Fine in theory, but when we don't have accurately-counted "elections", "we" are pee-ons--as long as we continue to allow it. President George W. Bush times 2 and President Joseph Biden, are the most obvious examples.
In California some years back, there was a GMO Labeling Initiative which "failed" after middle-of-the-night and other shenanigans that, in hindsight, were a good preview of 2020.
Even "local" "elections" are sometimes screwed, eg a old boy party hack in Northern California supposedly getting 70% of the vote over an incumbent reformer (who pissed off a lot of the old boys) supposedly getting 23%, and an absolute nobody supposedly getting the other 7%.
As for 2024, unless the whole thing was a PsyOp, which I don't rule out, Trump's computer people were better than those behind Harris. The huge turnout was needed to sell it. I'm pleased that Harris' numbers were so much smaller than Biden's. Did the millions of "missing voters" get beamed into outer space? That helps to pull the curtain a little farther back.
According to Reuters as of this Posting, Trump has 50.5% of the popular vote, Harris 47.8%. Complete BS! If it were accurately counted, I'd say Trump got 60%-65%. So there are, to paraphrase Robert Frost, "miles to go before we sleep". And before we go, we have to impress upon future generations that there's no slacking off, no alternative to Eternal Vigilance.
Jerome Corsi and Eric Metaxes did an excellent job on the "voting machines". Corsi has multiple additional segments with others on the subject, but this one is a great overview/analysis:
Updates on Research Into Corrupt Voter Roll Algorithms: A Conversation with Eric Metaxas
What's a "liberal" these days? The language has been so bastardized that the terminology loses meaning. The closest by far to JFK that we have in the Senate today is Rand Paul. I'm not aware of Rand being called a "liberal". Yet:
"....if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties....if that is what they mean by a liberal then I am proud to be a liberal."
Fine in theory, but when we don't have accurately-counted "elections", "we" are pee-ons--as long as we continue to allow it. President George W. Bush times 2 and President Joseph Biden, are the most obvious examples.
In California some years back, there was a GMO Labeling Initiative which "failed" after middle-of-the-night and other shenanigans that, in hindsight, were a good preview of 2020.
Even "local" "elections" are sometimes screwed, eg a old boy party hack in Northern California supposedly getting 70% of the vote over an incumbent reformer (who pissed off a lot of the old boys) supposedly getting 23%, and an absolute nobody supposedly getting the other 7%.
As for 2024, unless the whole thing was a PsyOp, which I don't rule out, Trump's computer people were better than those behind Harris. The huge turnout was needed to sell it. I'm pleased that Harris' numbers were so much smaller than Biden's. Did the millions of "missing voters" get beamed into outer space? That helps to pull the curtain a little farther back.
According to Reuters as of this Posting, Trump has 50.5% of the popular vote, Harris 47.8%. Complete BS! If it were accurately counted, I'd say Trump got 60%-65%. So there are, to paraphrase Robert Frost, "miles to go before we sleep". And before we go, we have to impress upon future generations that there's no slacking off, no alternative to Eternal Vigilance.
Jerome Corsi and Eric Metaxes did an excellent job on the "voting machines". Corsi has multiple additional segments with others on the subject, but this one is a great overview/analysis:
Updates on Research Into Corrupt Voter Roll Algorithms: A Conversation with Eric Metaxas
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/updates-on-research-into-corrupt-voter-roll-algorithms-a-conversation-with-eric-metaxas--62298109
__________________________________
What's a "liberal" these days? The language has been so bastardized that the terminology loses meaning. The closest by far to JFK that we have in the Senate today is Rand Paul. I'm not aware of Rand being called a "liberal". Yet:
"....if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties....if that is what they mean by a liberal then I am proud to be a liberal."
--John F. Kennedy
Thanks for the feedback!