LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[Pat]

However you weren't wrong, turns out Susan Rosenberg is now "employed" by Thousand Currents, which does fundraising for BLM.

Not any more, that arrangement ceased in 2020. For those who weren't following the discussion a while back, BLM is not a formally registered 501(c)3 organization (charity), so in order to get the various tax benefits they need to be sponsored by an established 501(c)3. Between 2012 and 2020 that was Thousands Currents, but since 2020 it's been TIDES. I'm not completely clear on the role of the sponsor, and there are two different way it can be set up and I couldn't figure out which BLM uses, but it sounds like it's more of an accounting/advisory role than direct fund raising support. The fund raising is handled by BLM, and also Act Blue, which is a fund raising/payment processor service that supports many leftist politicians and activist groups. There seems to be a lot of networking/interconnection between the different groups, and the different organizational structures can get complex due to various tax and political transparency laws (501(c)3 vs. 501(c)4 vs. PACs, for instance).

[KingCheops]

You might find this interesting: a summary of all of the election fraud cases and their outcomes.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

I don't know what the win rate is for cases normally but its better than a coin flip.  Trump's won 2/3rds of cases that where actually judged on merits instead of just thrown out.

Interesting that the globalist, warmonger favorite in Myanmar won a dodgy Dominion/Smartmatic election in Myanmar got tossed out on her ass by the military and now the Techno-Corporate Fascists are all up in arms.  To quote the world's most famous Techno-Corporate Fascist Autistic: "HOW DARE YOU!".

[shuddemell]

However you weren't wrong, turns out Susan Rosenberg is now "employed" by Thousand Currents, which does fundraising for BLM.

Not any more, that arrangement ceased in 2020. For those who weren't following the discussion a while back, BLM is not a formally registered 501(c)3 organization (charity), so in order to get the various tax benefits they need to be sponsored by an established 501(c)3. Between 2012 and 2020 that was Thousands Currents, but since 2020 it's been TIDES. I'm not completely clear on the role of the sponsor, and there are two different way it can be set up and I couldn't figure out which BLM uses, but it sounds like it's more of an accounting/advisory role than direct fund raising support. The fund raising is handled by BLM, and also Act Blue, which is a fund raising/payment processor service that supports many leftist politicians and activist groups. There seems to be a lot of networking/interconnection between the different groups, and the different organizational structures can get complex due to various tax and political transparency laws (501(c)3 vs. 501(c)4 vs. PACs, for instance).

Worse yet TIDES is a George Soros linked entity.... do we prefer an ex terrorist or ex Nazi? Neither says much for them. Another interesting factor is that Rosenberg is linked to both the 1971 and 1983 Capitol Bombings...

[Pat]

Worse yet TIDES is a George Soros linked entity.... do we prefer an ex terrorist or ex Nazi? Neither says much for them. Another interesting factor is that Rosenberg is linked to both the 1971 and 1983 Capitol Bombings...

Soros isn't a Nazi, the worst you can really say is his family included collaborators, and Soros benefited from that. I'd say Rosenberg's connections are more disturbing. A lot of the violent activists from the 60s and 70s, like those involved in the Weather Underground, ended up in positions of power and influence, and I expect the same will be true with the new wave.

The Snopes "fact check" on Rosenberg is hilarious:
https://www snopes com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ (not hotlinking; add the dots if you want check yourself)

They literally agree with every single point against her, but give a mixed result because apparently 740 lb of explosives isn't enough to qualify someone as a domestic terrorist.

[jhkim]

You might find this interesting: a summary of all of the election fraud cases and their outcomes.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

I don't know what the win rate is for cases normally but its better than a coin flip.  Trump's won 2/3rds of cases that where actually judged on merits instead of just thrown out.

But none of the cases won showed any election fraud. They were all about declared election procedure *before* the election, like the deadline for accepting ballots. Regardless of when that deadline is set to, it doesn't show that any number of votes are fraudulent. For example, Trump for President sued to keep Nevada polls open later than scheduled -- but that doesn't show fraud.

Interesting that the globalist, warmonger favorite in Myanmar won a dodgy Dominion/Smartmatic election in Myanmar got tossed out on her ass by the military and now the Techno-Corporate Fascists are all up in arms.  To quote the world's most famous Techno-Corporate Fascist Autistic: "HOW DARE YOU!".

Where do you see that Dominion/Smartmatic were involved in Myanmar? I didn't see that in any coverage of the military's complaints, and the fact checks that I see all say that they did not use any election machines. I'm not claiming either way about whether there was fraud or not in general, but what election machines were used is a basic fact that should be easily confirmed either way.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-dominion-myanmar/fact-check-myanmar-did-not-use-dominion-voting-systems-in-general-election-idUSKBN2A22ZO

[moonsweeper]

You might find this interesting: a summary of all of the election fraud cases and their outcomes.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

I don't know what the win rate is for cases normally but its better than a coin flip.  Trump's won 2/3rds of cases that where actually judged on merits instead of just thrown out.

But none of the cases won showed any election fraud. They were all about declared election procedure *before* the election, like the deadline for accepting ballots. Regardless of when that deadline is set to, it doesn't show that any number of votes are fraudulent. For example, Trump for President sued to keep Nevada polls open later than scheduled -- but that doesn't show fraud.

...and 'election procedure' determines the absence or presence of 'fraud.'
Any intentional counting of votes that are "invalid" per the local legislation governing voting is technically 'fraudulent' as it satisfies the 'intent' hurdle.

The same principle applies the term 'homicide' to any killing even if never charged or prosecuted because of justifiable self defense.

The next logical questions... Did any place 'intentionally' count any ballots which were invalid per the local election procedures?  Did any place 'intentionally' refuse to follow the properly legislated election procedure during counting?  Has any Dominion contract forced a location to challenge any request made for records that are legally public?

[EOTB]

Deepstate/oligarchy acknowledgment of election rigging as a times article


https://t.co/hnbIrLN4ts

[jhkim]

But none of the cases won showed any election fraud. They were all about declared election procedure *before* the election, like the deadline for accepting ballots. Regardless of when that deadline is set to, it doesn't show that any number of votes are fraudulent. For example, Trump for President sued to keep Nevada polls open later than scheduled -- but that doesn't show fraud.

...and 'election procedure' determines the absence or presence of 'fraud.'
Any intentional counting of votes that are "invalid" per the local legislation governing voting is technically 'fraudulent' at it satisfies the 'intent' hurdle.

In Nevada, the polls would normally close at 7PM. But there were delays in opening some polls due to technical issues. Trump for President sued to keep many polling places open an extra hour until 8PM. They won that lawsuit. Here's a news story on that case:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nevada-county-judge-keeps-some-polls-open-later-after-trump-campaign-sues

It sounds like you're implying that the extra votes taken after 7PM invalid and thus fraudulent. But as Trump for President argued, the procedure was already violated because they didn't open on time, so the deadline should have been extended. Like with many legal issues, the law is not perfectly clear here - which is why we have courts.

The legislature voted that the polls close at 7PM, but there needed to be redress for the fact that technical issues delayed the start. In this case, I agree with Trump for President and think extending the hours was justified -- and I don't think it is reasonable to call the post-7PM votes as fraudulent, given that the court found it to be justified.

The next logical questions... Did any place 'intentionally' count any ballots which were invalid per the local election procedures?  Did any place 'intentionally' refuse to follow the properly legislated election procedure during counting?  Has any Dominion contract forced a location to challenge any request made for records that are legally public?

Those are questions to be determined in court, as they have been. What I object to is claiming that (A) Republicans winning a lawsuit to extend deadlines from 7PM to 8PM somehow lends support to (B) the idea that Dominion fraudulently manufactured hundreds of thousand of votes in secret server farms in Germany, or similar claims of fraud.

Really, these are completely unrelated claims.

If anything, I think Trump winning a majority of his election-process lawsuits is evidence *against* the idea that the courts are all corrupt and under control of the Deep-State liberals, rigged against Trump. And if the courts aren't largely corrupt, then we should believe the results of court cases.

[shuddemell]

Worse yet TIDES is a George Soros linked entity.... do we prefer an ex terrorist or ex Nazi? Neither says much for them. Another interesting factor is that Rosenberg is linked to both the 1971 and 1983 Capitol Bombings...

Soros isn't a Nazi, the worst you can really say is his family included collaborators, and Soros benefited from that. I'd say Rosenberg's connections are more disturbing. A lot of the violent activists from the 60s and 70s, like those involved in the Weather Underground, ended up in positions of power and influence, and I expect the same will be true with the new wave.

The Snopes "fact check" on Rosenberg is hilarious:
https://www snopes com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ (not hotlinking; add the dots if you want check yourself)

They literally agree with every single point against her, but give a mixed result because apparently 740 lb of explosives isn't enough to qualify someone as a domestic terrorist.

You are right, he only collaborated. That's enough for me however, considering how cavalierly that term is used these days, I would say it is still on point, even if it isn't technically, exactly correct. Both are suspect on many levels.

[Shasarak]

They literally agree with every single point against her, but give a mixed result because apparently 740 lb of explosives isn't enough to qualify someone as a domestic terrorist.

Domestic terrorists dont blow things up, they do things like getting invited into the capitol building by the police.

[shuddemell]

...

If anything, I think Trump winning a majority of his election-process lawsuits is evidence *against* the idea that the courts are all corrupt and under control of the Deep-State liberals, rigged against Trump. And if the courts aren't largely corrupt, then we should believe the results of court cases.

Considering the number of cases NOT decided on the merits, I would suggest this is a premature conclusion... while I might agree with you if that were the only discrepancy, the fact that many of them ignored or never even heard the merits would lead me to hold on such a conclusion that there isn't rampant corruption in our courts. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the final legal determination is only one of them.

[EOTB]

Calling one group a domestic T but not another is not a statement about their tactics, as many leap to argue.

It is a statement about the status of their victims.  It is who was being protested that made the capitol incident a DT.  Likewise, why the summer of 2020 was not DT

[Pat]

Worse yet TIDES is a George Soros linked entity.... do we prefer an ex terrorist or ex Nazi? Neither says much for them. Another interesting factor is that Rosenberg is linked to both the 1971 and 1983 Capitol Bombings...

Soros isn't a Nazi, the worst you can really say is his family included collaborators, and Soros benefited from that. I'd say Rosenberg's connections are more disturbing. A lot of the violent activists from the 60s and 70s, like those involved in the Weather Underground, ended up in positions of power and influence, and I expect the same will be true with the new wave.

The Snopes "fact check" on Rosenberg is hilarious:
https://www snopes com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ (not hotlinking; add the dots if you want check yourself)

They literally agree with every single point against her, but give a mixed result because apparently 740 lb of explosives isn't enough to qualify someone as a domestic terrorist.

You are right, he only collaborated. That's enough for me however, considering how cavalierly that term is used these days, I would say it is still on point, even if it isn't technically, exactly correct. Both are suspect on many levels.

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

[shuddemell]

Worse yet TIDES is a George Soros linked entity.... do we prefer an ex terrorist or ex Nazi? Neither says much for them. Another interesting factor is that Rosenberg is linked to both the 1971 and 1983 Capitol Bombings...

Soros isn't a Nazi, the worst you can really say is his family included collaborators, and Soros benefited from that. I'd say Rosenberg's connections are more disturbing. A lot of the violent activists from the 60s and 70s, like those involved in the Weather Underground, ended up in positions of power and influence, and I expect the same will be true with the new wave.

The Snopes "fact check" on Rosenberg is hilarious:
https://www snopes com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ (not hotlinking; add the dots if you want check yourself)

They literally agree with every single point against her, but give a mixed result because apparently 740 lb of explosives isn't enough to qualify someone as a domestic terrorist.

You are right, he only collaborated. That's enough for me however, considering how cavalierly that term is used these days, I would say it is still on point, even if it isn't technically, exactly correct. Both are suspect on many levels.

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

Nonsense. He actively participated in the removal of property from Jewish families... In his own words...

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't — you don't see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets — that if I weren't there — of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Now, while I agree that his age affects his culpability somewhat, it doesn't exonerate him from it entirely, and the weird way he justifies it as "It would've happened anyway" is both chilling and representative of the type of person who can and will justify it in anyway to avoid any kind of real responsibility. I suspect his involvement, based on the type of person he is, to be far greater and more "evil" than we will ever know. In either case, he was a collaborator, even simply by the definition of the word, and from his own statements, a willing one. You realize that 13 year olds have been tried and convicted as adults, for such serious crimes? We can disagree on the level of his involvement, but that involvement was both real and voluntary, and as such I am not willing to give him a pass, even if you are.

It should also be noted that his later adult actions breathe truth into these allegations as well, since over the years he has taken numerous and plentiful anti-semitic attacks and positions, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas to conducting many Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish agendas. I believe in fact that this time which he described as "the most exciting time of my life" is the forge that tempered both his anti-semitism and sociopathy.

[jhkim]

If anything, I think Trump winning a majority of his election-process lawsuits is evidence *against* the idea that the courts are all corrupt and under control of the Deep-State liberals, rigged against Trump. And if the courts aren't largely corrupt, then we should believe the results of court cases.

Considering the number of cases NOT decided on the merits, I would suggest this is a premature conclusion... while I might agree with you if that were the only discrepancy, the fact that many of them ignored or never even heard the merits would lead me to hold on such a conclusion that there isn't rampant corruption in our courts. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the final legal determination is only one of them.

I don't think dismissal on technical grounds is evidence either way. Sometimes cases genuinely should be dismissed, I presume. Are there particular dismissals that you think should not have been dismissed, but instead heard out in court?

The one I'm most familiar with is the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court. In that case, all three of Trump's appointed Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) voted to deny for lack of standing. Only Alito and Thomas spoke in favor of allowing it to be filed, with no opinion on the merits. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me reasonable that the case really did lack standing. Many lawyers called it essentially a publicity stunt that failed to follow basic legalities of filing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

https://www.law.com/2020/12/08/no-chance-of-success-lawyers-demolishes-ken-paxtons-latest-election-lawsuit/