2 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Trump and his allies have now lost over 50 post-election lawsuits: a staggeringly unsuccessful track record that reflects how flimsy - and often entirely confected - their complaints about election fraud and other supposed irregularities have been.

The only fraud here is Trump himself and, sad to say Wrecker,  you have been conned, taken for a ride and sucked right in by his bluster that is fuelled by an ego the size of Jupiter.  You can't show us the evidence of fraud because there is none.

I'm having as little success posting on Demonland as Trump's legal team are having in the US.

 

On 12/11/2020 at 3:39 PM, Wrecker45 said:

First person passed the the post wins. In Hillary v Trump it was a white wash becacsuse Hillary was hopeless. This one will be decided in the courts.

 

21 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Texas coming to save the Republic.  Wouldn't have it any other way.  At least 20 states have already joined their case as the tide has well and truly turned.

Pennsylvania's response to the Texas (+ 20 states) lawsuit looked like it was written by a 12 year old.

Told you all a month ago that Trump won and will do a 2nd term and nothing has changed. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

 

Guess we will find out soon who is living in the parallel universe.

 

6 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

You dont need to see them, the election fraud was perpetrated in front of the world on election night.

They just stopped counting in 6 swing states where Trump was up by hundreds of thousands of votes then start hauling ion stacks of votes for Biden.  Most blatant fraud in election history.  it made Venezuela blush.

 

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

It's actually more likely of widespread fraud than a few dead people "voting"

 

"Even worse for Trump, the three judges he appointed to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett - all voted to dismiss the case."

How is it that 1 person's testimony can lead to a Trump impeachment trial?

1 person's testimony could lead to George Pell's trial.

There are over 1,000 sworn avidavids on voter fraud. They are not being investigated properly. I can see it from here. Trump is a terribly bloke but he had been robbed.

17 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm having as little success posting on Demonland as Trump's legal team are having in the US.

Good to see you still have your sense of humour.  

As for the diehard Trump cultists:

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

You dont need to see them, the election fraud was perpetrated in front of the world on election night.

They just stopped counting in 6 swing states where Trump was up by hundreds of thousands of votes then start hauling ion stacks of votes for Biden.  Most blatant fraud in election history.  it made Venezuela blush.

I do need to see them. Then verify them to ensure that what I am seeing really is what it purports to be.  The fact that you recommend accepting things on faith is troublesome. Give me evidence and reasonable people will accept it.

It is impossible to rig an American election, because as Bob points out, it is in fact more than 50 separate elations all of which would have to be rigged simultaneously, without evidence coming out. 

6 hours ago, Jara said:

Hey Grr-owl - I must have eating my kids' hash cookies and been transported into another universe - either that or the Russians have hacked my brain. You quoted me saying something pro Diaper Don - about him having photos of suitcases of votes coming in - I don't think I said this. I've never said anything positive about him - he's a narcissistic monster.

 

Hey while we're here - my apologies if somebody's already listed this, but check out Randy Rainbow's Stable Genius on Youtube

Hmmm.... think it was originally in a post by P2J.....

7 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Time Magazine which racistly named Obama person of the year has just named joint persons of the year Biden and Harris.

Nevermind Trump has started getting peace in the middle east and never instigated a war 

What is the bet no Republican president ever wins it? You only have to be elected as a Democrat though. 

I'm surprised Hillary never won for trying to break the glass ceiling.

Peace in the Middle East is more complicated than it appears, and it appears very complicated. I live in the Sunni Arab ME and am writing out of personal experience only.

People were dismayed by the OBM administration doing the deal with Iran. Here, you don't bring your enemies closer, you obliterate them. Iran is the enemy. "They want their empire back," so it is sometimes said to me.

But they're not the only enemy. Where else in the world would you get students writing essays about how great Hitler was because 1. He built great roads, and 2. killed a lot of Jews? However, the announcement of the Abraham Accords was greeted with utter silence. There are two reasons for this: 1. Fear, and 2. They realize there is an advantage in being close to Israel. One is access to the Al Aqsa Mosque; another, the tech (which they already buy and use); and the third is that Israel hates Iran and have the nukes to deter them, though simultaneously recognizing the nukes will not deter Iran, once Iran gets their nukes, which they are eventually sure to do.

The key to the deal, however, is the sale of F-45's. This give people here first-strike capability across the region, including against Israel if or when the accords fail.

So, it's a matter of priorities. Obliterate, absolutely. But obliterate your major enemy first. The next can wait.

According to Henry Kissinger the world seems to be carving itself into four regions set against each other in a kind of cold war. The war is well underway in cyberspace, as Aussies should by now be well aware, and that Americans should understand as Russian interference in elections and Chinese hacking of, well, every good idea they can get their hands on. Iran is well up there now and North Korea a significant but bit-player. See Nina Schick for info on all that. So astonishingly smart, and so simple: divide and conquer using our strengths against us. It's the Art of War, martial arts 101.

Anyway, Kissinger says there are four scenarios that are the most likely catalysts for a large-scale conflagration. I gather he meant a conventional conflagration, but a cyber-war may be more likely, hard to say:

1. A deterioration in US-Chinese relations, whereby they tumble into the Thucydides Trap.

2. A breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, based on mutual incomprehension and made possible by:

3. A collapse of European hard power, due to the inability of modern European leaders to accept that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is just hot air; and/or

4. An escalation in the Middle East due to the Obama administration"s readiness in the eyes of the Arab states and Israel to hand hegemony in the region to a still revolutionary Iran.

Has the election of Biden made any of these less likely?

 

Edited December 12, 20204 yr by Grr-owl
auto-correction or fat-finger abomination

49 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

ou dont need to see them, the election fraud was perpetrated in front of the world on election night.

And here's why. Check out the picture. Who is this guy? Where is he? Why is he holding a rock? Why is the bus burning? 

Here is the same picture, with the caption as it appeared in the Australian.

Apparently, the guy is a 'moderate.'

Here is a second picture from the same article:

 

Now here it is with its caption. A clear and obvious attempt to push a particular political line, contrary to evidence.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

How is it that 1 person's testimony can lead to a Trump impeachment trial?

1 person's testimony could lead to George Pell's trial.

There are over 1,000 sworn avidavids on voter fraud. They are not being investigated properly. I can see it from here. Trump is a terribly bloke but he had been robbed.

You seem to equate  a Criminal Trial where quite often it is the word of the rapist against the rapee, with a concept called Election. To say there are over 1000 sworn affidavits on Voter Fraud does not mean that any of them have any substance. What you don't seem to understand is that not one judge or 'jury' has accepted that one of the affidavits is legitimate.

As someone with right of centre political leanings and who agreed with a number of Trump policies I have to say its past time that he exited stage left. The whole concept of democracy is built on the principal of loser consent. Campaign hard but once the votes are in accept defeat and allow the winner to get on with governing.

To be undermining the trust and integrity of the electoral system is the final evidence, as if any more was needed, that Trump is only interested in Trump and he doesn’t care what damage he does on the way out. And its past time the Republic party had the gumption to tell Trump to pack it in.

This electoral fraud circus will be equivalent to the farcical Russia gate nonsense that the Democrats were peddling for 3 years after losing the 2016 election. Flimsy evidence at best and completely politically motivated. Is it any wonder the US is in a parlous state when this is the kind of antics both major parties engage in.

There may well have been irregularities and instance of fraud. But nowhere near enough to overturn the results in any state. And remember Trump had set the scene to run with the electoral fraud excuse in 2016 …….until he won.

Bring on term 2.

 

3 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Peace in the Middle East is more complicated than it appears, and it appears very complicated. I live in the Sunni Arab ME and am writing out of personal experience only.

People were dismayed by the OBM administration doing the deal with Iran. Here, you don't bring your enemies closer, you obliterate them. Iran is the enemy. "They want their empire back," so it is sometimes said to me.

But they're not the only enemy. Where else in the world would you get students writing essays about how great Hitler was because 1. He built great roads, and 2. killed a lot of Jews? However, the announcement of the Abraham Accords was greeted with utter silence. There are two reasons for this: 1. Fear, and 2. They realize there is an advantage in being close to Israel. One is access to the Al Aqsa Mosque; another, the tech (which they already buy and use); and the third is that Israel hates Iran and have the nukes to deter them, though simultaneously recognizing the nukes will not deter Iran, once Iran gets their nukes, which they are eventually sure to do.

The key to the deal, however, is the sale of F-45's. This give people here first-strike capability across the region, including against Israel if or when the accords fail.

So, it's a matter of priorities. Obliterate, absolutely. But obliterate your major enemy first. The next can wait.

According to Henry Kissinger the world seems to be carving itself into four regions set against each other in a kind of cold war. The war is well underway in cyberspace, as Aussies should by now be well aware, and that Americans should understand as Russian interference in elections and Chinese hacking of, well, every good idea they can get their hands on. Iran is well up there now and North Korea a significant but bit-player. See Nina Schick for info on all that. So astonishingly smart, and so simple: divide and conquer using our strengths against us. It's the Art of War, martial arts 101.

Anyway, Kissinger says there are four scenarios that are the most likely catalysts for a large-scale conflagration. I gather he meant a conventional conflagration, but a cyber-war may be more likely, hard to say:

1. A deterioration in US-Chinese relations, whereby they tumble into the Thucydides Trap.

2. A breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, based on mutual incomprehension and made possible by:

3. A collapse of European hard power, due to the inability of modern European leaders to accept that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is just hot air; and/or

4. An escalation in the Middle East due to the Obama administration"s readiness in the eyes of the Arab states and Israel to hand hegemony in the region to a still revolutionary Iran.

Has the election of Biden made any of these less likely?

 

What I fail to comprehend about your summary is why, in a nutshell, you make out that Kissinger and Co, I.E. the USA and Israel are the good guys in this scenario. They are the ones who have fired all the shots, started the most wars and killed more people that any of the people you define as the bad guys. In other words, you have fallen totally in line with the US/Israel depiction of the Middle east as Us and Them. I guess, in essence, when you refine it, the Us and them concept is the centre-piece of the 3 Judeo/Christian/ Islamic faiths. Had it ever occurred to you that maybe we're all the same that all this religious stuff, this need to define an enemy  is pure and absolute [censored]?

A bit of levity

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHvgol4hhDa/

1 hour ago, dieter said:

What I fail to comprehend about your summary is why, in a nutshell, you make out that Kissinger and Co, I.E. the USA and Israel are the good guys in this scenario. They are the ones who have fired all the shots, started the most wars and killed more people that any of the people you define as the bad guys. In other words, you have fallen totally in line with the US/Israel depiction of the Middle east as Us and Them. I guess, in essence, when you refine it, the Us and them concept is the centre-piece of the 3 Judeo/Christian/ Islamic faiths. Had it ever occurred to you that maybe we're all the same that all this religious stuff, this need to define an enemy  is pure and absolute [censored]?

1. Can’t quite see how I made out out one side to be good and the other bad.... thought I was just describing the situation for the benefit of anyone interested. Maybe you’d like to point out where I went wrong.

Having said that, I certainly consider myself a Westerner and grateful for it, having lived in Chinese civilisation and Sunni Arab civilisation and found them both seriously wanting in certain respects that are important to me, namely freedom of expression and potential for social mobility among other things. Just wish the neoliberals would die, and then maybe I could move back to Aus and get a job.

2. Sure, it’s occurred to me, but do you think it has occurred to other parties hereby mentioned? I guess part of my summary that needs to be understood is that Sunni Arabs certainly see the world in an us v them way, as do Shias. By the way, us Westerners are NOT included among the Us.

There is much more to it - the conceptions of belongings and loyalties and identities involved - I couldn’t type it all out, but if you want to ask a question I can try to answer it rationally for you.

Maybe it would be useful to point out that national identities such as American or Israeli are not the primary level of identity among people here. They are first and foremost a member of a religious group. Nationality comes way down the list. Also, the religious group is not necessarily defined in the way that us Westerners define a religious group. It is less a personal matter than a worldview, an ideology, an entire way of life endorsed by the creator of the universe which other peoples reject to their eternal damnation. You have to go back 500 years in western cultures to find this idea prominent. Where I live, the West was last like this 800 years ago.

This manifests itself in ways which maybe a lot of Aussies don’t understand. For instance, when the US and allies invaded Iraq, people here didn’t see it in those terms. They see it as Christian’s invading Muslims. When I point out that the USA doesn’t represent Christianity, but is a nation of many faiths, none of which it represents, makes no impression. They liked Saddam, no matter how murderous, corrupt and rapacious he was, and forgive him personal and political failings because he killed Shias and because he identified as a Sunni.

Different way of seeing the world. Very much Us v. Them, endorsed by God. 

11 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

 

Different way of seeing the world. Very much Us v. Them, endorsed by God. 

In the case of the so-called West, it's very much US versus them, endorsed by greed, stupidity and weapons of mass destruction.

Edited December 13, 20204 yr by dieter

18 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

 

 

https://youtu.be/BtSOOBCWrsc

4 hours ago, dieter said:

In the case of the so-called West, it's very much US versus them, endorsed by greed, stupidity and weapons of mass destruction.

And not the only one. In fact, in my experience, the so-called West is the least greedy, definitely the smartest and the only ones who could be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

In any case, I originally was responding to Wrecker's post about Trump not starting any wars and his work in the Middle East. I was trying to make the point that it was probably a good move for US, Israel and the Arabs states to ally against Iran, and that the election of Biden puts that in jeopardy. The people here, while openly anti-semitic, nevertheless fear Iran more and wish to make their opposition explicit.

We'll see what happens, but if the accord breaks down, people here will see that as just another example of Jewish treachery and US fickleness. The US is a poor friend, as they see it. But if they have the F-35's by then, they will have been compensated somewhat, and the situation will be very complex indeed.

It's an important point that is being missed, in my opinion, that Trump got the deal done by selling a first-strike weapon to a middle-eastern regime. Was that smart? He would do anything to make himself look good....

24 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

And not the only one. In fact, in my experience, the so-called West is the least greedy, definitely the smartest and the only ones who could be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

I'm including all of the 'Colonial' Escapades of the West. Um, tally up the victims of their weapons of mass destruction before we even reached the end of the 19th Century. Then we had two -so-called World wars indulged in mainly by Western/'Christian' powers when weapons of mass destruction reigned.

The we had the unnecessary use of Atomic bombs in Japan- once again, the WEST.

Since then, the US has made horrific war in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Somalia, it raped Libya, attempted to rape Syria, destroyed Iraq by using one of the biggest lies in history, and is still raping Afghanistan. If Netanyahu had his way, it would have raped Iran by now as well.

Between you and me, Grr-owl, I don' t trust the so-called West. It lies, time, and time, and time again. For example, you are no doubt aware of the pretext for invading Afghanistan, aren't you? Come on, you remember, it was to capture Bin Laden...

Now, give me, please the tally of deaths caused by the ones you claim can't be trusted with weapons of Mass Destruction?

By the way, have you ever experienced the horror of War? Has anyone ever bombed your town or your city?

 

 

22 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

In any case, I originally was responding to Wrecker's post about Trump not starting any wars and his work in the Middle East. I was trying to make the point that it was probably a good move for US, Israel and the Arabs states to ally against Iran, and that the election of Biden puts that in jeopardy. The people here, while openly anti-semitic, nevertheless fear Iran more and wish to make their opposition explicit.

We'll see what happens, but if the accord breaks down, people here will see that as just another example of Jewish treachery and US fickleness. The US is a poor friend, as they see it. But if they have the F-35's by then, they will have been compensated somewhat, and the situation will be very complex indeed.

It's an important point that is being missed, in my opinion, that Trump got the deal done by selling a first-strike weapon to a middle-eastern regime. Was that smart? He would do anything to make himself look good....

Look, I understand what you're saying, but if we go any further we'll tread on the issue of Israel/Palestine and all of the ensuing issues to do with that nightmare. I don't want to go there...

22 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Peace in the Middle East is more complicated than it appears, and it appears very complicated. I live in the Sunni Arab ME and am writing out of personal experience only.

People were dismayed by the OBM administration doing the deal with Iran. Here, you don't bring your enemies closer, you obliterate them. Iran is the enemy. "They want their empire back," so it is sometimes said to me.

But they're not the only enemy. Where else in the world would you get students writing essays about how great Hitler was because 1. He built great roads, and 2. killed a lot of Jews? However, the announcement of the Abraham Accords was greeted with utter silence. There are two reasons for this: 1. Fear, and 2. They realize there is an advantage in being close to Israel. One is access to the Al Aqsa Mosque; another, the tech (which they already buy and use); and the third is that Israel hates Iran and have the nukes to deter them, though simultaneously recognizing the nukes will not deter Iran, once Iran gets their nukes, which they are eventually sure to do.

The key to the deal, however, is the sale of F-45's. This give people here first-strike capability across the region, including against Israel if or when the accords fail.

So, it's a matter of priorities. Obliterate, absolutely. But obliterate your major enemy first. The next can wait.

According to Henry Kissinger the world seems to be carving itself into four regions set against each other in a kind of cold war. The war is well underway in cyberspace, as Aussies should by now be well aware, and that Americans should understand as Russian interference in elections and Chinese hacking of, well, every good idea they can get their hands on. Iran is well up there now and North Korea a significant but bit-player. See Nina Schick for info on all that. So astonishingly smart, and so simple: divide and conquer using our strengths against us. It's the Art of War, martial arts 101.

Anyway, Kissinger says there are four scenarios that are the most likely catalysts for a large-scale conflagration. I gather he meant a conventional conflagration, but a cyber-war may be more likely, hard to say:

1. A deterioration in US-Chinese relations, whereby they tumble into the Thucydides Trap.

2. A breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, based on mutual incomprehension and made possible by:

3. A collapse of European hard power, due to the inability of modern European leaders to accept that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is just hot air; and/or

4. An escalation in the Middle East due to the Obama administration"s readiness in the eyes of the Arab states and Israel to hand hegemony in the region to a still revolutionary Iran.

Has the election of Biden made any of these less likely?

 

Thank you for writing something well thought out.

I despise Hitler but if my daughter wrote something factually correct about him I would encourage her. Not that would btw.