September 29, 2021

A Different View

Styxhexxenhammer is, despite reports to the contrary, not Razorfist after having mellowed out by ingesting lots of weed. Razorfist, to the utter disbelief of some is NOT Styxhexxenhammer's Hyde-like alter ego who surfaces periodically as a result of a magic mushroom mishap.

They are, I am told, COMPLETELY different individuals. 

So here is a totally different person's take on the Arizona audit.

There is more on this here and here

Again, I think the implications of the findings are consequential and troubling, but of little immediate practical relevance. I think the damage has been done and the biggest danger is if people let themselves get demoralized by this. 

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 11:16 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 No, there is an immediate practical difference. There are actions that can and should be taken right away, where ever you are in America. You need to be engaged with your local election officials, and your neighbors. Unless you are in an industry that will blacklist you from talking about this stuff, and then you need to be thinking about getting out. If your neighbors are basically sound, you can do things if your local election officials are not basically sound. If your local election officials are basically sound, you can establish process/precedent that sees the true costs of electronic voting machines. You need to pay close attention to how the officials think about electronics. The ideal isn't quite a tin foil hat nutter who does not believe in using cellphones, but skepticism of smartphones would be appropriate. You want people who understand that electronics are made by humans, and the function depends on how they are made. If neither your neighbors nor your local election officials are sound, relocation would be ideal. Practically, relocating to a place where you could know that your neighbors are sound would be difficult.

Posted by: PatBuckman at Fri Oct 1 11:13:24 2021 (r9O5h)

2 Given that the party in party has discovered that election stealing is fairly easy to do, has major benefits, has a high success rate, and little to no penalties or disadvantages, I do not see how any sort of voter motivation will work.  When you have something that works, you keep doing it until it does not.

They have already demonstrated that cheating tens of thousands of votes is doable and straight-forward.

It is only a matter of time (Might even be next year, certainly by 2024.) before they start cheating hundreds of thousands of votes.

I know you are trying to do the right thing trying to remind people to not get discouraged, but frankly, I think we might have gone past that.

Posted by: cxt217 at Fri Oct 1 14:49:01 2021 (MuaLM)

3 It wasn't a discovery.

Dubious elections go back quite far, unless you suppose that the terrorism of Jim Crow resulted in those elections being free and fair despite the outright explicit electioneering.  And the parties switched places my ass.

There are fifty state parties.  Showing significant Democrat continuity in one, such as the one I have roots enough in understand the political history of, proves a lack of Democrat clean hands at the national level. 

JFK essentially stole 1960.  He had Southern states with enough EVs that the effect of terrorism in suppressing the Republican vote cannot be assumed minimal.  (The so called Southern Strategy that modern Democrats complain about is merely the result of their corrupt asses being kicked out after people had time to realize that they really had been made to quit the terrorism, and that the ACW is a really long time ago.) JFK was not a lunatic of the modern grade, and his theft of the election was tolerable in comparison.

When you consider all of the little signs, Democrats may have been stealing Presidential elections under the modern scheme as far back as 1992, and the Democrat leadership definitely thought they had stolen 2008 and 2012.  Consider the entitlement in 2000 and 2016.  Consider the edge to Obama's race war nutjobbery.  If he thought he had fairly won the white vote, why is he so insecure about whites?

It is not at all a coincidence that the Clintons came out of the Arkansas Democratic Party.  They have no principled objection to white supremacist terrorism, or to election fraud.

The degree of knowing we have is simply a result of them deciding to 'fix' the 'mistakes' they made in 2016. 

They've been doing stuff with political polls for a long time, media is disinformation, and there is an appearance that the courts were fixed.  Courts may not have been fixed, but law faculty are in the university echo chamber, and don't understanding how badly they hurt credibility in the public eye, going on along with what the echo chamber insists. 

Despite that, there is a path to addressing it that is not an active shooting war.  1.  In red states, voter activism to force fair voting process on electoral officials.  2.  Then, replacing establishment Republicans at the state level with actual trustworthy Republicans.  3.  Then, getting actual things done with regard to legal system and university problems. 

It is a great deal of work, and we may have a shooting war anyway.  Opposition leadership is well and truely insane, and the folks who purport to lead or represent us are Quislings and Chamberlains. 

Everything we can get done properly in a nominally red state is a tool for the wider propaganda war. 

Posted by: PatBuckman at Sat Oct 2 11:00:29 2021 (r9O5h)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

31kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1152 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.0892 seconds, 284 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.