Hua Guofang

Ebola is nowhere near as easily transmitted as CV19. It has a much higher morbidity rate but is much more difficult to catch. Trump did not shut the border to China, he only stopped Chinese people from entering the US. Americans coming from China could still enter the US without testing or quarantining. Stopping Chinese from entering the US was for political theatre, rather than an effective response to a novel virus. The bottom line is that just like many other leaders, Trump politicised the response to this threat, and that is a big reason why the US, the UK, Brazil and other nations have suffered so badly. All the stuff about agendas, control by stealth and whatnot is just silly, fantastical bullshit.

@lord_casek Wondering if you've seen this. It's Newsmax back-pedalling like fuck on all the claims they've been airing about Dominion, Smartech, Chavez, George Sorros and all the other unsubstantiated accusations they've been airing the past two months. This is what it looks like when people realise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You start making bullshit claims about serious shit, you're likely to land in serious shit. Seems like Newsmax aint up for it. Wonder of old buddy Ron Watkins is considering his options at the moment, too.

You're partially repeating what I've already said myself. I don't think I'm gloating, even in the slightest: From up the page: Whilst I'm happy that Biden destroyed Trump in this election, and I'm not as anti-state* as you are, @MercerI certainly do feel like the US has just been through the shitter only to return to the status quo, which was responsible for giving us Trumpism in the first place. Biden may have come from a middle class background to work himself up to the presidency, however the system he represents is geared to supporting elite interest rather than the public and national interest. Just sucks that the four years under the clearly corrupt populist didn't force the US to take a look at itself and improve the nature of governance. It seems that experience was for nothing. I'm keen to hear from @lord_casekmoreso out of interest as to how people who seemed all in on 'the coming storm' and that the KRAKEN was about to be released, are now seeing things. Is there a questioning of their previously held assumptions or is there rationalising and construction of new narratives to avoid the discomfort of accepting that expectations weren't realised. Lastly, why do you think that Biden will be good for China? My fear is that the US's attention will land back in the M/E, especially due to KSA and Israel aligning against Iran - I expect a response from Tehran and that may distract Washington from the Indo-Pac. But I don't see a lot more than that.

In all seriousness though, now that Kayliegh McEnany is about to be out of work, any chance she might do porn?

Keen to hear where @lord_casekis on all of this. .

Whilst I'm happy that Biden destroyed Trump in this election, and I'm not as anti-state* as you are, @MercerI certainly do feel like the US has just been through the shitter only to return to the status quo, which was responsible for giving us Trumpism in the first place. Biden may have come from a middle class background to work himself up to the presidency, however the system he represents is geared to supporting elite interest rather than the public and national interest. Just sucks that the four years under the clearly corrupt populist didn't force the US to take a look at itself and improve the nature of governance. It seems that experience was for nothing. * I like the ideas that the ANCAPers put forward but I don't see them as realistic. I would like to see a reduction of the size and scope of the state and I would like to such much more transparency through all arms of the state and full accountability, which we in Australia and you kids in the US don't enjoy anywhere near enough.

It's all starting to fall apart pretty badly. Sidney Powell's "military intelligence expert" turns out to have been an army mechanic who failed the intake courses for mil intelligence and is not an expert witness at all: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sidney-powells-secret-military-intelligence-expert-key-to-fraud-claims-in-election-lawsuits-never-worked-in-military-intelligence/ar-BB1bRrRn The Texas state attorney that filed the illogical lawsuit, which SCOTUS refused to hear in a one paragraph response, is about to cop a bunch of charges for other shit (corruption, etc.) and is likely angling for a pardon rather than actually giving a shit about the election result (hence why it didn't matter to him that the lawsuit was never going to get up as it's about the theatre, not the actual legal outcome of the suit): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-accused-bribery/ The courts have done their thing (something like 60 cases lost - many of them utterly frivolous, one was only questioning the legitimacy of about 50 votes in a whole state - because it was never about the actual legal outcomes, it was all theatre for the believers, to give them the sense of having something taken, stolen from them, so they could hold onto that grievance until they vote again). There was no KRAKEN. The states have all certified their results. In a few hours the college votes will be received in D.C., and the election will be over. Is anyone still holding onto the line that there was big fraud and that Trump actually won?

This is the kind of shit Trump supporters are saying. Apparently the judicial system - even when stacked with Republican/Trump picks - is only valid when it does what you want, as opposed to objectively interpret the law. https://twitter.com/JarJarFan69/status/1337576719369310209/photo/1

Its only "abide by the constitution" that keeps this from being pure sedition. Even then, it's skating a very dangerous line. Also quite amusing that they tried an approach, which went precisely against the constitution - one state trying to enforce its view on another state's election processes. It's clearly just part of the strategy to feed the base and the sense of outrage, as confected as it actually is, but this shit really is dangerous. Pretty astounding what some people are willing to risk for power - and I'm referring both to the licking of Trump's dick and threatening social unrest and the Union in general.

@lord_casek- so we're at the point where we agreed that we would consider our positions based on what has happened. My position was that if we saw evidence presented in court that caused a number of key Dems to distance themselves from the election results, I would seriously question my opinion of what has occurred and basically accept that there may have been serious fraud in the election. Pretty fair to say that none of this have taken place. You said: If we don't see particular movement in the next week relating to more proof and if we don't see movement prior to Dec 14th. I also expect things to be shuffled to SCOTUS and a rally of Justices behind Alito (PA ignored his ruling). and: What I expect this week and next will be the beginnings to showing dems and republicans that our votes have not been our own for a long time now. How do you feel about what has happened in the past week, especially now that SCOTUS has knocked the Texas case back and that there was no rally behind Alito?

I too got in touch with Raven to let him know why I wasn't going to get involved anymore - not because I wanted to target those I felt were at fault, but because he mentioned me in a post and I felt that after enjoying this place for close to 15 years, I felt I owed him that respect. His response to me only reinforced why he deserves respect.

It was utterly ridiculous. A guy who has spent years hurling personal abuse at people and said that he's not a mod, used his mod powers to suspend some one for hurling personal abuse at him. This place hit its lowest point and it was the signal for me to leave too. I engage with @lord_casekat the moment in the news section, because we have a bit of history and I respect him, but that's the end of it for me. I'll post some local graff pics from time-to-time - it's what brought me here in the first place - but that's going to be it. Pity.

Searched this doc for mention of China and/or Iran and couldn't find either.

Not seeing anything out there that looks to be shifting the ground on massive voter fraud. Lots of accusations and claims but no actual proof. Keen to see if Powell has any (actually loaded) bombs to drop.

Not great when Rudy puts his hands on you.

Interesting claims, keen to see them actually tested.

I'll believe evidence when I see it regards anything more untowards regards the FISA applications. Yes, I know about Clinesmith altering the application (you may want to read the DOJ investigation as it was more than just altering his history as an agent but there were a number of other inaccuracies and omissions as well - the exec summary covers it well enough - https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf) But, if there's more than what was uncovered in that investigation, I'd like to see evidence rather than inferences. The Russians didn't do anything more than what they normally do? That's completely false. The scale of the operation was like nothing before experienced. I can say that with complete confidence and I can also say that Australia has never experienced anything like what occurred in 2016 and the Russians have had very, very little interest in Australia since the end of the Cold War. This is beyond question. Flynn went off the rails when he was D. DIA. Yes, he was seen as insubordinate, but he was also seen as a liability in America's CT efforts. Either way, I know what I say to be true, we was placing himself in a position where he was at risk of being compromised and he did not respond appropriately when he was warned about this. I know this to be true and I will leave this part of the conversation at that, save to say, I advise that your belief in that person is misplaced. Alright, well, all that opining aside, we have two clear points - one each, where one of us will soon have to question our position. If by Friday the 11th, the ground hasn't shifted completely regards the credibility of election results, you've got serious questions to ask. And if it does shift, I've got serious questions to ask. Time will tell, eh? May the best theory win! 🙂

Again, you misunderstand the meaning of the word proof. Ok, let's say that Rogers did warn Trump that Page was under surveillance, setting aside that Rogers is on record saying the Russians intervened in the election (the very thing the surveillance was supposed to investigate). How does that leap to some wide-ranging organisation and mobilisation to defeat widespread election fraud? Regards Flynn, I'm sorry, but he was warned when he was Dir. DIA that he was compromising himself. He was warned by his contemporaries and his leadership - note that he was sacked from his role as Dir. DIA. Not only is he no longer a credible actor but I've listened to 10 mins of that interview and it's just a rant. IF he had any real evidence, why has it not been tabled in court. Also keep in mind, affidavits are not proof in and of themselves. They are claims that are to be tested in court. Just because some one signs a claim doesn't automatically make it true. Back to your outcomes that would make you question your position, you mentioned certain evidence coming out this week. Can I assume that you are referring to KRAKEN? If evidence from Powell that stands on its own isn't released this week, you will question your position, do I understand correctly?

@lord_casekyes, I've read the stories about Rogers maybe telling Trump that elements of his campaign were under surveillance, however, that seems to fit very awkwardly with Rogers being convinced that Russia was involved in trying to influence the election. If he was convinced of that, why would he undermine an investigation into that very matter? Rogers was on his way to getting sacked as Director NSA well before he visited Trump Tower - the article you link to even states that. There had been much public discussion about his lackluster performance in that job well before he spoke to Trump - so your math doesn't add up there. All in all, what you're saying is not impossible - that Rogers warned Trump, and that's why he was kept on for another two years as D. NSA. But to go from there to where you are now requires you to ignore a number of very plausible alternative explanations and some pretty big leaps of reasoning. You also use the term 'proof' incorrectly, what you've provided isn't proof, it's just your evidence that you believe supports your argument. That's a big difference.

The National Guard in the circumstance you've linked to and the role that they played in the election is state-based and commanded by state governors. The kind of international operation you are claiming occurred, utlising SOF are federally commanded forces - clearly a completely different dynamic. There were reports of attacks on Russian/Iranian/whoever facilities by NSA prior to the election to disrupt foreign operations, I believe the military were involved in that but they were subordinate to NSA, who led the operation. What I am arguing is that policing domestic election fraud - they type you are claiming has occurred - is not a military responsibility. I don't see why they would be involved in anything of that nature. Which, again, is why I say that something that would challenge my position is military leadership, at the national level, stating that the international operations to seize servers and whatnot did occur - or even that the military were conducting operations to defend against domestic voter fraud. When you say "particular movement toward more proof", can you be more specific? I ask as almost anything can be reverse-engineered to fit into that description. I'm not asking you for that that evidence is, but something that would be clearly identifiable. For your reference to SCOTUS, if I read you right, you are saying that if the cases of fraud don't make it to SCOTUS you would reveiw your position? I think that's what you're saying and that would be a sensible marker for you to put forward. Why would things be shuffled at the end of an admin? There are many plausible reasons why: To entrech policies that were put in place and to make it hard for the incoming admin to change them - to shape depts and staffing in a way unfavourable to the incoming admin. To reward supporters. To "burrow" loyal supporters for future use (very, very common, look it up), place people in positions to destroy evidence of misdeads, to control the flow of information, to block projects, to permit for future decision making and contracts and procurement for profit. There are many plausible reasons for people to be placed in key positions as admins change hands and it is not at all unusual for it to occur. I see most of those reasons as being eminently more plausible than the idea that there is going to be some kind of great reckoning soon and that Trump is saving the US from some kind of silent coup.

I cannot echo and reinforce this strongly enough (include all phone apps, doorbell camera's home security systems, etc.). I've lost count of how many times commercial systems have been caught sending data back to parent companies without the knowledge and express consent of the user. That's bad enough in isolation, but many of these companies are China-based/owned and Chinese law forces them to open all books/databases to the Ministry of State Security when asked to do so (hence why Huawei is kryptonite). That aside, drone racing is awesome, would love to get into it one day and the idea of self-contained home security systems that utlise mini-autonomous vehicles, which interact with static sensors is so cool (in theory, at least).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying in your first two sentences. Can you give a little more details as to what outcomes over the next two months would challenge the way you understand things? Sorry, but this is precisely one of the structured processes that Defence folk use to ensure that they're not being seduced by their own biases. And as for SOF folk, this is not their area of expertise, I don't understand why you would choose to take that particular perspective over an electoral/legal issue. The military does not have a role here, which is why I say one of the things that would make me doubt my current assumptions is that JCS and upper-echelons of the military go public with operations they've been conducting with the aim of upholding the constitution on American soil. So, keen to hear what three outcomes are, that might occur in the next two months (that can be if outcome A occurs or if outcome B doesn't occur), that would cause you to question your current position.

@lord_casekcan you please write down in this thread, a few things that if they did or did not occur, would force you to reconsider your position on who Trump/Flynn/et al are and what happened in the 2020 election? This is just a standard/best practice for analysis that helps in correcting biases. You mentioned that you like to be kept on your toes, this is one of the best ways you can do that. For me, it would be that Powell tables evidence where there is very little plausible alternative explanations and belief in her claims does not rest on arguments like "do you think it's just coincidence?". A second is that key democratic congress-folk start distancing themselves from Biden's team and begin calling for independent investigations. A third would be JCS and other military leadership publicly confirming military operations regarding the probity and legitimacy of the election.

I come back in here to find that I agree with almost everything you're saying. #2020

Excuse all the typos in that, I was on the dunny when I wrote it.