Infidel Dog

Apparently fighting election fraud is whining but it's not whining to whine about anybody brave enough to fight it. How "progressive." And I imagine it's not whining to whine about vetoing a bill but it would be whining if Trump told you why he did it:

And there are, of course, reasons for Trump vetoing Porkulus bills which were supposed to be about helping America and Americans through the troubled times caused by the Chi-Comm flu.

That's the Progressive Socialist POV. Here's Trumps:

Haven't a clue what you're talking about, but if you think you'd be better off during the little ice age ; 14-1700s it's you who need one. A clue, I mean.

It's pretty much just noticing the obvious to see human civilizations do better in warm periods than they do in cold ones.

Not sure what the smear job above has to do with lawsuits, but it's not difficult to concede there those that don't like Trump...a lot.

Thought I'd show you this, just because it's doubtful your Prog-comm/Chi-comm media will:

It is interesting to think how media might change if the Corporate Left does get away with their coup and the puppet team of Biden/Harris does take over. I suspect push-back from the right that will manifest in the media. Social and other. I expect Trump to either just leave Twitter or get kicked off, then go to Parler. I hope there's something to this rumor about Trump creating another Facebook. Woke media like Netflix can be a problem but I'm starting to see a pushback where people just don't want stuff like 'Cuties' anymore, so they just leave. Hopefully that grows. "Get woke, go broke' seems to be hitting sports like NFL Football and Basketball now. Hopefully it will happen enough to smarten them up. I disagree with you on the idea of the Fox shift, but I don't think it matters if Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting and OAN take over. A lot is going to depend on whether the Corporate left and their Progressive Socialist thug arm are able to fix the Senate runoffs in Georgia the way they did the Presidential. If they succeed forget everything I just said. There is no hope. There will be an Oligarchy that will tolerate no resistance. It's just a matter of what it will look like.

I think it's more Fox 'is shifting' than 'has shifted.' But yeah, when Caputo feels he can get away with cutting off Kayleigh McEnany because he doesn't like what she's saying, they call Arizona early (it seems to influence future voting,) they hire Donna Brazile, and Chris Wallace doesn't think twice about becoming the 2 in a 2 on 1 debate against Trump...stuff like that, then yeah, people are going to start to notice something is up. It is good though, that who's ever behind the shift at Fox still has enough self-interest to keep Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham on. Hopefully when it gets so bad they dump those 3 and recast the Five with 4 progs and a token right-winger, NewsMax will take all the discarded from the right on. Then there will be a new Fox, hopefully even better than the old one.

Tucker tells the story behind the Di Dongsheng video:

Trump won. It was a record win. The steal was a coup by fraud. Whether the fix turns out to just be an attempt or it's a success Trump still won to anybody who chooses not to ignore the obvious. It's looking like Trump is running out of options though. You Biden supporters may very well be enjoying the ol' Chinese curse of "May you live in interesting times" for the next four years of Biden or Harris. I'd be careful about being too happy about that though, if I were you.

Di Dongsheng vice dean of the School of International Relations at the Remnin University of China and Vice Director and Secretary of the center for Strategic studies of China disagrees with this idea China would prefer Trump over Biden. He and his audience are quite pleased about the return of their boy Biden, AKA "The Big Guy." Di Dong and the Chinese in the audience didn't seem to enjoy four years of the Donald. Di Dong will tell you why:

I picked this one up at a right wing archive site that labeled it "120 seconds of truth."

And this little bit from that article will be interesting to people who noticed Fox News was being hijacked by the left: The far left Salon gives us something to think about on that: Rupert Murdoch’s son and daughter-in-law drop more than $2 million to help elect Biden and Democrats

American Thinker (yes, little proggies, we know you hate it) has some more on how the rich and corporate of the new left funnel money through 501C's to manage elections. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/the_leftist_nonprofit_machine.html

And there's another one following in that vein of hypocrisy by choosing to ignore that doesn't get any attention. Rich leftist donors found ways of getting around election laws. Zuckerberg was the most blatant example because he found a way of using a "charity" to finance how the election took place and thus hire agents to manage the process. But the mainstream media doesn't think you need to know about that. Dinesh D'Zouza explains:

There was a case in Coffee county Georgia where the county refused to send in the vote count because they found defects in the machines that allowed cheating. There's a video of one of the vote counters showing one way it can be done. So there may be a broad method of cheating with machines but individual county officials of a republican county might suspect something fishy is going on, and double-check. You forgot to give the following paragraph, CH.

I have some spare time today so I looked up "Gosar." Is it the 3% thing you're concerned witht? Yeah I'll give you that one. It was an error rate in a sample amount of ballots, right? That one never seemed to mean much. Ten or so ballots with errors extrapolated into hundred of thousands or something like that, right?

Who's Gosar? The case I was looking through was Bowyer v Ducey. I'm still skimming it. The impression I'm getting is nobody wants to deal with these cases in the lower courts. They're a hot potato. It's like they're desperate to find any procedural reason to get the case out of their court and pass it up the line. I'm thinking the defense has to expect that. I'm thinking that's what these case have really been about. Getting passed up the line. I hear Powell has one docketed in the Supreme Court now. Let's see what happens there.

From what I've heard if there was a case where evidence was actually considered it would be in the ones Sydney Powell was involved with. So I clicked through your list to find one then followed the case to the final resolution. Just skimming, of course but when I skimmed the decision most of the decision seemed to be on procedural grounds like standing. There was some judgement on evidence but it seemed to be going off on legalities of what could be considered. Some evidence they don't like or consider to mean much but to me it looks like a lot of waffling. A lot of trying to find a way not to take it seriously. I imagine Bidenites will see it differently. Go ahead then. Have a look: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1255923/gov.uscourts.azd.1255923.84.0_2.pdf Apparently the case is being appealed.

I have seen judges make general claims about what they believe the evidence might be if they ever seriously considered it but I've yet to see where they tell us specifically what reason or counter evidence brought them to that conclusion. I have heard the other side say stuff that translates into "Nothing to see here." Too bad you can't have a jury trial on this. I'd love to see one.

And I'm sure the easily impressed are impressed by the number. But show me the case where evidence was considered in open court. Because I can't find it. Isn't it interesting there are no links in your article. You guys like to bad mouth the media of the right but when I'm reading something on say Red State or Townhall claims are usually cited.

No they don't. Cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, whether some Obama judge pretended he'd considered evidence or not. If that happened (and I'd like to see a cite if you're saying it did) it was just big talk for the rubes. There hasn't been a court case yet where evidence is put on trial.

Are you sure about that? Ask the kid contributing to Huff Po you're quoting who paid for the rally Trump made down to Georgia. I watched it? Loeffler and Perdue were on stage with the Donald.

I don't know and neither do you. Neither does Argus. We've yet to see an evidentiary hearing before a court. I do know what Narvarro is talking about with his six irregularities. I'd have no problem debating them with that kid on Forbes who has the same name as Joe Walsh the well known conservative. But seeing as you guys have set the bar for this debate at personal smears let's talk about young Joe Walsh. He graduated college last year so a belated congratulations kid. This isn't his first experience arguing against the obvious using the ol' "nothing to see here."He know doubt learned that from his social warrior, prog profs. He also told us there was nothing to see here on the Hunter Biden laptop story. His arguments were just as good there. As we know now, they were proven to be wrong. Read about it here: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3911627/posts I like the comments: