Biden administration

by Judith Curry

I’ve received requests for a new politics discussion thread.

Apart from some remaining challenges to the election results, the transition to the Biden administration is underway.

Cabinet members are being named [link]

Notably, John Kerry  will serve as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.

In response, Senator Marco Rubio makes a provocative comment:

Interesting times.

1,989 responses to “Biden administration

  1. I watched the hearing in Pennsylvania this afternoon. I urge everyone else too. 570,000 votes for Biden in 90 minutes, 3200 for Trump? Lots of other evidence. Talking about what a Biden administration may or may not do is ludicrous because this election is not over yet.

    • Good point but as your very pertinent comment shows, maybe we need a space to have this discussion.

      • Curious George

        If the evidence does not stand up in courts, we need a new evidence – or to shut up. Not new courts, even though that idea has an undeniable appeal.

      • Thank you. A complex situation.

      • The election fraud is not false. If people were smart enough to look into the facts of all the fraud. There are videos showing fraud from security cameras in polling locations. Democrats had all Republicans leave and pulled out boxes/cases of thousand of fake votes in more than one state. How is that not fraud? Look at the real news and you can see how these irregularities are not possible. That has been proven by several people. Also a specialist in computer fraud saw allot happening that shouldn’t have all in favor for Biden. Some of the dominion machines that were used for the election were investigated and they all changed votes for Trump to Biden. So you think it’s ok that communist China and George Sorus donated hundreds of millions of dollars to American voting machines to sway the votes. Same system as corrupt Venezuela and that’s ok too. You are also saying it is ok for Democrats and Biden to give classified information to Communist China for money so they can take over our country. Guess there will be lots of “I told you so” when our freedom is being taken away.

      • Been singin’ that all day. :)

      • Everett F Sargent

        Oh crap! How does one go about getting a post full of vapor as near to the top of this blog post as possible. Such a genius. No one has ever thought of that before.

        Meanwhile, how about posting something on topic, meaning the Biden administration.

    • I love that you guys (meaning some of you “skeptics” ) are all in on the “election was stolen” conspiracy indeation. Dovetails nearly with your views on climate change.

      • Indeation????
        Did you mean ideation?

      • From our point of view it’s becoming more and more likely. I really didn’t give it much credibility to begin with. But after Andy’s article on here which relates high religiosity with the push for solar panels & wind turbines despite the evidence against, it makes much more sense.

        Religiosity legitimises Ellison’s behaviour of misrepresentation of what Andy has said. He does it repeatedly. It’s directly analogous to the democrat fervishness on reducing CO2 emissions, despite the evidence against.

        This is huge.

      • I understand court cases need to be finalised by the 10th of December to enable results to be certified by state legislatures. I await the evidence as usual. In the meantime Alan has followed Andy so far down the skeptic curmudgeon rabbithole I doubt he will ever see the light of reason again.

      • I love how almost all your comments are vague generalized insults of those you don’t agree with, always served with little or not content.

      • Joshua: I love that you guys (meaning some of you “skeptics” ) are all in on the “election was stolen” conspiracy indeation. Dovetails nearly with your views on climate change.

        Any specifics to illustrate the details of this love of yours?

        Who exactly is “all in” on the election was stolen ideation and how does his or her writing “dovetail” with his or her writing on climate change? Has someone referring to evidence of possible voter fraud coupled a comment with a critique of misrepresentation of counts of walrus or polar bear populations?

        Your “love” is definitely in the “etc” portion of ClimateEtc.

      • I don’t think anyone can believe there is no fraud in US elections. It’s been documented in just about every place and time. That is why the Mayflower Compact stands on a biblical level in American and world history of the simple innocence and thirst for honest self-governance. We continue to always continue their dream in 1420 and remember them with due reverence.

        With this in mind the 3-hr hearing in Gettysburg PA deserves its own place in history.

      • The PA legislature had 100% of their constitutional powers usurped by the Dem controlled PA supreme court and Dem controlled executive. PA law states that absentee ballots are to remain untouched until after the election. To the Dem Sec of State this meant she could secretly coordinate with Dem controlled counties to have them open their mail in ballots before the election and inspect them for any flaws and fix them, presumably by contacting the voter and getting their wishes expressed by phone.

        Voters that requested an mail ballot but changed their mind and wanted to vote in person could bring their mail ballot to a polling place and exchange it for a new ballot. But in Dem controlled polling places if they forgot to bring in their mail in ballot it was not a problem. They got to vote anyway, and not with a provisional ballot as would be required.

        Republican certified poll watchers were blocked in almost all Dem controlled locations were kept out or at such a distance they could not observe.

        If the allegations are true that the vote counting computers were in fact hooked to the internet then the whole pretext for purchasing them this year for anti-hacking safety was a sham.

      • Trump has seven weeks left in which to appoint Rudy Giuliani as Climatologist for Life of American Samoa.

        Threre’s no room left to park him in the EPA.

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-short-course-in-lame-duck-climate.html

    • Let’s not start peddling nonsense. Pennsylvania has already certified their vote, and the election is over. Accept it or don’t, but Biden is the next President and this is a discussion of his cabinet

      • The dismissal you’re referring to took place several days ago. This is a new one today. Try to keep up here.

      • If I was a gambler I would bet on Biden. There is, however, an official process for determining winners of our presidential elections, and gamblers, media, and partisans are not part of that process. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in election law can correct me, but my understanding is that some legal challenges can not commence until an election has been certified. The ubiquitous “they” say patience is a virtue; In this case “they” are correct.

      • We have two lawsuits that I know of, one in Georgia and one in Michigan, alleging massive voter fraud, and more lawsuits in other states are coming. This isn’t over until the allegations are examined and answered, and I for one wouldn’t bet on a Biden presidency. What I would bet on is that we’ll see substantial and undeniable evidence of voter fraud which the left won’t except, and so once again they’ll take to the streets for rioting and burning.

        Biden, in misspeaking, was probably telling the truth: we put together the most extensive voter fraud machinery in history.

      • Chris: “Let’s not start peddling nonsense.”

        If the Dems are so confident in the propriety of the results they could allow the GOP to choose any single county in the disputed swing states for a test by having a special election in that county with observers at every step. If the results turned out to substantially match those of Nov 3 everyone will be quiet and sleep well and respect the result. What an irresistible win that would be for Dems. I wonder none think of it.

      • Ron –

        That’s a great point. If the pubz declare there was massive fraud but can’t prove it, let’s just take one country and conduct a non-constitutional test – because hey, who doesn’t like to go fishing?

        And then if no fraud shows up then pubz can claim that the test wasn’t representative and if fraud does show up but it favors pubz then pubz can say “hey, it doesn’t matter the election was still stolen” and if fraud does show up pubz can say see, it proves there was fraud in all the other counties!

        Because if demz can’t prove beyind the shadow of a doubt, to people who are convinced that the conspiracy occurred, that a conspiracy didn’t occur, then that means that the conspiracy must have occurred. After all, as dear leader says:

        >Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous “80,000,000 votes” were not fraudulently or illegally obtained.

      • Joshua says: “And then if no fraud shows up then pubz can claim that the test wasn’t representative…”

        I think a very significant number, including myself, would be persuaded since the pretext for the exercise would be creating a representative test.

        Your argument seems to be that you feel that Republicans are unreasonable and thus there is no use trying to persuade. I hope you are interested in intellectual debate. If not people might question your purpose for posting. I always want to assume the best intentions.

        If your assumption is 80+ percent of the 72 million Trump voters to question the election, as polls say, are being misled or are unreasonable then your help them by enlightened reasoning and explanations for why election laws were ignored or declared changed by improper authority.

        I realize your trusted news sources dismiss all claims with cursory or no investigation. This would not provide me comfort if I were you. These are the same trusted news sources that lied to you about the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12 to ensure Obama’s re-election. They lied to you about General Flynn being a Russian collaborator. They lied on just about every Trump-Russia story for 4 years. They lied to you that Hunter Biden’s laptop and confessions of business partners and senate investigation finding of 3.5million wire flagged in a suspicious activity report, the one from Russia’s richest oligarch. Truth seeking investigators have been working full time for years of investigation peeling back the onion of Dem deceptions and fake investigations, all while the left is busy printing new false reports for your eager consumption.

        I would be more happy to support Biden’s policies if I knew what they were or if he knew what they were. I have little doubt we will see because Dems are much more determined for power than conservatives who want to live and let live. Dems can’t articulate exactly what they want besides some type of social justice that comes at a promised trough provided by the powerful, at the expense of their powerful enemies, the working people with aspirations of self-reliance and liberty.

      • > Your argument seems to be that you feel that Republicans are unreasonable and thus there is no use trying to persuade.

        I don’t think that Republicans are particularly more or less reasonable then anyone else. But they’re highly motivated in their support for Trump and are already convinced that rhe election has been stolen from him. So they’re motivated in how they filter evidence. I’ve seen it time after time. Like when pubz argue that Trump’s handling of COVID-19 hasn’t been a disaster.

        > I realize your trusted news sources dismiss all claims with cursory or no investigation

        You have no idea what sources I trust and don’t trust. But it’s interesting that you’re certain that you do know. Indeed, that’s exactly the kind of reasoning I was just describing. Motivated reasoning.

      • “I don’t think that Republicans are particularly more or less reasonable then anyone else. But they’re highly motivated in their support for Trump and are already convinced that rhe election has been stolen from him. So they’re motivated in how they filter evidence. I’ve seen it time after time. ”

        Overgeneralize, much? Many of us are not convinced that the election has been stolen.

        As for filtering evidence, that trait is in abundance in humankind – hardly unique to Republicans. I see tons of it on the left, constantly.

        BTW… a general comment… in spite of disagreements, I value our dialog.

      • “You have no idea what sources I trust and don’t trust.”

        OK, that was presumptuous of me. My more productive point would be that the legacy media has unilaterally become very much like what I remember of Soviet style Tass and Pravda except they were much more respectful in tone. I think this is a huge and disturbing problem. I think Fox News is trying to keep a tight rein on their daytime persons to try to move the brand as the responsible and trusted network. This is admirable if this is the case since they watched their ratings cut in half. After not calling Florida until after the legacy media and never retracting their call of Arizona as the legacy media did a good number of viewers felt betrayed.

        The only thing more disturbing our legacy media being corrupted is watching the left applaud it. The divide is wide. If Biden wants to be a uniting force I have no suggestions for him. He would have to explain who the “big guy” is in Hunter’s emails for starters.

      • meso –

        > Overgeneralize, much? Many of us are not convinced that the election has been stolen.

        There’s a lot of evidence that a pluralitynid Republicans say they are convinced. Caveats about public surveys of opinions apply, and just ’cause people say they believe that doesn’t necessarily mean they really do.

        So I’ll ammend… But they’re highly motivated in their support for Trump and a plurality (and maybe a majority) respond on surveys that they’re already convinced.

        > As for filtering evidence, that trait is in abundance in humankind – hardly unique to Republicans. I see tons of it on the left, constantly.

        Unique to Republicans? I stated, explicitly, that I don’t think it is. Imo, anyone who claims these kinds of biases (along with accusations such as favorable views towards “tyranny”) are disproportionately distributed across ideological distinctions are engaged in exactly the kinds of in-group/out-group homogeneity thinking and identity aggressive/defensive cognition that the theory of motivated reasoning predicts.

        > BTW… a general comment… in spite of disagreements, I value our dialog.

        Likewise. I think we could improve upon it, however, if we redoubled our efforts to avoid tribaliaric attitudes, jumping to conclusions, etc.

      • Ron –

        > My more productive point would be that the legacy media has unilaterally become very much like what I remember of Soviet style Tass and Pravda except they were much more respectful in tone.

        That’s hilarious.

        I think there is a real problem with how the coverage of Trump has trended in the liberal-leaning media. For example, the coverage of “there are good people on both sides” comment which was a clear spin on the full spectrum of what Trump said.

        On the other hand there is a legitimate challenge and difficultly presented when you’re covering a politician who lies constantly and has an explicit strategy of exploiting uncertainty and polarization. Does responsible coverage simply pretend that his lying and explicit strategy doesn’t exist to create a “false balance” as a substitution for political neutrality? That doesn’t seem adequate to me – but neither does a deliberately slanted coverage of the type that we’ve seen. Ideally, there shouldn’t be a choice. The media can accurately present Trump without inaccuracies resulting from opposite biases. But pretending that there isn’t a legitimate problem to be addressed is no better.

        But all that said, your comparison to Soviet propaganda is, imo, absurd. I might as well say the same about Fox News being the equivalent of “state run media” given the close affiliation between Trump and their coverage and media personalities (until the recent kerfuffle that really took off when they had the audacity to correctly call Arizona).

        Your description of the Fox News situation is hilariously biased. As if the pushback against Fox is anything other than a pushback against unfavorable coverage from people who constantly try to weaponize the problem of media bias for the sake of pushing an agenda. Thanks for the laugh.

      • Joshua

        Don’t know if you saw this?

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8996157/Health-expert-Swedens-no-lockdown-Covid-strategy-sidelined-government.html

        Scroll to bottom of link to see story. One thing I just realised is that at one time 60% of Swedish deaths had been in care homes. As such they are outside of the ‘community’ as regards mixing! and so it is difficult to see how herd immunity could develop

        Tonyb

      • I don’t think comparing the mainstream news to Pravda is absurd.

        The fact that news is still spinning the “Trump has refused to condemn right-wing violence” line is an example of how they work, because he has condemned it, several times. Then there was the “drink bleach” line, which Trump never said and was taken completely out of context. Then there’s the completely phony news that the Trump campaign wasn’t spied on, because it most certainly was through the vehicle of the falsely-issued FISA warrants against Carter Page (allowing for the “one-step” rule) whom the FBI knew was a CIA asset (and in that capacity had contacts with Russian figures.) Page is now shoving a lawsuit back at the government: good for him. You can’t make this stuff up.

        Now we have the mainstream saying the charges of election fraud are baseless, even before they knew what the charges were. Well, they’re not baseless, and a Pennsylvania judge, at least, has agreed. https://www.scribd.com/document/486132522/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed-in-Pennsylvania-by-Judge-McCullough-Election-Likely-Unconstitutional#download&from_embed

        If we lived in North Korea, would we know it? See if you can figure that one out.

      • Tony –

        The Daily Mail article seems inaccurate and melodramatic to me. Tegnell’s popularity has dropped a fair amount in Sweden, and other figures are stepping forward with a stronger voice, but it hardly seems the case thar Tegnell has been pushed out. He is still widely popular despite the drop, and Sweden seems to have a somewhat unique situation where public health officials are directly empowered to be the ones making the public health policy decisions.

        As for this:

        > One thing I just realised is that at one time 60% of Swedish deaths had been in care homes. As such they are outside of the ‘community’ as regards mixing! and so it is difficult to see how herd immunity could develop.

        I don’t quite understand your comment. But seems to me there is no realistic argument that herd immunity exists in Sweden given the recent spike of cases, hospitializations, ICU admissions, etc. Keep in mind that they don’t move infected people from senior housing to hospitals. The notion that there could be some wall between the “community” and seniors is not borne out by reality, anywhere. It’s a fantasy, unless there is a complete restructuring of how resources are accrued and allocated. If anywhere could do it, Sweden would be a good choice because of their structural advantages and they have clearly failed.

        I think that Tegnell’s popularity is likely to drop further, as polling shows that the confidence in the Swedish “light touch” approach is understandably dropping. But notice that rhe Daily Mail article makes characterizations that completely lack any supporting evidence. From what I’ve seen from a few articles you’ve linked, that source is one of the worst I’ve come across.

    • This is not evidence of fraud. You have to show that those votes were the results of fraud. “Gee that’s a lot of votes for Biden” is not a legal argument that is going to stand up in court.

      • Watching the Arizona hearing now … it ain’t just a lot of votes for Hidin Biden. Far from it.

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/30/watch-live-arizona-lawmakers-hold-election-integrity-hearing-with-trump-campaign/

      • It is so evidence of fraud when you have expert witnesses giving detailed analysis including showing servers were connected to voting machines and information was going overseas. It is also evidence of fraud when people speak up and sign affidavits on penalty of perjury about what they saw. I realize the Democrats like to keep changing the goal posts and redefining what evidence is but if you had watched the hearing you would have seen EVIDENCE not speculation and conjecture.

      • I have no sympathy for claims of hacked elections when Trump’s DOJ and FBI buried this story that showed exactly how to hack every election with the official government administrator credentials. The fix was in years ago. That’s how Bernie Sander lost to Clinton and Biden and how Trump was elected the first time.
        https://electionlawblog.org/?p=93906
        “The hack appeared to include a breach of the EAC’s administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines, according to Andrei Barysevich, an analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future.

        Access to the reports could have allowed someone to exploit flaws in voting machines, Mr. Barysevich said. The stolen credentials could have been used to install malicious code on the EAC site, thus potentially infecting any user of it. The users could include state election officials, who might then use a thumb memory stick to interact with other machines, such as ballot machines not connected to the internet.”

        “The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” ― Omar Khayyám

  2. I like Rubio’s comment. I am tired of rule by the Ivy League. Attendance there leaves too many people with a sense of superiority and entitlement, while depriving them of real world experience outside of the profession they trained for.

    • As opposed to all the Goldman Sachs executives in Trump’s admin? Or the incompetent people he added to them?

    • I think we have seen enough of an administration of no nothings. I will take highly educated people any day.

      • I think you confuse “credentialed” with “educated.” The last administration did not hire “no-nothings” – that’s just your Trump Derangement Syndrome showing.

        The Ivy League now days are elitist, leftist indoctrination machines that turns out people who are smart but often not wise, and who usually have an air of superiority and entitlement. And, they tend to make a lot of money because of their connections they make with others like themselves, plus the already well connected and wealthy “legacy admits.”

        In other words, it’s a monoculture when it comes to ideas and world experience. And when you get people who are smart but not wise, and educated but not informed, they make lousy “experts” to rule the plebes. The foreign policy establishment has shown that very well.

      • Chris–“I will take highly educated people any day.”
        Unfortunately too many are indoctrinated, not educated.
        Too many are Intellectual-Yet-Idiot
        “one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science.”
        Read the whole essay: https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

    • meso –

      You don’t think I should attack Joe for saying it’s “likely” that genetics explains why so few Asians are dying from COVID.

      But you like it when a senator attacks cabinet members for what college they attended?

      And do you really like it when a senator predicts American decline? Because people from the center-left have been appointed to cabinet positions?

      • Joshua writes:

        >meso –

        >You don’t think I should attack Joe for saying it’s “likely” that genetics explains why so few Asians are dying from COVID.

        Correct. You could disagree and I wouldn’t object, but your attack was unwarranted.

        >But you like it when a senator attacks cabinet members for what college they attended?

        He didn’t attack the people – he ridiculed the elite, entitled and out of touhc monoculture they are part of, and the lack of diversity. I find it ironic that the left is real big on “diversity” but not on intellectual diversity, where the left is Stalinist in its enforcement of conformity. But when “diversity” means that skin color is a very important aspect of how to value a person, hey, they left is all in on that one.

      • The left’s idea of diversity of skin color being diversity is a mask of self-delusion to their intellectual conformity, which itself seems a logical consequence of being based on doctrine rather than intellect and discovery.

    • Rubio voted to confirm a double handful of Ivy League grads as Trumpian cabinet members. They joined Trump (UPenn), Jared (Harvard) and other scions of the Prez who frequented the hallowed halls of Wasp Academia.

    • All you need to know about the ignorance and immorality of the Ivy League is the 2010 Yale Law School Award of Merit awarded to Hillary Clinton in 2010 given in front of a wildly cheering audience.

    • Brilliant comments from Rubio and Mesocyclone. For the record, Biden himself had a C-average at University of Delaware and graduated 506/688 in his class. (At least GWB’s C-average was from Yale.) Biden’s law degree is from Syracuse, rated somewhere near the 100th best law school in the country today. He was 76th out of 85 in his class. His wife was a school teacher. During the Obama Administration, Biden wasn’t intimidated by the brilliant minds Obama chose for advisors (Larry Summers for example) and droned on at every meeting, trying everyone’s patience. (Likewise, Kamala Harris’s degrees are from non-elite Howard and Hastings Law.) If the absence of prestigious degrees points to success, Biden will be the greatest president since Reagan, a graduate of lowly Eureka College.

      With a home ec degree from Mississippi State, Republican Senator Blackburn should be a shoe-in for the Rubio administration in 2025, if she doesn’t win the presidency herself. Fortunately she is a skeptic about both climate change and the theory of evolution.

      Thanks to vaccines developed by America’s experts, the US economy is likely to improve under Biden. Wall Street agrees; stock futures plunged on election night, but are up almost 10% since the 11/3 close, despite grim expectations for the pandemic in the next few months.

      Personally, after four years of ignorance, I’ll be happy to see experts have a bit more influence. However, I’m just an elitist at heart.

  3. If there is a Biden/Harris Administration, one of their goals seems to be a commitment to undoing many of the successes of the Trump Administration- progress on Mid-East Peace, self sufficiency in energy, containing Iran, reducing American military presence abroad and bringing manufacturing back from China. My biggest fear is that they will allow the old bureaucracy at FDA and CDC to regress to their old habits which will slow down vaccine development and distribution.

    • Not to speak of undoing the economic successes of Trump pre COVID19. Yes, the leftwing Harvard types love them some 0.9% real growth per year in AGI that the economic genius Obama gave us. Or maybe a return to nominal growth of 0.16% in AGI for 2016 vs 7.1% in 2017. It would take 435 years to double income in the former, while only 10 years to double in the latter.

    • The worst thing is that they’re going to reverse all that progress he made in bringing down the deficit and the debt, with reducing the trade deficit, with getting people cheap and beautiful healthcare, with getting Mexico to pay for that wall, with getting all those lobbyists and crony capitalists out of Washington, with getting North Korea to denuclearize, and most of all, with uniting the country.

    • > My biggest fear is that they will allow the old bureaucracy at FDA and CDC to regress to their old habits which will slow down vaccine development and distribution.

      Yeah. Thanks God he was around to get the CDC and the FDA into great shape, otherwise we’d probably have seen a lot of people die from the COVID pandemic. Who knows, if Trump weren’t around maybe not everyone who wanted a test would have gotten a test, and the virus wouldn’t have disappeared by Easter, and maybe the infections and deaths might even be spiking right and qualified scientists might have been sidelined for headiing the pandemic taskforce nutbars who are talking about obviously failed ideas like purposely infecting young people to get us to herd immunity.

      Maybe we wouldn’t have even learned of the wonders of disinfectant and putting lights in the body to kill the virus!

      • Joshua writes: “Thanks God he was around to get the CDC and the FDA into great shape, otherwise we’d probably have seen a lot of people die from the COVID pandemic.Who knows, if Trump weren’t around maybe not everyone who wanted a test would have gotten a test ”

        If I thought you’d meant your thanks, I’d agree. Early on, CDC and FDA totally screwed up the testing. CDC insisted all tests be done there, and FDA was ordering labs that developed their own tests to destroy them. CDC also botched its own test, sending out contaminated tests that had to be recalled.

        The Trump task force cracked down on this, forcing FDA and CDC to allow labs to develop and use tests, as long as they filed documentation. But then FDA required the documentation to be sent on CD’s – in the middle of a crisis, and had to be stepped on to drop that idiotic but typical bureaucratic requirement.

        Big government screwed up, in other words, and did it in predictable, classic bureaucratic ways. It took the executive to fix it.

        Trump made many good moves, for which he will be given no credit. Meanwhile, “hero” Cuomo forced nursing homes to take sick COVID19 patients, De Blasio and Pelosi urged people to party in Chinatown, after just finishing an trumped up impeachment during the start of the . crisis. And, they called Trump’s shutting of travel to China “racist.” Trump’s mobilization of private industry, was outstanding, clearing roadblocks, providing funding, and in at least one case using emergency powers to get needed equipment and supplies manufactured and delivered.

        And, of course, the Democrat governors and mayors encouraged constant street demonstrations including riots – the latter being portrayed by the compliant media as “mostly peaceful demonstrations.” Some let radical insurrectionists take over and control parts of cities. They called to “defund” police forces. Not surprisingly, crime including homicides took of in the major cities. And, of course, they went along with the false labeling of most police killings of blacks as ‘racist,” even though they were not racist, and were usually justified – facts barely reported in the “mainstream” media.

        But, when polls near the election showed that the riots and looting were hurting Democratic politicians, those riots almost completely disappeared. What a coincidence.

      • Mesocyclone, although all your points are facts, for Josh Mexico not paying for the wall was a deal-breaker. Otherwise he would consider them –maybe. It would have helped if Trump persuaded Kim to completely denuclearize rather than just stop menacing neighbors with missile launches. Peace deals in the middle east are not important to the left unless the US is on the hook for paying all sides billions.

  4. Five houses, Twelve cars, Two yachts, and a private jet. This is the carefully chosen and highly qualified person who is going to lead us for four years on climate change policy and personal responsibility.

    Snopes notes that the houses are “owned” by his spouse, Theresa Heinz Kerry. . .
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/home-on-the-million-dollar-range/

    • Not to mention his execrable taste in all foreign policy areas. While the left made hay because Michael Flynn talked to a Russian, while Flynn was part of a transition team, Kerry was off chanting up the Iranians before the election.

      And let’s not forget his personally taking up the cause of our enemy in Vietnam, and bragging about it before the Senate in 1971, while slandering out soldiers and veterans in Vietnam (of which I was one).

    • Not to mention his bad taste in foreign policy. While Democrats were still ranting about Flynn, as a member of an incoming administration, talking to the Russian ambassador, Kerry was chatting up the Iranians – before the election.

      And let’s not forget his carrying water for the enemy in Vietnam, about which he bragged before the Senate in 1971. And let’s not forget his slandering of our troops in Vietnam, of which I was one, saying we routinely engaged in atrocities, and it was a matter of policy.

      Great choice, there, Joe!

  5. It’s 10 weeks since the last ‘Week in Review’. Can we also have a new one soon – no politics?

    It would be great if it could include a section on the ‘Impacts of global warming’. Or, perhaps “Week in review – global warming impacts edition” – NO POLITICS.

    • While you are waiting would you please show me how to scale SMR while the costs and schedules keep going over budget? How hard can this be when they want to build the first batch in such a sparsely populated area?
      Wonder where they find the highly motivated and trained work force to pull this off? Call Elon Musk?

      “Design updates, financial shakeup prompt utilities to rethink structure of NuScale’s $6.1B SMR project”
      https://www.utilitydive.com/news/design-updates-financial-shakeup-prompt-utilities-to-rethink-structure-of/589262/

      • Jack Smith,

        To enable the nuclear power costs to reduce and deployment rates to accelerate at previous rates (i.e. the rates that prevailed pre the 1960’s disruption) the regulatory im-pediments must be removed. See my comments starting here: https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/#comment-933017

      • Peter,
        Exactly which regulations are the big problem leading to the cost and schedule overruns?
        Employment regulations about pay and education?
        Materials like the quality of concrete and steel?
        Location?
        Overly cautious handling of radioactive waste?
        Or my favorite; liability laws that place too much emphasis on who is responsible if there is a serious containment failure.
        I’m sure you have a longer list but is there one area that’s the bottle neck?

        PS: I live about 30 miles downwind of the Comanche Peak twin nuclear reactors and I noticed they have been approved to add another reactor. Wonder why they didn’t just use this site to build the first gen SMR? It already has the ancillary facilities, a small battalion of armed guards, grid connections and trained personnel.

    • maybe this weekend i’ll get to it. 10 weeks, yikes!

  6. How will the experts on the climate realism side make the case for climate change in perspective of historical ice age changes, natural vs. anthropogenic, cost/benefit of various policies, virtues of CO2, global impact if all nations aren’t held to the CO2 requirements? We are seemingly losing this war and I wish some brilliant climate scientist (that does not include me) would comment on what it would take to convince John Kerry and Joe Biden on these issues as we all “follow the science”.

    • You are not losing the war just missing a chance to lead civilization. If we don’t China and those who have committed to zero carbon energy by 2060 will. I would link to comparisons between the type and # of engineers China graduates vs. America but you wouldn’t believe it so go google who is issuing the most international patents.
      You can not separate the climate from the biosphere. The only relevant time scale is the explosive growth of our species. It took over 2 million years of human prehistory and history for the world’s population to reach 1 billion, and only 200 years more to reach 7 billion.
      https://www.climatelevels.org/

    • If only. The evidence for Arctic warming has gone from twice as fast as the rest of the planet to three times as fast. What will the discussion be if it’s announced *four times* faster despite the world being in lockdown for another year??

      It’s mind boggling for rational thinkers.

      • “ It’s mind boggling for rational thinkers.”

        No, it’s only mind boggling if you don’t know the science and think CO2 in the atmosphere acts without feedbacks.
        A rational mind would realise that an annual anthro CO2 emission of a few ppm has no discernible effect on climate than the year prior.

        Feedbacks are ongoing, in this case the continued slowing of Arctic ice reformation in autumn and early winter due to arctic water SW heat absorption.
        And it didn’t seamlessly go from 2x to 3x.

      • “And it didn’t seamlessly go from 2x to 3x.” – Tony

        It did in the mainstream press. It’s in a song we wrote in 2019..🎶👌

      • Tony – it’s been officially announced that Sweden has had no warming in the last 70 years – the birthplace of your hero who’s grandfather was a key founder of her misconception.

      • It is. It’s in his 6 song ep called ‘debunking general relativity’. Seriously – and that I have to say seriously says it all.

      • “.. if you don’t know the science.” – Tony

        This New Zealand singer says Antarctica will “turn to slush” yet snowfall has officially increased by 10%:

        “Lorde said Donald Trump, California wildfires and the advocacy of Greta Thunberg spurred her to “head south” in a bid to visit the frozen continent before it turned “to slush”.”

        https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2020/nov/26/lorde-urges-climate-action-ahead-of-new-book-on-antarctica-trip

        “Scientists have compiled a record of snowfall in Antarctica going back 200 years. The study shows there has been a significant increase in precipitation over the period, up 10%.”

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43691671

        Clueless..

      • The 6 song EP is titled *The Heat of The Moon*..

        400 years before tidal forcing really kicks in, so plenty of time for the Ellisons of the world to pass away and allow new light to empower the minds of the joyous youth.

      • It’s not warming because Albert Einstein got gravity wrong apparently. As for the official announcement – what’s the blogospheric equivalent of yellow journalism? And Greta is such a force of nature and passion in such a young frame that you would have to be such a grumpy old curmudgeon to disapprove. Passionate, committed and energetic young women have verve and grace – and usually a bedraggled boy or two in their wake. I find them to be amusing and interesting. They make me laugh. I can’t say the same about the dour and humorless Lowey who always is spinning tales how liking someone like Greta as a person and accepting her views as – well – her views is a sin. Wrong side of the religious fence apparently. I’m agnostic – I argue with both sides indiscriminately. 😁

      • “It’s not warming because Albert Einstein got gravity wrong apparently.” – Ellison

        You’re being a naughty boy again Robert. The tidal forcing hypothesis promotes climate change due to equatorial cooling and mid-latitude warming. Rapid intensification of tropical storms would be due to very warm equatorial waters being pushed away, widening the tropical oceans.

      • All forced by neutron star matter at the core of celestial bodies that hasn’t been recognised because Albert Einstein got gravity wrong. Come on Alan – don’t disappoint me by trying to appear sane and rational now.

      • Big business may topple Greta-mania:

        “The 17-year-old climate change activist urged Amazon to ‘reconsider its priorities’ following reports of the online retail giant’s ‘obsessive monitoring of organized labor and social and environmental movements’.”

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8989281/Greta-Thunberg-honoured-reports-Amazon-treats-eco-movement-threat.html

        The leader of ‘best comments’ lets loose:

        “If the green totalitarians get their way, standards of living will plummet, energy prices will become even less affordable than they are now, freedoms will become more constricted, more wildlife will be obliterated and more landscapes ruined by bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, more money will be concentrated in the hand of a liberal-left oligarchy none of it contributing the slightest material improvement to the state of the planet. Greta Thunberg is currently the most prominent representative of that totalitarian movement. Like it or not, cruel or no, that makes her the face of evil.”

      • Note to self:

        “At solar min, sunspots tend to form around latitudes of 30° to 45° North and South of the Sun’s equator. As the solar cycle progresses through solar max, sunspots tend to appear closer to the equator, around a latitude of 15°.”

        Lends itself to inclination hypothesis and strong gravitational force interaction on orbital plane..

      • Alan:
        “Tony – it’s been officially announced that Sweden has had no warming in the last 70 years”

        Bless:
        Even as the guy talks the graph behind clearly shows that he is giving “fake” facts.
        The graph shows rising temps of ~ 1C in that time.
        Amazing how motivated thinking can overrid basic visual perception.
        Unless you can’t understand graphs that is?
        Clue: if the jiggly line ends up higher at the end than (in this case) 50 years before.
        That’s called (on a temp graph) WARMING

        And “ice age re-entry”!
        An anonymous source plucked from Twitter
        Really?
        How about a scientific source …..

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/sweden#

        BTW: you fully deserve my sarcasm.

      • Amazon is terrified of Greta and hires detectives to ‘gather intelligence’? We call this asymmetric warfare – Amazon is right to be worried. Lowey then quotes in full another disgruntled old curmudgeon from the comments section of the Daily Mail for f#&cks sake.

        Is this the face of evil?

        Or is this?

        Probably neither. Lowey then goes on to invoke his theory that there is neutron star matter at the heart of the sun and Einstein got gravity wrong.

      • Robert – I’m neither pro-Greta nor pro-Bezo and I don’t use out-dated terms like the four letter word used by the DM commenter. It was the overall attitude which obviously struck a chord with the readership because it was voted most popular.

  7. Not decline – sold down the river by people with very stick figures. Mind you I can’t help thinking about the two years it took for the Watergate incident to come to the boil. Someone broke ranks. Now 2022 might be very interesting.

  8. Interesting. What time stamp is the “570,000 votes for Biden in 90 minutes, 3200 for Trump?” claim?

    • I’m still wondering who shorted the stocks of United & American Airlines just days before 9-11? Trump knows who killed Jeffery Epstein why won’t he tell us?

    • The exchange occurs at approximately 1:10.

    • yes and then there’s the 1.7 million registered Democrat voters who returned 2.6 million ballots. Of course the press is still saying “There’s no evidence!”

      • More votes than voters, not to worry, look away!
        …And anyway, say the globalists, like Plato’s ‘noble’ lie,
        yr ends justify yr means.

      • Giuliani’s claim is that 1.7 million mail in ballots were sent out and 2.6 million were received. I am checking this out but it’s hard getting all the data since apparently the PA only gives this data in each county and in Excel files maxed out at 104,000 rows, each one being a ballot. There are 4,228,886 registered Dems in PA, up 4% from 2016, compared to 3,543,364 PA Republicans, a 12% increase in that same time.

    • https://electionlawblog.org/?p=93906
      “The hack appeared to include a breach of the EAC’s administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines, according to Andrei Barysevich, an analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future.

      Access to the reports could have allowed someone to exploit flaws in voting machines, Mr. Barysevich said. The stolen credentials could have been used to install malicious code on the EAC site, thus potentially infecting any user of it. The users could include state election officials, who might then use a thumb memory stick to interact with other machines, such as ballot machines not connected to the internet.”

      • If you take a moment to follow the link above consider who the EAC is.
        The EAC is the United States Election Assistance Commission that certifies the security of voting machines.
        The original story was first reported in the Wall St. Journal but the trail went cold after Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 election.
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-seeks-to-close-federal-election-agency-1500325218
        Notice the dates of the hack and the types of information that (might) have been stolen. Those ‘credentials ‘ are electronic keys that would let the hackers log straight in to EVERY state’s election network and install code and change or delete records.
        Now what if the hackers used to the ‘keys’ to install some sleeper code they could activate during the 2020 election? Very suspicious to me…

    • Wow. The reaction from the audience says it all.

    • Alan Lowey asked, “Interesting. What time stamp is the ‘570,000 votes for Biden in 90 minutes, 3200 for Trump?’ claim?”

      I’ll save you some time looking for it:

      Starts about time 1:05 with Giuliani asking a question.

      Regards,
      Bob

  9. I was thinking continued decline was more appropriate. The reason for the decline is not because of left or right but because of extremist views that are forcing divisiveness. The only people trying to steal the election right now is the Trump supporters. He was a crook that didn’t follow the principles of democracy and along the way pissed off enough people on the left and right that he couldn’t repeat his victory. I don’t see why that is so hard for people to understand. I really think Obama was a great President so how I do reconcile my disagreements with his support for Climate Change. I think when you look at it, he has to go by the best information that he has been given. For a long time the Climate Change activists and the Extinction Rebellion have been winning that conversation so that is how the decision is being made. What would I prefer — a dictator make the decision. I think we have to continue to push back, make science and academia accountable and start doing a better job of winning those arguments. I think that will be come easier as the debate about how to get net zero with renewable energy starts to play more of a role. My best source of information is always this blog.

  10. Twitter showed that only 1,000 people watched Biden’s Thanksgiving address. Maybe the next 4 years will go quicker than the last 10 weeks did for Judith.

  11. Where’s Nic? A witness protection program?

    Shouldn’t he be putting up a post to explain why, despite a recent spike in infections and deaths in Sweden unlike seen in any other Nordic country, he wasn’t wrong when he said 6 months go they reached “herd immunity?”

  12. “Baggies of USBs” – PA Witness Gives Explosive Testimony: I Personally Observed USB Cards Being Uploaded to Voting Machines – Now ’47 USB Cards are Missing, Nowhere to be Found’ (VIDEO)

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/baggies-usbs-pa-witness-gives-explosive-testimony-personally-observed-usb-cards-uploaded-voting-machines-now-47-usb-cards-missing-nowhere-found-video/

  13. Summary: Analysis of the voting night data as reported by Edison Research for various live news and print services revealed significant voting anomalies in Pennsylvania. Of just over 500 lines of county data reported for the Pennsylvania presidential vote count over the days of vote counting, twenty-five lines of significant one-sided vote movement were identified. The threshold used for locating the significant vote events required an individual reporting event to have greater than 75% of the vote to one candidate or the other. All lines are shown in the linked spreadsheet.

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2020/11/23/vote-anomalies-in-pennsylvania/#comment-272543

  14. A Pennsylvania lawmaker today testified that the legislature DID NOT vote for Dominion voting systems.
    Governor Tom Wolf MANDATED the controversial voting systems.

    This is big news!

    TRENDING: Audible Gasps and Laughter From Crowd and Panel at PA Hearing When Witness Says Vote “Spikes” Went 600,000 For Biden and 3,200 For Trump (VIDEO)

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-pa-lawmaker-democrat-governor-wolf-mandated-dominion-voting-systems-not-voted-lawmakers/

  15. 17% of Biden voters would have changed their minds

    Media Bias, voting behaviour of journalists.A new survey conducted by The Polling Company for the Media Research Center (MRC) found that major media censorship of certain vital stories left voters in the dark, particularly Biden voters, and prevented President Donald Trump from winning a second term.

    “This lack of information proved crucial,” said the MRC in a report on the poll. “One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories.”

    https://joannenova.com.au/2020/11/who-runs-the-country-the-media/#comment-2382363

  16. In its first court victory, a Nevada judge has agreed to let the Trump campaign present its evidence that fraud and illegalities plagued the state’s election, enough to reverse Joe Biden’s win and set an example for other state challenges.

    According to Trump officials, the judge set a Dec. 3 hearing date and is allowing 15 depositions. What’s more, the campaign plans to present its evidence that could result in the rejection of tens of thousands of mail-in ballots in Democratic Clark County where Biden ballots outnumbered Trump ballots by 91,000 in unofficial results.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

  17. For those who laud Biden’s Obama toadies, the ones with all the degrees and experience; they are the ones that gave Iran billions of dollars, then lied and said it was merely millions. I don’t care how much education those guys have, anyone who would come up with something like the Iran deal is an incompetent b–oo–b.

    Trump’s staff and associates accomplished so much more and it went to the benefit of the common American, not China or hedge fund managers, like under Obummer.

    Now there’s no denying it: Obama’s failed Iran deal wasn’t worth the cost

    https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/366197-now-theres-no-denying-it-obamas-failed-iran-deal-wasnt-worth-the

    • Hey Jim –

      Do you realize that since you wrongly said there was a steep drop in hospitalizations we’ve had something like 18 straight days of record high numbers of hospitalizations?

      Have you given any consideration for how you could have been so completely wrong?

      • Hey Joshua – do you realize you are spouting gibberish?

      • Joshua – do you have a link to a site that gives good graphics for hospitalizations. 91-divoc.com is great for cases and deaths and some other parameters, but not hospitalizations.

    • Yeah – how a out Trump’s great success with Iran!

      -snip-

      Despite U.S. Sanctions, Iran Expands Its Nuclear Stockpile

      Two years after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has cut in half the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for a nuclear bomb.

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/08/iran-advances-nuclear-program-withdrawal-jcpoa/

      • The Iranians can do this because the Iran deal left its nuclear programme intact while giving the lranians billions of dollars to complete the process and saving the Iranian regime from the economic collapse that was threatening its existence.

  18. “Strong bipartisan congressional support for nuclear reactors—both the existing fleet and also the next generation of advanced reactors—is in line with the emphasis in Biden’s climate and energy plans on the importance of the domestic nuclear fleet as a source of low-carbon energy as well as the next generation of nuclear energy technologies. The current fleet—which accounts for 20 percent of total US electricity generation and more than half of low-carbon electricity generation in the United States—is integral to limiting carbon emissions, while commercializing and exporting advanced nuclear reactors is critical for US national security and global security and safeguards. As a statesman and national security expert, Biden should continue to support initiatives that will ensure that the United States can commercialize and export the next generation of nuclear technologies.” https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/nuclear-energy-policy-represents-a-bipartisan-path-forward-on-climate-for-the-biden-administration/

    If Democrats don’t win the Senate runoff in Georgia – advanced nuclear might be the only thing Biden achieves this term. After he signs up to the Paris accord on his first day in office of course.

    • “After he signs up to the Paris accord on his first day in office of course.” – Robert

      I still think the US secret service will have the last word on whether Donald Trump actually leaves the White House.

      • What I understand is that it will be congress that counts the electoral college votes – after polls are certified by state legislatures – and declares a winner. When Biden is declared the victor and Trump still refuses to leaves – Biden can send in the bailiffs. To make Trump feel better as he is carried out – we can all
        sing YMCA.

        “Young man, there’s a place you can go
        I said, young man, when you’re short on your dough
        You can stay there, and I’m sure you will find
        Many ways to have a good time

        It’s fun to stay at the YMCA
        It’s fun to stay at the YMCA”

      • Ellison – your religious fervour knows no bounds.

      • No sense of humour Lowey? I thought I segued into YMCA seamlessly. You are further down the rabbit hole every day. HELLOOOOO… COME BACK ALAN. THE SECRET SERVICE IDEA IS RIDICULOUS.

      • Trump won’t have to send in the bailiffs to eject Biden because he likely won’t be there to eject. Happy dance in the breach on that day!

    • Nuclear reactors electricity generation is the best choice possible. When combined with a sustainable use of renewables it will become the perfect mix.
      What worries is not the use of nuclear energy or the implementation of renewables.
      The problem arouses with the hastiness of taking some very argent and radical measures.
      There are two ways of transforming the cup of coffee into a cup of milk.
      The first is to empty at once the coffee and to fill with milk.

      The second is to take out a drop of coffee and to add a drop of milk.

      What I believe in is the gradual adaptation, not a radical overturn.

      The future is for combined nuclear and renewables electricity generation.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Let’s educate you on markets. The secret is to unleash the power of markets to rapidly transform economies. The era of coal, oil and gas is coming to an end – there is an inevitable crash when increasing demand meets diminishing supply. New technologies will emerge – and it is counterproductive to distort markets in favor of one technology or another. Development grants are one thing – market subsidies another. Love your market and sett it free…

        “Creative destruction theory treats economics as an organic and dynamic process. This stands in stark contrast with the static mathematical models of traditional Cambridge-tradition economics. Equilibrium is no longer the end goal of market processes. Instead, many fluctuating dynamics are constantly reshaped or replaced by innovation and competition.

        As is implied by the word destruction, the process inevitably results in losers and winners. Entrepreneurs and workers in new technologies will inevitably create disequilibrium and highlight new profit opportunities. Producers and workers committed to the older technology will be left stranded.

        To Schumpeter, economic development is the natural result of forces internal to the market and is created by the opportunity to seek profit.”
        https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creativedestruction.asp

      • “To Schumpeter, economic development is the natural result of forces internal to the market and is created by the opportunity to seek profit.”

        All right.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Robert I Ellison: Strong bipartisan congressional support for nuclear reactors—both the existing fleet and also the next generation of advanced reactors—is in line with the emphasis in Biden’s climate and energy plans on the importance of the domestic nuclear fleet as a source of low-carbon energy as well as the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.

      If Democrats don’t win the Senate runoff in Georgia – advanced nuclear might be the only thing Biden achieves this term.

      Here’s hoping. I expect the “strong bipartisan support” to evolve into Democratic-party infighting and there to be no push in any direction from Pres. Biden. Did Biden ever make a difference on anything, either for good or bad?

  19. The Australian newspaper’s leading political commentator, Paul Kelly – who is left of centre – expresses concern about Kerry’s appointment:

    The orthodoxy that Joe Biden’s executive team will make Australia comfortable is spectacularly wrong in one respect: the appointment of former secretary of state and presidential nominee John Kerry as special envoy for climate. There is one certainty. Kerry will create problems for Australia and the Morrison government as a consequence of his brief from the incoming president.
    It is obvious Biden has selected Kerry as a special global envoy not just to return America to the Paris Agreement but to champion stronger international action from the parties. It will be Kerry’s rhetoric, his symbolism and his close ties with Europe on climate change that will put inevitable pressures on the Morrison government.
    Kerry is a natural Atlanticist who was involved in negotiating the Paris Agreement and believes climate change is a global security imperative. Biden and Kerry in tandem will intensify the climate-change tempo across the developed world with many leaders joining the conga line.
    Kerry’s political history gives him a special status, though his reputation stands in contrast with few concrete achievements. But he will transform global perceptions of the US after Donald Trump’s hostility to the Paris accord and the entire progressive movement in Australia will have a rich series of messages from him with which to hound Scott Morrison.
    Kerry, by the way, has never shown much interest in Australia — unlike many senior Americans — making his first visit here only in 2014 when he was secretary of state. His first overseas visit in that high office was, significantly, to the UK and Europe.
    Tony Abbott as prime minister had to deal with Kerry as secretary of state and found him relentlessly focused on climate change as a security issue, a priority not shared by the Abbott government in its hierarchy of security concerns.
    In this sense Biden has picked his man. Kerry said he was returning to government “to get America back on track to address the biggest challenge of this generation”. As envoy for climate, Kerry will sit on the National Security Council — a pointer to the Biden-Kerry view that climate change is a security issue and that Kerry’s job will be to persuade others nations into faster action.
    In recent days Morrison has sent signals that he will be moving on climate change — rejecting carry over credits and using the language that Australia wants to get to net zero carbon emissions as early as possible. [Shame!] Such flexibility will only become more imperative.
    Biden and Kerry have inherited a huge problem in America with COVID-19 but watch how much they reshape the political agenda back to climate-change action.

    • Australia out performed our Kyoto commitment – hence carryover credits. The Paris Commitment was to reduce CO2-e emissions by 26% – a 50% per person reduction – over 2005 emissions. From March 2005 to March 2020 – avoiding COVID effects – the reduction was 14%. Using carryover credits was never part of the plan.

      Sure we sell coal. About 20% of global trade in thermal coal – and most of the metallurgical coal for steel making. Export growth there will be to countries other than Japan – mostly India and China. This is in accordance with their reasonable development goals and their Paris commitments. If John Kerry has a practical alternative – I’m sure that we are all ears.

      This is the plan. We need to find 900 My CO2-e emissions reduction by 2020. To squeeze another 900 Mt CO2-e emission – to take it to a 50% reduction – from some of these areas might be pushing credibility.

      The emissions reduction fund is a procurement tender. $4B has been committed and there have been 11 ‘carbon auctions’ thus far. Methodologies for eligible activities have been emerging along with verification requirements. There are already a wide range of eligible carbon abating activities. This can be pushed a lot further. Already there are contracts for 200 Mt CO2-e abatement. But all in all – it may be time to embrace nuclear power.

  20. Everett F Sargent

  21. Joe Biden: Return of the Council on Foreign Relations https://swprs.org/joe-biden-return-of-the-cfr/ Interesting perspective.

  22. Given the scale of suspicious voting I am not surprised the USA has moved so very quickly to get the ‘new’ Presidency up and running before the whole nation descends into chaos which, from living in England I can assure you, is not a place you want to be. I am also quite sure that every suspicious vote will very soon be seen as a vote for Harris together with a ‘smartmatic’ in every home which will tell you exactly how you will vote in the future – or else.

    Wish you all well on the other side of the pond as ever.

  23. Hold onto your hats. Lawsuits have been filed in Georgia and Michigan alleging massive voter fraud:

    Click to access Michigan-Complaint.pdf


    Click to access COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

  24. I must say I’m shocked that the same denizens unable to accept the laws of physics are also unable to accept election results.

    Never would have expected that.

    • “..denizens unable to accept the laws of physics” – verytallguy

      That statement just shows how rudimentary the scientific knowledge of pro-manmade warmers really is.. lol

    • The entire question is, what are the election results? Just because the NY Times has called it for Biden doesn’t mean that that’s what the votes say: the purpose of the lawsuits in Georgia and Michigan (more coming!) is to sort it out through the legal system. Surely there can be no objection to ensuring that our election was free and fair, and to allowing those with allegedly substantial evidence of voter fraud to have their day in court?

      • There’s plenty of objections from Democrats. Just go read what they are writing about the Kraken lawsuit. All they do is pick at spelling mistakes and then misrepresent things like saying she was kicked off the Trump legal team for spotting nonsense conspiracy theories, which directly contradicts what both she and the Trump legal team actually said was going on. (MSN doesn’t bother to mention what Powell and Trump teams actually said.) They have almost no comment on any of the content beyond levelling it as wild conspiracy theories. To their credit though, at least they are no longer saying “Absolutely no evidence”.

    • Climate alarmists can’t distinguish apples from oranges. No wonder climate science is such a huge mess.

    • Hillary Clinton. Russian Collusion. Not my President. I am shocked some people can’t accept 2 C of warming and want to shelter in place out of fear.

  25. Maybe the new BIG BATTERY technology that climate science claims to have will make renewable energy a more useful technology and boost the political future of its supporters. Here are some details.

    https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5tz

    • I keep hearing about the big battery technology breakthrough but whenever I go look at what the breakthrough actually is it’s always either “This break through COULD allow….” or “soon they will be [but not yet]” the improvement is so small as to make no difference. If someone can provide me with the big breakthrough that actually exists and amounts to some actual enormous increase I would love to see it.

    • The main problem with batteries is cost. Big batteries can help the grid a little bit at perhaps reasonable cost – by acting as peaking generation or reactive power correction. If you want them to let you get a high percentage of your grid running on intermittent power, the costs will be astronomical. Unless there is a very surprising breakthrough, they will continue to be astronomical. Also, batteries require a lot of mining, and currently require some metals that are in short supply – nowhere near enough to supply the needs if big batteries are to be a “big deal.”

      The problem is when the sun doesn’t shine and/or the wind doesn’t blow. All conventional sources of energy are reliably available (dispatchable). Wind and solar are not.

      So… “green energy” is possible, but the costs are enormous. A sensible discussion would address the following concerns with a green agenda:

      1) How do we address the uncertainty in climate forecasts, and the corruption in the climatology research world due to politicization of the issue?

      2)Which makes more sense: drastically cutting CO2 emissions world-wide, or paying to adapt to the consequences of a warmed world?

      3) What happens when only part of the world will go green? And, how do you address the problems of vast impoverished masses who are now in energy poverty, and cannot afford green energy? Do we tell them to just go eat cake?And I don’t want to hear nonsense about pledges from China – they are not worth any more than their statements that they don’t imprison Uyghurs. And how about India – huge population, weak economy, energy poverty?

      4) Does it make sense, for now, to use natural gas to reduce emissions compared to viable alternatives?

      5) Is it possible to reduce the cost of nuclear energy generation to where it can be the primary source of electrical energy. It already is in France, and South Korea demonstrated that nuclear energy can be less expensive – follow the traditional technology learning curve, unlike the US where balkanization (different utilities) and wildly hysterical environmental objections and resulting bureaucracy have led to a reverse learning curve.

      • What an amazingly and comprehensive and detailed essay on the topic! Thank you very much. There is a lot to consider in this topic as you have so carefully detailed.

  26. The Kraken has been released and anyone can read the official documents. Read the two documents about Georgia and Michigan and then get back to me about how there is “no evidence” and “it’s all a conspiracy theory” and “I’m still betting on Biden.” And I’ll bet more is coming for other states as well. https://www.defendingtherepublic.org
    Oh and the cute little tag about how the website is unsafe is just one more example of big tech cooperating with the enemy.

  27. Let me please proffer an observation. America in 2020 is now too large and diverse to be effectively governed as a single entity. The common American culture and values of the 1950s no longer exists. There was diversity and racial strife in the past but there were intangibles holding the nation together. Today, these ideals and concepts are gone and without a common culture and values system, you cannot expect America to ever be united. One idea would be to explore Federalism to see if a solution could be forth coming that would allow more autonomy for our diverse set of people. Short of that, I fear a breakup on the order of the Balkan states.

    • Very philosophical of you. Yes, it kinda applies everywhere.

    • Ahh, but we do have one simple but extremely important commonality …

      Trump Closing Statement: “Success Is What Will Bring Us Together

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/23/trump_closing_statement_success_is_what_will_bring_us_together.html#!

      • Jim2, yes it does but the Marxists are trying to socialize my success across the population. They are also working to limit speech and abolish the 2nd Amendment.

        I do not see a way out unless the US breaks up. I won’t change and the Marxists won’t change so…

      • So the Marxists have to go. There are plenty of run-down Marxist countries to which they can go and be presumably happy.

    • America was designed to be diverse, and at the founding had quite a bit of variation in culture and values. I think the intangibles are still holding us together, although the divisiveness of the left – pervasive in the media and in statements by prominent leftists – has widened the divide substantially, ad was a major reason that Trump was nominated and became president. Many of us wanted someone who would actually fight back. I didn’t vote for him in the 2016 primaries, but I did in the general and am very glad I did – he fought back. But, he adopted and amplified the divisiveness of his opponents, which sometimes was appropriate but often was not.

      But yes, the US shouldn’t be governed as a single entity to the extent it is today – it should be governed as a republic, with decisions made at the lowest possible level of government for the issue at hand.

  28. Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.

    You watch, American extremist libertarians are going to go from praising SOSHLIST Sweden for its COVID policies one day to blaming its high per capita death toll on it being a SOSHLIST country the next day.

    • Very soon now, cases will be irrelevant.

      Regeneron’s Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Cocktail for COVID-19 is First Combination Therapy to Receive FDA Emergency Use Authorization

      https://investor.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/regenerons-regen-cov2-first-antibody-cocktail-covid-19-receive

      And of course 3 or more vaccines are in the wings. On top of that, other treatments have been found and approved. Your horse is as good as dead. Better find a new one now while you have time.

      • With improved treatments and vaccines, Sweden’s policies will only have more clearly resulted in unnecessary illness and death.

        Their policies, which have been widely supported by “skeptics” and conservatives more generally, They said it was only a matter of the shape of the curve – and with a “herd immunity” strategy the same numbers would get sick and/or die but it would happen sooner with less of an impact on our economy.

        But better treatment and vaccines mean that curve of death and illness can be fundamentally altered to have a lower illness and death result.

        They were told that the development of treatment and vaccines were good reasons to delay disease and death rather than accelerate them. But they wouldn’t listen.

        Their refusal to listen to reason will result in much unnecessary death and illness. It might be a good time to consider why you were advocating for such ill-advised policies.

      • Where liberals see the covid problem as a flute, conservatives see it as a symphony.

      • Joshua – not “conservative more generally” – but some conservatives, not all. There has been a spectrum of views on appropriate mitigation measures – on both sides of the aisle. And contrary to the “follow the science” mantra, there is validity in discussing the appropriate trade-off of lives lost in the epidemic vs. other factors, which includes economic misery, and lives lost due to mitigation – from suicides to missed important medical care. We make those trade-offs all the time – for example, in setting speed limits

        My personal choice was to do like South Korea. That didn’t happen, and given American culture, cannot happen no matter who is the President. Also, for a number of months, the US didn’t know how widespread the disease was here. That wasn’t just due to limited testing, but also the lack of knowledge about the significance of pre-symptomatic and possibly asymptomatic spread. We had such a high, hidden caseload that it would have required very drastic measures, combined with high test availability, to knock it down to the South Korea levels. Still, that was my preference – and I’m a conservative.

      • Lol. It’s an artifact of how they report. They report on Tuesdays through Fridays. Then they increase the numbers retroactively. 2 days ago they were at 6500 on worldometers. They will soon be well over fifty deaths a day. It’s obvious from their hospitalizations and ICU admissions.

      • meso –

        > Joshua – not “conservative more generally” – but some conservatives, not all.

        I said “more generally.” I think there’s a lot of data to back that up. We should NEVER extrapolate from the outlier sample that we have on this blog, or other climate blogs, or other blogs more generally. But, you will note that you and Franktoo are the only “skeptics” we’ve seen here to push back on the “herd immunity”/focused protection nonsense – and Frank doesn’t even seem like a conservative.

      • Joshua – as you say, don’t extrapolate from comments.

        But as a conservative, I read conservative outlets. I see considerable diversity about COVID19 responses. I also see it among my personal, conservative friends – ranging from science denial (only 1 friend – a conspiracy theorist who is not even a conservative very often), to choices to take more chances than I would, to being very careful. I have a research virologist in the family who takes more chances that I am comfortable with. It’s a spectrum.

        If I go into conservative comment sections, I am very much in the minority. Both those comment sections have always been hives of crankery and reactionary individuals – not typical conservatives.

        I know other conservatives who so strongly want to believe COVID19 is not worth taking measures for – but they tend to be people who are both badly hurt economically by this, and not well informed on science. You’ll find people like that (on different topics) anywhere in the political spectrum.

        And, while I think the herd immunity arguments we have seen here are wrong, I do not believe that scientists/clinicians get to dictate responses. They provide information and recommendation, but they are not in a position to judge the trade-offs of deaths by COVID vs consequences of mitigation. As you know, I tend to come down on their side, but I don’t believe it is anti-science to decide that the costs of mitigations are just not worth it.

        I think the herd-immunity approach is wrong for two reasons:

        1) Most don’t appreciate that dropping or even limiting mitigations too much causes more deaths than the infection fatality rate tells use – due to overloading health care system. They also don’t realize how hard it is to “tune” the infection level to go for herd immunity without overloading systems. Exponential growth is not something people tend to have an intuitive feel for. Some may know all of this, and still think it is worth it.

        2) Most really don’t realize how impractical “protect the vulnerable” is as a strategy. People don’t live in bubbles, and most have a hard time. My wife and I have been isolating strictly – BUT… we need medical care or dental care at times and cannot put that off. And, high risk people are far more likely to need higher levels of that. Plus, a lot of high risk people live with groups of low risk people, so you have to quarantine a lot more than just the high risk people. Plus many are in essential or quite important jobs. And, many need to work to survive economically, especially in disadvantaged populations.

      • Doug –

        They are now at 60 deaths reported for Nov. 24th. Although that increase in deaths reported on 11/26 from 11/25 of 120 was counting deaths from quite a few days prior, it may well be that soon an actual 120 deaths occurred on those two days.

        Here’s what you wrote at the time:

        > Sweden’s daily death toll has been about 15 to 30 for some time now. There is no 2 day period that totals 120. Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.

        Will you now acknowledge your error? It’s OK, you didn’t understand how they report deaths and that lead you to misunderstand how many were dying. You have an excuse.

      • Doug –

        Now at 135 dead over the 24th and 25th.

        Remember when you said it was “nonsense” that it might have been 120?

      • Doug –

        Now 137. Almost 7 times the death rate that you thought it was.

        Do you see now why you need to wait for the lag? Have you learned that yet?

      • Woops. My bad. Almost 3.5 X. My bad. Apologies. You were only off by @ 350%

      • Doug –

        Since @ Nov 1, Sweden is averaging about 40 deaths per day, which is double what you said they were averaging during their 2nd wave.

        I thought I should let you know, although I guess for you, that’s pretty close
        .

    • “Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.” – Joshua

      I call BS on that claim. Can you provide a source?

    • Joshua: Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.

      Not according to worldometers: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

      Do you have a source?

    • Sweden’s daily death toll has been about 15 to 30 for some time now. There is no 2 day period that totals 120. Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.

      • It’s remarkable how little you guys know about this, and yet don’t let that stop you.

      • You don’t understand their reporting. Brush up on it and get back. We’ll talk.

      • When you got to Worldometers, scroll down below the carts. Your are drop down menus by date for the last wesk or so. Notice how the further back in time, the deaths reported by date INCREASES? Why do you think that is? Why do the only list 2 for the most recent date?

        Put on your thinking cap. Think!

        Why does the total deaths increase from 6500 two days ago to 1622 now, even though over the last two days they only show considerably fewer deaths?

        Think!

      • Nonsense. Worldometers shows nothing of the sort. Deaths have been bouncing around the numbers I quoted which is what the bar chart indicates. Your argument is that model outputs are for far greater deaths. Model outputs aren’t data.

      • What’s important is not what we as a whole think of Sweden, but what the Swedes themselves think of their handling of Covid, and everything I’ve heard is that the population is overall happy with the handling.

        There’s a price to pay for having a degree of freedom, but we seem to have forgotten that there’s also a price to pay for lockdown and that it’s all-too-easy to have a medical tyranny extended indefinitely into the future, or to be enacted over and over again (Covid-20? 21?) to “keep us safe.”

        I wonder what our American founding fathers would have said if they knew that such a tyranny had been imposed on us for a disease that leaves children largely untouched? They’d probably think that we’d completely forgotten the chains of tyranny that they worked so hard to escape.

        Doctors are poor deciders of what’s necessary for the population and can be easily be duped into going along with oppressive measures. A prime example of this is the doctors in Nazi Germany who were too willing to go with the program of culling the population and medical experiments, for the greater good.

        Ah, the “greater good” again! What an insidious and freedom-destroying phrase, if this phrase is used to command obedience. The greater good is that we preserve liberty at all costs. People aren’t that stupid: in the face of a real pandemic (not one that picks off primarily the old and sick and leaves the young alone) people will act appropriately.

        Some doctors believe they have a right to impose restrictions on people in order to play Big Doctor (as opposed to Big Brother.) But there’s really no difference between Big Brother and Big Doctor.

      • Two days ago worldometers was at 6500. You clearly don’t understand how they are reporting. Once again, look at the pull down menus today, and then look again tomorrow and the day after. They update the numbers. Do you really think they are going down?

      • In the data that we present on Our World in Data, which comes directly from the European CDC, deaths in Sweden are shown by date of death, while deaths in other countries are shown by date of report.

        This matters because it takes a number of days until all deaths for a particular day are reported. In practice this means that Sweden might today only report 10 deaths for yesterday, but once reporting is complete the death count for that day might increase to 40.

        The death counts for the last 10 days in Sweden should therefore always be interpreted as an incomplete count of the deaths that occurred in this period.

        https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sweden-death-reporting

      • Joshua: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sweden-death-reporting

        Thank you for the link. Where is the evidence for 120 deaths in 2 days?

      • Now that I’ve seen the link, I want to point out that we have similar confusion about death (and case) reporting here in Arizona.

        The media tends to say “N cases reported today” or “N deaths reported today.” And while that is true, it hardly tells you the real trend data. For example, numbers are lower early in the week because typically, testing drops over the weekend or just afterwards.

        Arizona graphs by date of positive test, or date of death. The result is a graph where it looks like the case numbers are going down for recent days – which gives the wrong impression. That graph, however, is the most accurate, given the available data.

        Click on “Covid-19 Deaths icon” at https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php

      • Matt –

        Go to Worldometers and scroll down past the charts to the pull-down menus my date. Pull down the menu for yesterday. What does it say? It says 2 deaths yesterday! Do you think that only 2 died yesterday?

        As you go back in sequence, the reports of the deaths after 2 are 16, 22, 24, 33, 29. Do you think that is because the trend in the number of people is going down? Really? Have you looked at the trends of increase in cases and hospitalizations and ICU admissions? Do you think those will trend up even as the number of people dying goes down?

        Think!!!!!!!

        Two days ago at Worldometers they listed the total deaths at 6500, and today it is at 6622. That doesn’t mean that 122 died over the last two days, although that’s actually a plausible number. We won’t know for days how many actually died over the last two days.

        But the jump of 122 in reported deaths reflects not only people who died over the last two days, but also other deaths from days earlier where there was a lag in reporting.

        Watch what happens going forward if the look at the jumps day by day in the death reports as compared to their charts for those same days. You will see that initially the death reports seem to jump by more than what you see on the bar graph for deaths per day in the most recent days. And then you will see that as you go back in time, the numbers start to correspond more closely.

        And then come back an let me know that you understand.

      • Doug –

        Think!!

      • Doug –

        Worldometers –

        Total COVID deaths in Sweden reported yesterday = 6622.

        Total COVID deaths in Sweden reported today = 6681.

        Did 59 people die over night?

        As of yesterday, the deaths reported on Nov. 25 were 2.

        As of today, the deaths reported on Nov. 25 are 10.

        And notice that the 7-day moving average for a prior date like Nov. 23rd has gone up from yesterday to today. How could that be? How could the 7-day moving average for a day IN THE PAST go up?

        Is it a conspiracy?

        Or perhaps we just have people commenting on the situation in Sweden out of ignorance?

        I have given you all the information needed to figure this out. I can tell you to put on your thinking caps.

        I can’t make you think.

      • Matt, Doug, etc.

        8 days ago Sweden was reporting 6500 deaths. Today they are reporting 6972.

        I tried to explain this to you. Did you listen?

      • On the 26th they reported 2 people as having died on Nov. 25th.

        Today they are reporting that 34 died on Nov. 25th.

        I tried to explain this to you. Did you listen?

      • Doug –

        Here’s what you said:

        > Sweden’s daily death toll has been about 15 to 30 for some time now. There is no 2 day period that totals 120. Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.

        And

        > Nonsense. Worldometers shows nothing of the sort. Deaths have been bouncing around the numbers I quoted which is what the bar chart indicates. Your argument is that model outputs are for far greater deaths. Model outputs aren’t data.

        Do you care to revise now?

      • Worldometers now has the 7-day average number of deaths up to 46 as of Nov. 24th.

        Keep watching. What do you think will happen to that number? Make a guess. An educated guess.

      • There is no two day period that totals near 120 deaths. I understood your point as soon as you made it. I have always looked at the bar chart for any country or state I investigate. Sweden has moved from about 10th in deaths per million population to 24th in deaths per million population during the “second wave” in the NH. The suggestion that Sweden’s policies have failed is demonstrably false. While Sweden’s policies have been outliers their outcomes are not.

      • Doug –

        I truly love that you keep spinning. It’s hilarious to watch.

        > Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.

        Let’s see how long you stick with that one. I admire your perseverance.

        > Sweden has moved from about 10th in deaths per million population to 24th in deaths per million population during the “second wave”

        Lol. What date do you uses as the start of the 2nd wave?

        > While Sweden’s policies have been outliers their outcomes are not.

        Of course you ignore that their outcomes have resulted in many multiples more deaths and illness than the most comparable counties. And the difference is currently growing. And they’ve largely abandoned their previous policies because they have determined, from looking at their results, it is in their best interests to do so.

        Of course, it’s still too early to judge. But with the advent of vaccine distribution, their health outcomes will forever be worse than the most similar other countries that form the best basis of comparison. With little apparent indication of better economic outcomes.

        But I predict you will NEVER acknowledge that just as you’ll never ack jwledfe your basic mistake with the simple numbers.

      • “Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.”

        Based on the data at the time I stated that they were. You need to get a grip. That Sweden has moved from about 10th to 24th is not in dispute. Your criticism is bazaar.

      • Doug –

        > Based on the data at the time I stated that they were. You need to get a grip. That Sweden has moved from about 10th to 24th is not in dispute. Your criticism is bazaar.

        Part of the “data at the time” was information about their reporting. I gave you that information. I explained that you were wrong and WHY you were wrong. It’s all right there in your screen. Look at it.

        Put on your thinking cap and then THINK!

        > That Sweden has moved from about 10th to 24th is not in dispute.

        I notice that you ignored my question. What date do you define as the beginning of the 2md wave?

        And if course, you ignore that their results are many times worse than the most similar countries, and younignire that they’ve changed their policies as a result.

        When this first started peope were claiming that Sweden would have better results due to their policies that would advance herd immunity. The claim is that fewer would get sick and die, or perhaps the same, but the results overall would be better due to better economic outcomes.

        Now the claim is that they didn’t do worse than other countries. But to make that claim you compare to countries that don’t have the same structural advantages as Sweden has (which is why they’d be expected to do better, not just as bad)you go ire the most comparable countries which have had much better results.

        With the advent of a vaccine, the claims regarding herd immunity returning similar levels of llness and death are just flat out wrong.

        And their economic outcomes, as of yet, are not appreciably better.

        But keep ducking. It does amuse. And watch what happens to the death numbers for the days where you were wrong, obviously wrong, based on evidence available at the time. You will only get more wrong over time. But you won’t admit it.

      • The date the second wave began is irrelevant. Sweden during the entirety of the pandemic is now 24th on population specific death rate, this past summer they were about 10th. The second wave has been less severe in Sweden than many other countries including countries that locked down and wear masks. Since the metric is applicable to the entirety of the pandemic, the date assigned to the second wave beginning is irrelevant.

        The rest of your comment is data mining and claiming facts not in evidence. I never believed herd immunity was Sweden’s goal. In addition, an EU official stated in the spring that Sweden’s policies have been outliers while their outcomes have not. He also stated that it is not Sweden that was conducting a great experiment it was the rest of the world. Sweden responded as every country has responded in past pandemics. Lock downs were a niche theory and “deeply illiberal”.

      • It is probably worth mentioning also that, as I understand, Sweden’s constitution does not allow a declaration of a national emergency except in times of war. They could not respond the way much of the rest of the world did.

      • Doug, here is what you said:

        > . Sweden has moved from about 10th in deaths per million population to 24th in deaths per million population during the “second wave”

        and now you’re refusing to Define what time. You’re calling the second wave. Remarkable.

        And keep watching their relative standing. And keep ignoring the comparison to the Nordic countries. It actually gives a very good window onto the way that you’re thinking about this.

      • Doug –

        Now up to 43 died on the 25th. I tried to tell you about this. You didn’t want to listen.

      • Doug –

        Sweden’s report of deaths is up by over 1,000 since Nov. 24th. Almost 60 per day.

        Remember when you said this?:

        > Nonsense. Worldometers shows nothing of the sort. Deaths have been bouncing around the numbers I quoted which is what the bar chart indicates. Your argument is that model outputs are for far greater deaths. Model outputs aren’t data.

        How about when you said this?:

        > Sweden’s daily death toll has been about 15 to 30 for some time now. There is no 2 day period that totals 120. Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.

    • “Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.”
      Context.
      Does this mean 120 people died in the last two days? No.
      Sweden reported in the last two days, 120 previously unreported deaths.
      What time frame did these 120 deaths occurs? Who knows.

      So the argument is we don’t know because we don’t have all the data yet. But it’s bad. It’s going to be bad.

      Bad like this: About 700 reported deaths since the second wave started which is 70 deaths per million. Or 1 in 14000. If only ¼ of the as yet unknown, end of it, second wave deaths have been reported, the odds are then 1 in 3750. For people probably over 65.

      Context. Sweden is going to be fine. They’re good. They are brave, they are strong, they are resilient.

      • > Context. Sweden is going to be fine. They’re good. They are brave, they are strong, they are resilient.

        The people in Sweden are shutting down, because they don’t agree with you. And as per usual, you extrapolate from current numbers, ignoring the lags and ignoring the trends. Because it suits your extremist agenda.

      • Unfounded optimism. If you want to forecast deaths based on current behavior, take the current case count and ratio it – it will give you an idea. Then multiply that by the Rt raised to the N power, where N is the number of days in the future divided by 5.5. Yes, that’s an exponential. Right now, Rt is relatively low – about 1.15 based on current doubling times (R = 2^(g/d)) where g is generation time, d is doubling interval.

        And don’t forget that deaths will lag case detection by weeks, and that the reports of those deaths will lag even longer.

        The good news is that people take more precautions as numbers go up, no matter what the government does. In fact, this makes it hard to evaluate the impact of mandates – separating the impact of mandates from voluntary behavior is very difficult.

      • And furthermore, Sweden will be victorious. And move forward into their bright future. Like Bill Clinton, they are building a bridge to the future. Else they would be stuck in the past of fear and cowering. In some kind of time capturing blackhole they can’t escape from.

        Whatever terrible thing you wish them to avoid, they are doing that so you say, even though they didn’t do that earlier. And yet you do not forgive them because there is no forgiveness. Because this is not some biblical story.

        And other countries like South Korea and New Zealand has followed the true word and took the path of the righteous. Sweden looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt, but it’s not a biblical story, remember that.

        But the path of the damned it to lose about 1 in 1000, average age of 65. And I’d guess in a normal year, we’d lose 1 in 50, 65 year olds anyways.

        But if it was a biblical story, Sweden would rise from the dead like Jesus Christ. And you all would be the Romans with your soon to fail dictatorial and all things unwoke empire. You all would feed me to the lions for believing in Sweden.

      • > You all would feed me to the lions for believing in Sweden.

        Sweden is shutting down, because they gambled and lost.

        So easy for you to decide that they’re better off for having multiples more sick, multiples more dead, and healthcare workers putting it all on the line, for no apparent economic benefit – because it’s no sweat for you. No sacrifice need be made on your part. You can sit behind the walls of your ideological citadel and cheer on the unnecessary illness and death because it’s just all the same to you. Why should you care that thousands unnecessarily die? That tens of thousands become unnecessarily sick? No reason at all it need matter to you.

        But the Swedes are leaving you behind. They’re shutting down. They’re increasingly saying their policy was a mistaken one. They thought the early sacrifice would be worth it because they thought their approach would be more sustainable in the long run. But now they see that all that sacrifice doesn’t keep them from having many multiples more sick and dying than their neighbors in a second wave.

        And soon there will be a vaccine. And the vaccine is likely what would be most sustainable long term (pending more information about how long its immunity lasts).
        And the more the economic data come in, the more they see no economic advantage.

        But you’ll remain a dead-ender… Because there’s no sacrifice for you in being wrong and there is no point where you’d have to acknowledge being wrong.

      • > And furthermore, Sweden will be victorious.

        What a bizarre conceptualization. “Victorious.”

        It explains a lot that you’d use that term – even if Sweden’s policy turned out advantageous in the long run – which it’s now clear it won’t, it would be a bizarre descriptor.

      • Joshua – the vaccine immunity is likely to last longer than infection acquired immunity. So if the vaccine isn’t the way out, herd immunity isn’t either!

        Vaccination will be the way out, even if it has to be repeated. And this mRNA vaccine technology allows new variants to be produced almost overnight (although regulatory delays may still be months).

        Hopefully this technology will prove useful for influenza. If they can start closer to the flu season with their vaccine design – and mRNA should allow that – then the vaccine can be more effective as they can use the latest information about mutations to build it.

      • Do you think you’re projecting?
        They’re going to be fine. You can take a poll. Ask them if climate change is an existential threat for instance. Their government may decide to build 10,000 wind turbines in the next five years. They are going to be fine.

        Keep saying that. You can do it.

        Write this down, 70 deaths per million, median age of over 64. Write it down 5 times. 340 deaths per million. Write that down 5 times. These numbers refer to their second wave. You’ll be fine.

      • Write this down.

        “it’s easy for me to dismiss illness and death because while it requires the sacrifice of others, and results in the suffering of others, doing so requires no sacrifice or suffering on my part. And extrapolating from today’s numbers, and ignoring lags, just helps to reinforce my sense of smug superiority that enables me to dismiss the sacrifice of others because others aren’t macho and brave like I am. “

    • Joshua: Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.

      Got it! Not “Sweden reported that 120 people had died in the last two days”.

      • > Got it! Not “Sweden reported that 120 people had died in the last two days”.

        Correct. But once the data are in, 120 peope dying over those two days prolly won’t be far off.

      • Joshua: Sweden reported over 120 deaths in the last two days.
        Got it! *Not* “Sweden reported that 120 people had died in the last two days”.

        Wow. All that blathering and obsfucating from Joshua. He’s another Ellison, purposely misrepresenting what other people have said.

        From his name one can guess his self-obsession with high religiosity which directly fits into the insights provided in Andy’s article.

        Truly eye-opening.

      • The second wave is happening in Sweden. Compare new cases with daily deaths. The latter will increase in line with new cases over the next few weeks.

        https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

        I take my religion seriously. We have a duty to God, the world and the future. Andy insists that I misrepresented him as believing that *imminent* catastrophe is not supported by mainstream science. That the belief in such is therefore a substitute for religion in an irreligious world. It’s a millennialist cult perpetuated by the other. And believers can therefore be disparaged and marginalised. Greta in this groupthink worldview is the face of evil. Andy is so far down this rabbit hole on this that he may never see the light of reason again. Lowey scarpers after. I would have to be wrong about this aye?

        And then they complain about tipping points in mainstream science. We are beyond the planetary limits of nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways and on coasts – blue green algae continues to bloom and ocean anoxic zones expand exponentially, oceans are full of plastics, the air with photochemical smog, carbon particulates, sulphate and mercury, the populations of 10,000 charismatic species have crashed by 60% since the 1970’s – these are the species we know of – we are on the brink of an extinction crisis – we continue to change the composition of the atmosphere transforming ecologies from the Arctic to the Australian desert – with little idea of how the nonlinear Earth system will respond over the course of the century.

        And then that blathering popinjay Lowry – the debunker of general relativity – decides that he can indiscriminately apply a religion sticker to sundry others in a toxic cancel culture campaign. What a man.

      • Worldometers –

        Total COVID deaths in Sweden reported yesterday = 6622.

        Total COVID deaths in Sweden reported today = 6681.

        Did 59 people die over night?

        As of yesterday, the deaths reported on Nov. 25 were 2.

        As of today, the deaths reported on Nov. 25 are 10.

        And notice that the 7-day moving average for a prior date like Nov. 23rd has gone up from yesterday to today. How could that be? How could the 7-day moving average for a day IN THE PAST go up?

        Is it a conspiracy?

        Or perhaps we just have people commenting on the situation in Sweden out of ignorance?

        I have given you all the information needed to figure this out. I can tell you to put on your thinking caps.

        I can’t make you think.

      • And BTW, they are now listing 48 deaths for Nov. 18th.

        Keep tracking the numbers over time.

        You might learn something. Do you want to learn?

      • It’s unfortunate so many people have dies of the China virus.

      • “Andy insists that I misrepresented him as believing that *imminent* catastrophe is not supported by mainstream science.” – Robert

        Get a grip. Andy quite clearly stated that the *IPCC* doesn’t support the imminent catastrophe scenario. They are the orthodox mainstream science community.

        Btw I take the *truth* of climate change very seriously. All angles should be considered before taking drastic action that will affect the global economy and therefore the livelihoods of millions of people around the world.

        Is it too much to ask to test for increasing solid body Earth tides??

      • Joshua: Correct. But once the data are in, 120 peope dying over those two days prolly won’t be far off.

        Prolly is far off.

    • Joshua is beset with unidimenional thinking.

  29. There is no convincing debate here at all. There is just the usual prattling of preconceived notions adhering to the tribal identifications,. Nobody is convinced by listening to the arguments of others, so continuing this debate is a waste of time. So maybe we should split this into two parallel discussions where the climate change deniers can agree with one another, while the catastrophists can agree with themselves. And all the other political attributes regarding Trump, covid, trade, immigration, etc. can follow along the very same tribal lines as climate change? We all have fixed, unchangeable ideologies and we obtain satisfaction from the agreement of others of our tribe. America is the “religulous” country and we approach everything, God or not, from the position of faith. Once we have THE FAITH, no power of science or data can change it.

    • People engaging a dialogue where a range of perspectives are expressed encourages good critical thinking. Commenters can’t get away with simply spouting off their prejudices, they need to provide some justification.

    • Good ideas scale. So we can keep dividing after two groups into four groups. For instance Republicans can fight amongst themselves as can the Democrats. And then we keep dividing again and again into smaller groups. Down to the level of being married where we can’t agree about anything with a spouse. It’s easy to blame Twitter or Facebook for all this.
      Or we could blame Trump. Or the socialists. Or big oil. Or free trade. The elites. Then there’s the theory that they want us to fight with each other so we don’t look at them. They being the establishment which does have a lot of money, and seems to own the government. I think it’s true that groups have evolutionary utility. What do we know about group optimization? Are two groups better than one or three? Good ideas scale.

  30. Josh my dear friend, cases and deaths are rising faster in highly regulated and “masked” areas. How does one explain this fact?

    • > Josh my dear friend, cases and deaths are rising faster in highly regulated and “masked” areas. How does one explain this fact?

      Comparing across countries is highly problematic. But if you’re going to do so, you should seek out comparisons between countries that have the least dissimilarities.

      Since Nordic countries are relatively similar, compare the outcomes in Sweden to those of Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

      Im Sweden, they have had more illness and death than in those three other countries combined. (granted, their population is larger). Much more.

      But even more, they are currently seeing more illness and death than those 3 other countries combined.

      This means that they are realizing no benefit from a supposed “herd immunity.” The importance of that is that it exposes the unscientific reasoning of the conservatives and (fake) libertarians who claimed Sweden had reached a herd immunity status six months ago, and proposed that the US and the UK follow a similar policy trajectory.

      Given that we don’t have the same structural advantages of Sweden (such as low #’s of people per household or extensive infrastructure to support people taking leave from work and work from home), following their path would have resulted in far more misery here than were already experiencing.

  31. Donald you make the case for dissolving the United States; do it orderly or with violence. These are the choices.

  32. Reading about a third of these, I would say, a political blog is not a great idea, Judith. These comments remind me of the food fight in Animal House.

    • This blog has always been primarily about politics (with climate change as a sometime proxy). The “food fight” character has always been here as well.

      • “This blog has always been primarily about politics” – Joshua

        Yeah right, that’s why it’s called Climate Etc. 🙄

      • I disagree. The politics is usually here in the comments sections. The blog is not usually about politics.

        It often has very informative articles. The series by “A Planning Engineer” was excellent, for example, and he did his very best to not be biased or political.

      • > usually here in the comments sections. The blog is not usually about politics

        The blog has been about people’s take on climate change, which is infused with and served as a proxy for politics. It’s always been such.

      • “The blog has been about people’s take on climate change, which is infused with and served as a proxy for politics. It’s always been such.”

        By that definition, everything is about politics.

        The blog is by a climatologist who has slightly heterodox views *on the science*.

        I understand that heterodox views are now verboten in climatology, which is why she chose to leave her academic job. I have several other acquaintances – climate researchers – who have done the same, or have recused themselves entirely from global warming… errr.. “climate change”… in order to maintain their self respect.

        I understand that the comment sections have gotten political. Online comment sections tend to do that if there is anything that people might disagree about, or just our of orneriness. But I do not consider this a political blog. I do read them, I used to have a fairly widely read “war blog” back in the day. They are focused on political issues, not on scientific issues which became political because people chose to make them political.

    • She knows why. It was clear to me when she framed the climate change debate as a ‘Wicked’ problem years ago. Wicked is a synonym of Evil so people who support or promote action to limit the damage from climate change are to be demonized. Looking at the comments I think she should be quite pleased with quality of the dialogue.

    • khal – That’s a flippant, callous, and uninformed remark. This election means everything to many of us here. If you don’t like what goes on here, the web is world wide. I’m sure you can find something more to your liking.

    • I introduce such threads to that we can keep politics out of the technical threads

    • khal spencer. These comments remind me of the food fight in Animal House.

      My analogy some years ago was to sandlot football.

      Coming here to read is a choice, not an assignment. I read most of the head essays, and most of the “dialogues” down below. Some of the parry and thrust of argument is informative and enjoyable. Mostly I am on the lookout for links to information I would not come across myself; I read and download stuff nearly every day. I am thankful for the opportunity Dr Judith Curry provides me and others to explore the ideas and evidence in this free-form manner.

  33. > Comparing across countries is highly problematic. But if you’re going to do so, you should seek out comparisons between countries that have the least dissimilarities.

    Fair point.

    > The importance of that is that it exposes the unscientific reasoning of the conservatives and (fake) libertarians who claimed Sweden had reached a herd immunity status six months ago, and proposed that the US and the UK follow a similar policy trajectory.

    I dispute here. 1) There are no common measures being used in terms of: testing (PCR or Antigen) and this is essential in counting cases as the amount of virus is important – you have to agree some counted cases that are not shedding virus (PCR catches after 35-40 cycles) so are they the same as those that are caught early with few cycles? The issue of comorbidities and death must also be explored via an autopsy – this is not happening and one cannot exactly determine if death was directly caused by COVID-19 or was COVID-19 a coincidence?

    • > I dispute here. 1) There are no common measures being used in terms of: testing (PCR or Antigen) and this is essential in counting cases as the amount of virus is important – you have to agree some counted cases that are not shedding virus (PCR catches after 35-40 cycles) so are they the same as those that are caught early with few cycles? The issue of comorbidities and death must also be explored via an autopsy – this is not happening and one cannot exactly determine if death was directly caused by COVID-19 or was COVID-19 a coincidence?

      If course there is variation which problematizes comparisons across countries. Something like positivity rates help, in the sense that it can address the question of whether or not the increase in cases is simply an artifact of more testing.

      But sure, different standards for use in identifying cases could create confounding variables.

      And yes, different standards for how COVID deaths are identified and atrmteibuted are also relevant.

      But (1) part of my point is just internal to Sweden. They are having a huge spike in cases along with a big spoke in positivity rates. Their testing standards and methods for identifying cases presumably haven’t changed and so they clearly are not benefiting from having reached some putative herd immunity six months ago and (2) on top of the measurement dissimilarities, and allowing for some resulting uncertainty, it’s clear that they have experienced in the first wave and are experiencing now far more per capita illness and death than their Nordic neighbors. That is why they are instituting such measures as preventing nursing home visits and limiting public gatherings to eight people.

      And there’s no indication that they’ve had any resulting economic benefit. With vaccines becoming available they’ve gbked many lives, and lost.

      • Joshua is an advocate for medical tyranny, yet it’s extremely difficult to tell the difference between medical tyranny and political tyranny as these are practiced. Only particular justifications for one or the other type differ, but ultimately they both decide that tyranny is “for the greater good.” Who gets to decide what the greater good is?

        Isn’t the greater good that we all get to decide for ourselves how we want to respond to pathogens– at the very least, as a way to ensure that medical tyranny doesn’t shade off into, or become an excuse for, political tyranny (it seems like these temporary lockdowns just keep popping up over and over …)?

        https://www.corbettreport.com/lockdowns/

      • > Isn’t the greater good that we all get to decide for ourselves how we want to respond to pathogens–

        You are on a distinct minority of opinion. Yet you think you should decide. You are accustomed to freeling entitled to disproportionate power.

      • Joshua makes yet another fact-free assertion:
        You are accustomed to freeling entitled to disproportionate power.

      • Jim –

        You said hospitalizations were dropping bigly a few weeks ago. Not only were you wrong, you were spectacularly wrong. In fact, we have had nearly three straight weeks were we’ve had record #’s of hospitalizations every day.

        I tried to explain your error to you. You wouldn’t listen. Instead you held on to the obviously WRONG belief that hospitalizations were dropping. And apparently you’re upset with me because I’m amazed at how you could have been that wrong.

      • Joshua fails to grasp the larger argument about the dangers of coercive medical measures, supposing that Big Brother is bad but that Big Doctor, coming through the back door, is good (or does Joshua think that Big Brother is good, too?)

        I do not think that I should decide. I think that each individual should decide, and I don’t think anyone should decide medical matters for us (except in unusual and rare cases.)

        Let me also reply, briefly, to another commentator who stated that focused protection (a good idea) would be too hard to implement. My general comment on that is: only if you say it is. In reality, instead of spending a few trillions supporting US business and individuals struggling because of forced lockdowns of the entire population, some of that money could’ve gone to supportive services for the frail and elderly that might need dental and medical treatment. For example, house calls. For example, more stringent protective measures should someone at risk need to go to the hospital; maybe we have special facilities for just those people. We do the best we can and focus protection on those most in need of it, not on the population under 35, for example, that we can reasonably say needs minimal protection for a disease that’s less lethal for them than a bad flu would be.

      • “Isn’t the greater good that we all get to decide for ourselves how we want to respond to pathogens– at the very least, as a way to ensure that medical tyranny doesn’t shade off into, or become an excuse for, political tyranny (it seems like these temporary lockdowns just keep popping up over and over …)? ”

        That’s a common error. Do you say that is the greater good if we all could decide whether to drive drunk?

        While the left is certainly dangerous regarding tyranny, it is a logical error to conclude that any reduction in freedom they choose – temporary lockdowns, for example – is moving down that slippery slope. Some of the lockdowns have been excessive, or discriminatory, and that’s wrong.

        The right was long in favor of the draft. Many of us served in the military – which is one hell of a lockdown compared to what is happening with COVID. Were we wrong about the draft? Could our country always be defended by a voluntary military [note: I was a volunteer]?

      • mesocyclone,
        It’s a common error to think that if we make laws against drunk driving and such, and take away the liberty to drive drunk, then that means that we can make any and all medical dictates on the population that also serve the greater good but take away liberties. We can, to a degree, and that degree was spelled out in in 1905 Jacobson decision which ruled that a modest penalty ($5) for those who refused a smallpox vaccine during an epidemic (please note: during a smallpox epidemic in Cambridge, MA) was justified. Note that this decision did not say that smallpox vaccination could be forced. What many people perhaps don’t know about this case is that it wasn’t about forcing a smallpox vaccine, but about forcing the $5 fine to which Henning Jacobson objected. That court upheld the fine but warned against oppressive penalties that would in fact be coercive and not balanced by the need to preserve individual liberty while at the same time encouraging (not forcing!) compliance with well-intentioned public health laws.

        Even a drunkard, when sober, will acknowledge the wrong of driving drunk: we all do, and we all agree that prohibiting drunk driving is a small price to pay to keep us all safe. It’s a matter of proportion.

        In 1927 Justice Holmes used your exact argument of the legitimacy of the draft in order to justify forced sterilizations (in Buck v. Bell): since we demand sacrifices of young men in times of war, we shouldn’t shy away from asking sacrifices of society to promote the greater good (which at that time was supposed to be eugenics.) But threats against a nation by a foreign power require necessary sacrifices in order to preserve the nation, and this is widely recognized. This doesn’t translate into the right to demand sacrifices for any perceived threat whatsoever, such as the perceived threat of a dilution of the “stock” by imbeciles, and we can look back and understand that Buck v. Bell was an egregious miscarriage of justice: an unwarranted assumption of state power.

        You say that some of the lockdowns have been excessive. Well, where do we draw the line?

        The point isn’t that we have a free-for-all and that we go for the herd immunity thing. The point is that we must take great care to balance liberties against medical dictates, especially as we can see how medical dictates have been abused throughout history (eugenics, Nazi experimentation, etc.)

        The Great Barrington Declaration is a program for handling Covid-19 that makes sense, and this type of program was advocated back in March by Dr. David Katz and others (before its most recent iteration) who pointed out that the young were hardly affected by Covid-19, and even working-age Americans handled the virus fairly well. It was well-known even in the early days that Covid strikes the elderly– those most likely to be retired– the hardest, and Katz back then was arguing for a tiered approach that focused protection on those most at risk. Instead we opted for a blanket lockdown of everyone.

        The question is, is this lockdown policy really a balanced approach, or does it fall too far on the side of excessive state control over the social order and individual liberty? Will we find ourselves in a predicament that leads to egregious but as-yet unforeseen abuses, as we did during our eugenics phase (whose apotheosis was the Holocaust. The Nazi program was overwhelmingly a biomedical one)? What’s wrong with an approach that takes great care to preserve liberties as a hallmark of the policy?

        In my view, those who complain that we should just shut up and take it for the greater good have forgotten that our greater good is freedom from excessive and unwarranted state dictates, even in the guise of medical necessity. The public isn’t stupid and will act accordingly, without excessive coercion or heavy-handed dictates, in the face of a true emergency. You’ll excuse me if I don’t think that a disease that carts off those at the end of their lives (such as myself) while even leaving the vast majority of that population alive and well, and leaves children alone, necessitates the emergence of Big Doctor to keep us safe.

        The media has made a mountain of a molehill, and Fauci hasn’t helped, either.

        People get sick. People die. Life is supposed to go on. There are what, seven billion people on the planet? Let’s put things into proportion.

      • You attempt to discredit all mandated mitigations against COVID19 by cherry picking arguments from the past. And, you seem to imagine that the lack of a precise line to define what should be allowed by government and what should not means that allowing any mandates leads inevitably to tyranny. That’s a slippery slope argument, of the sort our legal system long ago rejected, because it allows no actions at all if even the slightest slope exists.

        You write “It’s a common error to think that if we make laws against drunk driving and such, and take away the liberty to drive drunk, then that means that we can make any and all medical dictates on the population that also serve the greater good but take away liberties”.

        My response, is that it is a common error to assume that your rhetorical opponent is in favor of the most radical version of whatever you oppose. I offer drunk driving as an example of how society cannot rely on voluntary actions for all problems. COVID19 is another, sadly, and it is people like you – who simply don’t mind killing off seniors – that are the primary problem!

        The “Great Barrington Declaration” is a combination of wishful thinking and cherry picking of the science to reach a pre-conceived result. It is very wrong. It would result in millions of dead in the US.

        If no vaccines were coming, it might make more sense. But they are coming, and that they were likely has been known for months.

        As a veteran I am not interested in being lectured about “taking one for the greater good.” Been there, done that. And I’m probably one who you are happy to have carted off because I’m at the end of my life – you can infer my age from my Vietnam service. As one who works close to full time for my community, all I can say is – your response is loathsome.

        All that being said, the correct policies are not obvious to me. It is clear, though, that we are currently on a path in the US that will lead to a lot of *unnecessary* deaths and serious illness. Mitigations are needed, and if people continue to be irresponsible, mandates are needed.

      • mesocyclone says:
        “I offer drunk driving as an example of how society cannot rely on voluntary actions for all problems.”

        But you might have noticed that I agree with you; it’s a matter of proportion and appropriate coercive measures that don’t devolve into oppressive dictates.

        My larger point is not that medical mandates inevitably lead to some sort of tyranny, but that there’s always a danger that they might if these dictates become oppressive, and unless I’m mistaken people all over the world are sick and tired of these (oppressive) measures, even as others are keen to force others to obey even stricter dictates. A problem, no? Maybe we should compromise?

        The Great Barrington Declaration has some 35,000 physician signatures– all of them idiots? I’ve found that the public understanding of what this Declaration actually says amounts to a slogan, with no depth of understanding at all, no subtlety, and no consideration of the possibilities. I’ve even spoken with a PhD public health professional who completely misunderstood it. Amazing.

      • “My larger point is not that medical mandates inevitably lead to some sort of tyranny, but that there’s always a danger that they might if these dictates become oppressive,”

        Which is obvious to most, and irrelevant unless you believe they *are* oppressive and not appropriate.

        “and unless I’m mistaken people all over the world are sick and tired of these (oppressive) measures, even as others are keen to force others to obey even stricter dictates. A problem, no? Maybe we should compromise?”

        “sick and tired” – funny choice of words in this context.

        Most people were sick and tired of war in 1943, but they didn’t give up!

        If you think the measures are wrong, you need to be specific and offer justification – or at least state which ones are wrong.

        “:The Great Barrington Declaration has some 35,000 physician signatures– all of them idiots?”

        Not idiots – fools. And, a lot of those signatures are not physicians, and many were found to be fraudulent. But if you assume all are physicians, it’s still a *tiny* minority of physicians. Are all those physicians, public health officials, and epidemiologists who are against the GBD recommendations “idiots?”

        ” I’ve found that the public understanding of what this Declaration actually says amounts to a slogan, with no depth of understanding at all, no subtlety, and no consideration of the possibilities. I’ve even spoken with a PhD public health professional who completely misunderstood it. Amazing.”

        I read it. Right off the bat, it identifies the declarers as “infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists” but doesn’t give a count of how many fit into that category – certainly not all of the 35,000 signers who *claim* to be physicians.

        It was typical herd-immunity-through-infection craziness.

        Their central thesis is “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. ”

        Those who wrote “live their lives normally” are either ignorant or deceiving themselves. There is no way for that to happen without the case rate going up astronomically. Furthermore, these is no way to accurately identify, much less protect the vulnerable well – especially when a high percentage of those supposedly not vulnerable are sick. The most vulnerable require medical services, many require life care services, all require food, man require medicine. Furthermore, many of the most vulnerable are working in essential jobs or live with people in those jobs. Finally, many of the healthy will refuse to participate in this, either because they are not sure they will do well with the illness, or because they disagree. This will cause the epidemic to drag way out.

        Are you going to have the government divide people into two groups, put one in a magic bubble, and force the others to go out and mingle?

        If no vaccine were on the horizon, this might indeed be the right approach, although it would require a lot of time to set up, and during that time, the case rate would have to be held down or deaths would skyrocket.

        With vaccines just about here, it is just plain stupid.

  34. Claims of “Industrial-Scale Fraud” against Donald Trump which needs to be dealt with:

  35. Here is the lawsuit onto the GA governor and secretary of state for voiding the presidential election. Probably most significant in sections 93 to 96 is the Dominion’s user manual and affidavit describing how to ‘fix’ things. And then we use the same machines and election administration to possibly decide how the senate will be composed, and therewith subsequently no more checks and balances might exist in our beloved United States (re. supreme court packing and adding two democratic states).
    https://www.docdroid.com/e3rhDCz/complaint-cj-pearson-v-kemp-11252020-pdf#page=3

    • You realize that in the GA manual recount that Biden also won the machines were NOT involved.

      quote

      Sitting several feet apart to account for social distancing, the workers began the extraordinary statewide effort, technically an audit, on Friday morning. They hunched over sheafs of ballots, recited the names, counted and restacked them in bins.

      Similar scenes unfolded in warehouse-like rooms across the state, and would continue until every ballot had been checked.

      At each table, workers broke open taped-up boxes and removed fat stacks of ballots sealed in clear plastic bags. At Team 12’s table, a man held a sheaf of ballots, declared the name of the candidate on each one, and handed it to a woman standing across the table who double-checked him, then placed the ballot in a bin with the candidate’s name.

      The Cobb County ballots being counted on Friday morning had been cast on Election Day and at early-voting sites using a touch-screen system that produces a paper printout and seldom yields ambiguous results.

      • There are accusations of ballot dumping in the Georgia election. These wouldn’t be found from a simple recount. Reading the lawsuit(s), it seems there’s ample ground for investigating the accusations to ensure that this and future elections are conducted fairly. The number of potentially invalid ballots in various states would certainly place Trump on top if even some of the allegations are true, so it’s imperative that we take the time to get this right and stop pretending that the allegations of massive voter fraud are baseless: this is for the courts to decide.

    • The complaint is almost entirely about the voting machines.

      I don’t exactly know how the entire process works but I did vote in Georgia. The machine may keep its own internal tallies but it prints a ballot with the selections of the voter in plain readable text. The ballot is then scanned. I assume it was the paper that was recounted.

      • I’m sure the machine can create as many paper backups as needed. So a count of the backups means nothing.

      • My understanding is the paper IS the ballot not a backup.

      • One question in both Georgia and Michigan is, were the ballots even legal? There are accusations of ballots being duplicated (illegally,) of ballots being delivered after the polls had closed, of blank ballots being filled in for the candidate of choice. These concerns need to be addressed.

        Regarding the recount, if this was dependent on machine voting (or machine reproduction of ballots) then the recount might simply reflect machine manipulation:

        “The design and features of the Dominion software do not permit a
        simple audit to reveal its misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes.
        First, the system’s central accumulator does not include a protected real-time audit log that maintains the date and time stamps of all significant election events. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs. Essentially this allows an unauthorized user the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify, or remove log entries, causing the machine to log election events that do not reflect actual voting tabulations—or more specifically, do not reflect the actual votes of or the will of the people.” https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

        Rather than assume that the lawsuits are baseless, we should allow the courts to examine the evidence and make determinations.

      • Don,

        The votes are on paper and the paper was counted in the recount. Whatever accumulators there are in the machines don’t matter. I think maybe whoever drew up the complaint may have been thinking about machines used in prior elections where there was no paper trail. There was a lawsuit and the procedure changed. There is a paper trail that can be used for an audit. The paper was counted and Biden won.

      • We disagree that Biden won. We also disagree that most paper ballots were legal, and that there weren’t enough illegal ones to flip the election. At this point, we simply don’t know.

        My view is that we reserve judgment on who really won until after the courts review the evidence. Just because the mainstream media insists that the lawsuits are baseless doesn’t mean they are.

        I would not assume that Sidney Powell is a partisan idiot, or Giuliani either, for that matter.

    • Of course, if Republican and Trump voters are fearful of the machines, then they can decide not to vote.

      quote

      One prominent Trump ally, Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who unsuccessfully sued Georgia election officials to stop the certification of the vote, has urged Republican voters not to vote in elections with Dominion machines.

      Wood has attacked Perdue and Loeffler for not doing enough to help, and told his 631,000 Twitter followers last weekend that if the senators don’t step up their support, he would take a pass on Jan. 5.

      “If not fixed, I will NOT vote in GA runoff,” he tweeted.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fraud-claims-georgia-republicans-run-offs-perdue-loeffler/2020/11/26/0c4d6b3a-2f30-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html

      • Kind of a snotty comment, there.

        But it does sound like she is dumb.

        As a professional in the software and hardware area, I find the fact that the software of these machines is not auditable to be horrible. It should be open source, and it should be auditable by *anyone* who wants to look at it. Ditto for the hardware.

        There is ample precedent for the use of auditable software and hardware designs in the industry. States that don’t require auditable systems are either dumb or don’t care.

        The embedded software industry is full of un-auditable software – for intellectual property protection reasons. But elections are too important for that.

      • Meso,

        Lin Wood is a man. FYI.

        The Georgia machines are auditable. The manual recount was an audit.

      • To be clear, I voted in GA but I could be wrong in some details.

        The machine just creates a paper ballot with the selections in plain readable text but it is also a ballot that can be scanned without stray smudges and various sorts of ink issues. In other words, it is human readable and machine readable with little potential for it being misread. The interactive machine is just a tool for creating the paper. The paper, of course, can be scanned for quick counting but it also can be used for an audit in a manual recount. Biden won the manual recount.

  36. I don’t understand if not voting helps anybody. That simply guarantees the democrat’s candidates to win overwhelmingly. May be my brain is side tracked from the two thanksgiving glasses of wine…

  37. I checked his account and it is indeed banned. If Trump comes out on top, I hope he and the leg make sure Twitt hits the bottom.

    Big Tech has continued to show bias towards Republicans and GOP lawmakers with social media platform Twitter recently banning Pennsylvania Sen. Doug Mastriano after he organized a Senate hearing on election integrity.

    https://www.oann.com/twitter-bans-pa-state-sen-doug-mastriano-after-hearing-on-voter-fraud/

  38. Down with Acid Head Jack …

    Twitter is blocking users from sharing links to lawyer Sidney Powell’s lawsuit relating to widespread voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election.

    A number of users across Twitter have reported being unable to share links to lawyer Sidney Powell’s lawsuit relating to voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. When attempting to share the link to the document, users receive a notification stating that the link has been identified as “potentially harmful.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/26/twitter-blocks-potentially-harmful-links-to-sidney-powell-election-lawsuit/

    • That Twitter is blocking access to the lawsuits should awaken everyone to the possibility that the media is acting as a Ministry of Truth working hard to ensure that the population isn’t afflicted by unwelcome details of massive voter fraud, as spelled out in the Georgia and Michigan lawsuits.

    • A nice article. The trans issue is just a metaphor.

      “ Was this helping trans people? Was it coming from them? Mostly I think not.”

      Cross out trans and fill in the aggrieved group, blacks, gays, etc. It’s no longer about helping anyone or improving their lot. It’s about power. It’s about absolutism. It’s about cultural cleansing by the left, to shape society Into their own image.

      “…it’s not the left that it once was.”

      I grew up when Hubert Humphrey was the beacon for liberal causes. He and others in the 1940s appealed to our better instincts. They were on the right side of history. It never occurred to me that his descendants on the left would mutate into intellectual thugs wearing iron boots with swastikas tattooed on them, threatening to visit your house if not conforming to their ideology.

      Indeed the left is not what they were. Sad, because they held such promise.

      • When the left expanded their victimology to include everyone who is different (except Asians), they wandered farther into insanity. It’s a logical extension of the class obsession of the Marxist thought leaders of their movement.

        Plus, the left has long valued results over process – a distinct difference from conservatives. And if you don’t respect the consensus process, you end up with no limiting principle. Progressivism has frequently ended up as totalitarian, from the Jacobins through the Bolsheviks/Leninist through Mao, to the modern progressive movement. Plus, those regimes adored by America’s far left such as the Cuban tyranny and the Venezuelan kleptocracy.

        Tyrants have always understood that if you can cast your opponents as evil, then you can convince people that any measures are valid for defeating them. Modern progressivism is a tyranny. We see the logical consequence – ideological tyranny in academia that most resembles the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution, and tyranny of the mob – Antifa and BLM thugs – that is only constrained by the police, whom the left wants to do away with. When I infiltrated an anti-Trump rally, I found people that one would consider normal Democrats who were convinced that Trump, and the Trump supporters across the street who were in line for a really, were all Nazi’s – literally. They had it in their signs, they screamed it at the Trump supporters, all the time ignoring the violent Antifa who were in their midst, visible in their “black bloc” garb, and the heavily armed John Brown Gun Club allies, with their AR-15’s, AK-47’s, side-arms, and military garb.

        This is a dangerous time for America. The ideology of tyranny now dominates our academia and media, and is strong in our corporations.

  39. A Thanksgiving thanks to Justice Barret and crew for upholding religious liberty during the pandemic.

    What is good about this ruling is that it does not strike down the idea of limits on services – it just requires them to be reasonable. Given that religious liberty is an enumerated right in the Constitution, infractions on it should face “strict scrutiny” although the Court hasn’t been consistent in that.

    Link: https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-backs-religious-challenge-to-cuomos-covid-restrictions-barrett-delivers-decisive-vote?utm_source=knewz

    From a concurring opinion (same ideas):

    “In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the first of Trump’s three Supreme Court appointments, writes, “Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles. Today’s case supplies just the latest example.”

    “It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques,” he concludes.”

  40. Some threats have been public, like attempts to have her disbarred and encouraging the public to file Bar complaints.

    Others have been more direct — and less subtle.

    She added: “CNN reporter messaged today accusing me of my bar license being lapsed. Unknown number has called my cell dozens of times between midnight and 4am to blow up my phone and try to get through the DND [do not disturb].”

    Ellis provided Breitbart News with a screen grab of text messages from an unknown person who attempted to provoke her to respond, ending with: “You’re a f**king c**t. You’re the reason people despise humanity. You deserved to be raped.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/26/exclusive-trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-receives-threats-you-deserved-to-be-raped/

  41. The only real difference between the Kleptocracy halves is best exemplified by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Since the Libertarian plank became Roe v Wade, fanatics have sought Irish Amendments and whatnot to coerce women into involuntary servitude as Mutterehrenkreuz medal winners in Third Reich Germany. Graham, praising Judge Amy, telegraphed his move, alerted women voters and Trump bore the brunt. No biggie. If they weren’t the same thing, the elections wouldn’t be too close to call.

  42. Travesty promulgated by the media and rest of the left.
    NEW YORK, Oct. 29, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and team announced today that a retrospective study analyzing his patient data was accepted for publication after a rigorous peer review process.1 The study finds that early intervention and treatment of high-risk patients with COVID-19 resulted in significantly fewer hospitalizations and deaths. The treatment consisting of zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin, is also referred to as “The Zelenko Protocol.”

    This study is unique because only HIGH RISK out-patients were treated with the triple-drug regimen. High-risk patients are those that have a 5% to 10% chance of dying from COVID-19. This category includes patients who are older than 60, who are younger than 60 but have other medical issues, or who have trouble breathing. All identified high-risk outpatients were treated at their initial visit, most within the first five days of the onset of symptoms. All these patients had laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection.

    https://www.wfmz.com/news/pr_newswire/pr_newswire_health/covid-19-outpatients—early-risk-stratified-treatment-with-zinc-plus-low-dose-hydroxychloroquine/article_80b9e695-0729-5177-9536-c538df3772f8.html

  43. The uncertainty of election fraud, cause of climate change and even Einstein’s gravity theory encapsulated by an Italian philosopher:

    https://www.rte.ie/culture/2020/1120/1179380-carlo-rovelli-on-science-humanity-an-extract-from-his-new-book/

    “To the question ‘What do we know about the world with absolute certainty?’, the response suggested by de Finetti would be: nothing. This in itself is hardly remarkable: it is the answer given in antiquity by Pyrrhus of Elis, and in modern times in various forms by some of the greatest philosophers, such as David Hume. But de Finetti identifies with acumen the nature of our knowledge, and understands how, notwithstanding the absence of absolute certainty, it can nevertheless develop in a rigorous and credible way and lead to convictions that are justified and, above all, shared.”

    • “With such a level of impeccable agreement with experiments and observations, general relativity could seem to provide the ultimate description of gravity. Yet general relativity is remarkable in that it predicts its very own fall.”

      https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    • “Einstein’s general theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of gravity over close to 30 orders of magnitude, from submillimeter scales all the way up to cosmological distances. No other force of nature has been described with such precision and over such a variety of scales. With such a level of impeccable agreement with experiments and observations, general relativity could seem to provide the ultimate description of gravity. Yet general relativity is remarkable in that it predicts its very own fall.

      General relativity yields the predictions of black holes and the Big Bang at the origin of our universe. Yet the “singularities” in these places, mysterious points where the curvature of space-time seems to become infinite, act as flags that signal the breakdown of general relativity. As one approaches the singularity at the center of a black hole, or the Big Bang singularity, the predictions inferred from general relativity stop providing the correct answers.”

      What happens to space and time at the singularity? That’s the mystery.

  44. It’s official: “Those who don’t want to take the vaccine won’t be forced to take it.” Is this promulgated by the Biden administration??

  45. “Of course, if Republican and Trump voters are fearful of the machines, then they can decide not to vote.”
    This approach has already been tested. It failed dismally.
    I would very strongly recommend that all US citizens do some deep research into what happened in Venezuela between 2003 and 2006. It is ALL highly relevant.
    In 2003, there was a demand for a presidential recall referendum vote made perfectly legally under the Venezuelan constitution.
    Chavez trampled on the constitution to stack and pack the judiciary – which gave him control of the supreme courts, in particular the Constitutional Chamber. It also gave him corrupt judicial cover for assuming political control of the formerly independent “poder civil”.
    This allowed him to appoint his head henchman, Jorge Rodriguez, to lead the “independent” CNE – the body tasked with ensuring free and fair elections.
    Jorge Rodriguez found multiple bureaucratic excuses for delaying the acceptance of the petition for a recall referendum, and forced a complete repeat of the process of collecting (the millions of) signatures for the recall petition. This delay was engineered to allow time for two Venezuelan enchufados to set up a shell company called “Smartmatic” at the behest and financing of the Chavez regime.
    Rodriguez announced – over massive opposition protest – that new electronic voting machines would be used for the first time ever in the recall referendum. Smartmatic won the “tender” process, despite having no history or experience.
    The 2004 recall referendum involved direct electronic manipulation of the vote. (Indeed, it is used to this day as a benchmark test of algorithms designed to test for voting irregularities.) Although the opposition knew that there had been massive outcome-determinant electronic manipulation, they were blocked by the CNE and a politicized judiciary from gaining sufficient access to audit the voting process.
    Given the profound distrust of the CNE and of the voting machines from hell, the main opposition parties all refused to participate in the legislature elections (the AN) scheduled for December 2005 unless paper ballots were restored. The elections went ahead anyway despite the boycott – and this gave Chavez complete control of the legislature, which then granted him power to rule by decree. In 2006, with control of the executive, the judiciary, the legislature and the poder civil, Chavez became a de facto dictator, and he set about turning a once-rich Venezuela into the paradise that it became today.
    Venezuelans have not had access to a free and fair vote since that time, which brings me to a second point made by James Cross about the US elections:-
    “The complaint is almost entirely about the voting machines.”
    This is quite patently untrue. There is hard statistical evidence of electronic manipulation of the vote in the US elections in certain counties, but there is also widespread evidence of other irregularities related to inter alia electoral registers, mail-in ballots (and their processing) and suspicious closing and resumption of vote-counting.
    It is worth noting that during the Venezuelan elections which took place after the 2004 recall referendum, the regime did not rely on electronic vote manipulation alone to assure victory. They had many strings to their bow, including:- direct intimidation, “assisted voting”, and demographic engineering. Additionally, in mid-afternoon on election days, the election officials would quite illegally hand over copies of voter registration to local colectivos (armed Chavez militia groups) who would then visit individuals in their district who had not yet recorded a vote for Chavez to “encourage” them to vote. These ministrations were aided by the fact that for many years, the regime itself encouraged people to believe that the electronic vote was not secret.
    However, there was one trick which was applied in many different places – official closing time irregularities. The CNE would “grant approval” for voting centres to stay open after 18:00 hours “because of the large number of people still waiting to vote”. Eye witnesses and video records generally revealed that there was no-one in line waiting to vote at these centres. Instead, the officials inside, free from any observation, would go through the voter registration lists and check off any names of people who had not yet voted. They would laboriously register an electronic vote for Chavez against each one of these names. This process would continue for hours.
    In these centres, the electronic records would all balance:- the electronic printed ballot paper count would match the total number of registered voters who had presented according to the registers. It is only evident in the statistical information, from the change in proportion of votes between the late entries and the early entries, and the unrealistically low level of abstentions.
    Of course, nothing like this could ever happen in the USA. Inability to audit the vote counts against registration? Denial of access to observers? Irregular closure and reopening of vote counts? Direct electronic reassignment of vote? Most people in Venezuela in 1998 could not believe that any of this could happen either.

    • Lol.

      Very impressive. So Powell is right. And anyone who doubts it is like a Venezuelan citizen under Chavez. And if course, if we read anything different in the “MSM” it can be dismissed ’cause they’re in on the conspiracy. So it can’t be falsified.

      And I thought THAT couldn’t happen here. I mean I knew it could happen for sure at Climate Etc., but I doubted it could has happen outside of a collection of ideological fanatics. So not sure it can, but there is evidence that a significant % of the public really believes this nonsense. They don’t seem likely to win the day, but they weild disproportionate power… and they certainly will insist on making life mistake even if they don’t manage to maintain Trump as prez.

      • Joshua, it’s a question of examining the evidence Sidney Powell and others have put forward, it’s not a matter of believing or dismissing this or that conspiracy theory.

        The ones entertaining conspiracy theories are those who maintain that Trump won’t leave office voluntarily if the election turns out against him (and after court review of the evidence.) Right now everything being done is perfectly within the legal system.

      • Don –

        You just commented approvingly on a massive conspiracy theory and then said it’s not a matter of believing or dismissing a conspiracy theory.

        You and I have been down this road before. You believed in a conspiracy among doctors and nurses and hospital employees and hospital administrators to falsely label people as sick with COVID so they could make money.

        IIRC, you believed in the Plandemic nonsense conspiracy theories.

        And all the while you said you don’t believe in conspiracies. Conspiracy theorist NEVER think they believe in conspiracies. That’s part of how it works. That’s part of the non-falsifiable mechanism. Any evidence pointing to the conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy and any evidence in contradiction to the conspiracy is also proof of the conspiracy and no one believes that there’s a conspiracy even when they believe that there’s a conspiracy.

        That’s where we are today. No matter what happens, some 1/2 the public will be fully convinced there was a conspiracy. If it doesn’t win out in court, that will only be proof that the conspiracy exists.

        This has been the Roy Cohn/Roger Stone/Donald Trump playbook for decades. But it’s NOT a conspiracy because there’s no element of secrecy or deception – which is always a oaeif conspiracies. Their strategy has been explicit. They’ve written books on it. That’s part of its effectiveness is that it doesn’t rely on any kind of secrecy. Consider Trump’s statement about how he could commit murder in public and his cult would still support him. In a fascinating way, his explicitness about the mechanism of his strategy is what helps to reinforce its success.

      • Look above –

        meso – who doesn’t buy into the whole “herd immunity” I sense – nonetheless believes that Trump’s approach to the pandemic has been a rousing success.

        He believes this even though Trump has specifically demoted scientists who don’t go along with the “herd immunity” and promoted a “herd immunity” nutbar to replace them.

        He belieces that despite Trump’s constant lies about the testing, which have material consequences (how can you improve on the testing when you never acknowledge that there is any reason for improvement?). Despite the numerous times that Trump and Pence have made promises about testing that NEVER materialized. Despite Trump’s ridiculous argument that we only have a lot of cases because we’ve done a lot of testing. Despite Trump’s explicit statements that we should do lest testing – and his empowerment of a key advisor who explicitly argued against testing. Despite the failure to use state resources to ramp up rapid testing and PPE. Despite the promotion of a political operative to a position where he would specifically channel the scientific communication with the public into a political control mechanism (Caputo). Despite the repeated stamp of political expediency being placed in the CDC’s communication with the public. Despite the constant, obvious signs that Trump’s entire approach to the pandemic has been focused not on public health, but political expediency. And again, this was not secret. It was explicit. An there have been a strong of insiders who have publicly and in detail described this process.

        Of course, there’s no way to know that with another administration, things would have been better – and this is the kind of falsifiability that is the kissin’ cousin to conspiracy theories. It’s the weaponization of uncertainty. You can’t ever exactly prove Trump’s failure with the pandemic just like you can’t prove their wasn’t an election conspiracy. And any evidence pointing in the direction of Trump’s failure or his actual loss on the election is just evidence of the “deep state” out to get him. We can’t be certain and the uncertainty is proof…

        Well, that’s where we are these days.

      • “Trump’s statement about how he could commit murder in public and his cult would still support him.”
        Really, Josh? Got a reference for that statement?

      • Conspiracy theory or no conspiracy theory, I’m willing to trust the judicial system to sort it out. I’m OK with Trump losing fairly and squarely. I’m OK with Biden winning fairly and squarely. I’m not OK with the evidence being dismissed without a thorough vetting.

        You seem not to understand that a “conspiracy” doesn’t require that everyone involved actually conspires. It only requires everyone to follow orders and refrain from asking too many questions. And yes, right now I do believe there’s been a conspiracy to steal the election– to “get the bastard out at all costs,” despite that his rallies were huge (translation: significant support of the people, by the people.) I’m open to changing my mind depending on what the evidence says.

        There’s really nothing that bad about conspiracy theories: they actually help keep us on our toes. Jefferson and the Republicans believed that Hamilton and the Federalists were conspiring to establish an elitist government and install a monarchy after the Revolution. Jefferson was wrong, but that suspicion kept everyone on their toes: not a bad thing.

      • Joshua – shame for mischaracterizing my views.

        “meso – who doesn’t buy into the whole “herd immunity” I sense – nonetheless believes that Trump’s approach to the pandemic has been a rousing success.”

        I think he has done far better than critics give him credit for, but not perfect. I have no reason to believe that Joshua’s buddies would have done better, but rather than they would have done “different.” I have never said “rousing success.”

        “He believes this even though Trump has specifically demoted scientists who don’t go along with the “herd immunity” and promoted a “herd immunity” nutbar to replace them.”

        I do not favor Scott Atlas.

        The rest of this is more of your Trump Derangement Syndrome ranting.

      • Joshua: Very impressive. So Powell is right. And anyone who doubts it is like a Venezuelan citizen under Chavez. And if course, if we read anything different in the “MSM” it can be dismissed ’cause they’re in on the conspiracy. So it can’t be falsified.

        You are too into binary thinking. Any expression that Sidney Powell (or others) might have evidence worth examining in detail you mistranslate into So Powell is right. And anyone who doubts it is like a Venezuelan citizen under Chavez. Or belief in a massive conspiracy theory.

        Try to grasp the many (seemingly) conflicting details and eschew the superficial categorizations.

      • meso –

        > The rest of this is more of your Trump Derangement Syndrome ranting

        I honestly find it sad that pointing out the lies (insisputable), failures (indisputable), misinforming (insisputable), incompetence (indisputable), substitution of political expediency for public health policy (indisputable) are, in your view, “deranged.”

        As to who might have done better is an open question. That you see and acknowledge the weakness of the “herd immunity” propaganda is to your credit given your political leanings.

        But your hanging on to the Trump cultism just becomes that much more depressing to me – as it only reinforces what an imposing obstacle the phenomenon is and how difficult it will be for us to ever get past it as a society.

      • “But your hanging on to the Trump cultism just becomes that much more depressing to me – as it only reinforces what an imposing obstacle the phenomenon is and how difficult it will be for us to ever get past it as a society.”

        What you fail to realize is that your reactions are just as tribal as you ascribe to me.

        Guess what, I am not a Trump cultist. I never was. But I do try to take a balanced view. The start of that is that I understand what would be obvious to his critics were their minds not clouded by hatred and tribalism: ignore most of what Trump says, and rather look at what he does. His critics seem so deranged by his admittedly off-putting manner and habits of exaggeration that they cannot see past that. That’s why “Trump Derangement Syndrome” came about as a term on the right – because we see that irrationality.

        In the case of COVID19, some of his statements have been harmful. Period. Okay? You won’t hear that from a “cultist.” And yes, some of his followers behave like cultists, *just like his opposition* who were utterly convinced of one now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump after another. Remember that Trump was a Nazi? A Russian stooge? Yeah – that was taken seriously on the left, either that or the left is composed of truly cynical opportunists who used those theories to attempt to achieve what they failed to at the ballot box – stop Trump from executing his job.

        And let’s not forget the statements of his oppposition, for example early on reacting to Trump blaming China by urging their citizens to go our and literally hug people in Chinatown because: “racism.” They also decried his shutting borders to China as… drumroll… “racism!” They of course said the same thing about his attempts to control illegal crossing at our southern border – an attempt which has probably saved a lot of lives here in Arizona as Mexico’s COVID19 crisis is peaking. Again, “racism.” Recently, Harris sowed some anti-vaxxer doubt: “”Well, I think that’s going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and reliability of whatever he is talking about, I will not take his word for it.””

        I have yet to see you acknowledge a single, even one, thing that Trump did as helpful.

        So, your “cults” characterization is both incorrect, but also typical leftist projection of your own behavior.

      • > You are too into binary thinking. Any expression that Sidney Powell (or others) might have evidence worth examining in detail you mistranslate into….

        kribaez layed out the Powell conspiracy theory in some detail.

        The power of conspiracy theories is that they take some element of truth, and mix it with ever-present and unavoidable uncertainty, to create a stew of unfalsifiability. Like I said above, all evidence that goes in one direction is considered support and all evidence that goes in the other direction is likewise considered support (as in this case it only proves the ubiquity and power of the “deep state,” how the “MSM” is in on the game, how much Trump and conservatives are poor, powerless victims of commies and Marxists, etc.)

        None of it can ever be disproven – which is why the belief among some 1/2 of the public that the election was “rigged” and millions of illegal votes for Biden we cast, and millions of votes were stolen from Trump, will persist going forward no matter what the electoral outcome.

        All that needs to happen is for there to be some element of truth (e.g., computers were involved and computers can be hacked, ballots were counted in Democratic areas and Demz can be crooks, etc.) with some element of uncertainty (there could always be irregularities, mistakes, or uncertainties with respect to things like signatures in the counting of tens of millions of votes) and voila, you have a conspiracy that can’t be falsified.

      • And as if on cue – from Fox News:

        > Trump claims Biden must prove votes weren’t ‘illegally obtained’ in order to enter White House.

        Perfect.

      • Joshua, reacting to: “Trump claims Biden must prove votes weren’t ‘illegally obtained’ in order to enter White House. ”

        Trump says all sorts of things, and people for some reason harp on every word, even after four years have demonstrated that doing so is really silly. Trump is not one of the polished princes we are used to, with every word carefully weighed and often focus grouped. He thinks out loud. He also says controversial things to mess with peoples’ heads. After four years, too many have not figure that out. It’s pretty weird.

        However, in an actual interview, he said that if the electors chose Biden, he would step down.

        All the rest is FUD.

      • > I have yet to see you acknowledge a single, even one, thing that Trump did as helpful.

        About COVID? Not much that I’ve seen. Most of his involvement with COVID has been between somewhat malignant to extremely malignant.

        The “travel ban” with China was poorly executed and not nearly as important as he and the cult members claim – but it probably had a net benefit and sure, he deserves some credit for sticking with that in the face of pressure even though it was still obviously a play to his base (anti-China sentiments).

        I have said that the government purchase of rapid tests was unambiguously a good thing, although it was only a tiny fraction of what should have been done in that regard.

        His involvement with vaccines? I certainly won’t say that was a bad thing. It’s entirely possible that he effectively accelerated the progress, I would have no way of evaluating that. If he did, really, then he deserves credit. The Oxford vaccine moved along just fine – was he a part that? I don’t know. If he wasn’t, then I see no reason to believe that he played a particularly significant role with the other vaccines. Russia produced a vaccine w/o his involvement and I think so did China. Of course he would take credit and his supporters would give him credit regardless. Because that’s what he does. He looks at the whole COVID situation through the lens of what serves his political and ego interests.

        Most of the supposed public/private partnerships that they kept trumpeting were a joke and mere phony advertising, self-felating, and crony capitalism. Remember the big press conference with all the promises about testing in Walmart parking lots and Google websites for keeping track? Dog and pony show, full of false promises that amounted to NOTHING. And his supporters refuse to hold him or his administration accountable for those false promises and failures or many of the other failures.

        Accelerating the development of therapeutics through deregulation? I don’t know. It’s possible that was a positive. But there are downsides to deregulation that need to be evaluated before a judgment is made. And I have no way of judging whether the claims made in that regard have any shred of truth. They are con artists and hustlers and everything they say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They rely on the credulousness of his supporters. I haven’t seen a thorough analysis. If you have seen one, I’d love to take a look.

      • meso –

        > Trump says all sorts of things, and people for some reason harp on every word,..

        This is what I talked about before. On the one cultists just dismiss what he says, which is deliberately and provocative, as irrelevant and then whine that he’s a victim because people react to the trollish and provocative things that he says.

        On the one hand he’s a master manipulator because he trolls the media and libz and on the other he’s a poor innocent victim. In the one hand he’s bold and unafraid of political correctness and speaks truth to power and is refreshing because he isn’t a politician because he just go whichever way the wind blows and doesn’t make promises that he doesn’t keep and on the other hand he switches positions at the drop of a hat and follows polling obsessively and is a victim because people react to what he says and it doesn’t matter if he lies and makes promises thst he doesn’t keep like any politician does.

      • “On the one cultists just dismiss what he says, which is deliberately and provocative, as irrelevant and then whine that he’s a victim because people react to the trollish and provocative things that he says.”

        Use of the word “cultists” in this context is offensive.

        Yes, I mostly dismiss what he says because it is either meaningless or trolling. The meaningless is,well, meaningless. The trolling is not a problem for me – Obama was just as offensive, if one was not part of his cult (see, I can say that too). The trolling worked well for him, because it causes the opposition, including yourself as far as I can tell from the rant, to focus on the wrong things. And, Trump actually accomplished a lot, especially in foreign policy, to help dig us out of the tar-pits Obama sank us into, with his “America sucks” foreign policy

        But… I am not one to defend everything Trump says. Hell, I voted against him in the 2016 primaries, and only voted for him in the general because an unknown, to me, was far better than a known bad – especially after he published his SCOTUS candidate list. He has far exceeded my expectations. But that doesn’t mean I agree with all that he did, and you know I don’t like his messaging on Coronavirus.

        Trump isn’t a victim. But he has been treated unfairly, and we on the right will not forget, no matter how much Joe calls for us to, all the incredible crap thrown at Trump and at us. The left lied and lied and lied about Trump, and made the most vile accusations of him – treason (which is what “Russia collusion” is), being a literal Nazi, being a racist – and most of those accusations were thrown at us, too. And this was not just from politicians and partisans, it was from the legacy media, it was from academia.

        And it was disgusting and the right is angry about it – for damned good reason.

        And many of us remember that similar tactics were employed against Reagan and Bush, along with the despicable and inexcusable treatment of Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. I remember when the mainstream media harped on “torture” though much of 2004, while ignoring the treason of John Kerry. And that’s especially galling, because as a graduate of military SERE school, I experienced that “torture” or its equivalent, as a volunteer, as have millions of military members of our military since. And as a Vietnam veteran, John Kerry’s behavior cannot be forgiven.

        We are not going to forget this. Trump was, to a large part, a consequence of that. He was going to fight back, and he did, and we love it (except for a few bitter #NeverTrumpers like Romney and McCain – also good men whom the left tarred with nonsense, but who don’t understand the very real partisan warfare they were victim of). If the left hadn’t been so nasty, we might have had a more conventional candidate.

      • > Use of the word “cultists” in this context is offensive.

        Now let’s note, on more than one occasion you have called me “deranged” (for having the audacity of laying out my specific criticisms of how Trump has handled COVID).

        And yet you’re offended if I reference a behavior that is typical of cult members, without calling you a cultists (I have labeled some commenters here as such when they’ve shown a repeated inability to on any way acknowledge specific failings if Trump beyond a banal and meaningless deflection like “he says some stuff I don’t like,” or “I wish he wouldn’t tweet so much,” or even “He has Karri amity flaws.”

        But no matter – as I don’t find it offensive if you call me deranged. For two reasons – First, yes, “Trump derangement syndrome” exists, in the same way that did “Obama derangement syndrome” as did “Bush derangement syndrome.” It’s a real phenomenon, and it is more readily apparent in left-leaning popular press than it was with Bush (and I would argue probably no more apparent than ODS was in right-leaning popular press with Obama).

        Second, it isn’t a condition that applies to me. I can understand why you might confuse specific criticism of his failures with TDS. Of course, I know that you’re wrong, but why would I possibly care if you make a mistaken mischaracterization of me? It has no effect on my life whatsoever – and only shows a weakness in your thinking. If you were interested in learning about that, it could be interesting to discuss. But I doubt that you are. It seems your mind is made up – particularly since you related the characterization with no basis in evidence to distinguish me as someone who is deranged from someone who has specific criticisms of Trump.

        Oh well. That’s life.

      • “Now let’s note, on more than one occasion you have called me “deranged” (for having the audacity of laying out my specific criticisms of how Trump has handled COVID). “

        Partly fair, although I used a term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” that does not literally mean “deranged.”

        “And yet you’re offended if I reference a behavior that is typical of cult members, without calling you a cultists”

        As best I understood it, you were calling me a cultist. Otherwise I would not have objected.

        “Second, it [TDS] isn’t a condition that applies to me. I can understand why you might confuse specific criticism of his failures with TDS.”

        Actually, it is what I perceive as ranting about things that have been covered time and again to be indicative of TDS.

        “Of course, I know that you’re wrong, but why would I possibly care if you make a mistaken mischaracterization of me? It has no effect on my life whatsoever – and only shows a weakness in your thinking. If you were interested in learning about that, it could be interesting to discuss. But I doubt that you are. It seems your mind is made up – particularly since you related the characterization with no basis in evidence to distinguish me as someone who is deranged from someone who has specific criticisms of Trump. “

        I am sorry you take it that way. I am interested in dialog with you, as you have seen. It is interesting. But, I have no more expectation that you will change my mind on Trump than I have of you changing your mind on the same topic. Your “of course I know that you’re wrong” is ironic when you get down to “your mind is made up.”

        After all, we are both aware of the same issues you raise, but interpret them differently.

        Other topics, who knows what we might learn from each other. But if they are sharply partisan, I’d bet both of us have our minds made up – unless they are fresh issues or fresh information.

        And although I didn’t respond to it (too many things going on at the time), I did appreciate one of your responses today that did acknowledge some things that Trump did right.

      • meso –

        > Your “of course I know that you’re wrong” is ironic when you get down to “your mind is made up.”

        ? I know that you’re wrong in your interpretation of my views. And your mind seems to be made up that my criticisms are the result of derangement. You’ve repeated the characterization and you have yet to actually engage with a single one of the criticisms of Trump’s covid politics/policies that I’ve described. You’ve merely called them deranged.

        > I’d bet both of us have our minds made up – unless they are fresh issues or fresh information.

        Again – I’m not talking about your opinions on the issues. I said your mind is made up that my criticisms are rooted in a derangement – as you have repeated the characterization, called my elaboration on my criticisms “rants,” etc. This has nothing to do (for me) with an expectation that you might change your views on issues.

      • Joshua –
        ” I know that you’re wrong in your interpretation of my views. And your mind seems to be made up that my criticisms are the result of derangement. You’ve repeated the characterization and you have yet to actually engage with a single one of the criticisms of Trump’s covid politics/policies that I’ve described. You’ve merely called them deranged”

        That is not correct. I used TDS and I explained that it doesn’t literally mean “deranged.” Also, I thought I was clear that it is the constant harping on those things that this TDS, not the content.

        You apparently want to believe that I have a model of your head that is wrong, but it is your model of my head that is wrong. Ironic.

        I did not engage the criticisms because I chose not to. I have seen them way too many times by way too many people. I thought some were wrong, some were, right, but the focus on them to the extent of ignoring the positive was tedious, and the stating of them, when the entire media world has been shouting them, was unnecessary and a result of the anger that is part of TDS. I also note that you subsequently made a more balanced post on Trump’s performance in the COVID19 crisis.

        So let me offer a somewhat different definition of TDS: it is the result of deep anger at Trump, largely because of his manner, but also by those who disagree with him strongly on many areas. The result is a constant, angry recitation of all his wrongs – real or imagined.

        > I’d bet both of us have our minds made up – unless they are fresh issues or fresh information.

        “Again – I’m not talking about your opinions on the issues. I said your mind is made up that my criticisms are rooted in a derangement – as you have repeated the characterization, called my elaboration on my criticisms “rants,” etc.”

        Then I misunderstood, and I apologize – I was talking about views on issues, not on derangement, since I don’t see you as being even close to deranged. I take some statements to be “rants” because of the emotional content and the use of them when they are already all over the media. I also engage in such rants.

        And, of course, I disagree strongly with your general strongly negative opinion of Trump, as you probably disagree with my general strongly negative opinion of Obama.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Joshua: kribaez layed out the Powell conspiracy theory in some detail.

        Kribaez made a case that there is non-ignorable evidence. You turned it into So Powell is right. And anyone who doubts it is like a Venezuelan citizen under Chavez. without considering that any of the evidence ought to be examined.

      • meso –

        There are way too many things that you have said in this subthread that I disagree with to begin to figure out a way to chart a course through engagement. So I’ll just move off with this:

        > In the case of COVID19, some of his statements have been harmful. Period. Okay?

        So this is an indication that you aren’t a member of the Trump cult. The cultists can’t say something like that. I suppose you and I differ in the degree to which his lies and misinformation and disinformation and “statements” have manifested harm, but that’s not my immediate point of focus. In fact, I’d say that many of your other posts on COVID would indicate that you aren’t a member of the CULT – as they implicitly acknowledge that the path Trump has chartered is ill-advised. Nonetheless, I think that much of what you have said about Trump vis a vis COVID doesn’t add up logically and I would be less than honest if I were to say that I don’t think the explanation for what I see as a logical disconnect is your pro-Trump motivations. Where the line is between that and being a cult member is a bit tough to identify – but at least being able to acknowledge that in real terms he has made harmful mistakes is a basic categorical difference.

        The other thing is that even while I think it doesn’t make logical sense to accuse someone of TDS ranting, more than once, and then say that you weren’t calling them delusional, in fact I never actually thought you thought I was delusional. I just figured you were calling me that out of being politically triggered. Along with the simple fact of knowing that I’m not delusional, I never actually took it personally. As such, I think it’s time to move on.

    • kribaez, you’re spot on. If I could make one prediction, I would predict that Americans are about to see evidence of absolutely massive voter fraud. This fraud would have been perpetuated by those who thought they were above the law and righteous because, as we all “know,” Trump is destroying America and has to go, by fair means or foul.

      • The above mega string is a very good encapsulation of the views of 90% of right and left. The Trump supporters value the genuineness of Trump, even if his transparency reveals spelling errors in tweets and dumb statements. I think I remember him pondering he could shoot someone on the street of NY and not lose support. I am not sure what he meant but I took it as a clumsy way of saying he recognized he had great support. The left took it as clear evidence he was Mussolini.

        Josh seems to have a longstanding desire to characterize any conspiracy theory that he doesn’t subscribe to as evidence of insanity. The problem Josh runs into is that human sanity is not binary. There are the completely disfunctionally insane to every shade of more rational to the Mr. Spock. Although I could not see an emotionless Vulcan concocting a nefarious scheme I believe there are highly functional individuals that would, especially those of whom have lost the fun in making more money and move on the global ambitions.

      • I think most Trump supporters want to see evidentiary hearings in the swing states. I know I want to see proof because accusations will escort Hiden Biden to the White House which will soon be run by Commielah.

      • > Josh seems to have a longstanding desire to characterize any conspiracy theory that he doesn’t subscribe to as evidence of insanity.

        ?

        Total misunderstanding. Conspiracies exist.

        And apophenia exists, especially with people who are highly motivated.

        I utilize a basic test for evaluating conspiracy theories – as I have told you before. It’s a basic plausibility test. How plausible is it that a large group of people would be aligned towards the putative goal? The more evil the goal the less plausible the conspiracy theory (for example, that demz want the pandemic to get worse to harm Trump). How plausible is it that the foho involved in the conspiracy would maintain unanimity and conformity? How plausible is it that no one involved would come forward to whistle blow? The larger the group the less plausible.

        In the case of the election fraud – not a particularly evil intent… But the notion that all these people would be involved withiut there being clear and unambiguous evidence brought forward by people involved BEFORE the actual election, is highly implausible, imo.

        The final problem here is the complexity of the supposed fraud, where demz selectively improved Biden’s chances in some areas even as they decreased his votes relative to Clinton in other areas just to put people off the track. How plausible is that? Not plausible.

        Is all of that possible? Sure. Are people insane just because they believe it? Nope. Is it plausible that some 1/2 the American public are insane? Nope. But yeah, people like to see the patterns they like to see in order to maintain their ideological viewpoints. That’s entirely plausible.

      • Sorry Joshua, but by now I’ve pretty much relegated you to the column of “not really worth reading.” I won’t be offended if you reciprocate.

      • Don –

        I always move it when people respond to my comments to tell me they won’t respond to my comments.

        The logic is perfect.

      • And what makes it even better is that you jumped into an exchange I was having with someone else to tell me that you weren’t going to respond to my comments.

        Perfect logic X 2.

      • And BTW Don –

        Are you still going with the “Plandemic” conspiracy or have you given up on that one yet?

        I imagine that your love of all things Trump might be having a head-on collision with the whole “Plandemic” insanity. How do you reconcile the two lines of belief?

      • You win, Josh. I just can’t pull anything over on you.
        I apologize for responding to another conversation– not always easy to see who is talking to whom.

      • > I apologize for responding to another conversation– not always easy to see who is talking to whom.

        I quoted who I was responding to.

        No need to apologize. I look at your actions as a great window into your process of ressoning and you logic. No new to apologize at all.

        You don’t read my comment with any focus, but you respond to my comment nonetheless to explain how my comments are so beneath your interest that you won’t respond to my comments further.

        And then you write a response to my comment when it points out how illogical it is to jump into a convo with someone else to tell me you won’t respond to my comments.

        Perfect logic X 3.

        But I really am curious how you reconcile the whole vaccine conspiracy belief with the whole Trump love – if you could just make an exception to your non-reading/non-response policy just one more time?

        I’d really like to know how you reconcile those opposing beliefs.

      • Joshua, I don’t understand how the whole vaccine conspiracy thing is associated with Trump love, if it even is. In fact, I’m not even sure I know what you’re talking about.

      • Do you support Trump’s push of vaccines? He thinks he deserves mad props for making them available, quickly.

        If vaccines are part of a big conspiracy, that is intended to provide profits to people like Gates who are exploiting fear and panic to promote unnecessary treatments that fetch great sums of money for a relatively insignificant problem, then is Trump complicit?

        Just a dupe?

      • If you’d been paying attention then you’d know that my objection isn’t to vaccination per se but to forced vaccination, for reasons I’ve outlined in some detail in this forum. For the record, I’m OK with some, maybe many, vaccines, although yes I do believe our children are over-vaccinated. This is a complicated issue that’s best avoided here as I think there’s enough to discuss concerning the election.

        I personally would not take a Covid vaccine. I have no objection to anyone else taking one.

      • You didn’t deal with my questions. Aren’t you a Plandemic guy? Isn’t the idea that it’s a massive conspiracy, in a planned fashion, to exploit fear and hype the pandemic to profit from making vaccines (and also implant tracking chips also, IIRC). Some kind of global control agenda? And you know, eliminating any publicity from the honest scientists who might expose the plot?

        So how does that fit with Trump being a big vaccine booster?

        Is he an innocent dupe, or is he complicit in the plot?

      • I don’t care if you’d take a vaccine, or whether you think kids are over-vaccinated. I’d like to know how you reconcile what might be incompatible beliefs.

      • Don132:…my objection isn’t to vaccination per se but to forced vaccination, for reasons I’ve outlined in some detail in this forum. …,

        I personally would not take a Covid vaccine. I have no objection to anyone else taking one.”

        So you would have no objection if private companies require proof of vaccination, right? Say employers, airlines, restaurants, entertainment venues? Quantas has already announced a vaccine required policy.

        I hope that enough people do take the vaccine that we are all protected from COVID – i.e. herd immunity is reached. Until then… enjoy your, err, freedom.

      • mesocyclone: “So you would have no objection if private companies require proof of vaccination, right?”

        Yes, I would.

        “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
        UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6
        http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

        Note: “without disadvantage or prejudice.” I’d modify that somewhat to say that modest fines would be appropriate, but the problem with that is that authoritarians among us would quickly decide that oppressive penalties are merely modest.

        I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Disregarding informed consent has led to egregious abuses in the past, period: such horrible abuses that we should never abandon that principle under any circumstance.

        Practically speaking, enough people will take a safe Covid vaccine that a few refusers won’t matter except to those people who are keen on shoving their ideas down the throats of others by force. If more than a few refuse, then I’d look to problems with the vaccine rather than to problems with the people.

        You people who want to dictate medical treatments seem to have no sense of the history of forcing medical treatments, or of decency or morality, and yet you call my ideas loathsome. Have we learned nothing from the Third Reich except how to shove our ideas down the throats of others? Just stop.

      • ““Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned,”

        Irrelevant. Nobody is forcing the intervention on you. You are free to not travel or eat in restaurants.

        And, there is plenty of precedent – such as requiring influenza vaccines to perform certain jobs, or various vaccinations to attend school (which even involves government, depending on the school).

        You objected to government forcing you to be vaccinated. I offered you an alternative that involves nothing but free citizens acting, including yourself – no government.

  46. Re secession or hyper federalism: How Foot Voting Promotes Political Freedom Better than Ballot Box Voting
    https://reason.com/2020/06/21/how-foot-voting-promotes-political-freedom-better-than-ballot-box-voting/

    Second in a series of posts based on the new book “Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom” by Ilya Somin
    https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Free+to+Move&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

    • One can also fight Marxism by:

      1) Pay for goods and services in cash so the people receiving these funds can be creative in their accounting

      2) Stop supporting big-tech and the MSM media

      3) Say no to pro sports

      4) Say no to government schools for your children

      It’s difficult but the alternative, becoming Venezuela is awful.

  47. What you are about to see and hear validates claims that the American voting system is not only vulnerable to manipulation, but every assurance you have heard that the 2020 Presidential election results were valid and must be quickly accepted is a lie. Not just a lie, but a damn lie from the pit of hell.

    https colon // (w w w) youtube.com/watch?v=OF4i7PzScI4&feature=youtu.be

  48. First there was the climate conspiracy, involving all the scientific establishments, government bodies, national and international organisations and scientists. I mean everybody is involved…except those who believe in the conspiracy, and they are right (in their own minds).

    Then came the election conspiracy, where the DEEP STATE, celebrities, Bill Gates (and other rich, possibly even Jewish persons), all elections officials (even Republican – non Trump-sect ones, at least), voting machines (especially those sent from Venezuela), human vote-counters, and voters (especially the Democrat ones), joined together to spoil Donald Trumps re-election.

    How do THEY get away with it so easily, even persuading judges to throw out all laughable attempts at stopping the announcement of the vote totals?

    Be afraid, be very afraid.
    Or, be realistic, get on with life and enjoy living in the real world of real people, i.e. not in a fantasy world of scary left-wing, liberal, climate-adjusting, vote-stealing fantasies. Get a life!

    Just saying…

    (And where is that Don Montfort fellow?)

    • Soros has poured money into the election of State Attorneys General.

      https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519

      That is a scary development. However, the men who designed our nation had at least one brilliant idea – spread power among the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the states. This may yet save us.

      Federal judges are appointed, not elected by the mob. In the case of the election, appointed Federal judges are hearing election appeals. Even if the AG had a hand in implementing and/or approving these rogue voting machines, a judge can nullify the attempt to hijack our legal votes.

    • Trying again:

      Soros has poured money into the election of State Attorneys General.

      https://tinyurl.com/yyc7eebq

      That is a scary development. However, the men who designed our nation had at least one brilliant idea – spread power among the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the states. This may yet save us.

      Federal judges are appointed, not elected by the mob. In the case of the election, appointed Federal judges are hearing election appeals. Even if the AG had a hand in implementing and/or approving these rogue voting machines, a judge can nullify the attempt to hijack our legal votes.

  49. What to look for. There are a few things to watch for if there is a hearing.
    For one, federal (NOT state, and this is hugely important for federal jurisdiction) law requires that all records related to the election of a President, VP and senators
    be kept for at least 22 months after an election. If the court sets a hearing, watch for a request for that evidence.
    If the court orders an evidentiary hearing, I would expect the court would order that evidence provided to the Plaintiffs and to the court.
    If that evidence is not provided, that is, if the Georgia Division of Elections does not have the data that is required by the federal statutes,
    there will be hell to pay. I cannot imagine that anybody would be so monumentally stupid as to either erase such information or to not keep such information.
    However, Plaintiffs specifically allege that the voting machines do not keep copies of original paper ballots and are designed to avoid this audit trail.
    See ¶98 of the complaint.

    If … their allegations about the lack of a paper trial in Dominion machines is true,
    that single factual finding alone is enough to derail any certified election results from states relying upon Dominion machine. I am not joking.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2020/11/the-kraken-is-released-on-georgia-and-michigan/#comment-2382554

    • jim,

      Jeez, can’t you understand that the machines in Georgia have a paper trail. I saw them working exactly as described. They print a paper ballot with human readable text that can be used for a audit. That was done and Biden was the winner.

      quote from 2019

      Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Monday that his office is awarding a $107 million contract to election-technology vendor Dominion Voting Systems to replace the state’s voting machines ahead of the 2020 presidential election with new equipment that produces paper records of ballots.

      Under the new contract, Georgia will phase out the touchscreen devices it has used for the past 17 years. Those direct-recording electronic machines, also known as DREs, do not produce paper trails, raising concerns about the state’s election security and the ability to audit vote totals. The new Dominion devices feature a touchscreen on which voters make their selections, and print out paper ballots to be tabulated.

      https://statescoop.com/georgia-buys-new-voting-machines-with-paper-trails/

      • James, jeez, you can’t understand the machines print the paper. If the machine can be corrupted, the paper is therefore also corrupted. This isn’t a difficult concept. It’s a programmable computer we are discussing here. It is malleable.

      • Except the voter can read the ballot and see what vote was cast. And the paper can be manually counted. By your standard no machine and probably no form of voting whatsoever could ever not be corrupted. I guess your argument is let’s just throw out everything, everywhere, and make Trump president for life.

      • The voter can read the ballot he or she cast, but can’t read any rogue ballets produced without the aid of a legal voter. There is a way to have a reliable election. Print ballots with a GUID in invisible ink and record which are sent out for absentee voters only. No one would know which ballot was sent to whom, but it would be known if the ballot is a legal one. For walk-in voters, they use the same sort of ballot. And the ballots would use “bubble” technology, where the voter fills in the bubble with a pencil or other marker – whatever marker works best. Then OMR would be used to read the ballots.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_mark_recognition

        This system does have some known problems, but is much more resistant to fraud than voting machines.

  50. What should happen to the interwebs?

    Joe Rogan Experience #1558 – Tristan Harris

    Called the “closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience,” by The Atlantic magazine, Tristan Harris spent three years as a Google Design Ethicist developing a framework for how technology should “ethically” steer the thoughts and actions of billions of people from screens.

    Don’t blame me, blame Facebook. Pretend to fix the problem.
    To go with something that he said, we want to watch the planet burning. If it’s fine, we just move on to the next trainwreck. What gets the most likes and shares is the planet burning. That’s what makes the most money for Facebook and Twitter. A thriving population of polar bears, boring. But a conservative will hurl thriving populations of polar bears at liberals. But that’s still boring. Food fights sell. Look at us here. What keeps our attention? That’s the point.

  51. Fighting on all fronts!

    In an exclusive interview, attorney Joe diGenova, a member of the President’s legal team examining election irregularities, said the amount of election fraud and deception in Pennsylvania is “truly staggering.”

    One America’s John Hines has more.

    https://www.oann.com/attorney-digenova-says-fraud-deception-in-pa-election-is-truly-staggering/

  52. Everett F Sargent

    It would almost be interesting if Small Hands 666 lawsuits had any merit at all or affected more then 0.01% of any state vote totals. Seriously interesting.

    I mean, Small Hands now has more lawsuits than tweets.

    People keep posting nonsense articles in this thread and we all get the play-by-play up to the point of those lawsuits being dismissed. For some reason, they never mention all those sooner-or-later-to-be dismissed lawsuits.

    Small Hands has a plan and that plan does not include overturning the election or the EC results per se. Small Hands plan currently has a minimum four year lifespan.

    Oh and we all knew of that plan in January 2017 just after Small Hands announced his 2020 reelection bid, should he lose said bid. Over 74 million losers is a lot of losers, after all, for a con(spiracy) artist and former POTUS.

  53. Sidney Powell’s lawsuit in Georgia reveals Iran and China appear to have tampered with U.S. elections in order to help Joe Biden.

    Powell’s ally, attorney Abigail Frye, said Iranian and Chinese operatives had access to ‘Dominion Voting Systems’ in several key states.

    The suit found Iran and China were monitoring and manipulating U.S. elections to get their desired outcome this year. The attorney cited the data provided by the 305th U.S. Military Intelligence Battalion.

    https://www.oann.com/sidney-powell-files-lawsuit-claiming-iranian-chinese-operatives-potentially-targeted-dominion-voting-systems/

  54. The Arizona State Legislature will hold a hearing on election integrity Monday, November 30. Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis will be present on behalf of President Donald J. Trump.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-arizona-legislature-to-hold-hearing-on-election-integrity-trump-lawyers-to-attend

  55. 17% of Biden voters say they regret their vote, didn’t know about scandals

    https://www.oann.com/17-of-biden-voters-say-they-regret-their-vote-didnt-know-about-scandals/

  56. An analysis of Nevada votes has uncovered an unprecedented jump in problem voter registrations, likely providing the Trump campaign with another avenue to challenge Joe Biden’s victory in the critical state.

    In an affidavit filed in another Republican election challenge, a “data scientist” found a huge surge of incomplete voter registrations and those giving casinos and temporary RV parks as “their home or mailing addresses” in the Third Congressional District that covers the southern third of the state and much of Clark County.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/historically-strange-spike-in-incomplete-nevada-voter-files-casinos-as-home

  57. Sydney Powell submits 104-page suit in Georgia alleging various election impropriety from improperly handled ballots to affidavit by cyber security expert of Iran-China hacking. embedded here:
    https://davidharrisjr.com/steven/breaking-sidney-powell-releases-the-kraken-in-georgia-with-explosive-new-lawsuit/

    • Everett F Sargent

      STATEMENT FROM DOMINION ON SIDNEY POWELL’S CHARGES
      https://www.dominionvoting.com/dominion-statement-on-sidney-powell-charges/

      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: FACTS & RUMORS
      https://www.dominionvoting.com/

      It has no case number yet, thus as shown is only a daft, hmm, err, ‘very rough draft’ with no spell checking.

      • What did you expect Dominion to say? We shall see.

      • Everett F Sargent

        The truth.

        Sidney ‘Kraken’ Powell not so much so, well actually. as little of the truth as possible so as not be laughed at while entering court. Laughed at while leaving court is a different matter though.

      • Reading the Sydney Powell-Lin Wood GA filing it looks like they have good evidence that the law was not followed in authenticating mail in ballots, a pattern that was repeated in all the states in dispute. They persuasively argued Dominion machines and software is should not be used for elections, not having any hardening, just a Windows 10 interface that allows any manipulation a computer user could do. The system also will go live on the internet if any connected laptop finds a the internet. Powell’s complaint did not provide clear witnessed evidence that a third party was in fact accessing the system, only that they had the opportunity to.

        The best remedy would be to immediately allow the Trump people to have supervised access to all the machines and ballots for forensic inspection. If evidence of the alleged abnormalities is found then a new election could be joined to the already scheduled runoff election .

      • Everett F Sargent

        Reading too much into just a single side of a draft argument. If filed correctly, big if there, then I will wait to read the other half of the argument 1st.

        Oh and you already know that none of what you suggest will be done. That is just part of the setup. Small Hands long term plan is working as intended.

      • “Small Hands long term plan is working as intended.”

        I’m confused. Are we supposed to believe in conspiracy theories or not?

      • Everett F Sargent

        No, you should not believe in any of Small Hands conspiracy theories wrt the 2020 election. But you will because you really do want to believe. Small Hands has been sowing those seeds of doubt on purpose. He knows that. I know that. You know that. You are not alone.

      • It’s very simple: let’s see the evidence. Then we’ll see where the conspiracy lies.

      • Everett –

        Face it. You can’t prove that a massive conspiracy to defraud Trump of millions of votes, what the heck tens millions of votes, what the heck hundreds of millions of votes, doesn’t exist.

        You can’t prove that if only the legal voted were counted, Trump would have won in a landslide.

        We don’t need to prove that any of this happened. We just need to say that you can’t prove it DIDN’T happen. That’s enough for us.

      • …wouldn’t have won in a landslide….

      • Everett F Sargent

        “It’s very simple: let’s see the evidence. Then we’ll see where the conspiracy lies.”

        Exacty!

        Everyone is waiting to see the evidence. Yet no evidence has been presented to date in court filings. The hurdle that must be jumped over is massive. At least as massive as Biden’s victory margins. And at least as massive as disenfranchisement of millions of perfectly eligible votes.

        That is the type of evidence and the magnitude of said evidence that the courts have demanded to date. Where is that evidence.

        You say Santa Clause exists. I say Santa Clause does not exist. It is not my obligation to prove my point. It is your obligation to prove your point. The onus is on you to prove your fictitious claim. In that regard, that is Small Hands obligation, to leave no stone unturned and to do so in the time allotted.

        Oh and you would say that the time allotted is at least the next four years.

      • Everett F Sargent: STATEMENT FROM DOMINION ON SIDNEY POWELL’S CHARGES
        https://www.dominionvoting.com/dominion-statement-on-sidney-powell-charges/

        SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: FACTS & RUMORS
        https://www.dominionvoting.com/

        Let them publish their code. And the states publish all their intermediate tallies.

      • Everett F Sargent

        Count three times and … release the Kraken Kode …

        You will need some judge somewhere and not have that ruling overturned at any level. Good luck with that one. In the allotted time frame even. You should have some other so-called reasonable suggestions just in case they don’t do what you are demanding from them, of course.

      • Everett, I’m perfectly OK with letting the evidence speak.

        You say there is no evidence, but there is: numerous sworn affidavits stating that Republican ballot monitors, and only Republican ballot monitors, were prevented from monitoring mail-in ballot openings, and this is illegal. The question is whether this is minor and isolated or symptomatic of a larger scheme involving more than just preventing allowed monitoring. In my view the requests (in the Georgia and Michigan lawsuits) to seize security camera footage, or example, or even voting machines, isn’t unreasonable and could demonstrate that there’s even more evidence of voter fraud. To clear up and dismiss these allegations of widespread fraud we should allow these impoundments, which your side supposes will show nothing at all– well and good. Then that will be the evidence, won’t it: there really is nothing to see but minor and inconsequential election interference.

        I see nothing wrong with waiting to certify votes until after potential evidence, such as from security cameras, is examined. We’re not in that big of a hurry and it’s important to answer all allegations.

        For those who wrongly say that if we see evidence then that’s evidence of wrongdoing and if we don’t see evidence then that’s also “evidence” of wrongdoing, my reply is that those people need to read and think more carefully. The request to see potential evidence– as would be contained in security cameras and voting machines– is innocent. Yes, it’s based on what some consider an outlandish assumption of widespread fraud, but the request itself simply asks to examine certain things– what harm could there be in that? On the other hand, given that a huge number of voters believe that something is amiss is this election, refusing a request to examine items that could reveal more evidence of vote tampering– I say, “could,” not will– smacks of an attempt at cover-up of evidence. As I’ve said before, if there really is nothing to see here, then let’s see that there’s nothing to see. Maybe that statement is confusing to some.

        Here’s an analogy: suppose there’s a murder and a gun is found, but the defending attorneys say you can’t see the gun because there’s nothing to see– their client is innocent! Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

      • Everett F Sargent

        I will wait for the professionals to figure this thing out as IANAL. We have yet to see any filings from the Defendants. Otherwise, half an argument is no argument at all. So basically pointless until we all see more.

        But if you want to continue to argue the Plaintiffs their case over here … carry on.

      • Everett –

        How can you say there’s no evidence of wrongdoing?

        Sidney was on TeeVee saying that the governor of Georgia and thousands of other election officials stole votes from Trump, which he won in a landslide, BTW. She filed a document with the court. It is many pages long.

        That’s evidence enough for me. And people are saying it’s not evidence. Ha! Apparently they don’t know that saying that Powell’s claims aren’t evidence is actually just further evidence of the vast conspiracy among thousands of people.

        Why would they say that Powell’s claims of wrongdoung aren’t evidence of wrongdoing if they weren’t trying to hide the evidence of wrongdoing she is presenting?

        Don’t be silly. Next you’re going to say that Bill Gates isn’t in on the vaccine conspiracy.

      • Everett F Sargent: You should have some other so-called reasonable suggestions just in case they don’t do what you are demanding from them, of course.

        If they want to be believed, then they ought to publish their code. If not in time for the Electoral College vote, then in time for the states to reconsider leasing/purchasing their systems in the future; and possibly in time for courts to consider prosecutions and civil suits for possible fraud. By now, almost everybody is wondering how reliable those systems are.

        You’ll probably recall that warnings and criticisms of the Dominion system preceded Trump’s loss. They’ll undoubtedly continue after the Electoral College votes.

        For now I think that Biden won the Electoral College vote because the Democrats worked on a greater get out the vote effort in the precincts that they lost in 2016 due to their complacency. The one obvious assumption overlooked in the statistical analysis is that the 2020 vote is different from the trends identified in previous elections due to well-documented efforts by Democrats since 2016. That said, I think that the evidence for fraud needs to be seriously considered, throughout 2021 and 2022 if necessary, as was done in Florida after Bush was declared the winner there.

  58. PA state legislature just introduced a resolution to stop the certification of the PA election results. They allege the Dem Sec of State prematurely certified the results Tuesday considering the litigation and dispute heard in Wednesday’s hearing. It’s a sticky situation since the incoming members start Monday only if the election is certified. So their first order of business might be to de-certify themselves.
    https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/

  59. ‘Joe Biden gains votes after recount’
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Give it up, guys – your Dear Leader is looking more ridiculous and unpopular with every passing day of desperate conspiracy pleading. Come on, are you so desperate to undermine your own democracy that you’ll do anything to save your cult? Sad.

    • Have you read the lawsuits? After reading these, you have to wonder about the objectivity of the Guardian article (your link) that continually refers to “baseless claims.”

      If Biden fans don’t like it that the election results are being challenged in court, that’s too bad. Let the process work out. If there’s nothing to see, then let’s see that there’s nothing to see.

      You will note that going through the courts is in no way “undermining democracy” but is the proper way to address an election challenge.

      Trump had absolutely huge rallies. I know that many who follow the mainstream might not have been allowed to see those crowds, but they happened. Like it or not, Trump has widespread support, which is unbelievable to those who listen to the mainstream constantly tell us what a liar, cheat, racist, and thief this new Hitler is. Oh, and now Michael Moore says he’s an evil genius. Apparently Trump has learned a lot and graduated from being a complete idiot and masterminded this incredible plot (conspiracy???) to steal the election.

      • They certainly seem to be baseless claims because the vast majority have been quickly dismissed and the judges seem to be waiting for evidence which has so far not been produced.

        Of course the courts should be able to hear cases and make judgements but everything so far has been based on hearsay and wishful thinking.
        Constantly crying about cheating and vote-stealing, but not producing any evidence – only seemingly to persuade people that there must be something wrong because one says there is – is certainly undermining democracy.
        Produce evidence or accept reality.

        As for Donald Trump’s support, of course he has a lot, but not as much as Biden! Like most countries now America is nearly evenly divided between one side or the other. The result of the latest election is just against Trump, just as it was just against Clinton last time (even though she received the majority of votes). That’s life.

      • JMurphy, I haven’t seen the attachments to the lawsuits which contain the affidavits and other exhibits, but I assume they exist. I do know that the Georgia and Michigan lawsuits ask for impounding security cameras and voting machines, etc., as potential evidence and for examination by the plaintiffs. I’m not a lawyer but this seems reasonable, and anyone assuming that there’s nothing to see should be happy that the evidence will demonstrate that there’s nothing to see, if that’s the case, so that all sides can be assured that the election proceeded fairly and the rightful winner becomes president.

        On the other hand, if we get continued resistance to seeing the evidence because the charges are “baseless” and we get continued references to the idea that Trump (newly discovered as an evil genius!) is merely trying to steal the election and so all this is pointless, then that would indicate that there is indeed something to see, but certain parties don’t want us to see it.

        So let’s let it play out. Let’s see what there is to see, or not to see.

        A Biden presidency? Not so fast. The plot is thickening day by day.

      • Good point. If we can’t prove that a conspiracy didn’t happen, then that proves that claims of a conspiracy are valid – even if no evidence proving a conspiracy exists.

      • Thanks for butchering my reasoning, Joshua. Typical. And you wonder why I don’t want to bother responding to you at length?

        Try to understand other viewpoints in a logical and objective manner, and for God’s sake at least try to be fair.

      • Don –

        > And you wonder why I don’t want to bother responding to you at length?

        I can assure you I’ve never wondered about that. Not for one fraction of one second.

      • Don –

        > Good. So stop bothering me with your irrational interpretations that you imagine are the height of reason. I simply don’t have time for that.

        That’s an impressive combo to pull off.

        So not only do you think that you have zero responsibility for the health and welfare of you’re fellow citizens, but you also think I have some responsibility for the decisions that you make foe how you spend your time.

        Sorry, Don. You’re responsible for how you spend your time. I’m not. Have a convo with yourself and work it out. Lol.

      • JMurphy: “They certainly seem to be baseless claims because the vast majority have been quickly dismissed…”

        Two months after the Benghazi attack were you still pissed at the guy who made the hateful video that inflamed the spontaneous protest? Or were you part of the other half of the country gave weight to reporting coming out of Fox News?

        Two months after the 2016 election did you laugh at Trump’s voiced suspicions that his campaign had been spied on by the Obama administration? Of course you did. Because spying from the White House is what Richard Nixon did. Obama just led the establishment’s chorus of laughter at such a notion. Maybe Trump had problems with
        apophenia.

      • Murphy continued —
        Two months after the NSC “whistleblower” hearsay allegations you likely believed every word. And you believed Adam Schiff when he said he had been unaware of the allegations before they became public. Nobody had any idea then that a star witness against in the impeachment hearings, Fiona Hill, was a former colleague of the person that produced the hearsay stories for Christopher Steele’s dossier And who knew then that this person was a former Brookings Institute analyst living in DC and working for Steele since 2008 as a spy being paid through a front, and he had gotten the job by referral from Hill. And we didn’t know then that the FBI suspected this gentleman to be a Russian spy since 2008 and had a FISA issued on him. And, the FBI knew he was Steele’s source before the 2016 election. And then after the election they interviewed him after first promising full unconditional immunity and permanent anonymity. His identity is only known today due to the work of Stephen McIntyre and social media friends who cracked the redactions on Lindsey Graham’s June declassifying of the interview.

        And I don’t think you bothered to read the court filing. You are still confident that all you need to know will be told to the US legacy media.

      • Two months after the NSC “whistleblower” hearsay allegations you likely believed every word. Nobody had any idea then that a star witness against in the impeachment hearings, Fiona Hill, was a former colleague of the person that produced the hearsay for Christopher Steele’s dossier.
        And who knew then that this person was a former Brookings Institute analyst living in DC and working for Steele since 2008 as a spy being paid through a front, and he had gotten the job by referral from Hill?

        Nobody would have guessed then that the FBI suspected this gentleman to be a Russian spy since 2008 and had a FISA issued on him. And, the FBI knew he was Steele’s source before the 2016 election. An then after the election they interviewed him only after promising full unconditional immunity and permanent anonymity. His identity is only known today due to the work of Stephen McIntyre and social media friends who cracked the redactions on the Lindsey Graham June declassified FBI initial interview.

  60. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/johns-hopkins-published-then-deleted-study-questioning-us-coronavirus#article

    “Several days after removing the article, Johns Hopkins University tweeted that the article, ‘A closer look at U.S. deaths to COVID-19,’ was deleted because ‘the article was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.’

    ‘”We regret that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19,’ tweeted the institution.”

    Wait a minute: since when is a legitimate analysis looking at excess deaths in the US and comparing that to what one would except if Covid were responsible for those excess deaths “misinformation”? What’s wrong with an open critique and debate about the study? John Hopkins University officials say that the article “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic,” but the point of the article, using data from the CDC, is that the pandemic has had no impact on excess deaths in the US. Imagine that.

    Can’t have the public hearing THAT now, can we?

    • I guess Trump’s statements about “turning the corner” on the pandemic were just more lies. Very disappointing.

    • The article, which was inappropriately temporarily suppressed in a student paper (not JHU itself), appears strongly at odds with the evidence. In the new article that links to the suppressed article, is a link to a graph of excess deaths for the US (you can also use the link for any country or the whole world). It shows a big spike in total deaths above the 5 year norm or any individual year in that norm: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&region=World

      • Your refutation is an appropriate response to the article, rather than a resort to censorship. I’m not going to bother to dig into the details except to note that the student used the CDC’s own data. What the discrepancy is, I don’t know.

        The appropriate place to have a back-and-forth about the appropriate data and what it means would have been in the student paper.

      • Don – I gave you a link that clearly refutes her assertion that there were no excess deaths in the US during the COVID19 period. Please at least bother to read and understand it. Otherwise none of your COVID-denial postings are even worth looking at!

      • mesocyclone, I’d have to review what both sides say, go to the appropriate websites and review the data, and then I’d be happy to weigh in on who’s right. I might yet do that, but for now my point is that the refutation belongs in the student paper where a lively debate can take place, and when the evidence says one thing or the other, the debate can end. I do not subscribe to censorship, not even in a student newspaper.

        I have only so much time and you might have noticed that I’ve been contributing here probably more than I want to.

        I’m not afraid of admitting I’m wrong, so I might get to that CDC data after all. Just not right now.

        I don’t deny Covid-19. I deny it’s as serious as we make it out to be, and I deny that our blanket lockdown policies are appropriate to the clear scientific evidence that children are hardly ever hurt by this disease. After all, even of the people most susceptible to dying from this (those over 80 years) a good 90% of them survive. Not the Black Death. 24/7 relentless news coverage makes it seem like it is.

        Lest you accuse me of wanting to kill off all the seniors or callously let them die, that’s not what I say, and that’s not what the sensible Great Barrington Declaration says, either.

    • Re: “Wait a minute: since when is a legitimate analysis looking at excess deaths in the US and comparing that to what one would except if Covid were responsible for those excess deaths “misinformation”?”
      “I’m not going to bother to dig into the details except to note that the student used the CDC’s own data.”

      It’s not a “legitimate analysis”; it’s nonsense that even a smart high school biology student could debunk. Here’s a simple analogy to illustrate that:

      Suppose each year only 150 people die, and all of them die of heart disease. Now suppose COVID-19 then kills 200 people one year, including all of the 150 people who would have otherwise died of heart disease.

      We therefore have 50 excess deaths that year: 200 total deaths (all due to COVID-19), minus the 150 people who would have died of heart disease anyway. But the silly analysis discussed in the student-run JHU newsletter would say we have no excess deaths, because 100% of the people who would have died of heart disease instead died of COVID-19. So COVID-19 deaths replacing all heart disease deaths means there were no excess deaths.

      That is obviously ridiculous. Excess deaths are determined by differences in numbers of deaths, not the types of percentage discussed above. Hence the CDC noting there are excess deaths by looking at the total number of deaths:

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

      Even if you look at excess deaths as the percent increase in total 2020 deaths vs. total deaths in previous years, there are still excess USA deaths:

      https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

      Thus, in peddling this newsletter article as credible, COVID-19 denialism has gotten so bad that people are now rejecting basic math. That’s how desperate some people are to downplay COVID-19 to suit their ideological agenda. Also, saying ‘but she cited the CDC!’ is irrelevant, since the problem isn’t with the CDC data; it’s with her misrepresentation of it. The CDC don’t reach the same conclusion as her, because they don’t misrepresent their data in the same way this incompetent non-expert does. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who peddled the original JHU article as being credible, lacks the expertise + knowledge to evaluate science on COVID-19. They should defer to experts.

      “Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.”

      Re: “What’s wrong with an open critique and debate about the study?”

      I wouldn’t even dignify it by calling it a “study”. You’re free to have “open critique and debate” about it elsewhere, such as on Twitter, your personal website, etc. But the newsletter is not obligated to host that. Freedom of speech is not freedom to demand a particular forum; ‘free speech’ is not ‘freeze peach’. Unless, of course, you want admit that Judith Curry is wrong when she blocks and edits people’s comments here, or that she engages in censorship in doing so.

      Re: “I don’t deny Covid-19. I deny it’s as serious as we make it out to be […]”

      This narrative sounds familiar, from Dons like Don Monfort and Donald Trump…

      “Keep in mind that Don predicted @ 6,000 deaths in the US.
      Which, bad a prediction as it was, is significantly closer than Trump’s belief that cases (let alone deaths) was going to top out at 15.”

      https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/28/the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-sweden-an-analysis/#comment-920252

      Oh look, there are instead over 280,000 USA reported COVID-19 deaths (even larger for excess deaths) and counting. So only wrong by over a factor of 45 in Don Monfort’s case, or a factor of over 18,600 in Donald Trump’s case.

      Re: “The article, which was inappropriately temporarily suppressed in a student paper (not JHU itself), appears strongly at odds with the evidence.”

      It’s not unfair suppression; the student-run newsletter has every right to take down an article they wrote if they think it contains dangerous misinformation. They wrote it; it belongs to them to do with as they please, just as much as you’re free to delete a comment or tweet you make on another website. That’s especially the case if they think the article’s false information risks harming others, and if they are non-experts who now need to get evaluation from experts they should have consulted before ever posting the article. It’s akin to posting an article during the HIV/AIDS pandemic about how condoms don’t work to limit STIs, or writing that injecting bleach won’t hurt you.

      The newsletter reposted the original article within hours, along with a correction detailing its errors; posting the correction was commendable. If only more of the political right in the USA would correct their dangerous. misinformation that quickly. It’s also getting really tiring seeing people claim ‘censorship’ or ‘suppression’ whenever someone makes the sensible decision to remove dangerous nonsense they wrote.

  61. A bit of saneness in Europe from those countries that recognize that life isn’t only about staying safe from a disease that hardly touches children at all: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/swedens-european-countries-shunning-winter-152332574.html

    Lost in all the talk about Sweden is little Belarus, which has no Covid restrictions in place: “Nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cafes are all full. Museums, galleries, churches and theatres are open, with no distancing requirements, Perspex barriers or relentless anti-bacterial spraying. There is no suggestion, either, of any interruption to the banja steam baths, a social ritual attended as a group, naked, temperatures exceeding 90 degrees Celsius and punctuated by beer breaks and rolls in the snow.”

  62. BREAKING HUGE: Pennsylvania Judge Files Memorandum Stating 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors!

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-huge-judge-mccullough-rules-2020-pa-election-likely-unconstitutional-gives-state-legislators-power-choose-electors/

  63. Kayleigh McEnany on Fox News Saturday morning (11/28) stated the Dimowits rolled out 10 lawyers to fight this and they are associated with Fusion GPS and the fraudulent Russian “dossier.” What do they have to hide?

    A Trump campaign lawsuit in Nevada filed last week challenging the election results has been given the go ahead for depositions by the Carson City court where the case was filed November 17. The suit seeks to have Trump declared the winner or that no electors be awarded due to fraud and irregularities. A hearing was set for December 3rd. Fifteen depositions each by the opposing parties, the Trump electors and Biden electors, are due by the hearing date.

    https://weatherinternal.com/huge-trump-campaign-nevada-lawsuit-challenging-election-results-given-go-ahead-for-depositions-hearing-set-for-december-3/

  64. Gov. Tom Wolf and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar say a court order to halt the next steps Pennsylvania’s election certification process could interfere with the state seating its electors – and they’re appealing to the state Supreme Court to intervene.

    The appeal was among a succession of court actions Wednesday stemming from the lawsuit led by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Butler) seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots cast in the Nov. 3 election or let the Republican-majority state legislature appoint Pa.’s presidential electors.

    https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/11/25/pennsylvania-vote-election-certification-sean-parnell-mike-kelly-commonwealth-court-appeal/stories/202011250159

  65. This is the scariest footage which reminded me of futuristic dystopia movies I saw when growing up, such as Soylent Green etc.

    Chaos breaks out at Shanghai airport as thousands fear quarantine as officials in white hazmat suits try to coralle the worried crowd.

    Can the Biden administration prevent this happening in the US?

  66. Everett F Sargent

    broken: Kelly, Parnell, Frank, Kierzek, Magee, Sauter, Kincaid, Logan vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pa General Assembly, Wolf and Boockvar has been done with …
    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217

    • I’m thinking this might just sting just a tiny, tiny little bit.

      > The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a Republican lawsuit seeking to invalidate more than 2.5 million votes cast by mail in the general election, the latest in a string of legal defeats for the GOP as President Trump fails to undo his losses in key battleground states

  67. Everett F Sargent

    AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2020, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726,1 we GRANT the application for extraordinary jurisdiction filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (“Commonwealth”), VACATE the Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the petition for review filed by the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan (“Petitioners”). All other outstanding motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

  68. Cyber security expert, former army colonel, gives testimony that election machines are built to manipulate voting. More than 1 million ballots potentially fraudulent in Pennsylvania election:

    • Everett F Sargent

      DISMISS WITH ABSURDITY

    • Fooled again, Trump is the Kraken!
      https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/state-impact/midnight-watch
      “In the past four years, the administration has already rolled back hundreds of rules designed to do everything from preventing the release of methane from oil wells to limiting how much mercury a coal power plant can emit. In the lame duck period, it could accelerate plans to do more before inauguration day.

      In response, experts have formed The Midnight Watch Project, to document any environmental changes, so they can be rolled back as quickly as possible. The project is an initiative from the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law.”

      • And there is no evidence that limits on methane emissions had any effect on the environment. But we do know it was an added cost to businesses.

      • It’s MY methane dude. I own a gas lease and they told me it was worth $7 mmcf back in 2007. I’m being robed. My solar panels earn more and I had to buy them myself.

  69. De Nial, a river in Egypt …try agin. )

  70. Apologies, Judith, please delete duplicate (vote) …My computah said ‘No.’

  71. Trump’s attorney Jenna Ellis gives an update on election dispute:

  72. Joe Rogan Experience #1556 – Glenn Greenwald

    Why am I Okay with Trump losing? We need more Greenwalds. And Rogans. Trump pushed some of the realization we have problems.

    Biden’s victory is not much. It isn’t salvation. It’s only safety in that you like authority. People haven’t identified the threats, but they made some progress under Trump and because of the election.

    You live in a country that is not that great thing it is said to be. No wonder people hate us and small countries despise us when we interfere with them.

    Do you excuse or defend the treatment of Snowden? Biden was the point man on that. He executed it. I hope Trump pardons Snowden. That would show the Left’s demon to be more moral than they are.

    Do you defend all the drone strikes President Obama signed off on? This nation has problems and Joe Biden is not going to solve them.

    • I think our country is just fine. Sure, it could be better – all could. But the main problem I see in our country is the left’s insane focus on race, gender, gender identity, and other intersectionality insanities. That has a greater likelihood to destroy us – from the inside – than anything else. It is exceedingly divisive, and based on noxious ideologies, including overt racism.

      Snowden – hang him high! He not only got American soldiers killed, he *selectively* released information to make things look far worse than they were – in other words, propaganda. If he isn’t a Russian agent, he might as well be.

      • meso –

        > I think our country is just fine. Sure, it could be better – all could. But the main problem I see in our country is the left’s insane focus on race, gender, gender identity, and other intersectionality insanities. That has a greater likelihood to destroy us – from the inside – than anything else. It is exceedingly divisive, and based on noxious ideologies, including overt racism.

        Given the trajectory we’ve seen over the last 60 years or so related to each of those issues (less overt discrimination by race, greater equality on the basis of sexual orientation, greater recognition of the humanity of people who are non-binary in their gender orientation, greater freedom for women to cbiioosenrheie own life course, etc.), on what basis to you project going forward to predict so much doom and gloom of those trends were to continue. What causes you to lose faith in the American citizenry, that they can negotiate among complex issues and varying interests to chart a sub-optimal but ultimately positive path going forward? Why do you think an arc towards justice over hundreds of years will reverse direction?

      • Joshua, more progress would be made with less insanity.

        Yes, lots of progress has been made. And yet, the left keeps raising the volume and increasing the insanity around these issues. And some of that reverse progress.

        If you want to reduce racism, use MLK’s approach – don’t judge people by the color of their skin. If you want to increase it, give favors to those who were historically discriminated against – an overtly racist policy itself – and you will get racist reaction and a loss of progress. And be sure to limit Asians in schools, while creating segregated “safe spaces” for whatever race is the current client of the race baiters – typically, blacks.

        Democrats have been in favor of “affirmative action” (rebranded “diversity”) for a very long time. It might have been appropriate, for a short time, in specific circumstances. But now, it is all over the place, and people not of favored races, ethnicities and gender are routinely discriminated against, *and they know it*. It is an extremely divisive set of politics, because it is fundamentally unjust and anti-American. Democrats and a bunch of wealthy leftist donors did their best to repeal California’s proposition that outlawed this invidious discrimination in California government. Amazingly, even in leftist California, enough people recognized the unfairness that their effort failed. This time.

        I watched high school seniors turn racist quickly after being victims of affirmative action in Ivy League admission. It was sad. They had all the information needed to recognize how they were far more qualified than their classmates, in all the standard areas, and yet the classmates got accepted. One classmate, an Asian, had really clever parents – they changed their family name to a Hispanic one for exactly that reason, and it worked!

        If you want American blacks to prosper, fix the welfare system, where too many blacks (not blacks exclusively, of course) are caught in a trap which leads to social dysfunction – 85% illegitimacy rate, for example, is far higher than the~ 25% from before welfare. Illegitimacy has strong correlation with failure in life. That trap prevents all but the most remarkable children from escaping into a normal and happy life. Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of this way back in the ’60s, but his warnings have never been translated into policy.

        And, let’s not forget the seditious behavior of the far left that was winked and nodded at by the left and the media during the “mostly peaceful protests” that devastated businesses and districts in many cities, and cost many lives. These were supposedly “protests” against supposedly racist police actions. And yet, while racist police actions do occur, almost none of the cases chosen for demonstrations were a result of racism, and almost all were justified shootings. The support of seditious behavior – allowing groups to control parts of cities by force – is utterly inexcusable. It is a terrible trend, and for the news media to favor it (as they did by their biased reporting) and for significant Democrat politicians to support it, is telling. Not to mention “defund the police” – again supported by significant politicians – that’s madness, or sedition. There is no other description that fits.

        On sexual orientation, the discrimination is mostly gone, and gay males, in particular, do better economically than heterosexuals. There will always be some denigration of gays, as there will always be racism, but great progress has been made – probably as much as is possible in a society composed of human beings.

        But… now we have the transgender madness – let’s pretend that “gender is assigned at birth” rather than that gender is determined by X and Y chromosomes. Then let’s invent new pronouns and punish people who don’t go along with them. And let’s encourage troubled children to mutilate their bodies because they have discovered (usually temporarily if not encouraged) that their “gender” is not their sex – a true psychotic delusion which needs treatment other than mutilation, not encouragement. And to further the madness, let’s make sure that biological men compete in women’s sports, because they really are men – that’s their belief, because it must be true.

        I use the term “madness” on purpose in this case. The ideas being pushed about transgenderism are quite insane – in contradiction to reality. You will see a large number of children get injured by this by contagion – far more than the number of people with gender dysphoria in the past. It is pure evil, child abuse, and frankly nuts. And yet it is a strong political push, it was forced on schools by the Obama Administration, and it has been gaining steam ever since.

        And let’s have entire bogus fields of “study” in the corrupt and failing humanities part of academia, and then population “anti-discrimination” organizations in government and corporations, so that everyone is endanger if they express even slightly un-PC opinions in private to someone else.

        The far left, encouraged by the Democrats, is engaged in something that is a cross between the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution, and the Jacobins.

        As a side note – when someone on the left uses “the arc of” language, I sneeze. I’m allergic to it, because it is tied to the nutty idea that progress – as defied by progressives – is inevitable, and that it goes in the right direction.

      • meso –

        I’m not going to bother to respond to the other stuff as the gulf is too wide.

        But as for this:

        > As a side note – when someone on the left uses “the arc of” language, I sneeze. I’m allergic to it, because it is tied to the nutty idea that progress – as defied by progressives – is inevitable.

        (1) to the extent that we might ever have a productive convo directly related to politics, it would necessarily require that you find an alternative to the “the left” kinds of generalizations and rhetiric – regarding what kind of people “the left” are or how much “the left” tends towards tyranny or how you respond when someone one “the left” says X as opposed to someone on “the right” saying X, etc. I see zero point in expecting meaningful exchange with someone who engages at such a categorical and binary level. You’re certainly entitled to your beliefs, but why would I bother to exchange views with someone who thinks they know what I’m thinking and why I’m thinking it and how wrong my thinking is merely because they are associating me with some kind of demon-group they’ve created in their own imagination?

        > because it is tied to the nutty idea that progress – as defied by progressives – is inevitable, and that it goes in the right direction.

        (2) I was suggesting nothing teliological in the arc of history w/r/t issues such as civil rights or gender equality. To the extent that you saw something like that there, it was merely because you imputed such (FWIW, I would suggest because of a simplistic backwards engineering that stems from your biases about “the left.” )

        I was rather explicit in describing a past pattern that indeed describes an arc toward progress, and asking why you would expect that existing trend to change. In no way did I imply that it couldn’t change, or that it was destined to not change. I was describing an easily demonstrated cause and effect, and asking why you think that historical and existing causal mechanism would reverse. I notice that you didn’t actually answer the question, but instead chose to respond to a belief I never stated,in some categorical association and denifrsrjon of people who don’t share your political views.

        Seems that we should stick to discussing herd immunity, eh?

      • One more comment on this, an observation.

        It seems rather like you have a pre-packaged set of already generated responses, to someone whom you place into “the left” category, which you then plug into the convo more or less irrespective of whether they actually logically connect. Again – and will I acknowledge highly speculatively – because you’re exorcising some kind of “lefty” demon that you see as an enemy?

        So when I ask you why you’d expect a different causal mechanism going forward than what we’ve seen in the past, you don’t respond on point but instead ask me to answer to an argument that I never made. You didn’t even really engage in an interrogation of my description of the past trajectory (which could certainly be fair game) but instead inserted pre-packaged little mini-arguments about affirmative action and the like as if they were directly relevant when they weren’t. I wasn’t seeking to engage with you on those separate issues (and my disinterest was actually confirmed as I see them as much more complex issues than apparently you do).

        So anyway, just an observation. Take it for what it’s worth – which my guess is probably just about as much as you paid for it.

      • “He not only got American soldiers killed…”
        Any specifics on that?
        Our intelligence agencies. Are you defending them?

      • Let me add, Ragnaar, as a former soldier who has worked with classified information in both the military and civilian context, I have zero sympathy for people (Manning) who betray that trust and give sensitive information to the enemy. Heck, I think Jonathan Pollard got off too lightly, and he gave highly sensitive information to our ally (Israel). If I were in favor of the death penalty, I’d say it should have been applied to the members of the Walker ring rapidly and surely. That particular espionage affected me directly, fortunately in a less critical sense than other soldiers, who no doubt died as a result.

        Anyone who violates the classification rules is going against the fundamentals of our democracy: rule of law. They are operating as our agents when working with that material, and they should obey the rules, and suffer the appropriate punishment when they do not.

      • Mesocyclone wrote: “But… now we have the transgender madness – let’s pretend that “gender is assigned at birth” rather than that gender is determined by X and Y chromosomes.”

        As a conservative, I’d like to agree, but as a scientist I’m forced to recognize that the biological machinery encoded on the X and Y chromosomes doesn’t always work properly. Genotype is not the same thing as phenotype. The presence or absence of a Y chromosome doesn’t always result in the presence of unambiguous male or female sex organs, a problem sometimes referred to as “intersex”. Scientists documented this problem more than a century ago.

        Life would also be simpler if scientists could prove that the typical differences between male and female behavior originating in the brain are always properly determined by genotype when the appropriate sex organs and hormones have developed. However, categories such as “tomboys” and “sissies” were a reality long before “transgender” came popular. As a father of children, the subject scares the heck out of me. I’m glad grew up in ignorance; maturing was tough enough without all of today’s complications. I worry that you are correct that many more confused adolescents are harmed than helped by excessive concern about gender identity. Unfortunately, I don’t know. The above information came from a wonderful book by Alice Dreger subtitled “Heretics, Activists and One Scholar’s Search for Justice”. (WordPress finds the book’s title offensive). The author was an scholar/activist whose search for truth led to politically incorrect beliefs and banishment as a heretic (like our host, which is what prompted me to buy her book without realizing what it was really about). The author will tell you that we can’t find justice without first knowing what is true and that truth is NOT determined by identity. It reminds me of Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”, but the scope is much wider.

      • FrankToo writes “As a conservative, I’d like to agree, but as a scientist I’m forced to recognize that the biological machinery encoded on the X and Y chromosomes doesn’t always work properly. Genotype is not the same thing as phenotype. The presence or absence of a Y chromosome doesn’t always result in the presence of unambiguous male or female sex organs, a problem sometimes referred to as “intersex”. Scientists documented this problem more than a century ago.”

        FrankToo, my apologies. I thought it distracting to explain this, since the number of “intersex” is very tiny, and most of them do not suffer gender dysphoria. So, I left it out. I did consider it.

        Also “sissies” and “tomboys” are usually not intersex, and rarely have gender dysphoria, which is the hallmark of transgenders. My apologies.

        “I worry that you are correct that many more confused adolescents are harmed than helped by excessive concern about gender identity. Unfortunately, I don’t know. ”

        The information is out there. Unfortunately, I don’t have handy references, and research into it, in western societies, is now pretty much impossible – since it is “transphobic” and those in science who would write on it will lose their careers. There is a reason, in highly politicized areas of science, that the skeptics tend to be very old: they have little to lose – they are retired or have such strong positions (tenure is not enough) that they cannot be removed. This is also true in climatology, although global warming is not, per se, insane, unlike ideological transgenderism.

        “Gender dysphoria” has risen dramatically with the rise of the transgender madness. Very little of it can be explained by the hypothesis that transgenders are just now recognized when they were not before.

        The problem has been long known. A far more parsimonious explanation is a sort of hysterical contagion. That it is most common – now – in teenage females is also suggestive of psychological contagion.

        In addition, most gender dysphoria just goes away, usually rapidly. But with the advent of the madness, it is now encouraged and coddled, and children at relatively young ages (pre-pubscent) are being given hormones to help them to their “true” gender. Parents caught up in this ideology do their best to prevent their very young children from engaging in sex-linked behavioral traits – i.e. those most associated with one or the other sex – from playing with dolls to playing with toy guns (which is itself, of course, non-PC).

        Transgenders who have had “re-assignment” surgery were rarely happier than those who had not, and had a very high suicide rate plus many have stated their desire to go back – except that isn’t possible due to the mutilation that results.

        The damage all of this is doing is horrendous. We can’t know how bad it will be, but it isn’t hard to see that a lot of innocent young people are being psychologically and physically badly harmed.

        Also, the phenomenon of males who “transition” to females and then compete in female sports is real, and a clear example of the madness. While X and Y don’t work perfectly, testosterone levels are strongly associated with traits that lead to athletic dominance (or more accurately, lack of testosterone is associated with lack of those traits). It’s the reason we have long had different sports competitions for different sexes.

        When one looks at the distribution of abilities, one finds that the tail of the female curve barely hits the middle of the male curve in those particular areas.

        There are two ideologies that seek to deny these differences: radical feminism, and transgenderism. Both of these – at that level – are very dangerous, because they either intentionally or irrationally conflict with reality.

        Finally, to be clear: humans are complex and have huge variety. I am sure there are some people for whom “transitioning” is appropriate – for whatever reason. Those are not the people I am worried about.

      • Mesocyclone: Thanks for the reply about an awkward topic. I start with intersex because it unambiguously illustrates that genotype isn’t phenotype. And I start with the existence of tomboys and sissies, because it illustrates that there was a potentially overlapping range of XX and XY behavior (potentially arising from a range of phenotypes in the brain at birth or in childhood?). The publicity about transgender did not create either of these issues because these issues pre-date the concept of transgender. If you can accept those basics, I suspect we don’t have any fundamental disagreements. I sure don’t know what’s best for young people today, but I suspect all of the activism makes problems worse, not better. Alice Dreger’s book is loaded with examples of how activists intimidate researchers. Her book begins: “Soon enough, I’ll get to the death threats, the sex changes, the alleged genocides, the epidemics, the alien abductees, the anti-lesbian drug, the unethical ethicists, the fight with Maria Navratilova, and of course Galileo…” (vs the Pope, who defined the ultimate power in politically correctness in his time.) According to Dreger, the Scientific Revolution launched by Galileo gave birth to the Enlightenment and the many “science geeks” who played a role in founding our democracy, which is based on the assumption that ordinary citizens can learn enough about “the truth” to choose good leaders. The blind idiocy that escapes from left- and right-wing echo chambers and politicians onto this science blog really scares me.

      • mesocyclone:
        “He not only got American soldiers killed…”
        Any specifics on that?
        For instance, name some.

      • Ragnaar… when you compromise military secrets, plus provide propaganda to the enemy, that results in military loses. That means, among other things, American soldiers killed.

        To specifically answer your challenge: Jim, Adam, Jose and Katherine.

    • Joshua –

      “it would necessarily require that you find an alternative to the “the left” kinds of generalizations and rhetiric – regarding what kind of people “the left” are or how much “the left” tends towards tyranny or how you respond when someone one “the left” says X as opposed to someone on “the right” saying X, etc. I see zero point in expecting meaningful exchange with someone who engages at such a categorical and binary level.”

      I was responding honestly to: ” on what basis to you project going forward to predict so much doom and gloom of those trends were to continue. What causes you to lose faith in the American citizenry, that they can negotiate among complex issues and varying interests to chart a sub-optimal but ultimately positive path going forward? Why do you think an arc towards justice over hundreds of years will reverse direction?”

      I gave a long discourse on trends that I see as very dangerous. I have not given that discourse in this thread before, or to you as far as I know. I didn’t copy and paste it. It represents my views accurately. I view this trend, which has accelerated, as tyrannical and exceedingly divisive. I can defend that view, but whether I can convince you of it – I don’t know.

      I recognize that the left and the right are gross generalizations. But they are also useful generalizations, even if the broad generalization doesn’t apply in every detail to each person. In a general sense, people have been polarized over some of the deep bases of this for centuries, but that polarization has increased – on both sides – recently. And that polarization means that generalizations are more, not less apt.

      Those trends are associated with the left and the Democratic Party. I have rarely seen anyone in that party condemn any of it other than that a few may have condemned the rioting and looting. I have seen many identified on the left (“liberal”, “progressive” or “Democrat”) who seem to be fine with all or most of this. I know that others are not, but if they are officials or academicians and don’t speak up, then that is tacit consent. I also know that many of those people cannot speak up without losing their careers – because of the already existing tyranny.

      So I think it is appropriate to tie it to one side of the spectrum, if that side has many people wrapped up in it, and others complicit by not condemning it. Still, I don’t know where any individual – you, for example – fits.

      But also, I mention it because everything I mention ties together ideologically. It is a logical, if these days extreme, extension of Democratic Party focus and policies. And, much of it has become Democratic Party policy.

      So how can I discuss such a broad, across society movement when I am trying to tie it together? Do I act as if aliens brought it to us? Do I act as if those various policies and directions are disconnected?

      If you want to assert that these things are not part of a general ideology and movement, that’s fine. But to say I need to be more particular without identifying what that means leaves me with no way to discuss this issue accurately. My concern is the division and tyranny brought that I see has been and is being created by this, and that it must be vigorously combatted. Until that is done, there will be no comity, and the right will not back down (again, using the generality).

      Regarding the “arc” terminology – my apologies. That triggers me because it is tied to an often stated progressive view – being on the “right side of history” or “the arc of history bends [towards our ideas].” That doesn’t mean that you believe that – I don’t know.

      • meso –

        > I gave a long discourse on trends that I see as very dangerous.

        […]

        >> Those trends are associated with the left and the Democratic Party.

        I asked you, given the trend towards less overt racism, less discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation – which have for decades run concurrent with the scary trends you associate with the democratic party – why you think the more general social progress will now turn around due to what you think are scary trends.

        As it happens I think the larger trends – that I assume you approve of – are also generally associated with an imputus largely driven by people who identify as Democrats. Now maybe you disagree, but if you don’t then why do you only focus on those Democrat-associated trends that you find scary, and not on those Democrat trends of which you approve? Or do you not approve of less overt discrimination based on race, or gender, or sexual orientation? Do you see that as a negative societal development over time?

        My question is one of signal and noise. When I look at the signal of social change over the past 60 years or so, I see a signal of less overt discrimination that has enabled countless people who were previously systematically denied agency to gain a greater proportion of equality. Of course that is along with many other important signals of social progress. I don’t see some distinct signal moving towards people being denied agency and equality. Even if there are some disturbing economic trends, that might arguably rise to the level of “signal,” they exist concurrent with trends towards less abject poverty, higher standards of living, longer life expectancy, fewer people dying in wars, more people with health insurance, etc.

        I see much bickering between motivated combatants and hostilities between people who identify in opposing camps, of the sort that have always existed throughout time, but for the most part that looks to me like noise. The larger signal seems clear. Now of course at any point what I consider noise might overwhelm what I consider to be signal. But I see no evidence of that impending. People have always been worried about changes they’ve seen in their lifetime and predicted doom as a result – but again, I look at the last 60 years and depsite never-ending bickering and hostilities, I see a clear and unambiguous signal of progress, of more people gaining greater agency and freedom to affect their own life course in the way they seem fit.

        Of course it’s sub-optimal progress (itnxiksnhwce been better) and there are people who are unhappy. Many see themselves as victims. I don’t diminish the seriousness of their grievances, but when I see someone projecting doom and gloom if current trends continue, I don’t understand why. Is it because they fail to see the signal I see of the trajectory over the latest 60 years? Is it because they see that signal but deem it as a negative signal? Is it because they see some clear sign that there is some countervailing force, that has never existed before, that will swamp the causes of that long-standing positive signal?

        Given that you fought in Vietnam, I would imagine that 60 years ago you were very concerned about the dangers to society from hippies and anti-war freaks and anti-nuke nutjobs and women’s libbers and black nationalists. Indeed, I’d say that 60 years ago there was considerably more polarization in our society than there is now (although the nature of the polarization has changed to be uniformly aligned across partisan orientation, which in a way I do think is more harmful).

        And yet, for me there is a signal of positive developments – fewer people denied agency to affect the trajectory of their own lives. Tens of millions of blacks have gained agency in this country alone. Hundreds of millions of females. Tens of millions of non-heterosexuals and non-binary conforming individuals. So do you not see that as a signal? Do you see the hippies and the freaks and radical blacks and radical women and radical gays as the signal that manifest as a crumbling society? Do you see some reason why, even if those people I’m assuming you saw as a threat 60 years ago didn’t overwhelm a positive signal in the past, there’s a reason why people you consider a threat today will have more influence than those threats of the past?

      • Joshua – because your response was long, I’m going to respond in parts.

        First… I fear you are stereotyping me inappropriately – you are projecting some sort of views onto me that I do not have, nor do my contemporaries for the most part. Furthermore, you seem to be casting me into the frame of a fearful old person inappropriately concerned about change. I suspect you know few people who are my contemporaries, at least who are also conservatives – perhaps, none.

        You write: “I don’t diminish the seriousness of their grievances, but when I see someone projecting doom and gloom if current trends continue, I don’t understand why. Is it because they fail to see the signal I see of the trajectory over the latest 60 years? Is it because they see that signal but deem it as a negative signal? Is it because they see some clear sign that there is some countervailing force, that has never existed before, that will swamp the causes of that long-standing positive signal?”

        I wrote my post originally to respond with the area of my greatest concern. I wasn’t writing an essay on the general state of American society over the last 60 years.

        On with the stereotyping:
        Given that you fought in Vietnam, I would imagine that 60 years ago you were very concerned about the dangers to society from hippies and anti-war freaks and anti-nuke nutjobs and women’s libbers and black nationalists. Indeed, I’d say that 60 years ago there was considerably more polarization in our society than there is now (although the nature of the polarization has changed to be uniformly aligned across partisan orientation, which in a way I do think is more harmful). ”

        Actually, I was a hippie for a time, but I thought anti-war demonstrators were misguided – I knew many of them and attended anti-war rallies. The head of my university SDS was a high school friend, and my economics professor, a self-professed communist, led the anti-war rallies.

        I considered and still consider the SDS and Maoists of the time to be America-hating communists, which they were. I watched them take over a huge peaceful anti-war demonstration I attended in San Francisco – doing so by telling the organizers that they would take the stage by force if denied it. But, they were the exception, and they went away (to some extent).

        I thought the anti-nuke folks were misguided – the wrong response to a real issue. I was in favor of women’s lib and strongly in favor of a color-blind society. I was in favor of the civil rights marchers. I thought the black nationalists were dangerous, and they demonstrated that they were in fact dangerous.

        My concern about the anti-war demonstrators, the SDS, and others, stemmed from my “cold warrior” views – that I thought the USSR was an existential threat to the US, and that people with mostly good intent were weakening us in ways that could lead to our demise. I had been to a communist country – before I volunteered for the military – and had listened ro Radio Moscow and Radio Havana on short wave. I think I was pretty well informed on the topic.

        As for parties, I felt and feel that the Democratic Party, staring in about 1972, was very badly misguided in foreign policy, abandoning our allies, trying to stop any effort to fight the Soviet-led attempts to take over third world countries near us and in strategic areas beyond.

        There was far less polarization in our society then, even with the anti-war ferment, then there is now. For the most part, Democrats and Republicans were pretty close together – common values. There was, I guess, significant discontent among some in the Southeast, due to the advance of civil rights, but that was not widespread in society.

        The radicals were a small part of society. Unlike today, they did not control the universities. The media was a bit left leaning but nothing like today. Hollywood was still able to produce entertainment with consensus values, rather than constantly trying to push radical values. I now prefer South Korean TV series to American, even though I have to read subtitles.

        If I were to summarize my overall concern, it is this: radicalism on the left is far more widespread than at any time in my lifetime, and is more widely accepted by the mainstream leaders on the left. It has also grown amazingly irrational. One of the aspects, which I’ll deal with in another post, is the pushing of “intersectionality” – the very strong, now widespread push to define people by their skin color (the very opposite of the civil rights movement), their sexual orientation, and now even their sexual mis-identity. That push is what I compare to the Jacobins and the Red Guards – Red Guards because it is no more rational than the bizarre theories the Red Guards were pushing (which I listen to on Radio Peking), and the way people are coerced into confessing and recanting is right out of the Cultural Revolution, except that the victims lose only their profession and reputation, not their lives.

        As to what is better now? Blacks face far less racial discrimination. That is very good. We are a lot more prosperous. Another good thing. Technology and science have advanced dramatically. We are not (yet) engaged in actual combat against proxies of a rising global hegemony (China), and Russia would be irrelevant in general if not for its nuclear weapons.

        More on another post.

      • Joshua…

        ” asked you, given the trend towards less overt racism, less discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation – which have for decades run concurrent with the scary trends you associate with the democratic party – why you think the more general social progress will now turn around due to what you think are scary trends.

        As it happens I think the larger trends – that I assume you approve of – are also generally associated with an imputus largely driven by people who identify as Democrats. Now maybe you disagree, ”

        I absolutely disagree. I watched how those trends evolved, and they were society-wide. Democrats didn’t create the consensus that we should be color-blind, other factors did – including MLK’s brilliant oratory with “I Have a Dream.” You may not know this, but the anti-integration politicians were all Democrats – “Southern Democrats” – so the Democrat Party can hardly credibly take credit for the great advances in civil rights.

        “why do you only focus on those Democrat-associated trends that you find scary, and not on those Democrat trends of which you approve?”

        Addressed in my post – because I was addressing trends I find the most dangerous in our society.

        “Or do you not approve of less overt discrimination based on race, or gender, or sexual orientation? Do you see that as a negative societal development over time?””

        See my other post, and of course not. The following paragraph focuses on race for simplicity, but the same concepts apply to sex and sexual orientation (“gender” is a linguistic term, converted to propaganda).

        But I do disapprove of many of the destructive measures that have been enacted to “correct” the discrimination – what used to be called “affirmative action” until the Supreme Court rightly outlawed it, but what is now called “diversity.”

        “Diversity” is a very clever term, because it implies that anybody who is against actions taken in the name of “diversity” is a racist. So I love diversity, and I loathe diversity mandates and practices.

        I find it, in fact, sadly ironic that Democrats are claim to be against ” discrimination based on race” when, if they favor the “diversity” push, are strongly in favor of “discrimination based on race.” Discrimination against blacks has gone way, way down – most Americans recoil at the thought of it.

        But discrimination against whites and Asians is very real, and I find that horribly toxic, no matter what term is used to describe it. It is completely against what I grew up believing – a color blind society. Democrats appear to be against this: “they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

      • One more in the series. This time – “intersectionality” or whatever.

        The left (a generalization, of course), over the last 5 decades, has turned into the party of victims, or of the oppressed and oppressor. They pride themselves of being on the side of the oppressed and against the oppressor.

        They have taken this stance on African Americans – that they are oppressed, and need Democrats to right that wrong. And indeed, blacks were badly oppressed – it doesn’t get much worse than chattel slavery. And, after the civil war, they still faced a racist society.

        But I have watched as the rhetoric from the left on race has gotten more and more shrill, and the “solutions” more and more radical, even as racism against blacks has gone down. That is a contradiction to your suggestion that they went hand in hand.

        The radicalism is not about helping blacks (or another “oppressed” group – Hispanics other than Cubans). That radicalism is disconnected from reality. Cut bono?

        It is part of an ideology to classify everyone as an oppressor or oppressed, and with intersectionality, to create a hierarchy of human value based on the degree of oppression. Hey – black and gay – should have a more important voice than either black or gay… that sort of nuttiness.

        This comes out of academia – where the SDS’ers went to hide from the draft (okay, that was a bit snarky but also true in spirit). The worst of it comes from “X Studies” departments – “academic” departments set up to “stay” one or another “oppressed” groups. You won’t find a “white studies
        department, because they are the oppressors, and the very mention of such an idea is “racist.” Actually, all of these are racist, if they are valuing people by skin color or other genetic characteristic.

        But these departments exist, they write “peer reviewed” papers full of gibberish. Of course, not to be out-done, the English departments are in on this madness too – read the Modern Language Association stuff if you want to see pretentious tripe.

        The point is – these are dangerous ideas, based on insane ideologies from academics good at “critical studies” and incapable of “critical thinking.”

        And those ideas are moving their way through the Democratic party, from the left. Kids, who tend to go for the left for reasons long known, are indoctrinated in this stuff. Too many believe it, and they see America as a horribly racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist.. whatever society. And the Democrats are afraid to contradict them on it, even though America is one of the best countries in earth in those areas – yes, including racism.

        So I view these highly irrational movements as a great danger. History shows that when irrationality of this sort gets much prominence, violence and even revolution follow.

        I believe that Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016 largely because he was rhetorically fighting back against this, unlike most others (except to some extend #2 – Cruz). Sure, his words were not terribly precise, but his attitude was.

    • Ragnaar writes; ““He not only got American soldiers killed…”
      Any specifics on that?
      Our intelligence agencies. Are you defending them?”

      When you make our troops out to be committing atrocities that they did not commit, that leads to hatred and likely additional deaths of them.

      Specifics: a helicopter video purporting to show the US helicopter intentionally attacking a vehicle with journalists in it. It was cut to hide the context, which told an entirely different story. That has nothing to do with our intelligence agencies, although it may very well have been deceptively edited to please the intelligence agencies of our enemies.

      Overall, yes, I defend the intelligence agencies. It’s clear that a few actors in that community went out of bounds on trying to entrap Trump and his crew, crimes for which they should be imprisoned for a long time – for encourager por encourager las autres. And yes, out intelligence agencies have been spectacularly wrong in a number of important areas. But they are necessary, and they have people who go into just as much danger as soldiers, also in defense of our country.

  73. In case anyone doubts the business acumen of Donald, his campaign paid 3 million dollars in an effort that lost him 87 votes and that never had a chance of overturning the elextion results anyway.

    Of course, they were spending other people’s money…much of which was raised in a political bait and switch, so I guess it makes sense if you think that conning people and raising money deceptively (most of the money raised was channeled towards paying down debt) is a sign of business acumen.

    • Again you confuse apples with oranges. this has nothing to do with business. Therefore, what you said here is unmitigated BS.

  74. Looks like some of the PA legislators were surprised to hear of depth of fraud.

    The Trump legal team gains ground in Pennsylvania when their evidence is finally considered. One America’s Chanel Rion has more on the step in the right direction.

    https://www.oann.com/pa-lawmaker-governor-cannot-certify-fraudulent-election/

  75. Wisconsin Supreme Court Petitioned to Declare All Drop-Box Ballots Illegal, Block Certification
    As Milwaukee County finds more votes for Joe Biden, a lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of all ballots cast through COVID drop boxes

    https://nationalfile.com/wisconsin-supreme-court-petitioned-to-declare-all-drop-box-ballots-illegal-block-certification/

  76. John Kerry has a stable of SUVs, right!?

  77. John Kerry is the second anti-American Secretary of State and we recently learned from terrorist events in Europe why Belgium has been labeled as a country that has lost control of its national identity. We may be getting closer to the time when people are free to say that socialists have been at war with America long before ISIS; and, the Left’s use of global warming has been just one of many useful tools they use to divide the people.

    “This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They’ve admitted this themselves.”

    See, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

    • Once the fundamentals of markets are managed efficiently and democracy secure – much is permissible in the cut and thrust of politics. Including carbon dioxide mitigation and climate adaptation. Doing it pragmatically makes political sense.

      The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

      A alternate, myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.

      So what are these laws of capitalism? Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.

      In politics you give people what they want. I’d agree with all of the above – except that government is a lousy land manager.

      • RIE said:Once the fundamentals of markets are managed efficiently and democracy secure – much is permissible in the cut and thrust of politics. Including carbon dioxide mitigation and climate adaptation. Doing it pragmatically makes political sense.

        This is wrong on so many levels! Markets are not “managed.” In fact, they are sufficiently efficient when NOT managed. We live in a Republic, not a democracy and democracy is never secure. CO2 mitigation makes no sense in any dimension, political being perhaps the least of all.

      • Markets are well managed or they are poorly managed. But to imagine that markets do best when left to fear and greed – bears and bulls – is both not how the real world works and clearly wrong. You have elected legislatures – well until recently – that make laws willy nilly for all sorts of things. Democracy is secure – btw – if you have a populace educated in and committed to the principles of your founding fathers. The jury seems to be out on that one.

        Following the crash of 2008 governments embarked on bailout and stimulus programs that were vaguely Keynesian but were poorly targeted and created an immense debt overhang that persists. The question now is who will bailout governments? This is a very real bubble and all bubbles burst. Cutting interest rates, deficit spending and quantitative easing – printing money – all result in an increase in money supply which cause price bubbles in economies. Bubbles in the business cycle are to be avoided and Hayek and the Austrian school is the go to source for clues as to why and how.

        Some time ago I read an article in an economics magazine on ‘rock star economists’ post the 2008 toxic debt meltdown. The usual suspects from the past were invoked. John Maynard Keynes still provides the rationale for deficit spending to increase economic activity in recessions. He and Milton Friedman were mentioned in passing setting the scene for more recent practitioners – Thomas Piketty and a few others. The modern “economic rock stars” focused on – alternatively – the inequality of wealth and the inadequacy of banking margins. In the historical context I’d suggest that Hayek and the Austrian school – and more recently Didier Sornette – are demonstrably more important in terms of managing for economic stability. Long before dragon-kings Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school of economics developed principles of management of interest rates on the overnight cash market that are used to maintain price stability (low inflation) and stable economic growth. Much less successfully in the US than is ideal.

        The 2008 financial crisis was predicted. It started in America after the dotcom boom and 911. In a looming recession the government lowered interest rates – and continued to lower them further over the next several years. With low interest rates the housing market boomed. At the same time the government funded subsidies for low income earners that further fueled the asset bubble in a self-sustaining cycle possible due to rising house prices. The emerging problem was compounded with hundreds of billions of dollars of high risk and outright fraudulent loans. The banks channeled funds to politicians to keep the subsidies rolling. Neither the banks nor governments insisted on normal prudential practices of making loans to people who had the ability – and an incentive with skin in the game – to repay without continuing price rises. These high risk loans were then packaged and on sold with AAA ratings supplied by companies paid by the banks. When interest rates ultimately were raised again – the house of cards collapsed with a loss of trillions. The international Basel III Convention has since raised minimum capital reserve requirements to cater for bad debt. A fairly safe recommendation from ‘rock star economists’ – but not nearly sufficient.

        CO2-e mitigation is warranted and makes sense if you do it right. e.g. –

  78. Boot incoming:
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/29/biden-fractures-foot-playing-with-dog-n2580791

    Will Biden remember which foot it goes on?

    • I have to say I’m really enjoying the rightwing mainstream media feeding on each other.

      I guess the upstart far right nutbars think they can successfully outflank the legacy far right nutbars from their right flank. I think they’ll fail. It’s too tall an order even if they have dear leader to lead the charge, but they will never usurp Fox News, and do they not realize that he’ll abandon ship at the drop of a hat if he thinks they’ve hit choppy seas?

      In the end, they’ll just be left with a relatively small collection of nutbars and a crippled Fox News.

      But it is fun to watch.

      • Everett F Sargent

        Election outcome unclear amid pending recounts and legal challenges

        Great site for the somewhat latest in rightwingnuttery! Come on people, out your favorite rightwingnut source …
        https://www.theepochtimes.com/

      • > Come on people, out your favorite rightwingnut source

        My fave has been Climate Etc. for a couple of years now.

      • Speaking of nutbars –

        > Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday claimed statistical “fraud” was found in four states where President Donald Trump lost in the presidential election during supposed “data dumps” in the middle of the night and early morning.

        Has he moved on from Sweden’s “herd immunity” or is this just a side gig?

  79. Well, this is a fine kettle of fish and it makes me feel so much better about the integrity of the election!

    A Dominion Voting Systems mobile server crashed on Sunday, delaying a recount asked for by President Donald Trump, Georgia officials said, according to WXIA-TV.

    “Technicians from Dominion have been dispatched to resolve the issue,” said officials in Fulton County, Georgia’s most populous county. “The Georgia Secretary of State’s office has also been alerted to the issue and is aware of efforts to resolve the problem.”

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/georgia-recount-dominion/2020/11/29/id/999202/

  80. Elites in both parties saw the election of President Trump as a temporary setback fueled by the last gasps of a shrinking opposition. The election this month proved them wrong. Republicans proved they can build an aspirational, multi-ethnic, culturally conservative, working-class coalition.

    Republicans must compete by communicating how conservative values benefit all Americans and protect the freedoms that attract immigrants here in the first place.
    More from Opinion

    Kristen Day & Xavier Bisits: Abortion issue costs Democrats Hispanic votes
    Gianno Caldwell: Trump has attracted increased Black and Latino support — GOP needs to get more
    Mercedes Schlapp: Why I celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month

    Hispanics are following generations of immigrants before them, assimilating into American culture and voting based on their beliefs, not ethnicity. Democrats want Hispanics to vote on the circumstances of their arrival, but they are increasingly voting based on the reasons for their coming.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/republicans-hispanics-democrats-bobby-jindal-west-anderson

    • What was conservative about Trump? His budget deficits? His assaults on the FBI and intelligence professionals? His obstruction of justice? His ignoring the subpoenas of other branches of government? His grifting and corruption? His love of Putin and dictators? His lack of loyalty to allies?

      • James Cross writes: “What was conservative about Trump? His budget deficits?”

        No

        “His assaults on the FBI and intelligence professionals?” – yes – the ones who chose to obstruct the duly elected president and exceeded their legal powers. Conservatives are for law and order.

        ” His obstruction of justice?”

        There was none. In fact, his administration was unusually cooperative with the Mueller investigation.

        “His grifting and corruption?”

        None in evidence.

        ” His love of Putin and dictators?”
        If you understand deal making at high levels, you know that the best tactic is to display admiration for those you are dealing with, even if you loathe them. There is no evidence Trump loved Putin. Trump’s foreign policy was strongly against Putin’s interests.

        ” His lack of loyalty to allies?” Nations have allies, which is not the same as friends, and not about loyalty. Our allies continue to be protected by the US, but Trump tried to get them to at least pay for their share of the cost of that.

    • > Trump has attracted increased Black and Latino support —

      Lol. Perhaps 1 out of 8 black voters and Bush crushed him with Latino support – only did well in 2020 in comparison to pathetic 29% on 2016.

      Ah, the bigotry of low expectations.

    • Jim –

      You gotta admit, this is funny.

      > I’m not fighting for me, I’m fighting for the 74,000,000 million people […] who voted for me!

      • Joshua: > I’m not fighting for me, I’m fighting for the 74,000,000 million people […] who voted for me!

        Do you that’s a joke. He has the same obligation to pursue legally the interests of his supporters, as Gore did in 2000 and Democratic Senators and Congresspeople in 2017-2020.

      • oh, bother: Do you that’s a joke.

        To you that’s a joke.

      • It’s a joke because he’s obviously out for himself.

        Your credulousness is impressive. I’ve never seen such alleigence to a politician before. Usually everyone accepts that politicians are obviously motivated by self-interest.

      • Joshua: Usually everyone accepts that politicians are obviously motivated by self-interest.

        Of course he is motivated by self-interest, as were the Democrats whom I mentioned. But he also has the same obligation as they to work in their supporters’ interests.

      • Joshua: I’ve never seen such alleigence to a politician before.

        You don’t know any Clinton supporters? Bill and Hill?

        Trump is a vexing or vexatious president. His verbal excesses (“####hole countries”) are insulting, unnecessary, demoralizing, etc. But some of his policies are defensible, such as but not limited to working with Congress to cut income tax rates and eliminate the medical devices tax that was included in Obamacare.

        Not every criticism of Trump is any good, and most of yours have been worthless, imo.

      • mrm: most of yours have been worthless, imo.

        Sorry, I got carried away.

  81. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/federal-judge-re-approves-emergency-order-blocking-georgia-wiping-state

    Now, why would anyone object to preserving the voting machine records? There’d be no reason to object, right?

    Oops, I almost forgot: “our client is innocent, your honor, therefore there’s no need for anyone to examine that gun.”

    • Everett F Sargent

      It is sort of explained here …
      https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18694655/pearson-v-kemp/?order_by=desc
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/
      (in several news articles at the 2nd link)

      I’m locked out of PACER at he moment, thus the 1st link (which is free and very useful regardless).

      • Everett F Sargent

        Oh and I think you 1st need to show that someone was murdered or whatever before you even discuss the means thereof.

      • There are multiple sworn affidavits of election improprieties: these are accusations of a crime. We haven’t found the body, so my analogy was wrong. It should be: no, there was no crime, so no, you can’t look for a body.

        Unless you believe that General McInerney was lying– and I have no doubt that many would believe that (I don’t)– the US Special Forces seized CIA servers related to the election in Frankfurt, Germany, by force, with apparently some casualties.

        1. Why would the CIA not give up these servers voluntarily?
        2. Why did the US Special Forces have to seize them from the CIA by force?
        3. Why is the mainstream completely silent on this event?

        Naturally, those whose only source of news is the mainstream will say that this is all wild, wild conspiracy theory and that there’s nothing to see. Just like the Hunter Biden laptop: I’ve seen the images on it, and trust me, there was a lot to see. Mainstream: there’s nothing to see.

        So once again we’re going with the fiction: there’s nothing to see.

        I seem to detect a pattern.

        In truth, what’s going on right now before our very eyes is huge, almost beyond belief, which is why many people can’t believe it. Every single American should want to get to the bottom of any and all accusations, and anyone who says we shouldn’t do this is paving the way for election fraud in the future, regardless of whether or not any fraud happened in this election. Think about it.

      • “In truth, what’s going on right now before our very eyes is huge, almost beyond belief, which is why many people can’t believe it”.

        Are you on drugs?

      • Everett F Sargent

        I have.

        See my Santa Clause (should have been Claus) comment above. Cart before horse.

        You need actual physical evidence before you make any such allegations of widespread voter fraud to the tune of ~seven million votes. Finding tens or hundreds or even a few thousand ineligible ballots falls far short when compared to the millions of disenfranchised voters should such follies occur. Massive voter fraud? Then show us. right here right now, as such evidence would be very compelling indeed, if true.

        There is also the very important and critical element of time, so that the Plaintiffs case would take years to adjudicate in any situation where there were no time limits. We, the courts and continuity/transition of governance simply do not have the time required to chase down all, or even a few, of Small Hands (Sidney Powell, et. el.) fictional upturned Kraken stones.

        Everything else is a sideshow (e. g. state of GA contract with Dominion is immaterial to the conduction of the election itself) or so called spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks.

        Those are the things the courts are interested in, the very big picture of the will of the voters, not the minutiae of conspiracy theories.

      • Everett F Sargent

        My ‘I have’ refers to ‘Think about it’ not ‘Are you on drugs’

      • No, I’m not on drugs, but sometimes I wish I were. In my opinion Trump won the election fair and square, and his huge rallies are a testament to the popular support he had even as those on the left want to pretend that most of the country is behind Biden. Sorry, I highly doubt it. Joe wasn’t kidding when he said they put together the greatest election fraud system in history (that he’d even say this shows you how out-of-it he really is); that’s why his handlers really didn’t care about his rallies. This is what the lawsuits are about, this is what the many, many affidavits are about, even as the mainstream media continually tells us “there’s nothing to see here.” Just like with the Hunter Biden laptop: nothing to see.

        If you lived in North Korea, would you know it? We’re living in North Korea folks, and those on the left are convinced that everything the news dishes out is true, and that Biden is the honest choice. You’ve got to be kidding. Thank God our media isn’t completely controlled although Twitter and FB are doing their best to make sure we have Correct Understanding, aided by the rest of the Ministry of Truth.

        Just looking at the amount of censorship out now to prevent “misinformation” should ring some bells. Censoring an absolutely huge Hunter Biden story: do you think for one second that if that’d been about Don Jr. it wouldn’t have been plastered all over the Ministry of Truth, 24/7, as further proof of how bad and terrible our president is that he’d have a drug-addled, porn-star son ((with some quite young girls!) involved in so many foreign entanglements that his father knew nothing, “absolutely nothing,” about? With Russian and China and Ukraine? Seriously?

        Ya can’t make this stuff up, and here it is, right in front of us.

      • Cognitive dissonance much? Because you and I both know that if we’d been talking about Don Jr. instead of Hunter, the 24/7 news cycle would’ve kicked in in a massive, massive way. Instead: silence.

        Think about it. It’s a good clue to what’s really happening.

        The mainstream news is here to tell us what to think. The mainstream media is here to tell us: the accusations of election fraud are baseless. Repeat 1,000 times.

      • Those 10 extra days must be the worst.

      • Everett F Sargent: Those are the things the courts are interested in, the very big picture of the will of the voters, not the minutiae of conspiracy theories.

        The appellate courts are mostly interested in minutiae, called “due process of law” instead of “the big picture.” Not necessarily of conspiracy theories, but late arrivals, post-dating of ballots, and executive branch changes in the rules will be important.

  82. The evidence of fraud in Arizona is damning. This screams for forensic audits in at least all the swing states.

    • Jim

      I wanted Trump to win and see no credible evidence of widespread fraud in the AZ electiion. Kelly won the Senate race by a similar margin.

      • Are you watching the evidentiary hearing by the AZ legislature? That’s where I’m getting the information to make such a statement.

        If you haven’t seen the evidence, then you really don’t know what you are talking about. No offense, just fact.

      • Kelly was a far better candidate than McSally. Kelly had charisma, she has none. He was an astronaut, she was not. I voted for McSally, but I feared she would lose due to her lack of the superficial characteristics Kelly had. It says nothing about Trump’s results.

        As for fraud in Arizona – heck, I don’t know, and I live here. But if there’s fraud, one has to ask why our Republican officials including the governor think otherwise. Keep in mind, there’s a difference between fraud and the use of unfair tactics. The latter were visible throughout the country against Trump – the media’s lock-step anti-Trump behavior, basically acting as the propaganda ministry for the Democrats, was the worst of it. And they were even more biased than against prior Republicans, which is saying something!

      • mesocyclone – it’s interesting that you asked that question about the same time Giuliani was asking the head of the Maricopa Republican party the same dang question! She said he was bought and paid for – then Giuliani laughed and said he wasn’t expecting that. The committee tried to soften that answer by saying it was a rhetorical question, but still …

      • meso –

        > And they were even more biased than against prior Republicans, which is saying something!

        So do you absolve Trump for any responsibility for why he was treated more poorly than previous pubz? Or maybe it has to do with his constant lying, subverting norms, pandering to division and partisanship, etc.?

        I listened to a long interview with Bill Kristol today. It was intersting how a longtime hawk, ardent supporter of McCain, long time supporter of traditions conservativr ideology, etc., has a view of Trump very much like most demz and many, many moderates who have a totally different view than he most political issues but in particular on foreign policy and American power on the global stage.

        Poor Trump. Such a victim. I mean it’s not like the way he’s treated can be explained at all by the way he acts. It’s just all bias an unfairness.

      • Joshua – I thought you were interested in dialog. Apparently, from this post, you just want to rant about Trump and score points.

        Kristol does not speak for many on the right. He is one of the people Trump Derangement Syndrome was first applied too. He killed his magazine – Weekly Standard – with his TDS. Most subscribers, many of whom were not Trump supporters, just didn’t want to read any more ranting. We subscribed for content with a conservative perspective, not constant hectoring about how insulting Trump was. I was a subscriber to The Weekly Standard from its first to last issue, and I watch it deteriorate.

        There is a difference between disagreeing with Trump, and constantly harping no his manner. Kristol and McCain couldn’t get that. They were so driven around the bend by his confrontative and insulting manner that they forgot all their principles. Kristol proved that he is not a true conservative by his behavior. You don’t have to worship Trump or agree with him to stand by your conservative principles – but Kristol just rejected the entire party, which means he was effectively against all that Trump did for conservatives, by his actions.

        You write: “Poor Trump. Such a victim. I mean it’s not like the way he’s treated can be explained at all by the way he acts. It’s just all bias an unfairness.”

        That shows either a complete inability to understand, m or just a desire to rant. It is not in any way congruent with what I have posted – it is mocking and insulting.

        I am disappointed.

      • > Kristol does not speak for many on the right.

        Of course not. No one speaks for “all” in either party. So here is instance one where

      • it seems you’re responding to a strawman.

      • In addition, he sees Trump’s moral depravity and inherent totalitarianism as an overriding factor even to the extent that he views Trump’s issues advocacy as compatible with his views of fundamental conservative ideology.

      • And BTW, he didn’t reject “the entire Republican Party.” He hasn’t rejected the core beliefs of the Republican Party with which he was allied for decades. And neither have the large segment of the Republican Party who agree with him. You simply seek to take that significant segment and define them as no longer Republicans despite their core beliefs not having changed. You effectively kick them out of the party because of their ideological disagreements, classify them as deranged, and then say theh are no longer true Scotsmen. You ale it so that their identity as Republicans isn’t based on ideology, but merely as a function of whether they accept Trump as the party leader.

      • OK. I give up. I’ve tried breaking the comment into distinct parts but even then I can’t get them past the filter or determine what offends.

        I guess we’ll all survive.

      • I also have a home in AZ.

        Kelly had an excellent advertising campaign. He had lots of ads that never stated where he stood on any issues. He was always positive. McSally is a bit of a dud both as a senator and a candidate.

        Imo, Trump lost when mail in voting became acceptable. A lot of people (and some fraud) were added to the electorate who normally don’t vote.

      • I agree with your analysis on AZ, and I live here full time. Kelly was a better candidate, and will make a far worse senator (because he will vote party-line where it counts). McSally may be a fine person, but she does not have the television characteristics it takes to win. Kelly’s gun control attitude, like that of the Democratic Party, is anathema to enough Arizonans that he would have lost on that alone, if they were well known, and if McSally wasn’t weak tea as a candidate.

      • Meso
        I consider AZ as my home state although I have residents elsewhere. I finished HS here and got undergraduates at ASU. I also completed masters program at Thunderbird and at U of P. in AZ.

        AZ is charged from where it was and that isn’t bad. AZ is a bellwether for the country.

        Trump was right on many policies, domestic and foreign. That didn’t seem to matter. The press didn’t cover the truth.

      • This time, my comment broke all on its own.

        Continuing… For someone with “inherent totalitarianism” – Trump has certainly failed! He has appointed judges and justices on the freedom, not totalitarian side of the ledger. He has not taken any totalitarian actions.

        In fact, it’s when I see stuff like that that I see genuine derangement – or at least, emotional rather than rational responses. One of Trump’s unfortunate characteristics is that he triggers this in some people – causes them to irrationally become his enemies.

        Bill Kristol is an emotional fool – so upset that Trump broke Kristol’s nice little clique that he is projecting his own problems onto Trump. I lost all respect for Kristol some time ago. I hoped that The Weekly Standard would survive his idiocy, but it did not.

        You objected to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” but Kristol and McCain epitomized it. They acted against the interests of their party, they acted against their allies, and it is clear they did it out of spite and anger and insecurity, not out of any rational attitude.

        When Trump appeared on the scene, their opinions of Trump did not seem obviously wrong. But he has proven them wrong. We are left with a bitter Kristol, who clung to his views of Trump for irrational reasons, long after they were shown to be wrong. McCain as his dying act stabbed conservatives in the back – out of spite. McCain was well known for his temper and viciousness, BTW. You can be a genuine war hero, and be a good Senator on national defense, and still be a nasty piece of work.

        There was a conservative commentator from Kristol’s world (“neocon”) who disliked Trump but could talk rationally and intelligently about the good and the bad of Trump and his policies: Charles Krauthammer. He was an intelligent gentleman to the end, and he understood that you can achieve good ends – advance conservative goals – using flawed tools: Trump. But then, all men and all Presidents are flawed. Trump is just more flamboyant about it.

        When I see people constantly harping on his manner, I see TDS. I see people who believe that Presidents should be perfect gentlemen, above all. I see people who cannot see beyond that obvious flaws to the rest of the person. I see people who want Presidents to be like themselves – well spoken, well mannered, erudite.

        And, in people like Kristol, I see an member of an elite club who was obviously shattered when his opposite – a crude, combative person – took over his party. Kristol is they type who would believe he is defending conservatism by writing nice articles and doing absolutely nothing, and attack those who do the kinds of things he wants, but do so in a rude way. Kristol came out for Biden, which anyone who understands politics know is advocating an administration that will be beholden to people who are anti-conservative in policy preferences.

        I suppose “deranged” isn’t quite the right term. “Shallow” is better.

      • meso –

        Can’t get my comment through. But you have an unfalsifiable model. Any opposition to Trump you don’t like means that the person is deranged. You have articulated zero criteria on which to determine someone is deranged other than you say so. Unfalsifiable.

      • Joshua – you continue to fail in reading comprehension:

        ” But you have an unfalsifiable model. Any opposition to Trump you don’t like means that the person is deranged. You have articulated zero criteria on which to determine someone is deranged other than you say so. Unfalsifiable.”

        You have no evidence to back that up, because it is not true. “Any opposition” – PROVE IT.

        I gave examples of criteria above, also.

        But hey, you seem far more interested in bickering than dialog. You haven’t addressed any of the many points I have made – just complained about the TDS label, and restated my positions incorrectly.

      • That’s great, meso. You provided criteria, right. Your determination that Kristol is an “emotional fool.”

        It’s hilarious that I’m in the position of defending Kristol.

        He’s a life long conservative who has maintained his core beliefs. You’ve determined that he’s deranged, and an emotional fool. Your criteria? Well that he’s an wmjonsk fool.

        What you haven’t done is show how he has betrayed any of his life long, core conservative beliefs or values. What you haven’t done is show how he’s an emotional fool. Your criterion is that you’ve determined that he’s an emotional fool.

        What you haven’t done is show how he’s deranged. You’ve merely determined that he is all those things because he disagree with you and he rejects Trump. Your criterion for determining that he’s deranged is thst you have decided he’s deranged.

        He holds onto his beliefs, remains consistent with them, but doesn’t go along with the wing of the party that accepts Trump as the leader of the party, and for that you call him an emotional fool and deranged. And your criterion is that he disagree with you about Trump. Krsuthammer was acceptsble to the extent that he was more accepting of Trump. Krsuthammer was intelligent and not an emotional fool. And what’s your criteria for determining that? Why that he was more in agreement with you about Trump, of course. It’s a self-sealing in falsifiable model. If someone disagrees with you strongly enough about Trumpz. I matter even what their core values are or whether they remain consistent to those core values, then they are deranged and an emotional fool.

        It’s a perfect system.

    • “In addition, he sees Trump’s moral depravity and inherent totalitarianism as an overriding factor even to the extent that he views Trump’s issues advocacy as compatible with his views of fundamental conservative ideology.”

      Inherent totalitarianism. Yes, “deranged” is appropriate in TDS

  83. Everett F Sargent

    GA, AZ, WI, MI, NV and PA have all now certified their respective state election results …
    https://calcasieu.info/states-certifying-2020-presidential-election-results-and-certification-deadlines-by-state/

  84. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and the state’s elections chief were ordered by a federal judge to explain their opposition to allowing inspections of voting machines that President Donald Trump has claimed “switched” votes in favor of Joe Biden.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten in Atlanta gave Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger until Wednesday to file a brief in response to inspection demands by former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, who filed a suit alleging Dominion Voting Systems Inc. machines are part of a vast election-rigging scheme involving Democratic-run cities, billionaire George Soros and “communist money” from Venezuela and Cuba.

    https://www.newsmax.com/us/elect-exe-gen-gov/2020/11/30/id/999314/

    • Kemp and Raffensperger don’t control the voting machines. The counties do.

      I think most counties have already wiped their machines in preparation for the runoff. But none of it matters anyway because the ballots are paper ballots. The votes are not in the machines. They are on paper.

      And the third count of the votes is almost complete and Biden will win again.

      Now if you could show George Soros secretly met with aliens on the Moon to plot the conspiracy, well then you would have something I might believe.

      • You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Everett F Sargent

        Agreed.

        And the newsmax story is misreporting the actual series of judicial orders and deadlines thereof … go figure …
        https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18694655/pearson-v-kemp/?order_by=desc

        Heck, The Epoch Times is doing a much better news reporting job than fox, newsmax, oan, etceteras combined.

        And the ballrooms video stuff is all appeal to emotion. Same goes for all those video interviews. It is getting rather palpable and desperate at this very moment in time.

        The written word, in all those various judicial proceedings, to date, has been very good. The way all the states executives have handled this stuff is also very good, regardless of their party affiliations.

  85. Random thoughts.

    Biden will have to block Trump from intelligence briefings going forward. Former intelligence officials are advising that Trump is too risky. Probably the current ones will agree. Besides that, Biden probably would want to spare the staff from the additional effort required to make the picture books Trump would need.

    How long do you suppose before Trump visits Moscow. I would guess by Spring. He’ll need to be planning his move.

    Will Trump pardon Ivanka and Jared? I would say yes and possibly most of the main characters in the Trump organization. There is a major money laundering case moving forward they are all likely implicated in.

    When do the loans get called? I would guess parts of Trump organization will be looking at filing for bankruptcy for the seventh time, possibly the last time before it gets dissolved.

    ‘I won, I won, I won’: Paper claims Trump ‘was like Mad King George’ following his election defeat

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8998515/Donald-Trump-like-Mad-King-George-following-election-defeat-muttering-won-won-won.html

      • An odd little Catch-22 just occurred to me.

        If Trump grants himself a pardon, then he is admitting guilt. However, he may unable to grant himself a pardon.

        quote

        Ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. Can Donald Trump pardon himself? Perhaps, but that’s not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/one-word-bars-trump-pardoning-himself/617170/

        Hence, Trump would in effect have already admitted his guilt for the crimes for which he attempted to grant himself a pardon.

    • Joe - the non national security analysist

      Cross comment – “Biden will have to block Trump from intelligence briefings going forward. Former intelligence officials are advising that Trump is too risky. Probably the current ones will agree. Besides that, Biden probably would want to spare the staff from the additional effort required to make the picture books Trump would need”

      TDS

      It would be more appropriate to withdraw Brennan’s, Comey, Rice’s and Kerry’s security clearance

  86. Georgia will be lucky if they are allowed to use any voting machine after this AZ hearing.

    • I’m missing something. What does an AZ hearing have to do with Georgia?

      Aside from that, the voting machines in GA were already the subject of a lawsuit which resulted in the rush to get new software for this election that is mentioned in one of the complaints. The lawsuit was that there was no paper trail and no way to do an audit. The machines with the new software do have a paper trial and can be audited – an inconvenient fact that all of the conspiracy theorists seem to overlook.

      • Evidence presented show them to be unreliable for voting. They have no internal drives, only USB drives and the program can be changed at will with a USB drive.

      • The program and votes can also be change via the internet. And the server software, one of which was in Frankfurt, Germany, has never been made available for examination. I know all this sounds like Twilight Zone. The hearing is available on the internet. See for yourself.

  87. National review sums up one comforting outcome of the election: the rejection by California voters of a referendum to *allow* discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex, etc.

    The referendum was to repeal an earlier anti-discrimination referendum from the ’90s. The repeal was strongly backed by Democratic politicians, Silicon Valley plutarchs, even the ACLU – showing that ACLU has abandoned it’s principles and is now in favor of racial discrimination.

    Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it [the repeal]. The state’s Democratic attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.”

    This refutation of the repeal went down 57 to 43 percent, in a state that gave Biden a 30 point margin over Trump.

    A survey commissions by the left discovered that only one beneficiary group favored it, and not by much:

    “Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

    Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.”

    Link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/will-democrats-learn-from-their-identity-politics-disaster-in-california/

  88. https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20418113-diamond-language-hr1094
    Pennsylvania:
    “A resolution declaring the results of Statewide electoral contests in the 2020 general election to be in dispute.”

    Apparently some people believe there’s something to see despite the media’s insistence that all charges are baseless.

    • Everett F Sargent

      https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2019&sind=0&body=H&type=R&bn=1094
      https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/BillInfo.cfm?syear=2019&sind=0&body=S&type=R&bn=410

      The Senate Resolution states ‘A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION’ while the Gouse Resolution states ‘A RESOLUTION’ The two versions are not now identical and the Senate version contains stronger language. Both have been referred to their respective State Government committees.

      “Under current state law, Pennsylvania’s voters, not the Legislature, have the power to pick presidential electors.

      Changing this statute would require the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat who’d oppose any move to override Pennsylvania’s popular vote.

      Also, the General Assembly must operate under certain constitutional provisions, from the number of days it takes to pass a bill and public notice of hearings to their mandatory last day of legislating — Nov. 30.”

      “Just 49 of the General Assembly’s 137 Republicans have publicly said they’d back resolutions, sponsored by Mastriano and Rep. Russ Diamond, R-Lebanon. If the resolutions would have any impact is unclear.”
      https://www.penncapital-star.com/election-2020/threatening-primaries-trump-supporters-make-one-last-pitch-for-pa-republicans-to-block-election-results/

      I’m somewhat thinking that this is over as they are talking like it is the 2022 Republican primaries.

      • It’s an interesting legal question since the Constitution gives the legislature sole authority to chose electors. State law won’t override the Constitution.

      • Jim2: It’s an interesting legal question since the Constitution gives the legislature sole authority to chose electors. State law won’t override the Constitution.

        Here is the text: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

        I don’t think this means that the State Legislature can override the “manner” that the legislature had enacted into law to overturn ex post facto the results of the “manner” used in an election. Unless they can show that the procedures were violated, which is what the Republicans and the Trump team are working on..

      • The point, I believe, is that the manner of the elections is to be determined by the state legislatures, per the US Constitution, and so any interference with that by any Governor or any judge is unconstitutional. A judge ordering an extension of vote deadlines, for example, would be unconstitutional: only the legislature has that power.

        Founding Fathers anticipated attempts to tamper with elections.

      • Don132: The point, I believe, is that the manner of the elections is to be determined by the state legislatures, per the US Constitution, and so any interference with that by any Governor or any judge is unconstitutional. A judge ordering an extension of vote deadlines, for example, would be unconstitutional: only the legislature has that power.

        That’s the way I read it, but there do not seem to be any clearly prescribed remedies in case the law is violated.

      • I’m pretty sure just about any legislature can change a law and thus override the previous law, given the governor signs off on it. In this case, the governor has no authority, so the legislature can make up new rules for choosing electors. OTOH, IANAL.

  89. Here’s a link to the 10 hour hearing. Some of the most interesting stuff, about Dominion machines, is early on.

  90. Dang! At this rate, we’ll need another political thread real soon now!
    The FBI is looking at evidence uncovered by Amistad Society investigators who have crunched data from the government, then reached out to actual voters to see if how they voted actually matches the government’s data.

    “And we’ve come up with tens of thousands of Republican ballots that were not counted,” Kline told host Grant Stinchfield. “We’ve come up with hundreds of thousands of Republicans who say they never requested a ballot, but they voted absentee by somebody else. We’ve identified people outside of the state who voted within the state. And all of this occurred in the key swing states that we’re speaking about.”

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/fbi-voter-fraud/2020/11/30/id/999369/

  91. In the fifth letter sent to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger by President Donald Trump’s campaign counselor Ray S. Smith, the lawyer urged an audit “before it’s too late.”

    “It is not possible for you to accurately certify the results in the president race… until and unless there is a thorough audit of the Signatures, which we have now requested four times in writing prior to this request,” Smith wrote.

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/georgia-recount-signatures/2020/11/30/id/999310/

  92. “I watched the entire thing today. It was mind blowing. Witness after witness after witness. The evidence was overwhelming on a scale I’ve never seen in 67 years of my life. And these were highly qualified, intelligent people. One guy with 2 Bachelors degrees and 2 masters who explained in technical details how the Dominion computers were cheating right down to the algorithm they used. And one woman who was retired College Professor who had done ballet monitoring for almost 40 years. Who testified to watching them change votes and was threatened when she attempted to report it. They amount of evidence they have would blow you away. This is so far beyond DEM corruption they need to invent a new word for it.”

    I copied/pasted this review of the presentation of the Arizona evidence. I haven’t watched it yet; on the schedule for today.

    There are too many good, honest people in this country who simply aren’t going to let them get away with this. It won’t happen. Biden will not be president, so none of us has to worry about what a Biden presidency will look like.

    • Don, wait just a minute here! Are you claiming the Trump team has actual evidence? You must be completely insane or at least senile! It can’t be because ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the junkie on the street corner by my house all say there isn’t any evidence. Even my dog agrees!

      • Sorry jim2, I misspoke. Must get my mind right. Will punish myself by watching CNN all day and repeating “there’s nothing to see” 1,000 times.

    • The part with Seth Rich was the best part.

      • Thank you Joshua, for your usual illuminating and insightful comment that conveys useful information or food for thought.

      • Don –

        Thanks for reading and responding. Just remember, these are the people whom you believed about Seth Rich.

      • Not sure I ever mentioned anything about Seth Rich. Irrelevant.

      • I’m sure. And it’s not irrelevant. You have a history of believing loony conspiracy theories. Remember that video of the nurse claiming evidence about a hospital systematically mis-diagnosing people as having COVID to make money?

        And why did you never answer my question about how you reconcile Trump’s support for vaccines with your theories about vaccine conspiracies?

      • Attacking the person instead of the argument at hand? Do you know what that’s called, Josh?

      • It’s called ad hominem.


  93. I believe this is the same Arizona testimony that Alan already linked to. The money part starts at 1:05 (that is, one hour and five minutes.)

  94. The mainstream will try to dismiss this all by ignoring it and asserting that all claims of fraud are baseless. After watching the Arizona testimony, even starting from the first hour and five minutes and listening to the testimony for a short time, does anyone really believe they’re going to get away with this, or that this is just small potatoes, or that it isn’t Biden, not Trump, trying to steal the election?

    Anyone still think that the recent firing of Kris Krebs, former Director of CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) was so that Trump, the new Hitler and evil genius, could take over the country?

  95. Michigan hearing live on 12/1.

  96. President Donald Trump rightly calls out China on spreading the coronavirus plague but CNN only agree with him three weeks after election:

    • Everett F Sargent

      Orange Man gone at 12:00PM January 20th 2021. Posting whomever that was in that video doesn’t change that time line one iota. No real context even. How about sticking to print media, like court case files and legislative non-binding proclamations.

      Stuff that might really matter for December 14th 2020 or even January 6th, 2021.

      Heck, Biden was just on the teevee as if nothing was happening behind that scene. Same goes for the MSM. Kind of looks like two parallel Universes even.

      I agree with JMurphy below.

  97. Meanwhile, in the real world, Biden is continuing on the path towards the presidency, which he will commence in less than 2 months…

    • Thus begins our long national nightmare.

      • Agreed. I’m not a huge fan of Trump but at least he’s a match for the unscrupulous tactics of the rising CCP onto the world stage.

        China is using this as a smokescreen to take Hong Kong, bring Australia down and move in on Taiwan..

        What’s Biden’s administration going to do about it… nothing??

      • Everett F Sargent

        I’m still waiting for Small Hands to actually terminate someone then pardon himself. That just might work at the federal level but he will need at least one state governor to go along on that one. Now that would be something else indeed. So far, Small Hands still appears to want others to do that sort of dirty work. Small Hands almost got Biden’s dog to do that for him.

        Trump campaign lawyer says former cybersecurity chief should be ‘shot’
        https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/30/trump-campaign-lawyer-cybersecurity-chief-shot-441577

        Thus ends our long national nightmare.

      • Everett F Sargent

        You could or should delete my comment above. (same comment posted in wrong subthread above)

  98. Everett F Sargent

    Small Hands campaign destroys Arecibo telescope …

    … sez see you in court.

  99. I guess it’s all over now, Baby Boo. A.G. Barr effectively just called the election for Biden.

    • Statement of Trump Legal Team on Bill Barr’s Comments on Voter Fraud

      “With all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation. We have gathered ample evidence of illegal voting in at least six states, which they have not examined. We have many witnesses swearing under oath they saw crimes being committed in connection with voter fraud. As far as we know, not a single one has been interviewed by the DOJ. The Justice Department also hasn’t audited any voting machines or used their subpoena powers to determine the truth.

      “Nonetheless, we will continue our pursuit of the truth through the judicial system and state legislatures, and continue toward the Constitution’s mandate and ensuring that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is not. Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.”

      So let me get this straight: the Justice Department is saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud and has refused to interview a single witness who submitted a sworn affidavit alleging voter fraud?

      I guess we’re finding out how big the swamp really is.

    • The AG does not decide who won the election. The voters do, in a free and fair election.

    • Everett F Sargent

      Barr says DOJ hasn’t uncovered widespread voter fraud in 2020 election
      https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election

      Barr is part of the conspirac-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!

      • So Everett, how many people has DOJ interviewed? How many voting machines were seized and submitted to forensic analysis? In fact, do you know of anything at all DOJ has done to discover fraud? I mean, if your eyes are closed, you aren’t going to find much are you?

      • Everett F Sargent

        But we have questions … about the conspirac-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!

        “Nonetheless, we will continue our pursuit of our truth through the judicial system and state legislatures, and continue toward the Constitution’s mandate and ensuring that every illegal vote is counted and every legal vote is not.”

      • Let’s set out the bare facts:
        1. There have been widespread allegations of voting improprieties and many of these allegations have been set out in sworn affidavits. These sworn affidavits number in the hundreds: this isn’t trivial. We can be certain, for example, that numerous Republican monitors were denied the right to monitor, and that numerous violations of the chain of custody of ballots occurred.
        2. These allegations include evidence of statistical and computer analysis of election results by numerous teams of analysts, and these all point to highly improbably or impossible election results. These experts will not be silenced.
        3. Not one of these analyses have been refuted by anyone with competency in computer technology. No one has explained these anomalies as part of any kind of expected voting results.
        4. There are numerous vulnerabilities in the voting machines in use and these voting machines were indeed connected to the internet, as an analysis of data traffic shows and as one physical examination of where all the cables went demonstrated. Connectivity to the internet allows for manipulation of votes by administrators or by hackers: this fact is well-known.
        5. Even the user manual for Dominion systems allows for connectivity to the internet and administrator manipulation of voting records. It’s in the manual.
        6. Only one computer voting system of the many in use is deemed immune from manipulation, and that systems was designed by MIT, utilizes blockchain, and was used in only one state.
        7. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar– Democrats– warned of the dangers of our computer voting systems years earlier. These warnings were ignored except by Texas, which concluded, rightly, that the Dominion voting machines had too many vulnerabilities. That the machines can count votes properly is irrelevant; what happens to the vote count later is the crux of the matter.
        8. Despite the above, many forces are aligned to deny that there are any substantial allegations at all.

        All of this is akin to having a body on the floor guarded by police, who continually say there is no body. The investigators at the scene insist on examining the body, yet the police continue to deny that the body, in plain sight, even exists.

        All Americans should be outraged at this state of affairs regardless of which candidate they support. For our AG to deny that the body even exists is astonishing, and points to either something close to treason or else to an inside strategy we mortals aren’t privy to.

      • .Everett F Sargent: thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election

        Has DoJ even looked?

      • > Has DoJ even looked?

        Lol. Good point. I”m sure that Barr would make a statement like that to the press even though the head of the DOJ hasn’t even looked.

        You boyz are hilarious.

        –snip–

        Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

      • Everett –

        You can’t prove that Barr isn’t a part of the conspiracy.

      • “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

        That is NOT what numerous experts in voting systems and cybersecurity have been saying and no one, not one person, has refuted the evidence except to say, as former CISA head Krebs said, that this was the most secure election in history. That’s why he was fired.

        Don’t say everything is secure when we have extensive evidence of output anomalies that shouldn’t be there in any free and fair election. Instead of explaining them, this is what we get: there’s nothing to see here.

        Every single American should be outraged at this attempted cover-up of the evidence, as if there’s nothing to see. Those who say that fraud wasn’t sufficient to overturn the election haven’t been paying attention.

        How about Barr going through each accusation in detail and explaining to us, the American people, how it didn’t happen, and explain what really happened? You and I know this will never take place. Instead you’ll hear: nothing to see here, and no, we’re not going to show you that there’s nothing to see here.

      • > You and I know this will never take place.

        If course not! Because Barr is obviously in on the conspiracy. And no one can prove that he isn’t.

        Trump is such a victim. You too, Don.

      • Well … if I had investigations in progress, the last thing I would do is tell the press. That really would make Barr an imbecile. His wording sounded pretty precise. I’m not counting him out.

      • I’m not playing the victim, Josh. I’m simply stating the facts as I see them, facts agreed upon by a very many people, and facts which you haven’t refuted since denial isn’t the same as refutation.

      • > Well … if I had investigations in progress, the last thing I would do is tell the press.

        Good point. He said there isn’t widespread fraud because he knows there really is widespread fraud but if he did say there’s widespread fraud the information would be so specific he’d tip people off and they’d get away after committing widespread fraud.

        Really, you boyz are fantastic.

      • > I’m not playing the victim, Josh

        That’s what you do in every post, Don. It’s always about a conspiracy that’s put together to be unfair to you and Trump and deny you and he of what you deserve.

      • Still doing the ad hominem thing, Josh?

        Hint: take one of the eight points I listed and demonstrate how it’s wrong.

      • Everett F Sargent

        “which you haven’t refuted since denial isn’t the same as refutation.”

        Actually, against verbal/written allegations (and hearsay) the burden of proof lies with those making said claims …

        Click to access gov.uscourts.gand.284055.35.0_1.pdf

        Deny and Denied! Appears to be a standard legal method of deflecting such claims back to the Plaintiffs. As in, prove it. Prove your wackadoodle conspirac-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!

      • Everett F Sargent

        See document #35 here (a direct link seems to want to be inlined) …
        https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18694655/pearson-v-kemp/?order_by=desc

      • Everett, there are numerous people alleging a conspiracy to steal this election: this is not “my” conspiracy theory.

        As for proof, the Arizona testimony offered significant evidence but the proof would lie in a forensic analysis of the voting machines, servers, security video, etc.

        Once again: no, there’s no body there so no, you can’t examine that body over there which we say doesn’t exist. A justice system you agree with?

      • Describing your posts is not an ad hom.

        I haven’t dismissed your arguments because of who you are. I’ve dismissed them because they are a constant stream of playing the victim card and wild conspiracy theories.

        Notice that you STILL haven’t answered how you reconcile your support of Trump, and his support of vaccines, with your belief in conspiracies related about vaccines.

        You keep saying over and over that there’s evidence of fraud. But you keep confusing claims of fraud with evidence of fraud. You keep saying that the evidence should be investigated. But when it gets investigated and dismissed as garbage, you never note that what you thought was evidence was investigated and dismissed as garbage.

        BTW –

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI

      • Don –

        How many people do you suppose say that they have been abducted by aliens?

        When someone makes that claim do you consider it evidence that they’ve been abducted by aliens?

      • Everett F Sargent

        Of course. I believe in the rule of law. Whatever all these judges do I will stand by their decisions. As to legislatures rewriting their laws after the fact, not so much, as that is just political maneuvering to overrule the will of the people in a free and fair election.

      • Joshua, if you’d been paying attention you’d know that the issue with statistical analysis of election results involves far more than Benford’s law.

        If you’d paid attention, you’d know that I have no objection to many vaccines but I object to forced vaccination for reasons I’ve stated in the past. I don’t feel I need to rehash those reasons just so you can continue your ad hominem tirade: this is completely irrelevant to anything we’re talking about at present. Please stop your childish gibbering, which is MY description of YOUR posts.

      • “How many people do you suppose say that they have been abducted by aliens?”

        Again, childish gibbering. Just stop.

      • “overrule the will of the people in a free and fair election.”
        The entire question is, was this a free and fair election? We disagree. A forensic examination of evidence should shed some light on this. I disagree with those who say we shouldn’t examine the evidence, and who imply that all the witnesses alleging that they saw extensive voting irregularities are either lying or imagining things.

      • Everett F Sargent

        “Everett, there are numerous people alleging a conspiracy to steal this election: this is not “my” conspiracy theory.”

        Go back and carefully read what I wrote …
        “Prove your wackadoodle conspirac-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!” is in reference to those making allegations and claims thereof. It is the last sentence of that paragraph, as such, it refers directly to the Plaintiffs and/or allegedly alleged allegations by said allegedly alleged allegators.

      • People have been sent to prison for murder for life with far fewer witnesses who signed affidavits, which if false they go to jail.

      • As Krebs has said, over 90% of the votes have a paper trail and every time the machine count and the paper trial are compared they agree. Barr knows it’s time to move on to seeing what havoc can be wrecked in the wing-nut court system that the years of Republican control have provided.

  100. Everett F Sargent

  101. At the Amistad Project press conference in Virginia, a US Postal Service worker and whistleblower alleged that nearly 300,000 completed mail-in ballots that he had transported across state lines had disappeared overnight.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-new-usps-whistleblower-alleges-almost-300-000-mail-in-ballots-disappeared-overnight

    • You still at this Jim? It’s tragic.

      Your guy lost. By, like, 6 million votes.

      Why is this so difficult for you?

      • verytallguy, why is it so difficult for you to see that there’s substantial evidence of massive voting irregularities?

        You can’t be serious. Biden had what, 30 people at his rallies, and Kamala maybe 10, and we’re to believe that popular support is behind Biden/Harris?

        You may not like it that our country is filled with deplorables, but I can assure you that it is. And they’re getting pissed.

      • VTG – so a week or so ago you said you wanted proof. But now you want no proof? Are we a bit flighty, mate?

  102. I love that you boyz are hanging on ’till the bitter end.

    If only because it provides a great window into climate “skepticism.”

  103. It really is as if Biden subconsciously knows that the electoral machines have been fixed so that he’ll become president no matter how many people vote for Donald Trump:

  104. Ron at CodeMonkey just came out with an amazing tweet a few minutes ago.

    Apparently Ron was with a group of people who filmed Georgia officials destroying evidence. The Georgia officials never had a clue because they didn’t know the group was there, in part because Twitter had censored their hashtag ‘Dominion Watch’:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-georgia-elections-officials-reportedly-filmed-destroying-evidence/

  105. Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”

    President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-arizona-state-rep-issues-call-withhold-states-electoral-college-votes-joe-biden-due-significant-evidence-fraud/

  106. New election fraud whistleblowers came forward on Tuesday, including one who witnessed the shipping of an estimated 144,000-288,000 completed ballots across three state lines on October 21.

    The new information was made public at a press conference by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a national constitutional litigation organization.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/watch-live-usps-whistleblowers-come-forward-driver-delivered-hundreds-thousands-completed-ballots-across-three-state-lines/

  107. Attorney Phillip Kline with the Amistad Project joined Lou Dobbs on Tuesday following the explosive hearing this afternoon in Arlington, Virginia.

    Kline earlier at his press conference introduced two different USPS contract truck drivers who went public after they found it “unusual” and were concerned when they realized that had transferred completed ballots and fraudulent ballots to stops in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/trump-attorney-phil-kline-two-trailers-full-completed-ballots-delivered-pennsylvania-ny-one-november-4th-video/

  108. Dr Linda Lee Tarver is a former Michigan Civil rights commissioner, Community affairs Director and Election Integrity Liason.

    Dr. Tarver documented the history of rampant voter fraud in Michigan for AT LEAST 25 YEARS!

    The former Republican activist gave a detailed explanation of what a valid election should look like. She gave one of the most compelling testimonies of the day. She called for a forensic audit of the entire election here in Michigan. Dr. Tarver called the election process in Michigan a “hot mess” that has been going on for decades.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/must-see-dr-linda-lee-tarver-absolutely-flames-hot-mess-voter-fraud-michigan-lansing-hearing-video/

  109. When Lou Dobbs was at CNN he reported on the foreign ownership of Smartmatic.

    CNN anchor and correspondent Kitty Pilgrim reported to Dobbs on the story. In her report she explained, “the use of some 19,000 electronic voting machines in the city of Chicago and Cook county primary on March 21st of this year, is now under intense scrutiny. The US company that makes the machine, Sequoia, was bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen.”

    https://charliekirk.com/news/cnn-flashback-lou-dobbs-reported-about-smartmatic-foreign-ties-in-2006/

    • This Lou Dobbs?

      -snip-

      “For the attorney general of the United States to make that statement — he is either a liar or a fool or both,” Dobbs said. Dobbs then went further, suggesting Barr was “perhaps compromised.” He characterized Barr as having “appeared to join in with the radical Dems and the deep-state and the resistance.”

  110. US election was a “manual in the art of voter fraud”:

    • There are hundreds of sworn affidavits. Mainstream: no one saw anything anywhere, ever, and if they did it was nothing. There’s nothing to see.

      • My guess is that there are thousands of people who would sign affidavits that they’ve been abducted by aliens. If not tens of thousands.

        Maybe hundreds of thousands if not millions who believe there’s a vaccine conspiracy involving Bill Gates.

        If you get my drift.

      • What on earth would be the legal case wherein people would risk legal affidavits swearing they were abducted by aliens?

        Why would anyone swear an affidavit that they “believed” there’s a vaccine conspiracy? They would only sign such an affidavit if they had seen or heard something specific that pointed to a conspiracy. You don’t swear an affidavit because you “believe” something.

        Up your game, Joshua, and stop this nonsense. What’s your point? That the sworn evidence of witnesses of election improprieties weren’t actually witnessed? And how in hell would you know that? Just because you “believe” something else?

      • Don –

        My point is that pretty much every time that this “evidence” of which you speak has come before the courts, it has been thrown out with prejudice. The Trump campaign lawyers have a dismal record. Judges have said they have brought cases with no merit.

        And this stuff is being pushed by the same crowd that has done stuff like gone on TV campaigns about the Seth Rich nonsense the “unmasking” nonsense, etc.

        The Trump crowd has a loooooong history of saying they have “evidence” of things, and convincing supporters that their claims were true, when in fact they were promoting total nonsense.

        Remember Trump’s claims that he had evidence regarding Obama’s birthplace? He said that for years. It was the foundation of his political career. These are people who have an explicit political strategy of promoting lies aggressively. They have stated such explicitly for decades. Look up Roy Cohn and “dirty tricks.”

        Why do you just disregard that these people have zero credibility?

        Barr has said that there’s the DOJ has seen no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the election results, and he’s been attacked by this crowd for doing so. He’s obviously sympathetic to Trump’s political fortunes. Yet when even he says that the evidence is making he gets attacked by people who are claiming they are just following the evidence.

        The claims of “We’re just asking questions” don’t stand up to scrutiny.

      • Don –

        Have you contributed money to help with the fight?

      • RE Joshua and the Aliens, Josh is projecting.

        Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

      • Josh, there you go with ad hominems again, forgetting the facts of sworn affidavits which many courts haven’t even heard, much less thrown out. Try to focus on the facts of the case and disregard what you suppose are the characters surrounding the case, because the character of Trump and the people supporting him aren’t at issue, even though in your desperation to defend the half-senile supposed president-elect, you imagine that it is. Can you make that distinction? I somehow doubt it since you continually engage in irrelevant ad hominem arguments.

        As Giuliani said, Barr hasn’t interviewed any witnesses so any dismissal of witness claims is premature.

        We’re talking about witnesses, not what Trump said or what even Giuliani said, and we’re not talking about anything that Trump did in the past or in anything he said that might upset you. Are you going to tell us that there’s a vast conspiracy to lie in sworn affidavits in an attempt to overthrow the election? As if anyone in their right mind would do that, much less hundreds of people who have done that.

        Anyone saying there’s “no evidence” hasn’t been paying attention, as the affidavits themselves are witness evidence of actual facts observed and of statistical analysis (from many different angles by many researchers) of improbable or impossible election tabulations, not of “beliefs” in flying saucers or vast conspiracies or a continued whining about the character of people they disagree with.

      • Everett F Sargent

        “Barr hasn’t interviewed any witnesses”

        But we have dozens of sworn affidavits saying Barr himself has interviewed them. All saying the exact same things independently of each other as follows: Pizza boxes … windows … conspirac-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!

      • Joshua: My guess is that there are thousands of people who would sign affidavits that they’ve been abducted by aliens. If not tens of thousands.

        That’s a good thing to remember in case anyone is ever quoted.

  111. Everett F Sargent

    Trump is said to have discussed pardoning his 3 eldest children, Jared Kushner, and Rudy Giuliani
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-discussed-pardons-for-his-children-giuliani-with-advisors-nyt-2020-12

    So, not much confidence in a 2nd term for this group of grifters.

    • You are a sucker for fake news Everett.

    • There are some interesting aspects to this that I assume would apply even to Trump himself if his self-pardon is upheld or he has Pence pardon him.

      First, accepting a pardon means admitting guilt. So they would be all acknowledging guilt of something.

      Second, if they accept a pardon, then they can be required to testify and cannot take the fifth amendment. That means they could be required to testify against others who do not get pardoned or about crimes that others did not get pardoned for.

      Third, the pardons can’t pardon future crimes. I doubt most of these people can get through 2021 without committing some new crime or maybe even continuing their current crimes.

      Fourth, as most people know, it only works for federal crimes.

      These pardons could be a huge trap, particularly if Trump pardons himself and it gets declared invalid. At that point, the whole family might be required to testify against him.

      • > First, accepting a pardon means admitting guilt. So they would be all acknowledging guilt of something.

        Of course they will deny this. They will say they are merely protecting themselves from hoaxes and the “deep state.”

        And their credulous supporters (including most online climate “skeptics”) will be in lockstep support.

      • Everett F Sargent

        String them up I say. Your Christmas ornaments that is. I’m selling a set of six on ebay: DS, DJ, JC, IT, RG and ET under the title of A Very Trumped Up Christmas.

  112. “Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election,” the spokesperson said. “That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/doj-william-barr-fraud-ballots/2020/12/02/id/999639/

  113. The GOP vice chairwoman of Maricopa County, Arizona said she saw ballots changed from a vote for President Trump to a vote for Joe Biden on election night.

    https://www.oann.com/maricopa-county-gop-chairwoman-testifies-she-saw-votes-for-president-trump-flipped-for-biden/

  114. Look at the drop in case rates in the UK. And France. Watch as the death rates drop in response. Watch what is going on in the US. This is truly tragic.

    -snip-

    “The COVID risk to all Americans is at a historic high,” say the reports dated November 29, which were shared with states and obtained by CNN. They provide figures from previous moments in the pandemic for comparison.
    “The national daily COVID incidence after Memorial Day, but before the summer surge, was fewer than 25,000 new cases/day and is now more than 180,000 new cases/day; COVID inpatients then were fewer than 30,000 but are now more than 90,000; fatalities have more than doubled,” the report says, concluding, “We are in a very dangerous place due to the current, extremely high COVID baseline and limited hospital capacity; a further post-Thanksgiving surge will compromise COVID patient care, as well as medical care overall.”

  115. Nigel Farage spells it out in plain language how “ballot harvesting” on an industrial scale works:

    • Everett F Sargent

      Conjecture much? Absolutely! He didn’t see it happening himself therefore it must have happened. Because they do it all the time in the UK and AU.

  116. 1.A Temporary Restraining Order is immediately in effect to preserve the voting machines in the State of Wisconsin, and to prevent any wiping or alteration of data or other records or materials, until such time as a full computer audit is completed;
    2.Governor Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission are to de-certify the election results;
    3.Governor Evers is hereby enjoined from transmitting the currently certified election results to the Electoral College;
    4.Governor Evers is required to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election;
    5.It is hereby Ordered that no votes received or tabulated by machines that were not certified as required by federal and state law be counted;Case 2:20-cv-01771-PP Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 4 Document 6-17
    6.It is hereby declared and ordered that Wisconsin’s failed system of signature verification violates the Electors and Elections Clause by working a de facto abolition of the signature verification requirement;
    7.It is hereby declared and ordered that the currently certified election results violate the Due Process Clause, U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV;
    8.It is hereby declared and ordered that mail-in and absentee ballot fraud must be remedied with a Full Manual Recount or statistically valid sampling that properly verifies a ballot application for each absentee ballot, that verifies the signatures on absentee ballot envelopes, and that invalidates the certified results in the Presidential and District 3 Congressional races if the recount or sampling analysis shows a sufficient number of ineligible absentee ballots were counted;
    9.It is hereby declared that absentee ballot fraud occurred in violation of Constitutional rights, Election laws and under Wisconsin state law;and
    10.It is hereby declared and ordered that Governor Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission are enjoined from transmitting the currently certified results to the Electoral College based on the overwhelming evidence of election tampering;

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18702085/6/1/feehan-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/

    • Everett F Sargent

      “Text of Proposed Order”

      “It is so Ordered, this ___ day of December, 2020.
      ____________________
      Hon. Pamela Pepper
      District Court Judge
      Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division”

      Undated and unsigned. Defendant have yet to file any motions in that case even. The judge was appointed by Obama. As is, just a trick to get this thrown out on appeal ASAP. The Judge knows as much that is why they are proposing to do so.

    • Nice work, Jim!
      Josh and others: “there’s nothing to see here!”

      Judge Pepper: there’s a lot to see here, therefore it is hereby declared and ordered that Governor Evers and the Wisconsin Election Commission are enjoined from transmitting the currently certified results to the Electoral College based on the overwhelming evidence of election tampering.

      Got that, Josh? “Overwhelming evidence.”

      Joshua’s comeback: “but Trump is a liar and a thief and alien spacecrafts and vaccine conspiracies!” Focus my boy, focus.

      • Everett F Sargent

        “ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
        (DKT. NO. 6)”

        I think an actual Order overrides a so-called Proposed Order. D’oh!

      • These are merely technical difficulties with filing, Everett, that need to be resolved. Nice try.

      • Perfect.

      • Everett F Sargent

        You can read? Then read the order. Defendants have a right to respond to Plaintiffs. D’oh!

      • It is so Ordered, this ___ day of December, 2020.

        Lol.

      • “Defendants have a right to respond to Plaintiffs.”
        Good. Let’s see how this plays out. All anyone is asking is for the facts to be presently openly, despite that there are those who claim there are no facts to see.

        Yes, I can read? Your point?

      • Proposed order. So what? The judge has laid out her thinking on the matter and as this proceeds, that proposed order may become a factual order.

        The important point that the judge used the phrase “overwhelming evidence” of fraud and that she even bothered to write a proposed order.

        You might have noticed the exhibits in the Complaint? Or do you still want to pretend that there’s nothing to see so we don’t want to see anything?

        An Obama appointment? Maybe she’s an honest judge and a decent person who follows the evidence wherever it leads– that occur to you? It does happen, you know.

      • Everett F Sargent

        You are still playing Checkers while others are playing Chess.

      • Lol.

        > The judge has laid out her thinking on the matter…

        >> The important point that *the judge used* the phrase “overwhelming evidence” of fraud and that she even bothered to write a proposed order.

        Remarkable. Just perfect.

    • There are apparently technical difficulties with Freehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission that need to be resolved before this proceeds. See latest signed order. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18702085/feehan-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/

      • Everett F Sargent

        I already did and pointed out as much before you did. No Defendant motions filed. It is actually quite funny. The judge does the old bait and switch routine.

      • Everett F Sargent

        Here is the readout. Defendants will not file any motions on purpose even. At least that is what I would do. The Proposed Order goes forward as shown. Defendants then immediately appeal to the next highest court. That appeal is sustained and not returned to the lower court. Case dismissed.

        An example of how to handle all such cases. Oh and a very good one indeed.

      • Everett F Sargent

        Oh and this continues until SCOTUS. Brilliant move if you were to ask me.

  117. Jim2: http://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18702085/6/1/feehan-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/

    Thanks for the link.

    Text of Proposed Order — Document #6, Attachment #1

    I shall certainly be surprised if that is ordered.

    • That’s why I included the link. Full disclosure and all that. However, certainly the text of the proposed order is pretty severe.

      • Why would you expect anything other than severe language from an order proposed by Trump’s lawyers?

  118. Here is the bottom line, and it is signed and dated today:

    If the plaintiffs believe an expedited briefing schedule is necessary or warranted, they may contact chambers, with representatives of the adverse parties on the line, and request a telephone hearing. Otherwise, the court will await the defendants’ opposition brief.Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 2ndday of December, 202

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18702085/7/feehan-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/

    • Jim,

      you keep on posting this effluent, and it predictably keeps on getting treated with the contempt it deserves by the court.

      Aren’t you embarrassed?

      • VTG –

        Keep in mind, a few weeks ago Jim was posting that CDC was saying that hospitalizations in the US were decreasing dramatically, that he knew better than the CDC how to interpret their own data, and that he knew that the Covid Tracking Project data were wrong.

        As hard as it might be to believe, he thinks he’s posting “evidence” of widespread fraud.

        No, really.

    • VTG, are you and the others arguing that if Trump had stolen the election as described in the exhibits in Freehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, then a statistical analysis such as provided in Attachment 2 would mean nothing, deserve no further investigation, and the Democrats should just go home? Is that what you’re arguing? Because no one has any right to question the election process or challenge former CISA head Krebs or anyone else who insists that the election was the fairest in history? And if CNN had called it for Trump, then by God, Trump won and anyone who disagrees is a whiner? Is that what you’d say if the shoe were on the other foot?

      Or is it so blindingly obvious to you that Trump is unfit that it doesn’t matter that this country is filled with people who think otherwise, and it doesn’t even matter if the election were stolen? Because our founding fathers intended us to subvert the electoral process so long as we were certain we were right? And they intended that no one should ever question the integrity of our elections and demand scrutiny?

      • Don –

        > this country is filled with people who think otherwise,

        This country is filled with people who say they’ve been abducted by aliens. And people who think that Bill Gates is involved in a vaccine conspiracy. And people who think that Hillary Clinton was involved in a pedophile ring run out of a pizza shop.

        Know anyone who believes any of that?

      • It’s blindingly obvious there are major problems with the election integrity and the problems are created by the Dimowits. It’s a long shot, but I could easily die laughing if Trump prevails.

      • Nice, Josh! What we’d expect from you.

        As usual, you miss the point. Slow down, read, think,

      • Don,

        Get over it. It’s childish. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

      • I repeat:
        Are you and the others arguing that if Trump had stolen the election as described in the exhibits in Freehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, then a statistical analysis such as provided in Attachment 2 would mean nothing, deserves no further investigation, and the Democrats should just go home?

        None of the exhibits would mean anything?

        If an election actually HAD been stolen, how would you know it?

        I was listening to NPR and they repeated the exact same narrative I’ve been hearing here: no evidence. That narrative simply isn’t true.

      • Everett F Sargent

        ” … the Democrats should just go home?”

        That is exactly what they did in 2016. Oh wait, HRC conceded that one, otherwise what you are seeing now, would have occurred then, and I would have disagreed then, as now, should such shenanigans occur by anyone ever.

        “None of the allegations would mean anything?”

        Nope, not now, not then, not in the past and not in the future. There is a reason they are called poll challengers, they will see things that no one else does simply because they are biased and it is ingrained into their very being. That is why they both parties represented.

      • Don –

        You have claims of evidence. Many people claim to have evidence of alien abductions.

        As if yet, everything you thought was evidence tuned out to be empty claims of evidence. You thought you had evidence of a judge saying there was overwhelming evidence. How did that work out?

      • Everett F Sargent

        “If an election actually HAD been stolen, how would you know it?”

        Video tapes. Audio recordings. Ballot forgeries. What most people call real-hard-physical evidence. If you want electronic evidence, say going from the local network to outside the local network (being on a network does not necessarily mean connected to the interboobwebnets), with actual electronic voted modified … You need to actually catch someone in the act through some form of electronic means (e. g. phone records). The fingerprints. The DNA.

        All this really means, to you and yours, is disfranchisement of certain blocks of voters going forwards. Same as it ever was. For the Republicans, this is called SOP. :(

      • Actually, what one would expect are (1) people who defected from a massive conspiracy coming forward before the election and (2) people who defected from a massive conspiracy coming forward after the election.

        This is always the problem with conspiracy theories – plausibility. Tens of thousands of people would have to have been involved. Not one decided to whistle lgblow?

        But even further, Sidney has accused thousands of election officials, Republican officials, of being involved in a massive conspiracy to fix the election. Tens of thousands of people totally unconcerned about being caught in a serous crime, to advance the candidacy of a candidate they don’t support? And you think this is evidence?

        How plausible is that? Put on your thinking caps, boyz.

        THINK!

      • “There is a reason they are called poll challengers, they will see things that no one else does simply because they are biased and it is ingrained into their very being. That is why they both parties represented.”

        Holy crap, Everett, are you ever out of it.
        Repeatedly, the affidavits say that Republicans were NOT allowed to observe mail-in ballot openings or duplicate ballet decisions. This is a widespread complaint, in every single state under contention. There are hundreds of these sorts of affidavits, and you can find some of them in the Freehan complaint.

        Not only that, but ballot counting was halted in many, if not all, of the states in contention, and during that time the Republican monitors were kicked out while other people were still working in the ballot rooms– doing what, we don’t know. Numerous affidavits testify to this. Example: the “water main break” in Atlantic that halted the vote count. Only thing is, public utility has stated that there was no water main break.

        This election may have been 100% legit, but we need to see that. We need to have all of the allegations answered, every single one of them. That people in power are keen that no one should look stinks to high heaven.

      • Josh, would you please stop with the alien abductions crap? Focus.

        So far as we know, Judge Pepper said there was overwhelming evidence in (unsigned) Document #6, and it’d be odd indeed if she just said that to somehow entrap or otherwise “play chess” with Plaintiffs– why not just come right out and say that the whole thing is garbage? What purpose does it serve to admit that the plaintiffs have overwhelming evidence?

        Don’t go assuming that all of this is going nowhere just yet.

      • “This is always the problem with conspiracy theories – plausibility. Tens of thousands of people would have to have been involved. Not one decided to whistle blow?”

        You’ve not been paying attention. There are hundreds of whistleblowers as to election fraud, and I have no interest in your fascination with alien abductions or whatever it is you’re blabbering about. It’s absolutely unbelievable that you could make such a statement regarding the elections (or maybe your just confusing things in your usual manner?) Get yourself up to speed, please.

      • Everett F Sargent

        “This election may have been 100% legit, but we need to see that.”

        So, 100% legit would appear to be your lower bound. In other words, better then perfect.

        Like Buzz Lightyear, ‘To infinity…. and Beyond’

        My metrics are just a bit lower …
        GA 99.74%
        AZ 99.69%
        WI 99.37%
        PA 98.81%
        NC 98.63%
        NV 97.55%
        MI 97.17%
        FL 96.61%
        TX 94.34%
        MN 92.72%

      • Jesus, Don –

        THINK!

        -snip-

        On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper, an appointee of Barack Obama, took the attorneys to task, bluntly laying out the litany of basic mistakes made in the complaint.

        After pointing out that the complaint was “not verified,” Pepper went to work on the substantive errors, first noting that plaintiffs’ motion stated that that the requested relief was “laid out in an attached order.”

        “This language was highlighted and in a larger font than the rest of the motion. There was no order attached,” she wrote.

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wisconsin-federal-judge-picks-apart-sidney-powell-and-lin-wood-e2-80-99s-lawsuit-in-e2-80-98brutal-e2-80-99-order/ar-BB1bzp8d

      • “On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper, an appointee of Barack Obama, took the attorneys to task, bluntly laying out the litany of basic mistakes made in the complaint.”

        These are technical errors, not substantial flaw in the complaint, and might be expected from lawyers engaged in a flurry of activity across several states.

    • A good sampling of the Dominion voting machines need to undergo forensic analysis. If everything is on the up and up, this shouldn’t be controversial.

  119. Don –

    > So far as we know, Judge Pepper said there was overwhelming evidence in (unsigned) Document #6, and it’d be odd indeed if she just said that to somehow entrap or otherwise “play chess” with Plaintiffs

    As far as we know, there is a document where it is indicated that the complaint outlined by Trump’s lawyers contains the language of “overwhelming evidence.”

    You have said that Peppers says there is overwhelming evidence of fraud. Look again.

    There is a reason why this isn’t all over Fox News. THINK!

    • “You have said that Peppers says there is overwhelming evidence of fraud. Look again.”

      I’ll wait upon your brilliance to show us where Judge Pepper does not say that which she does say in her proposed order.

      If, that is, you can focus enough to address what I’m actually asking of you. I don’t think bringing up aliens or vaccines will be pertinent.

    • Don –

      > I’ll wait upon your brilliance to show us where Judge Pepper does not say that which she does say in her proposed order.

      That’s perfect. You say she said something. I point out you have no evidence of her having said that. What you were looking at was a document that listed WHAT TRUMP’S LAWYERS SAID. She did not say that there was “overwhelming evidence” of fraud, as you said thst she said multiple times. YOU WERE WRONG.

      My God, man. You make a claim that she said something THAT SHE NEVER SAID. You can’t provide proof that she said it. Now you want me to prove that she didn’t say it, just becsuae you wrongly said thst she said it? Unreal.

      Like I said. Your conspiracy theorizing is based on the inane logic that people can’t prove their wasn’t a conspiracy.

      • It appears that you are correct, Josh, and I’m wrong.

        You might have pointed that our earlier, as it wasn’t obvious. Nice little trap. You’re right, I didn’t read the Description carefully– in fact I missed that part.

      • I give you credit for acknowledging thst you were wrong.

        I did point it out earlier that you were wrong.

        I think you should consider why you were so credulous as to believe a judge would have said there’s “overwhelming evidence” of fraud when every judge has looked at these cases has laughed Trump’s lawyers out of court.

  120. Voter fraud not properly investigated says Luigiani:

  121. I don’t know if this link will work after the Michigan hearing is over, but this hearing has been dynamite!

    • Jim, thanks for that. It’s the first time I’ve heard of Right Side Broadcasting. They sound truthful and sincere. There’s another side to US media which I didn’t know about. Fantastic.

  122. Blue Ridge Weather

    I’m very glad America chose Biden as the next president. Trump said he wanted to slow down the Covid-19 testing and he equated mask-wearing with political correctness. I can’t think of anything more stupid than that. Thank God he will be out of office.

    • I hope you can learn Chinese quickly … or … maybe you already speak Chinese?

      • Excellent point, Jim, and I don’t think people understand what’s at stake. With Covid, well over 99.6% of victims are fine and to whip up hysteria over this is ridiculous. If we keep testing, testing, testing then we keep finding, finding, finding and this is used as justification for lockdowns, lockdowns, lockdowns. If we keep it up we won’t have a country: half of us will be too broke and the other half too scared. Yes, test appropriately, but stop using “cases” as justification for scaring people.

        China: https://www.stealth-war.org/ General Spalding wrote an excellent book, which I’ve read. China is engaging in stealth war with the US, and this includes things like trying to subvert/influence elections and infiltrating our electronic infrastructure (anyone been paying attention to what Trump’s been doing about that?) They most certainly want Joe as president. If you wonder why, here’s why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXlBCL3fq30

        Really, Joe? I wonder if China ever thought of using our media to bend things their way, as part of their policy of unrestricted warfare? Naw– that’s conspiracy theory. Impossible.

      • Don wrote: “With Covid, well over 99.6% of victims are fine and to whip up hysteria over this is ridiculous.”

        The latest US statistic show deaths amounting to 2% of US confirmed cases (273,518./13,900,000, not correcting for lag in deaths). Not 0.4%.
        0.4% implies that only 1 in 5 infection is detected despite your complaints about excessive testing. (BtW, Plentiful rapid testing is essential to practical contact tracing – the best way to avoid lockdowns .)

        In North Dakota 10.2% of the population has tested positive so far. In Burleigh County with the capital of Bismark, that number is 12.7%. If only 1 in 5 cases were detected with today’s testing regime, ND would be very near the traditional HIT, and transmission would have slowed because so many contact are now immune. However, new cases are being detected in 0.1% of the population per day, down only modestly from the 0.13%/day about 10 days ago. Clearly we aren’t missing as many infections as advocates of herd immunity think we are.

        The death rate in ND is 1.2%. Some of those with infection detected in the past few weeks will die, so the real case fatality rate is higher. The idea that COVID is no more deadly that influenza is now totally bogus. About as many Americans have died of COVID each month as die of influenza in an average year, and almost all influenza deaths occur in the winter months. We are about to experience the really deadly months of pandemic caused by a respiratory virus. (It’s my guess that dry air makes aerosol transmission more efficient. Exhaled aerosol droplets evaporate to equilibrium in less than one second.)

        Hospitals in ND reportedly reached 100% capacity on November 10, so the current infection rate of about 0.1%/day (100/100,000/day) is likely higher than society is willing to tolerate. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CHARACTERIZE OVERFLOWING HOSPITALS AS “HYSTERIA”? The locations on maps persistently with 100/100,000 cases/day or more are locations were hospital capacity is problematic.

        Fear and public health measures will likely reduce infections before ND reaches herd immunity, but we won’t know until a good seropositivity survey is done. IMO, the price to be paid for attempting to reach herd immunity quickly will be sending thousands of Americans home to die. With a vaccine within reach, this seems like insanity.

      • I can only imagine what it must be like for healthcare workers, working in over-stretched medical institutions, sacrificing for the sake of others as considerable risk to themselves, to see people who insist on downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic. Or people among the groups hardest hit seeing people from a position of privilege downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic.

      • The IFR is in dispute. Ionannidis, for example, using multiple sources, has put it around 0.2%. Not saying we shouldn’t take care, but many people feel the constraints to contain such a virus have been excessive, and we might want to think of an approach, such as the Great Barrington Declaration, that allows more freedom of commerce. Those who want to stay safe, stay home, can. Not everyone will be happy, but not everyone is happy now, and many would prefer to live in Florida, say, rather than New York state. I was down in Florida last month and was told that it’s busier than usual for this time of year: people are escaping some of the more restrictive states up north, and they seem not to be phased that masks aren’t required (although many hotels, etc., require them) and that people act relatively normally. I don’t believe in Big Doctor; others do. I get it.

      • “The IFR is in dispute. Ionannidis, for example, using multiple sources, has put it around 0.2%. Not saying we shouldn’t take care, but many people feel the constraints to contain such a virus have been excessive, and we might want to think of an approach, such as the Great Barrington Declaration, that allows more freedom of commerce. Those who want to stay safe, stay home, can. ”

        What is not in dispute is the CFR, which is around 1%. Also not in dispute is that the excess deaths this year – due to COVID19 – is very high – COVID19 deaths per month are around influenza deaths per year. And, if the health care systems get overloaded – and they are close, that CFR will go up by about a factor of 5X or more. That has happened in a number of places.

        Also, Ionannidis has made claims before that turned out to be based on bad data and poor experimental design, so he isn’t a real good source to look to for a balanced opinion on the IFR, in my opinion.

        You are right that there is a balance between lives saved and disruption – after all, we could cut highways deaths a lot if everyone drove under 25, but we don’t do that.

        But the GBD is poppycock, and it is out of date. It is based on the demonstrably fallacious notion that we can somehow let the virus run at relatively high rates, while still not crushing our healthcare system. But the virus has a relatively high R0, which means that any situation with viral prevalence is unstable – it tends to blow up quickly.

        Also, the GBD imagines that the way out of this is herd immunity acquired through infection. With well over 200,000 deaths in the US, and an immunity level – at the very most optimistic – of under 30%, the cost to do this is enormous. And, with a vaccine here, it is really nuts to want to use infection acquired immunity – genuinely crazy.

        GBD imagines that those at risk can be identified and protected. And yet, a friend’s father died last week from a recent nursing home acquire infections. That is common, not atypical. And, those at most risk are the ones who most will need medical care, which involves significant risk of infections.

        Finally, the GBD imagines that the economy will do well when the large number of vulnerable people and those who wish to protect vulnerables they live with will, in fact, avoid participating in important parts of the economy as long as the virus is going.

      • Mesocyclone, there’s a great deal of debate on the IFR of Covid. I find it odd that Ioannidis was once probably one of the most respected and quoted scientists in the world for his finding that most medical research is flawed, yet now, since he disagrees with the consensus, he’s dismissed.

        The GBD argues for focused protection since we know that the elderly and the frail are at highest risk from dying from Covid, yet children are hardly ever harmed. Many physicians have signed on to this so it isn’t exactly a crackpot idea even if some make it out to be one.

        That someone died in a nursing home proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the GBD, as it’s well-known that nursing home residents are highly vulnerable no matter what policy we use, and we all understand that nursing home residents require the greatest care.

        There’s a lot of debate over this. We aren’t going to solve it here. Some say Covid-19 trumps nearly all other concerns; others say the as bad as Covid-19 is, we can’t all shut ourselves in because the plain fact is we have no idea if a vaccine will really be effective or safe for an entire population, and we really do have to get on with life. And we have to think: what happens when Covid-20 or 21 comes along, or a severe flu? Some of us argue that life has to go on, and that’s a value judgement– there’s no hard science behind the harms (on many levels) of lockdowns/restrictions versus the harms of this or that disease, and never before have we quarantined the well instead of the sick. Then there’s the matter of questioning the legitimacy (and dangers) of heavy-handed medical dictates, which supplant informed consent to medical treatment. Then there are questions of authoritarianism in general, and whether or not Big Doctor is being used to usher in Big Brother (and The Great Reset.) These aren’t trivial concerns even if some brush them off: a lot of people ARE concerned, and in my view, they should be just as a matter of principle: freedom requires vigilance.

        In any case, I note that the head post here concerns a Biden presidency. Let’s agree to disagree, for now at least.

      • It’s very disappointing to see Ioannidis’ poor quality advocacy related to COVID. The videos he’s appeared in during his media blitz have contained many fellacious arguments. His work COVID IFR started with extrapolating from unrepresentative sampling in the Santa Clara study – a methodology so obviously bad even I could see it.

        Here’s a good critique of his published work on IFR – which BTW comes up with a result that’s about 1/3 the most recent estimate (that I’ve seen) from the CDC. I challenge anyone here that think Ioannidis’ estimate is credible to refute anything in this analysis:

      • > , but many people feel the constraints to contain such a virus have been excessive,

        Polling suggests that majorities think the interventions haven’t been extensive enough.

        I know that some people are used to having disproportionate power in determining public policies, but at some point it would be good were they to rethink their sense of entitlent – especially in situations where they’re whining about minor inconveniences such as wearing masks. I’m actually surprised that so many people are reacting so negatively to being asked to consider their fellow citizens and modify their behavior accordingly. It’s truly tragic that the whole situation has become so widely polarized and politicized.

    • Don and Joshua: CFR is a quantity we observe directly, but IFR is a quantity we calculate on the basis of seropositivity SURVEYS. Most surveys try and get a representative sample of the population as a whole, but those most likely to die are poorer and not representative of the population as a whole. And in the early stages of a pandemic the false negative rate actually experienced in the field has a huge impact on the IFR. If you check out Table 2 in the CDC website based on data through Aug 8, 2020, you’ll see that the CDC thinks from seropositivity studies in the US that there are about 11 (6-24) infections for every reported case.

      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

      Data from the recent surge in North Dakota shows that the CDC values are IMPOSSIBLE and obsolete. In ND, there have been 81,111 detected infections, 10,644/100,00. To put it more simply, 10.6% of the population has tested positive, almost all beginning in September. It is completely impossible that we are missing 10 or even 5 infections for every one we detect today in the Dakotas. If we were missing this many, we would have crossed the HIT and the pandemic would be over in ND. In Burleigh County with the capital of Bismark, 12.6% have tested positive. In South Dakota, 8.4%. In Minnehaha County (Sioux Falls, SD, pop 200,000), 11%. When the experts get around to digesting the implications of this new data, they will be forced to recognize that the CFR rate of more than 1.2% (as measured with TODAY’S testing regime) is not 11X or even 6X bigger than the IFR. I’ve been watching the astronomical rise in cases in the Dakota’s every few days because it is beginning to place serious constraints on HIT. I’m not a genius, so you should be reading about this any day.

      In his July review, Ioannidis found IFRs ranging from 0 to 1.3%, with an average of about 0.25%; 0.10% in countries with low mortality and 0.90% with high mortality (like the US?). In other words, the early data was all over the map and Ioannidis really didn’t have a good answer.

      Click to access 2020.05.13.20101253v3.full.pdf

      When a good seropositivity study is done in the Dakotas after this surge dies out, we will have a much better idea of what the IFR really is. IMO, the pandemic wouldn’t still be raging if 30% of the people in the Dakotas had already been infected. With a significant number of asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases who are unlikely to be tested, I suspect that at least 20% of the population has been infected. With a CFR of 1.2% (without correcting for the lag in deaths), that gives an IFR of about 0.5-0.7.

      In the spring, when many US seropositivity surveys were run, testing was more limited and the relationship the CFR/IFR would have been different.

      Given that about as many Americans are dying in the average month of this pandemic as die in the average year from influenza, I’ve personally always thought the idea that influenza and COVID are equally deadly seemed ridiculous. However, it is hard to compare influenza cases deaths (which occur mostly in winter) with our (non-winter) experience with COVID. I think the only sensible measures a pandemic is total deaths per million (or perhaps years of life lost to premature death). All IFR does is create confusion because seropositivity data has lots of problems, especially early in a pandemic.

  123. Georgia election fraud hearing today:

  124. LAS VEGAS — Attorneys for President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign and representatives of Nevada’ six Electoral College delegates for President-elect Joe Biden inspected voting materials Tuesday at the main Clark County elections office in suburban Las Vegas.

    The visit to the ballot-counting center in North Las Vegas came ahead of a hearing scheduled Thursday before state Judge James Russell in Carson City in a contest-of-election case filed by the Trump campaign.

    Jesse Binnall, a lawyer heading the Trump challenge of the Nevada election, has said he intends to prove that fraudulent votes were cast and that Trump won the state, not Biden. Binnall did not immediately respond Tuesday to messages about the election office inspection.

    https://mohavedailynews.com/news/48025/nevada-judge-to-hear-trump-team-evidence-of-voter-fraud-dec-3rd/

  125. President Donald Trump’s campaign is mounting a fresh legal bid to prevent the certification of votes in Nevada. A new lawsuit names the state’s Democratic presidential electors as defendants.

    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-sues-homeless-nevada-presidential-elector-challenge-results-1548307

  126. Biden won Arizona by 0.3% of the votes. An audit of 100 “duplicate” ballots revealed a 2% error rate against Trump.

    Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward said Wednesday that 2% of the duplicate ballot sample her team was allowed to examine were changed to hurt President Donald Trump. One of the ballots, Ward said, was changed from a vote for Trump to Democrat Joe Biden; another was inexplicably “taken away” from Trump.

    Judge Randall Warner recently ruled that signatures from 100 ballot envelops and 100 duplicated or reconstructed ballots could be inspected for the sake of transparency, 12 News NBC reported Monday.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/arizona-gop-chair-judge-allowed-us-to-look-at-100-duplicate-ballots-2-were-changed-to-hurt-trump

  127. Security footage revealed that after the room was cleared at 10:30 PM because of a “water main break” 4-6 individuals stayed behind to scan ballots stowed under a table for 2 additional hours. No news media nor Republican observers were there during this additional scanning.

  128. Rudy is testifying in GA now!

  129. “AN independent human rights organisation in the US has produced a whistleblower who has claimed to have seen up to 288,000 votes shipped between state lines, amid continuing accusations of massive voter fraud by the Democrats in the Presidential election.

    The Amistad Project of the Thomas Moore Society is one of the organisations putting forward a raft of legal challenges to the result of the US election that would put Joe Biden in the White House. The organisation, which is not affiliated to any party or part of the Trump campaign, yesterday held a national press conference in Arlington, Virginia near Washington DC, where it produced a number of its whistleblowers who will be giving evidence in legal challenges in the US courts.”

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1367222/Joe-Biden-news-election-2020-latest-Donald-Trump-democrats-fraud-claim/amp

  130. A USB drive took down Iranian uranium centrifuges. Dominion machines heavily utilize removable USB drives.

    Stuxnet has three modules: a worm that executes all routines related to the main payload of the attack; a link file that automatically executes the propagated copies of the worm; and a rootkit component responsible for hiding all malicious files and processes, to prevent detection of Stuxnet.[10] It is typically introduced to the target environment via an infected USB flash drive, thus crossing any air gap.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

  131. Nevada lawsuit: 40,000 people voted twice

  132. I haven’t looked at the data for a couple of months. I see 5 states have had more tests than population. A couple of others are getting close. Interesting.

  133. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/bill-barr-got-voter-fraud-ag-barr-video-attempted-steal-georgia-arrests/

    I’ve gone through most of the Michigan hearing. There’s no solid proof of massive election fraud but what there is, is ample evidence of irregularities that should be investigated further. And as the video footage above shows: what’s going on? Very interesting. This footage corroborates what witnesses, with sworn affidavits, have spoken of in the Michigan hearing (yes, the footage is from Georgia, not Michigan.) In all, witness testimony spoke of ballot challenges being ignored wholesale, ballot dates being altered, duplicate ballots not being controlled, signatures not being verified, and Republican monitors being kicked out, etc.

    Colonel Phil Waldron, a former information warfare officer, has laid out interesting details about Dominion election machines (one of which is that they’re highly susceptible to manipulation through a variety of means, and one major vulnerability is that they contain USB drives, which, according to Waldron, have no business being on secure machines.) In addition, Waldron stated that the data surges that came in at times in Michigan couldn’t have been caused by actual vote machine tallies because the machines, in aggregate, aren’t capable of processing votes that quickly. The actual time of the votes is known through time stamps, so even if the results are uploaded (connected to the internet?) at various (and irregular) times, the acting vote time is recorded. Dominion refused to come to the Michigan hearing. One thing seems clear: a thorough vetting of the security of voting machines is in order.

    Since so many Americans doubt this election, it’d be appropriate to seize security footage (such as the one above) and Dominion machines, etc, for forensic analysis. I don’t see any other way to reassure Americans that this was a fair election, or alternatively, to prove that it wasn’t. Forensic analysis is relatively quick and cheap. The longer we delay, though, the less chance that evidence is preserved. Maybe that’s the plan.

    What’s going on in that video I linked to? A lot of people are going to be asking questions like this and my guess is that we’ll be seeing more such videos. It could all be innocent, and if so, we need to hear the explanation, in sworn affidavits such as the witnesses in Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia (more to come?) have already provided to Trump’s lawyers, even if the hearings themselves didn’t require oaths.