Thread – Election Fraud Denial and Course of Action

1. There was massive election fraud during the election. You know it, I know it, and everyone with a functional brain knows it – even those in the Democrat-media complex who want to wish it away & usher in the Biden Dark Ages.

2. There was an excellent article at American Thinker yesterday that examined possible reasons why an intelligent observer would opt for the cover-up of election fraud if it did take place:
https://t.co/Hth3IxoY3w
3. Here are the reasons listed:

3A. Reason 1: The election fraud–denier wanted President Trump to be removed from the Oval Office.

3B. Reason 2: The election fraud denier-wanted a Democrat to be elected as the president.
3C. Reason 3: The election fraud–denier was afraid of violence that investigation of election fraud may lead to.

3D. Reason 4: The election fraud–denier wants to be "pragmatic" — that is, to accept whatever happened and go along with whatever comes out of it.
3E. Reason 5: The election-fraud denier was concerned that any serious investigation of election fraud might erode public trust in our elections.
4. A current reigning theory on what may happen on 6 January based on the thin reed of the 12th Amendment is that VP Pence will be in the hot seat and required to make a choice on which way the presidential election goes.
5. Door #1 would be Pence throwing down the gauntlet, disqualify Biden’s electors in contested states, and substitute President Trump’s electors. That would take some serious courage because the Left/Democrats would come unglued.
6. Door #2 would be Pence rolling over and ignoring the election fraud in the interests of ostensibly avoiding the bloodshed that would ensue if he opened Door #1. I believe the assumptions associated with Door #2 (and Reason #3 above) to be false.
7. If Pence (on behalf of the political class) takes the path of avoiding an investigation into the election fraud to foster false safety and tranquility (Door #2), this will only ensure much worse violence once the fighting starts ….
7A. … because there are a lot of people who won’t take the “hologram” (the perfect analogy for Biden supplied by a friend) in the Oval Office lying down.
8. To take down the fraudsters can bring about a backlash of rioting from the Left. So what?
9. That rioting and associated violence will, in the rearview mirror, be a minor bump in the road compared to the terrible consequences of the civil militia standing up and setting the USA back on course as a legitimate Republic.
10. Get the correction done now and deal with the left's idiot street minions or do a full-up rebellion later in order to get things back on course. At this point, I am tired of the kicking the can down the road and do not care. I only want sooner than later.
11. From the Cold War until now, it seems all of my adult life has been the one big loop back to dealing with communists (globalists, aristocracy, whatever) one way or another.
12. That wheel has gone around, and I for one am pretty much done with the enemies of mankind and enemies of our goal of peace for everyone - socialists, commies, anarchists, global aristocracy, islamofascists, etc.
13. I don't expect to see the end of it, but WTF! Let's (finally - at least in the USA) get it done. If a depression or a virus can ripple around the world, maybe freedom can, too (finally). Perhaps my grandkids could live to see freedom AND peace.
14. All I know is that the road to peace is paved with dead enemies of freedom, and we do not get to the end of the road without paying the price and building the pyres.
15. Is the 7 years of tribulations predicted in the Book of Revelations coming? Because it sure looks biblical these days to me. Seven years of world war to gain a thousand years of peace? Seems like a deal to me.
16. I now return to my re-reading of the Left Behind series. I am on “The Remnant”…. ///The end.

More from Stop the Steal - Stu Cvrk

More from Politics

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.