The election knaves have a coming out

[Newman]

It's a measure of their confidence in their grip on power that this Time piece would be published.

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

Monica Showalter has penned a good introduction:

Hubris: Elites brazenly gloat they rigged election...and that's good news for us

To Time (Molly Ball), the cabal are heroes, of course.

Showalter:

. . . Two interpretations as to what it means are out — one, that it means that their Big Lie about all being free and fair in this election is falling flat, and they're trying to spin it now. . . .

There's additional support for this argument in a brilliant piece written for American Thinker by military historian James Corum, who described the bombing of Hamburg and how the Nazis were unable to suppress the news of it, simply because too many people already knew the truth.

Bottom line in this argument is that they know that everyone knows the rigging happened, so now the riggers are trying to spin it into a virtue.

The other is the one I suspect is perhaps even more likely: they know we know. So now they're into psy-ops, trying to demoralize us in their open gloating.

As Ace at Ace of Spades noted:

This is the part of the war where they have shot most of the survivors, and are now engaging in psyops to humiliate and degrade whoever is still alive. They are now admitting they rigged the election so that we understand that there is nothing we can do about it — we are a defeated people, they want us to know, and they intended to rule us.

This is a nasty picture but probably true. Someone is burbling with delight in leftist circles, delighted that the U.S. has been rigged into electing the most far-left administration ever and gotten away with it. And like all far-left regimes (see Venezuela), it can't be reversed. It's permanently rigged now, and we will just have to prepare for decline and learn to live with it, fading away into nothing. Nothing we can do can stop it, because they are all chain-locked together, and all of them are against us.

Bad as that sounds, it's good news, too. It's intelligence. It's someone opening up their secret files like what WikiLeaks used to do to John Podesta to give us their battle plans. The spin is (edited), but the truth is out. And with that in mind, we now know we're not conspiracy theorists, we now know we have a gloating enemy convinced that their victory is total. It's as if we now have their game plan and now know what to look for, come 2022, to counter it. Knowledge, after all, is power. But they're too dumb to know this. Even Antifa knows enough to keep these kinds of secret battle plans, memberships, victories, and techniques out of the news, denying everything, convincing us they're just "an idea" — but not these guys. That's what's good news for us. They've come out of the woodwork to do a victory dance. But we now know who the opponent is and are no longer battling an invisible enemy. . . .

[scott]

Damn!

Looks like those shovel-ready jobs weren't all that shovel ready after all.

Or maybe we wouldn't be able to keep our healthcare plans and doctors.

Or perhaps the green jobs are the true future of this country (I guess that one is being recycled today).

I think the mask has come off, just like the mask worn about the "public option" when the real intent was Medicare for All by force.

[JB]

I saw some of this and couldn't believe they were openly admitting to such a thing. I thought to myself "no way, I will have to circle back on this".

Can't wait until these social medias turds are held to the "public square" requirements that they should have been all along. And more lost union jobs over the next few years. Don't care.

[Newman]

I saw some of this and couldn't believe they were openly admitting to such a thing. I thought to myself "no way, I will have to circle back on this".

Can't wait until these social medias turds are held to the "public square" requirements that they should have been all along. And more lost union jobs over the next few years. Don't care.

It's the Harry Reid morality. Everything is justified by the righteousness of the cause. "He didn't win, did he?"

[Newman]

Clarice Feldman on the subject:

Rigging the Election for China and Profit

. . . the most astonishing story of the week, Molly Ball’s article in Time: ”The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that saved the 2020 election,” a sordid tale of how Big Tech, BLM, organized labor and big business, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, colluded to defeat Donald J. Trump’s reelection.

Toward the end:

Lockdowns here made the U.S. oligarchs like Bezos much richer while impoverishing Trump’s base. “In imposing unconstitutional regulations by fiat, city and state authorities normalized autocracy.”

And a positive nod to Florida's governor:

I have no simple solution to return us to democracy, though I think Roger L. Simon is correct when he argues that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ lead should be followed by all Republican state legislatures.

• Mandatory opt-outs from big tech’s content filters, a solution to tech censorship first proposed by Breitbart News.
• A private right of action for Floridian citizens against tech companies that violate this condition.
• Fines of $100,000 per day levied on tech companies that suspend candidates for elected office in Florida from their platforms.
• Daily fines for any tech company “that uses their content and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot.”
• Greater transparency requirements.
• Disclosure requirements enforced by Florida’s election authorities for tech companies that favor one candidate over another.
• Power for the Florida attorney general to bring cases against tech companies that violate these conditions under the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.

Almost half the states are fully under Republican control, several others have Republican legislatures, and they have the power to do this. I think it is a better means to preserve democracy than allowing the U.S.-China oligarchy to turn us in an autocracy. Punch back twice as hard, as Instapundit urges. Next, I think set strict limits on gubernatorial emergency powers, and by all means strengthen and tighten election procedures, and dump the cabal’s new rules that maximize the ability to rig the vote.

[Adam]

And a positive nod to Florida's governor:

• Fines of $100,000 per day levied on tech companies that suspend candidates for elected office in Florida from their platforms.

That one bothers me a little bit. They need to work on the language there because it's too broad as described.

Having been in charge of this site for however long it's been, I've come to realize that the ban hammer is an important tool, though to be used sparingly. But if I need it, then I NEED it, and I can't be hamstrung by some wonky, over-reaching legislation that prevents me from using it. If wife-beater Alan Grayson or Debbie Stupidwoman-Schultz says some outrageous crap that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else, they can then just run and hide behind that legislation and shout "nanny-nanny boo boo, you can't touch me because I have a campaign."

That's not going to work. They've got to clean up the specifics there.

[Newman]

That one bothers me a little bit. They need to work on the language there because it's too broad as described.

Having been in charge of this site for however long it's been, I've come to realize that the ban hammer is an important tool, though to be used sparingly. But if I need it, then I NEED it, and I can't be hamstrung by some wonky, over-reaching legislation that prevents me from using it. If wife-beater Alan Grayson or Debbie Stupidwoman-Schultz says some outrageous crap that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else, they can then just run and hide behind that legislation and shout "nanny-nanny boo boo, you can't touch me because I have a campaign."

That's not going to work. They've got to clean up the specifics there.

Size matters. "Social media" is a new platform, a new industry if you will, just as railroads were once a new industry than transformed the country, from a world that moved on average less than seven miles an hour. And like the railroads, the new industry made titans of its creators and entrepreneurs. These tech titans have worked very hard to massage their image with the public, again like the railroad barons, from Dale Carnegie's legendary philanthropy to Jay Gould's part in building the Metropolitan Opera house (he and his partners didn't like being shunned by the blue-blood opera club, which they drove into bankruptcy in short order, as I recall).

And each time the country had to come to terms with the new dynamics. Each time there are differences and similarities.

So this time speech itself is the commodity, and control has been distilled to a precious few people, who have assiduously courted the favor of the major political Party in the country. To me it's clear that the temptation of power and control has overwhelmed the discipline and trust required to maintain our First Amendment (or other Amendments as the appetite for power grazes the landscape).

Saint Reagan famously said it's up to each generation to preserve freedom, and truly it's up to those here and now to do so likewise, and balance the power of a new industry against the liberties that made that industry possible. I have substantial doubts that we will.

[Newman]

That one bothers me a little bit. They need to work on the language there because it's too broad as described.

Having been in charge of this site for however long it's been, I've come to realize that the ban hammer is an important tool, though to be used sparingly. But if I need it, then I NEED it, and I can't be hamstrung by some wonky, over-reaching legislation that prevents me from using it. If wife-beater Alan Grayson or Debbie Stupidwoman-Schultz says some outrageous crap that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else, they can then just run and hide behind that legislation and shout "nanny-nanny boo boo, you can't touch me because I have a campaign."

That's not going to work. They've got to clean up the specifics there.

What we seem to be losing as a society is moderation, which requires a degree of trust and reasonableness.

We can moderate laws and enforcement, and courts are constantly called on to find the line between reasonable, maybe mistaken, actions, and criminal behavior. When does negligence become "gross negligence"?

One effect of the Cloward-Piven strategy, to make society choke on its own rules, is to destroy moderation and the necessary tolerance of imperfection. I understand how their plan works to topple a democracy, but I don't see how this goes to "end poverty," which is their avowed goal. The only form of government that thrives on intolerance is autocracy. Totalitarianism inevitably.

It has a lousy record on ending poverty, though, at least for the not-elite. It has a better record on eliminating the impoverished.

[Lady Marva]

It has a lousy record on ending poverty, though, at least for the not-elite. It has a better record on eliminating the impoverished.

Nothing can "eliminate poverty". There will ALWAYS be people poorer than other people.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

That one bothers me a little bit. They need to work on the language there because it's too broad as described.

Having been in charge of this site for however long it's been, I've come to realize that the ban hammer is an important tool, though to be used sparingly. But if I need it, then I NEED it, and I can't be hamstrung by some wonky, over-reaching legislation that prevents me from using it. If wife-beater Alan Grayson or Debbie Stupidwoman-Schultz says some outrageous crap that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else, they can then just run and hide behind that legislation and shout "nanny-nanny boo boo, you can't touch me because I have a campaign."

That's not going to work. They've got to clean up the specifics there.

You do know that "Wasser" translates as "water," not "wise" or "smart," right?

Incidentally, I agree with the substance of this post, but I get distracted by the 3rd-grade playground crap.

[scott]

That one bothers me a little bit. They need to work on the language there because it's too broad as described.

Having been in charge of this site for however long it's been, I've come to realize that the ban hammer is an important tool, though to be used sparingly. But if I need it, then I NEED it, and I can't be hamstrung by some wonky, over-reaching legislation that prevents me from using it. If wife-beater Alan Grayson or Debbie Stupidwoman-Schultz says some outrageous crap that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else, they can then just run and hide behind that legislation and shout "nanny-nanny boo boo, you can't touch me because I have a campaign."

That's not going to work. They've got to clean up the specifics there.

Yep, 100%. Had this proposed policy been in place I wouldn't have been able to ban people for being disruptive and it would have made having the site impossible simply by being buried with complaints and responses. Back when NU was much more visible and I got all sorts of inquiries, threats of lawsuits, and a few visits from law enforcement (twice due to false allegations that "so and so posted child pornography on the site") the onus was on me to demonstrate that I was operating a platform but was not providing safe harbor for criminal activity.


That one idiot government employee who also attended law school (can't remember where he worked but he did not practice law) tried to conflate his status as a lawyer and a government employee and sent me a demand to view all forums, all transcripts of messages between various people, and to be informed of our policies regarding acceptable content. He did this in a very strange way by sending PDF on letterhead that appeared to be from a government agency but was really just his personal letterhead.

Glad I had Russ B, Deputy US Marshal and NUer who informed me that it was complete bullshit. I don't know what else he did but I never got bothered by that idiot again.

[scott]

Size matters. "Social media" is a new platform, a new industry if you will, just as railroads were once a new industry than transformed the country, from a world that moved on average less than seven miles an hour. And like the railroads, the new industry made titans of its creators and entrepreneurs. These tech titans have worked very hard to massage their image with the public, again like the railroad barons, from Dale Carnegie's legendary philanthropy to Jay Gould's part in building the Metropolitan Opera house (he and his partners didn't like being shunned by the blue-blood opera club, which they drove into bankruptcy in short order, as I recall).

And each time the country had to come to terms with the new dynamics. Each time there are differences and similarities.

So this time speech itself is the commodity, and control has been distilled to a precious few people, who have assiduously courted the favor of the major political Party in the country. To me it's clear that the temptation of power and control has overwhelmed the discipline and trust required to maintain our First Amendment (or other Amendments as the appetite for power grazes the landscape).

Saint Reagan famously said it's up to each generation to preserve freedom, and truly it's up to those here and now to do so likewise, and balance the power of a new industry against the liberties that made that industry possible. I have substantial doubts that we will.

An apt analogy. So you think social media should go the way of the railroad and have the average citizen taken care of by the government controlled version?

I don't.

[scott]

What we seem to be losing as a society is moderation, which requires a degree of trust and reasonableness.

We can moderate laws and enforcement, and courts are constantly called on to find the line between reasonable, maybe mistaken, actions, and criminal behavior. When does negligence become "gross negligence"?

One effect of the Cloward-Piven strategy, to make society choke on its own rules, is to destroy moderation and the necessary tolerance of imperfection. I understand how their plan works to topple a democracy, but I don't see how this goes to "end poverty," which is their avowed goal. The only form of government that thrives on intolerance is autocracy. Totalitarianism inevitably.

It has a lousy record on ending poverty, though, at least for the not-elite. It has a better record on eliminating the impoverished.

So how do we save us from big government while simultaneously asking big government to protect us?

I like our Governor, but this proposal is big government and too rife for abuse.

[Newman]

So how do we save us from big government while simultaneously asking big government to protect us?

I like our Governor, but this proposal is big government and too rife for abuse.

We as a society have long decided we don't want to abandon the extremely helpless (except for the unborn, of course). We don't want Little Match Girls dying unattended outside our well-lit establishments.

But that impulse gets pushed to demand the "human right" to anything and everything.

We are abandoning reason and moderation, and adopting intolerance instead.