Infidel Dog

The courts do not disagree. They have yet to look at the evidence.

OK, so you don't like this Navarro guy because he said something bad about one of your heroes. Good for you. Now show us why we must ignore the six irregularities in the election he outlines in his graph below: Looks correct to me.

Oh wait Argus...I think I see what you're saying. It's on this specifically, I assume. My mistake. I meant to say "Didn't." The question was meant to appear rhetorical. I'm curious, why you don't think I'm from your country though? Aren't you Canadian? I assumed you were.

What are you talking about?

The claim is the average family benefited 5-6 thousand dollars from those tax cuts. Did businesses (even small ones) also benefit? I would hope so. That's how a conservative economy is supposed to work.

Define Corporate America. Would the corporations of silicone valley be Corporate America? How about the Corporate Media? Or what we can see as the corporate woke celebrating wokeness in their commericials or supporting cancel culture or the corporations benefiting from lockdowns at the cost of small businesses. Are those the corporates you're talking about? If you're talking about the "co opting" by those corporates you must be talking about the Democratic Party.

Yes. As was John McCain's masquerade and as is Mitt Romney's. It goes back to the tea party, I think. It's the conflict of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Before the tea party one can see the Republican Party as having 3 arms. The quiet majority of populist conservatives, Libertarians and the corporate elite with its passengers. The people are 'rights of the individual' types. That's the traditional or conservative belief. Conservatives and Libertarians aren't on board with each other on everything but they are on that. But in the early Obama days it starts to become clear to the hoi poloi that the guys on top are going in a different direction and the term "RINO" surfaces on the quiet majority's tongue. It's equality versus equity. The people still believe in individuals with equal opportunity to pursue happiness, but it's starting to become evident to them that many of their leaders are joining the other side in thinking, "NO. We've got a better idea. We'll decide who's equal and we'll develop programs to decide for you what you need and how you'll be allowed to get what we'll allow you to have. Oh...and we'll need more taxes to do it." The corporates and their toadies begin to leave the Republican party by posturing this attitude - if they were ever in it. They chose to have the populace below governed (by them)for what they called equality. That was outcome over opportunity. Some stayed. You start to see it with Bush, then Obama clarifies the lines and those who won't ignore the obvious start to notice who's really on the side of the American idea by noticing who or what no longer seems on board with it. On the other hand, those who chose to stick with, or conserve, the idea of equality of opportunity, those remained the Republicans, in the ideal of Lincoln and the original Republicans. Those who didn't became known as "RINOs" or Republicans In Name Only.

Jennifer Horn is the co-founder of the Lincoln Project. Why would anybody be surprised she wants to admit she's a Democrat now. Her masquerade time as a Republican is over and she knows it. She couldn't get elected as a librarian in a Republican town now. The other big wig of the Lincoln Project admits he's Democrat now too. I forgot his name. Neither of them are that memorable.

I have my own private conspiracy theory where I can't help noticing how well this all worked out for the Chinese. They've always been fans of population control and they got to thin out the ranks of the unproductive. Elderly and such. Also, perhaps it's more than a coincidence that their boy - "The Big Guy" - now looks to be in the batter's box to become President. Trump was a frustration to them and looked to be wanting to take that to another level. If you've been watching Tucker you know the Chi-Comms love themselves some Biden.

Now it's true the Canadian travel restrictions weren't a total ban but neither were America's https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffwhitmore/2020/10/19/when-did-president-trump-ban-travel-from-china-and-can-you-travel-to-china-now/?sh=500e32f67484 As to the effect of that, you guys trust the left's "fact-checkers" Snopes, don't you?

Math and Arithmetic may not be fake news, but you know what is? This idea you have that there were no travel restrictions in Canada. Where on earth did you hear that? https://www.forbes.com/sites/cassidyrandall/2020/10/25/who-can-enter-canada-border-restrictions-explained/?sh=721a6ad7cd9c With Chi Com flu policy it was almost like Justin waited to see what Trump was going to do then a couple of weeks later he did it too.

I could argue that with you, but why would I? That wasn't my point you were pretending to reply to with your customary snot.

That's the election Canucklehead thought McConnell could lose??? Leader of the Federal Senate, McConnell. Think about it.

You're screaming in all caps like an old man who just discovered the internet, Beave. My digital ears hurt. So as I understand it you were screaming about covid spreading to many other countries outside of China and most cases coming from Europe at sometime. But in response to what? To this? January 31, 2020 President Trump bans foreign nationals from entering the US if they had been in China within the prior two weeks. I believe my point above was even January 31 was too late, even though it was earlier than travel bans in other western countries and restrictions on travel from Europe followed March 11. I also told you above that some Asian countries that had previous experience with SARS had better luck with travel restrictions on China. They were a couple weeks earlier and apparently that's all it took to get a head start on fighting the disease. So whatever you've been standing on your soap box screaming at the sky about over in Beave World, old man, I'm not sure why it matters. It doesn't seem relevant to my point.

What election?

No. You're incorrect. A common complaint was the laws had been changed and some said unconstitutionally, supposedly to accommodate for covid restrictions. Here's the best known example: https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/20/supreme-court-declines-to-interfere-in-changes-to-pennsylvania-election-law-rules-for-now-n262876 Senator Rand Paul doesn't believe the courts have looked at the facts yet. He also says state election laws were changed in legally questionable ways for this election. Do you have a better argument against that than Rand Paul is a big, fat, poopie head?:

Should a case ever get into a court where they're prepared to view the evidence it's going to get interesting. In particular I want to see what's going to happen with this new evidence on voting machines now that the anti-fraud lawyers are getting a chance to physically look at the machines.

Show me. I remember when the first patch dropped, before anybody had a chance to put anything together Obama judges were saying something about a lack of evidence but those cases never actually went to trial to actually judge what evidence there was. Lately the reasons for not wanting to get into an evidentiary hearing have all been procedural. Even the Texas Supreme Court case was procedural. Apparently Constitutionalists like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret think the Constitution says one state can't sue another for breaking its voting laws. I personally think if one state is cheating and the other isn't, then the honest one has a personal interest in suing the cheater because he's cheating the honest voters of his state out of their votes. But I'm not on America's Supreme Court. Nevertheless do you see the difference between a procedural decision and one based on evidence?

See the difference in the way me and mine can counter attack your launches of slime n slur though. We can give it back to you but we can also show you the evidence if you ever actually want to see it. What you got? You can puff out your chest and brag that you, yours or those under control of the system won't consider it. That's about it.

Slime n slur Bud. That's all you got. Oh that and the fact that frauds or cowards running the system are able to to avoid dealing with the evidence of fraud in court cases by keeping them away on procedural grounds. Good for the frauds and the cowards. They run the show. For now...

Who is "they?" Investigation into what. Have "they" (go head and ask me who "they" is) allowed you to know enough about what's on that laptop yet to know who "the Big Guy" is? Hint: It's Joe Biden and the laptop says he was getting kickbacks through Hunter from China.

Oh and BTW, Barr was working to protect Hunter Biden. You'd have to be working overtime to remain ignorant of that one. Even the mainstream has it. Oh well...do what you do, I guess.

See that's the problem with choosing ignorance. It took you 30 seconds to figure out you didn't understand but it's going to take you a lifetime to understand there's more to learn. Very well, I can at least help you to understand the first 30 seconds of that particular video. This guy at the beginning... is something called an NPC meme. NPC stands for Non Player Character: In the intro he's introducing you to the irony of a belief in NPC types that they are the rebels, while he speaks of his uniformity as a follower. He tells you who he follows in his robot voice. You really have to stick around to the end to fully get it though. 30 seconds won't help you with your ignorance of the corporate allies to the hard left. Well, they were allies. Now that the corporates have their guy and gal in charge you're seeing the hard left realizing they've been betrayed. Hell, we could have told them that was going to happen if they weren't so determined to remain ignorant.

Tell ya what, Mike. Here's another one for folks like you and Beave to ignore in your quest for greater ignorance. It tells you who (or what) is really in charge of what's going on. You hear the word "Corporate" and are trained to believe they could never have any influence left of Trump. It's written into your programming now that you must divert and ignore from any knowledge to the contrary. However...if you were ever brave enough to click the video below Black Pigeon Speaks would explain to you how wrong you are:

Knowledge of the spread coming out of Wuhan came too late to America. By late January when Trump started restricting travel it was too late. It was earlier than other Western countries but still too late. Places like Taiwan first instated travel bans a little earlier (Taiwan started Jan. 20) and much more forcefully than Trump, but they had the advantage of having the previous experience with Sars and had coronavirus plans in place. https://time.com/5802293/coronavirus-covid19-singapore-hong-kong-taiwan/