doctored it. I'll be interested in your response after you've read it.

 

[D Mitchell]

Under oath and under oath in a court carry different legal standards. There was no penalty available for the under oath in the enquiry....
...

Not in Victoria. Perjury arises under the law that applies where the offence is committed. Why do you say that there was no penalty for perjury in the enquiry ? It would depend upon either the law of the particular US State or its Federal Law, highly unlikely.

 

[NBates]

Are you saying you don't think they should just take these convenient totals on face value?

They checked the Facebook of 84 Wisconsin voters, 84! It's good enough for me. I even saw Trump attorney Lin Wood confirm it was stolen.

Don't tell me Easton's cousin is involved in this in any way! Next Trump will be declaring the 2016 Premiership was fake news in a compromised competition!

 

[LittleG]

Not in Victoria. Perjury arises under the law that applies where the offence is committed. Why do you say that there was no penalty for perjury in the enquiry ? It would depend upon either the law of the particular US State or its Federal Law, highly unlikely.

I asked a Trump supporter in the US why there was all this information presented to the enquiry and not the courts. He said that he didn’t know why they didn’t present the same details to court but did note the difference in legal status of the two. The enquiry testimony isn’t under the same penalties for lying....
Sidney Powell - the woman who made up much of her testimony also spoke at the enquiry. How do I know she made it up her testimony? She claimed to be in multiple places at once and also to have seen dominion computer machines in places that they weren’t.

I did read all of the KiwiBlog article and some of the comments. He/she is a good writer BUT nothing that was presented in this article I haven’t read before.

The biggest issue I have heard about the counting was that Trump supporters said that the counting stopped at midnight and then when they woke up Trump had lost. This lie has been spread everywhere. The simple fact was that the poll workers stopped counting votes from that day and then started counting mail in ballots. Mail in ballots are strongly democratic, as most democrats don’t get to take the day off work on a Tuesday. This illusory Trump ahead early is created by the GOP insisting that mail in ballots only get counted after polling has closed.... So they can then claim that the vote is stolen. As far as I can see, it’s just all allegations of hot air.
I will read kiwiblog part 2-4 in full but I doubt he understands the system he is writing about. I may suggest that working at a poll booth, even outside the US would give him/her a greater understanding-of counting votes.

 

[LittleG]

Not in Victoria. Perjury arises under the law that applies where the offence is committed. Why do you say that there was no penalty for perjury in the enquiry ? It would depend upon either the law of the particular US State or its Federal Law, highly unlikely.

DMitchell, I read all the election stolen stuff with curiosity, as IF it happened, how did they do it. That would be quite the heist.

 

[Sentinel]

That doesn't make it hard to read, If you don't agree with the contents, then that might be a reason why you'd reject it. It might also be a reason you'll want to enquire further. Read it. If you print it out it runs to 8 pages. It’s in black and white before your eyes. It takes a bit of time, but you can make up your own mind. Don’t rely on smart one liners from the don’t-confuse-me-with-facts-I’ve-already-made-up-my-mind brigade, make up your own mind. Look at the responses that followed the extract, they all dismissed the contents of the article. None of them had read it. I don’t think even LittleG read it, apologies to him/her if he/she did. The Kiwi gives the source of his information, names names, gives exact figures. Of course it could all be made up but you have to read it first. There are supposed to be another 3 parts still to come. If they are anything like the first, then it's not the ramblings of a idealogue, too much hard work has gone into it.

Read it.

I actually have read all of the post by Wayniac. I was under the impression by saying "you look to have at least read the blog, that makes you exceptional on this Board" you were referring to the original post of the blog on the website of this Kiwi guy, presuming there must have been more information on there. My mistake if not.

You keep suggesting that the Kiwi provides sources for his information. I disagree, beyond a very high level. He provides a small number of names such as those who testified in front of the US Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing, but there is no verifiable information on where the numbers provided actually come from. As LittleG mentions, these testimonies under oath were not in a courtroom setting.

There were supposedly 170,000 people casting absentee votes in Wisconsin who didn't go through the statutory ballot applicaiton procedure. In Georgia the Trump campaign supposedly found 66,247 underage voters. In Nevada 42,000 people apparently voted twice. 19,154 voters in Arizona had votes counted but never returned a ballot. Where did all of these exact numbers actually come from? What's the source, where is the proof? Not even a link? Why were all of these thrown out in separate courts in completely different jurisdictions? I find them extremely difficult to take on face value from a wall of text from someone's blog without any further information.

 

[Chicago1]

In how many more days will Trump be “Somebody That We Used To Know”?

 

[King Harold]

DMitchell, I read all the election stolen stuff with curiosity, as IF it happened, how did they do it. That would be quite the heist.

The Trumpists on here still have offered no explanation as to why the fraud didn’t occur right down the ballot ?
To be frank some of our bf mates are under some kink of spell , where any reality and common sense has been extracted from their DNA.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

KH, this message is a pretty good summary of the "spell" they are under. Not that they will pay any attention to it of course.

 

[TempletonTheRat]

found this in my travels.

thoughts Mofra

"Giuliani also conflated a quickie impeachment with a baseless one. Trump is charged with a serious offense, which arguably justifies haste. This isn't a blowjob impeachment, where you can take your time and tease out a satisfying conclusion. Congress should probably move quickly when the president has sicced a mob on them."

 

[King Harold]

KH, this message is a pretty good summary of the "spell" they are under. Not that they will pay any attention to it of course.

Thanks
Says it all .

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Thanks
Says it all .

Some of my favourite lines:

"Salem witch-trial levels of mental lapse"
"Spectral evidence"
"Dreams about Krakens"
"Virtual alternate reality"

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Not in Victoria. Perjury arises under the law that applies where the offence is committed. Why do you say that there was no penalty for perjury in the enquiry ? It would depend upon either the law of the particular US State or its Federal Law, highly unlikely.

Jeez, you were up late. Bit of red bull in last nights cask of rosso D Mitchell??

 

[Sentinel]

KH, this message is a pretty good summary of the "spell" they are under. Not that they will pay any attention to it of course.

Whilst I appreciate what he's saying, I find much of the tone of that fairly righteous and condescending.

I can't imagine a single Trump supporter listening to the video and saying "you know what, you're right" if they haven't already changed their mind about him.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Whilst I appreciate what he's saying, I find much of the tone fairly righteous and condescending.

I can't imagine a single Trump supporter listening to that and saying "you know what, you're right" if they haven't already changed their mind about him.

Agreed. But getting anyone to change their belief system is a long shot no matter what approach is taken. The problem is that their politics have become about beliefs rather than politics!

 

[Sentinel]

Agreed. But getting anyone to change their belief system is a long shot no matter what approach is taken. The problem is that their politics have become about beliefs rather than politics!

Yeah given what politics in the US (and much of the world) has become I think it'll be incredibly difficult to turn the tide. The division is extreme at the moment and Biden's stated aim of unity looks an impossible task in the 4 short years he initially has.

I don't personally find these kinds of messages particularly helpful because I think it speaks to those already in agreeance and speaks down to those who aren't. It was interesting to listen to though, and summarised how many in the States are probably feeling when looking at the other side.