This is mostly right but strikes me as it needing said that I don't think the left or the intelligentsia have the slightest idea how low institutional trust in anything coming from a left mouthpiece is now. Except in-network, the best heuristic is "the opposite of what they said"

If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
Here's an example: Cuomo in NY, in reality, has the worst track record on Covid of nearly anyone. So they give him an award. But which award? An Emmy, for TV acting. Then they try to expand his powers to literally potential Nazi levels over a virus that's not bad enough.
It's virtually impossible to look at that and conclude that the people involved are honest brokers. They're either insane or evil, or both. Probably both, frankly, though not in the simplistic way many believe. Most are probably just crazy. The conspirator types are using them.
In such a state, it makes more sense to believe two conspiracies against Trump than one but not the other, especially when they share the same goal ostensibly for the same reasons and to the benefits of the same people. "If any then both/all" is a lower-burden conclusion here.
Under normal circumstances, and under the operation of law in the free world, evidence of each should be required to believe each. In a situation like what we find ourselves in now, it's a far higher cognitive load to believe there's no coordination between these oddities.
So, in some sense, I misspoke. Institutional trust in left mouthpieces isn't *low* now; it's *negative*, and for cracking good reasons. Those reasons are mainly that those mouthpieces are consistently completely wrong in a *nonrandom* way. Purposeful wrongness is credible.
This apparently purposed, or at least directional (if not directed) wrongness makes a trustworthy heuristic out of "the opposite of what they say is probably true," and it's genuinely easier to believe this is directed than coincidental, even though it's both.
Regarding election fraud suspicion directly, as I've been saying, Trump isn't acting like someone who has evidence, but the left as a whole aren't acting like they're innocent. In light of this heuristic, this might be the best circumstantial evidence of election fraud.
I mean that: better than all the affidavits, the vote count stopping, the weird turnout numbers, etc etc etc (there's a MOUNTAIN of decent circumstantial evidence here) is that the left mouthpieces are utterly denying it, with the same slippery lies as every other case of lies.
Add in more weird behavior from left mouthpieces: an "office of the president-elect"? (Not a thing, wtf.) The media declaring the election repeatedly. The media washing away and literally censoring any discussion of the mountain of circumstantial evidence? It looks bad, folks.
Now try to interpret that data in light of the torrent of nonrandom lies and their proper resolutions we've heard from left mouthpieces all year, and before, and suddenly, "stolen election" in addition to the obvious media conspiracy against Trump looks more plausible, not less.
I'm not saying that analysis is right, even though I rather strongly favor it myself. I'm saying it's neither ridiculous nor naive. It's actually way less crazy than trying to follow the shifting but overwhelmingly forceful narrative from left mouthpieces.
Everything the left is doing right now is utterly redolent of pseudo-reality, which is a distortion of reality that's either crazy or purposed (or both—mostly crazy and driven by relatively few purposed individuals). This has generated negative trust in left mouthpieces, rightly.
And, as one last point, if you don't want people to think your narrative is connected to a conspiracy, maybe don't name your presidential agenda after a big coordinated UN program (Build Back Better) that people already don't trust. Hmm?

More from Trump

To those who want to actually help Claudia Conway after her mom (Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former aide) posted her underage daughter’s nudes to Fleets, fill out a report on the NCMEC CyberTipline.
CPS refused to help her.
#HelpClaudia


Kellyanne Conway has a well-documented history of verbally abusing, gaslighting, and threatening her daughter. It gets worse when highly public things go viral (such as exposing the truth about Trump and Conway catching COVID-19 last October). Kellyanne coerces false statements.

Insider did a thorough chronological background of the history of exposing her parents abuse and control of her here:
https://t.co/ncjaEyLOSC

We all know that “statement” last year was coerced. She talks constantly about being abused by them.


Personally? I suspect Kellyanne is a narcissist. From my own experience being sexually and emotionally abused by a narcissist, they are obsessed with controlling the narrative (coerced typed statement), discrediting their victim (posting her nudes) & gaslighting

If you haven’t experienced gaslighting or aren’t familiar with it, it’s when someone causing you harm (physical, emotional, sexual, financial, etc) twists the facts and asserts that reality is just you being delusional and you don’t actually understand what happened.

You May Also Like

THE MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF SWASTIK

The Swastik is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon. Swastik has been Sanatan Dharma’s symbol of auspiciousness – mangalya since time immemorial.


The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक, pronounced: swastik) &denotes “conducive to wellbeing or auspicious”.
The word Swastik has a definite etymological origin in Sanskrit. It is derived from the roots su – meaning “well or auspicious” & as meaning “being”.


"सु अस्ति येन तत स्वस्तिकं"
Swastik is de symbol through which everything auspicios occurs

Scholars believe word’s origin in Vedas,known as Swasti mantra;

"🕉स्वस्ति ना इन्द्रो वृधश्रवाहा
स्वस्ति ना पूषा विश्ववेदाहा
स्वस्तिनास्तरक्ष्यो अरिश्तनेमिही
स्वस्तिनो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु"


It translates to," O famed Indra, redeem us. O Pusha, the beholder of all knowledge, redeem us. Redeem us O Garudji, of limitless speed and O Bruhaspati, redeem us".

SWASTIK’s COSMIC ORIGIN

The Swastika represents the living creation in the whole Cosmos.


Hindu astronomers divide the ecliptic circle of cosmos in 27 divisions called
https://t.co/sLeuV1R2eQ this manner a cross forms in 4 directions in the celestial sky. At centre of this cross is Dhruva(Polestar). In a line from Dhruva, the stars known as Saptarishi can be observed.