Tolkien, of course, is credited with having created an Elvish language, but Brits (at least historically) have been well-known for their ability to speak Cuntish.
All the Trumpian legal disputes have nothing to do with reality, and don't need to. Their purpose is not justice, it's to tie Trump up in legal knots and induce political impotence during the election campaign.
In short, it's lawfare, pure and simple, whereby the process is the punishment. If they fuck up his campaign and keep him from office then they have won, even if all charges are dismissed with costs awarded to Trump.
This is probably their strategy - but a part of me does wonder whether they actually *want* Trump to be nominated as the Republican candidate. He is hugely divisive and I suspect a quite significant number of votes in the 2020 election were not "pro-Biden", as such, but more "anti-Trump" votes.
I think in most elections you have an immovable clod - those who are going to vote for their party come what may, no matter many laptops are discovered (or, as Sam Harris puts it, no matter how many dead children are found in the basement). This clod can't be shifted.
Then you've got a kind of middle blob who can, to some extent, be swayed - and it's here where the battle is won or lost.
The best strategy for a party is to pick the candidate who appeals to the majority of the moveable blob.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are that no one really believes Gerald is a woman. But then I turn on NPR in the car and think, geez, these people are extremely earnest and apparently sincere as they twist themselves into knots to justify their indefensible religion. They are bad thinkers, aborting logic as if it were a biohazard. They think Gerald is a woman, people like you and me are transphobic (and racist, and homophobic, since obviously to them those things go together), and God forbid we also say we think children shouldn’t be trafficked because then we also get thrown into the qanon basket (of deplorables). Talk about conspiracy theorists. In any case, I enjoy your translations above and there are a few i will definitely have to make use of because they will make me chuckle inside so much.
I think there are quite a few people who say one thing on the surface to appear to be on that much-loved "right side of history" as they see it. The truth, the reality, is not as important to them as being seen to be good and virtuous - which is why even the merest questioning of the gender ideology is described as "hateful" and "bigoted"; it's a *tactic* to sway the do-goody-gooders who are too frightened to stand up for what they know to be right for fear of being an outcast.
The problem with the ideology is that it entirely divorces the meaning of what it is to be a woman from the biology of the matter. One cannot claim that "Geraldine" actually is a woman in the fullest sense of the meaning of that word without rejecting biology as being utterly irrelevant for determining the label woman. In other words, it only 'works' if you adopt an *incomplete* meaning of the word woman that views biology as having no determinative role in the matter at all.
I agree that some people try to hold such a dissonance and to maintain it, but I still think that, deep down, they know they're wrong.
People on NPR have never had any sense. They're sure not going to start having sense now, when pure unadulterated idiocy is the greatest thing of the day.
“One of the biggest charges laid against Trump is that he incited a violent insurrection.”
Not in court. The prosecutors came to the same conclusion as you: that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was not criminal incitement, and so none of the many charges he faces are for giving that speech.
His second impeachment did accuse him of it, and the media treated it as self-evident at the time, but for the actual criminal prosecutions they’ve had to go in different, also problematic, directions.
I can't say I've looked into it all in any great depth (there are far too many disturbing things happening all across the world to keep up with to a satisfactory level). Most of the opinion pieces I read tend to be about Trump's "incitement" of an insurrection (these include anti Trump pieces so that I get a flavour of the reasonableness and severity of the charges levelled against him).
I did read *some* of the current crop of indictments and felt a large stirring of WTF. They're almost surreal.
The demonization of Trump has been completely off-the-scale and utterly deranged - and I have very mixed feelings about the guy myself. He's rather a bit too full of himself and is prone to rambling incoherent monologues which have only a passing acquaintance to meaning. On the other hand, on top form, he's spectacular and very funny indeed.
Whatever he actually is, I know one thing he is MOST DEFINITELY NOT - and that's some kind of authoritarian dictator.
I wonder if they haven't poked the hornet's nest with this latest round of indictments - and maybe that's deliberate. Trump is extremely divisive and the last thing the Democrats would want is a candidate who can mobilize the base AND the undecided middle. Maybe they perceive Trump to be unelectable, because too many would automatically vote *against* him, and so they are poking the nest to shore up his support and gain the Republican nomination.
If they're wrong about all that, then they're going to get very badly stung. If Trump does get elected I think it's going to be a freakin bloodbath - both in public and within the administration itself. He's not going to keep the system "as is" so that they can do all this crap to him (yet) again.
All an extremely accurate summary of things re: Trump, etc., if you're a person that still clings to reality. In case you've missed it, see Chris Bray's related recent piece about this American 'political' tendency to go off and get extremely lost in the behavioral bushes: https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/dont-miss-the-american-precedent
Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Rudolph Rigger
Most Americans still find being called a cunt quite shocking. So a cuntish way to call them a cunt would be to call them The Canadian Prime Minister or perhaps Kamala Harris. You could say “ you remind me of Kamala Harris”. Or perhaps, “You talk like Megan Merkel”
Donald Trump is guilty of being Donald Trump, what else do you need?
As for elections, they must be fair and just and the lithmus-test for that is if "Our Democracy" wins or not. Otherwise, we just vote until we get the correct result.
Yes?
Ezra Pound, Oswald Mosley, and other classical fascists must be laughing their asses off...
Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Rudolph Rigger
There is vast evidence of voter fraud and cheating. The problem is the extreme radical left being exposed to it is the corrupt DOJ, FBI, Judges, etc Not to mention the Ministry of Truth… the vast propaganda network clearly has you in its grip. Do you also believe that The science papers on the clot shot are truth? The articles you mention are about as reliable as those put out by the IPCC, or any study by WEF.
I'm not sure how "vast" the evidence is - I think some of it, to my mind, is a bit suspect. But even with that there's enough doubt in my mind to want this issue to be *thoroughly* examined by properly independent and competent analysts. How one finds such independence, though, is not an easy task.
One troubling issue (amongst quite a few) for me were the upticks in the vote in some states, together with the suspension of the vote count for a few hours. The press already had primed the electorate to accept this as normal with their assumption that postal votes would tend to favour Biden. This is probably true, but we're probably talking more like a 55/45 split than a 95/5 split. The upticks (which seemed to only happen for Biden) did not look statistically "representative" to me at all.
The whole postal ballot thing shocked me, professionally. In my non-snarky and serious past (.i.e when I didn't have fun writing decidedly non-professional articles like I currently do) I worked with some large banks and insurance companies helping them to develop their digital certificate infrastructures in accordance with the various standards. You cannot compromise on security when it comes to these things - and you need to have as good an understanding of the various risks and threats as possible if you are to do a good job (which I hope I did).
In my professional view the whole postal ballot thing in the 2020 election was a security shambles. It was fraud, on a large scale, just waiting to happen. Whether it actually *did* happen or not is another question - but the *possibility* of such extensive fraud was baked into the system from the get-go.
Vast or extensive… either is true thought a little hard to quantify what one considers vast. The movie 2000 mules alone is evidence of a very large conspiracy. There is new evidence surfacing all the time. In fact it could take many days to research all the examples of fraud.
I can sympathize with your "skepticism" over the charges leveled at Trump, not least because many seemed to have made questionable accusations in the run-up to the 2016 election -- the infamous Steele Dossier for example:
But still think you have your thumbs on the scales when it comes to the current charges against him. While the article I'd linked previously [https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/the-mongo-supremo-indictment-and] covers part of those, it seems many others before and since have elaborated on the "fake elector scheme" that seems central to those charges:
Politico: "In a series of court filings this week, those false electors, who became part of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, said it was Trump and his campaign lawyers who urged them to sign the false documents, claiming they were necessary to preserve Trump’s flailing court efforts to reverse his defeat to Joe Biden."
Kind of looks like a smoking gun to me, not to mention any number of actual "corpses". You might do a Google on "Trump fake elector" for further details.
I've had to learn a bit about what an "elector" is. As I understand the situation, the Trump team were not trying to **replace** the legitimate electors here - but to create a kind of *alternative* scenario with people who could have been chosen as electors. This was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the official result.
It seems to be a case of "look, guys, here's what would have happened had the electors done their job properly".
I may not have understood things correctly - but it doesn't seem to be much of a "crime" when viewed in this light. If you believe that casting any doubt on the election IS a crime then you'll find this tactic to cast doubt to be dreadful.
The point here is that Trump wasn't trying to place these 'fake' electors into the legitimate electoral college. It seemed to be more of a propaganda stunt. These 'fake' electors didn't "certify" anything - and they knew their certification carried no legal weight whatsoever.
If I have this assessment wrong - I'd be happy to be corrected.
Rather convoluted process, partly if not entirely due to idiosyncrasies of the US election system. Which I certainly don't have a good handle on.
But seems rather clear that the objective WAS to "replace the legitimate electors". Politico again:
"Trump eventually used the existence of these illegitimate slates to provoke a controversy on Jan. 6, 2021, pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to recognize and count the unofficial electoral votes instead of Biden’s."
All the Trumpian legal disputes have nothing to do with reality, and don't need to. Their purpose is not justice, it's to tie Trump up in legal knots and induce political impotence during the election campaign.
In short, it's lawfare, pure and simple, whereby the process is the punishment. If they fuck up his campaign and keep him from office then they have won, even if all charges are dismissed with costs awarded to Trump.
This is probably their strategy - but a part of me does wonder whether they actually *want* Trump to be nominated as the Republican candidate. He is hugely divisive and I suspect a quite significant number of votes in the 2020 election were not "pro-Biden", as such, but more "anti-Trump" votes.
I think in most elections you have an immovable clod - those who are going to vote for their party come what may, no matter many laptops are discovered (or, as Sam Harris puts it, no matter how many dead children are found in the basement). This clod can't be shifted.
Then you've got a kind of middle blob who can, to some extent, be swayed - and it's here where the battle is won or lost.
The best strategy for a party is to pick the candidate who appeals to the majority of the moveable blob.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are that no one really believes Gerald is a woman. But then I turn on NPR in the car and think, geez, these people are extremely earnest and apparently sincere as they twist themselves into knots to justify their indefensible religion. They are bad thinkers, aborting logic as if it were a biohazard. They think Gerald is a woman, people like you and me are transphobic (and racist, and homophobic, since obviously to them those things go together), and God forbid we also say we think children shouldn’t be trafficked because then we also get thrown into the qanon basket (of deplorables). Talk about conspiracy theorists. In any case, I enjoy your translations above and there are a few i will definitely have to make use of because they will make me chuckle inside so much.
I think there are quite a few people who say one thing on the surface to appear to be on that much-loved "right side of history" as they see it. The truth, the reality, is not as important to them as being seen to be good and virtuous - which is why even the merest questioning of the gender ideology is described as "hateful" and "bigoted"; it's a *tactic* to sway the do-goody-gooders who are too frightened to stand up for what they know to be right for fear of being an outcast.
The problem with the ideology is that it entirely divorces the meaning of what it is to be a woman from the biology of the matter. One cannot claim that "Geraldine" actually is a woman in the fullest sense of the meaning of that word without rejecting biology as being utterly irrelevant for determining the label woman. In other words, it only 'works' if you adopt an *incomplete* meaning of the word woman that views biology as having no determinative role in the matter at all.
I agree that some people try to hold such a dissonance and to maintain it, but I still think that, deep down, they know they're wrong.
People on NPR have never had any sense. They're sure not going to start having sense now, when pure unadulterated idiocy is the greatest thing of the day.
“One of the biggest charges laid against Trump is that he incited a violent insurrection.”
Not in court. The prosecutors came to the same conclusion as you: that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was not criminal incitement, and so none of the many charges he faces are for giving that speech.
His second impeachment did accuse him of it, and the media treated it as self-evident at the time, but for the actual criminal prosecutions they’ve had to go in different, also problematic, directions.
Thanks kapock
I can't say I've looked into it all in any great depth (there are far too many disturbing things happening all across the world to keep up with to a satisfactory level). Most of the opinion pieces I read tend to be about Trump's "incitement" of an insurrection (these include anti Trump pieces so that I get a flavour of the reasonableness and severity of the charges levelled against him).
I did read *some* of the current crop of indictments and felt a large stirring of WTF. They're almost surreal.
The demonization of Trump has been completely off-the-scale and utterly deranged - and I have very mixed feelings about the guy myself. He's rather a bit too full of himself and is prone to rambling incoherent monologues which have only a passing acquaintance to meaning. On the other hand, on top form, he's spectacular and very funny indeed.
Whatever he actually is, I know one thing he is MOST DEFINITELY NOT - and that's some kind of authoritarian dictator.
I wonder if they haven't poked the hornet's nest with this latest round of indictments - and maybe that's deliberate. Trump is extremely divisive and the last thing the Democrats would want is a candidate who can mobilize the base AND the undecided middle. Maybe they perceive Trump to be unelectable, because too many would automatically vote *against* him, and so they are poking the nest to shore up his support and gain the Republican nomination.
If they're wrong about all that, then they're going to get very badly stung. If Trump does get elected I think it's going to be a freakin bloodbath - both in public and within the administration itself. He's not going to keep the system "as is" so that they can do all this crap to him (yet) again.
This should be a Celia Farber post from yesterday. Maybe, just maybe, "they" f'd up.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=257742&post_id=136420158&utm_source=post-email-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MjI0MDQxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTM2NDIwMTU4LCJpYXQiOjE2OTMwMTYwNDcsImV4cCI6MTY5NTYwODA0NywiaXNzIjoicHViLTI1Nzc0MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.7SOmnbADrLpmQ-pGiQr4HQGgdi8rc3QtW_jazpot8W0
Great article!! You’ve eloquently written what has been dancing in my brain for quite a while. This whole shit-show makes me sick.
Thanks CarolAnne
Yes, the various trends and directions we seem to heading in are very worrisome indeed.
All an extremely accurate summary of things re: Trump, etc., if you're a person that still clings to reality. In case you've missed it, see Chris Bray's related recent piece about this American 'political' tendency to go off and get extremely lost in the behavioral bushes: https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/dont-miss-the-american-precedent
Chis Bay is essential reading for all normal people. Very highly recommended.
I'll second that - he's an excellent writer and writes some great pieces.
Most Americans still find being called a cunt quite shocking. So a cuntish way to call them a cunt would be to call them The Canadian Prime Minister or perhaps Kamala Harris. You could say “ you remind me of Kamala Harris”. Or perhaps, “You talk like Megan Merkel”
Donald Trump is guilty of being Donald Trump, what else do you need?
As for elections, they must be fair and just and the lithmus-test for that is if "Our Democracy" wins or not. Otherwise, we just vote until we get the correct result.
Yes?
Ezra Pound, Oswald Mosley, and other classical fascists must be laughing their asses off...
There is vast evidence of voter fraud and cheating. The problem is the extreme radical left being exposed to it is the corrupt DOJ, FBI, Judges, etc Not to mention the Ministry of Truth… the vast propaganda network clearly has you in its grip. Do you also believe that The science papers on the clot shot are truth? The articles you mention are about as reliable as those put out by the IPCC, or any study by WEF.
I'm not sure how "vast" the evidence is - I think some of it, to my mind, is a bit suspect. But even with that there's enough doubt in my mind to want this issue to be *thoroughly* examined by properly independent and competent analysts. How one finds such independence, though, is not an easy task.
One troubling issue (amongst quite a few) for me were the upticks in the vote in some states, together with the suspension of the vote count for a few hours. The press already had primed the electorate to accept this as normal with their assumption that postal votes would tend to favour Biden. This is probably true, but we're probably talking more like a 55/45 split than a 95/5 split. The upticks (which seemed to only happen for Biden) did not look statistically "representative" to me at all.
The whole postal ballot thing shocked me, professionally. In my non-snarky and serious past (.i.e when I didn't have fun writing decidedly non-professional articles like I currently do) I worked with some large banks and insurance companies helping them to develop their digital certificate infrastructures in accordance with the various standards. You cannot compromise on security when it comes to these things - and you need to have as good an understanding of the various risks and threats as possible if you are to do a good job (which I hope I did).
In my professional view the whole postal ballot thing in the 2020 election was a security shambles. It was fraud, on a large scale, just waiting to happen. Whether it actually *did* happen or not is another question - but the *possibility* of such extensive fraud was baked into the system from the get-go.
Vast or extensive… either is true thought a little hard to quantify what one considers vast. The movie 2000 mules alone is evidence of a very large conspiracy. There is new evidence surfacing all the time. In fact it could take many days to research all the examples of fraud.
Though
I can sympathize with your "skepticism" over the charges leveled at Trump, not least because many seemed to have made questionable accusations in the run-up to the 2016 election -- the infamous Steele Dossier for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
But still think you have your thumbs on the scales when it comes to the current charges against him. While the article I'd linked previously [https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/the-mongo-supremo-indictment-and] covers part of those, it seems many others before and since have elaborated on the "fake elector scheme" that seems central to those charges:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/24/co-defendant-georgia-trump-indictment-00112932
Politico: "In a series of court filings this week, those false electors, who became part of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, said it was Trump and his campaign lawyers who urged them to sign the false documents, claiming they were necessary to preserve Trump’s flailing court efforts to reverse his defeat to Joe Biden."
And see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
Kind of looks like a smoking gun to me, not to mention any number of actual "corpses". You might do a Google on "Trump fake elector" for further details.
I've had to learn a bit about what an "elector" is. As I understand the situation, the Trump team were not trying to **replace** the legitimate electors here - but to create a kind of *alternative* scenario with people who could have been chosen as electors. This was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the official result.
It seems to be a case of "look, guys, here's what would have happened had the electors done their job properly".
I may not have understood things correctly - but it doesn't seem to be much of a "crime" when viewed in this light. If you believe that casting any doubt on the election IS a crime then you'll find this tactic to cast doubt to be dreadful.
The point here is that Trump wasn't trying to place these 'fake' electors into the legitimate electoral college. It seemed to be more of a propaganda stunt. These 'fake' electors didn't "certify" anything - and they knew their certification carried no legal weight whatsoever.
If I have this assessment wrong - I'd be happy to be corrected.
Rather convoluted process, partly if not entirely due to idiosyncrasies of the US election system. Which I certainly don't have a good handle on.
But seems rather clear that the objective WAS to "replace the legitimate electors". Politico again:
"Trump eventually used the existence of these illegitimate slates to provoke a controversy on Jan. 6, 2021, pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to recognize and count the unofficial electoral votes instead of Biden’s."
Looks to be a rather serious crime.
You must be a bit of a Canadian Prime minister.
??? 🙄
Not sure that does much if anything to change the facts surrounding fake electors. Unless you maybe have some evidence to contrary ...