caroljane

Miller's Us First group will mostly certainly slow something down, namely the courts. With nearly unlimited funds available, they will be able to keep litigating forever. I think of the flood of donations as Jingoism Jingle. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't It? No doubt the left has similar groups More evil ones. Speaking of money, I looked up Parler (gag) and found there possibly the first female president, a sort of extreme right Bloomberg. That Rebekah Mercer is just formidable, not to mention scary, maybe smarter than Trump and certainly richer. Fellow bleeding hearts be very afraid! Another fear is that unauthorized persons of excitable temperament might take it into their heads to kidnap judges and force them to read and memorize all the evidence of election fraud, giving them tests until they are word perfect, and letting them go when the evidence has convinced the. No torture involved. But I will take my own advice and not borrow trouble from this particular finance company.

I just read this now, I will answer whenother wise I wouldn't , because the pedophilia/politics/ propaganda vortex is too strong and sad to engage with.But if I don't you will call out silence again.

Ellen,don't borrow trouble. Even though I too don't have any details I can't picture anyone getting near those ballots without being turned inside out by the media, the subject is so enormously prominent. More than likely if there was fraud the evidence should still be there. Not of course that I can believe the fraud theory, but I've been wrong enough in predictions (called both your last two wrong) that nothing will surprise me now.

No, massive thefts are not par.ticularly polarizing when most people believe there was a theft. The GreatTrain Robbers had their fans, and Bernie Madoff had his defenders for a while, but qeverybody aagreed that massive thefts had occurred. My point was that if this (experimental) procedure shows a massive fraud,the left will think, "Pulitzer is commputer genius who just invented this process. How can we think he isn't capable of running it to find his preferred outcome,without being detected? After all, if ordinary Georgians coordinated an enormous sophisticated fraud,why couldn't he and the team that he recruits, do the same? State officials hired him, sure , just like they hired the 2020 election workers and the Dominion machines." The will say this, of course, not because this line of reasoning seems plausible, but out of blind pathetic envy and hatred of Trump and every single one of his half a million supporters ,probably closer to a million if the Msm reported the truth., and because they are each defective human beings in some way. So the left will stay polarized, the right will rejoice in their success, and tell the little deluded worms to accept a proved victory and shut up about it. That is polarizing.

One thing is already certain about the outcome of Pulitzer's project. Whatever it is, half the country will not accept it . In one thing he will have undoubtedly succeeded, in further polarizing a population where an American is being devolved from an individual to a simple set of political opinions. Maybe man can't be bigger than his philosophy, but he sure as hell should be bigger than his political opinions. Pulitzer does seem to resemble Trump in some ways. Like Trump he has many followers who double down on their devotion whenever he is criticized. He is also a super salesman, attracting $185million for one startup.He hunted for treasure on reality Tv, and found it, as WSS referenced. I know quite a bit about Oak Island, a former pirate hangout of legend where diggers and scanners of increasing sophistication have been hunting hard for easy money for centuries. I have actually been there myself, but without equipment. Pulitzer came up with a Roman sword, perhaps looted from a shipment of antiques since no Roman ever went near the place. I did not watch the video, but if the presenter was overwrought and confusing, it was because we Maritimers take our Oak Island darned seriously.

Ellen, I thought it was attached to your post about Telegram just now.

Brant,I hope you were talking about the TV series and your autocorrect can't spell secession. Always remember that your own vocabulary is bigger than Spellcheck's.

Try again. Still hate this nervous capricious slab of plastic, but now not all the time. Wood said, "They can't prove (the fraud theory) false." By they I assume he means the courts. This is true, but surely disingenuous. The court system is reactive - whatever you think of the judges. It is Wood & co. who must provide proof that it is true. There is a difference.

Ellen, he said he saId thamt

I heard that Peter! I see you still find amusement in mocking a Respectable Widow - a poor old woman just trying to get along. I forgive you, though, for as my good friend Mr Bennet often says, "What are we for,but to make sport of our neighbours, and in turn be made sport of ourselves?"

Wow on Mike Hardy. Internet discourse back then looks pretty golden-aged now from the present one of the Jean leTourettes. But has Jim Wales stopped being an Objectivist and become a social warrior? Why?

Ellen, do you think violent methods have a chance of succeeding where non.violence has failed? Sadly this is not a hypothetical question, any more.

I work in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform. -God

Brant, DID NOT WORk. Whatever screen I have landed on now I won,t move from, i am sick of identifying myself over and over, I feel like a voter in Georgia. Iam starting to feel there is a conspiracy against me, no doubt channeled through this Luciferian device I am forced to work on. Goodnight. Carol

This does not belong on this thread but I don't dare change screens , because when I do I get signed out.Although remember me has been clearly checked every damn time. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE NOW?

Michael, you mention you look up actors in wiki. So do I, which is where I noticed the change I mentioned. Before, the entries would include a career summary which included any public controversies they were involved in with reference to sources. The ones I looked up we're just the facts, ma'am, no details like names of their children in some cases, just professional credits and awards. Which inclines me to believe the entry had to be approved by the actors themselves. Andwhen I looked up Jovan Pulitzer, a name I never heard before the discussion here on voting machines etc., -- well, look at it yourself. It doesn't look like any entry I ever read. It's like a sales presentation or a contract bid or something. I did not detect any social undertones and I bet you don,t either,Surely the moderators did not write it, so who did?

Since all history consists of politics and social issues, you are kind of hard on wellmeaning people who just wanntto give the public the skinny on Cato the Elder in a simple format. But I forget that history to most Americans started in 1776, or else in the unfathomable few years before their own births--the latter is the same with Canadians. But since the infighting of ideas is almost as deadly in academic circles as it is in parochial ones, I,ll takeyour word about moderators. But my question was, are all the entries about living people moderated, or are they only fact checked?

It is quite a while since lve used wiki. But it seems to have changed. The historical stuff I mainly use Is the same, but the entries of living people range from bare minimum details to full blown autobiographies or resumes. Does everyone get to curate their own entries now.?

IfI watched some of the video but wonder if I go the right one. He was very personable and jovial, at least at first. I give him one black mark as a public speaker. If you don,t want to alienate the English teachers demographic, please don't pronounce etcetera as excedra, especially if you are going to repeat it three times, Jovan. English appears to be your native language so there is no excuse! Even a polymath such as yourself should aim for precision.

Looking up things on America's most famous frauds and their perpetrators for another post I was thinking of writing, I got sidetracked by the title quote by Madoff in Investopedia. For once in what is left of his life, somebody actually believes Bernie is telling the truth , even though though he may be unaware of its truth. The first thing that struck me was how similar his early biography was to so many other hugely successful people. His father failed in business while he was growing up and hIs life and expectations were much reduced. He swore to become an ultimate winner in the world which had made his father a loser. I have found this a recurring similarity in reading o f overachievers in all fields - not just fraud. Roy Cohn, over whom Michael and I brawled recently, had a similar narrowing of prospects in his early youth, for example. Self-destruction runs in families (Hemingway et al et al) and especially between fathers and sons. Was it just the gambler's compulsion to keep gambling until he loses everything? Or could his soul not bear to so vastly outdo his father, making the father even more of a loser? Or did he just get complacent and careless, and thus got caught, a casualty of the tough game he was playing? The idea of powerful unconscious motives is the most compelling to me, coupled of course with the blind egotism of the financial criminal. Madoff might think his answer was just a tactic to rush off questions he doesn't feel like answering. But I think he was unknowingly telling the truth. He doesn't really know why he did it.

You don't Have to wake theKraken for my sake unless you Are writing a book, which I wish you would do, tHough not necessarily on that subject.Too much .competition there. Better try Jane Austen continuations like me. Something fun and escapist. I love pictures so I will consume "Satanus ex Machina ineasy stages even if we don't get any storms.

Sometimes I think I really should have gone to law school, but reading a document like t his followed by a good John Grisham quickly dispels any regrets. Are the exhibits the evidence?

Thanks for the tip. The process looks scarily complex to no-tech me now, but I suppose I will learn it kicking and and screaming all the way. As a scaredy cat (still active in the Canadian League of Cowards, but don't tell anyone, I'm terrified of being found out) glad to know it isn't breaking any rules. As to the article, I thinkI sort of get the thrust, but still for the life of me can't figure out if Powell is defending her original theory or not. AndI got a good LSAT score way back when. Incidentally I can't agree with the machines as fraud abettors idea, but in her right to say it I do. I'm with old elitist Voltaire on that one. But unlimited free speech, like unlimitekd driving seatbeltless, can cause disasters. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.Even though no reasonable person there would have seen any evidence of fire. To paraphrase the old adage, "Say what you want, and pay, for it, says God."

incidentally there were a lot of Falun Gong in my neighbourhood, and I even marched in one of their parades. It was beautiful and deeply impressive.