posted ago by Highspergamy +7 / -0

We had a rock solid case of sedition against the Trump administration, unabashed collusion with the guilty edifice and the media, clearest perversion and miscarriage of justice through unequal application I can imagine. Bad bled into worse with Tech tyranny and culminating in big tech and the full array of media being in nearly 100% lockstep together to suppress clearly damaging and real legal entanglements from a nakedly exposed political grafting operation. Then unconstitutional last minute manipulation of voting procedures. Failure to comply with laws requiring observation...on and on.

At what point is voter fraud and dominion software, as concerning as they certainly are, a red herring drawing our attention and hope down stream past the slough of obvious misconduct and into the realm of our hope being a Hail Mary touchdown catch on a play where we don't know routes or exactly what will be thrown by whom?

Comments (4)
sorted by:
2
trevortheshone 2 points ago +2 / -0

At what point is voter fraud and dominion software, as concerning as they certainly are, a red herring...

Really. Multiple methods of widespread and coordinated voter fraud are a "Red Herring" for you?

Even if every biden voter stayed home and did not mail in a ballot, biden would have still been counted the winner, and you're worried about Tucker?

America does not have fair elections anymore. There is now, no way to "overwhelm the fraud" because Dominion chooses, regardless of what the vote is.

Think about that.

We went from free and fair elections, to vote in such great numbers that we can outnumber the fraud, to where we are now which is, Dominion picks our Senate, Congress and President.

And this is a red herring for you?

At what point did Tucker almost convince Dominion to not cheat for Biden?

How many senators and congressmen said you know, Tucker's right, we ought to put a stop to this?

I do remember distinctly that time when Tucker refused to talk about biden's consigliere or bag man or son, you know, Hunter Biden.

Tucker refused to speak about the degenerate and despicable behavior of Hunter because "Hunter isn't the candidate".

Bullshit. He's the candidates progeny and partner and Hunter plays an important role in the candidates "business". But Tucker says that's off limits because Hunter was a nice guy who is in a down period.

I like fly fishing too, but Fuck Tucker.

1
Highspergamy [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok, you make really good points. You remind me it was revealed quite clearly that Tucker isn't really the wildcard with fuck you money thst many of us had imagined.

Yes, you are right. We were going to meet full spectrum resistance. My thought though was to succeed we only needed to breakthrough downfield in one place, and yet our energy was Very scattered.

I was firmly and emotionally in Sidney Powell's camp in the immediate aftermath of the tiff. But then the "Kraken" stuff turned murky af almost immediately with a bunch of waffling and revision of what meaning was intended. There were yuge claims made that intentionally drew a massive amount of attention and energy in a battle of incalculable significance. Then both Powell and Wood who I had assumptions about that granted them enormous amounts of respect as consummate professionals, started mixing Q stuff into the stew, which regardless of your take on it is going to be extremely polarizing within your own camp, and galvanizing into deliriously giddy mockery on the other side. If you are one of us regular folks out of the loop, have fun and take hope as you desire in Q riddles, but if you are supposed to be top tier professional legal experts with access to earth shattering information and intelligence, as well as be insiders to the administration in control of the executive branch...then W.T.F? They were coming off like they just got exposed to 2 year old Q and were mainlining that shit thinking they were on the inside track and speaking with God directly. Then it all played out with a lot of bark, no teeth, no bite. They delivered absolutely ZERO.

In the final weeks Trump made big promises 

That constantly slid into further distant promised Reveals. Trump talked tough. He talked hard game. It seemed like he set us up and kicked us under, saying a bunch of his true blue supporters (our friends and family) that were entrapped into an unauthorized tour by a nearly unguarded building, deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law(as terrorists?).... But also the best is yet to come before pardoning a bunch of crooks and people that hate and slander us and then turning the country over to full spectrum dominance of the worst anti-American people...so bad they defy fictional exaggeration. What the hell was that???

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Highspergamy [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's seems true to me though. I am opposed to electronic voting systems from principle for this reason. Dominion is protected by both the sensitive nature of the domain in which they operate, and the prerequisit expertise required to be able to even begin to credibly challenge their defensive assertions. If the goal is to sow doubt in the public conscience, then poking at the secrecy wall and the inherent uncertainty of these systems to the layperson would be a guaranteed, but probably a somewhat low yield endeavor because people tend to defer to authoritatively projecting figures in the face of overwhelming complexity. This route is the one that would be pursued by anyone determined to cast doubt on an electoral outcome. Hence The Democrats having a history of registering complaints of uncertainty and doubt at the "magical" operations of the machine. Because of this known and ever present dynamic, it majorly diminishes the overall impact of this line of contestation because it is a given, even if you are attempting to distinguish your claims beyond those that have preceded. The message it triggers in the human mind is that this would only be your primary pursuit in case of severe lack of compelling evidence in the realm of tangible voter fraud and irregularity.

To make a solid case you would

need unlimited access to these machines, and whatever you contest as to their capabilities and vulnerabilities will be subject to rebuttal from engineers that will have the home field advantage and presumption of exhaustive knowledge. It would devolve into a he said she said, and the tech challenged judge would almost certainly be lost and overwhelmed from the get go. They would be extremely hesitant to rock the certified and approved boat on the basis of a bunch of argumentation that will likely sound like Charlie Brown adult speak to them.