PortaJohn
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
-
- Tags
somebody gonna get burned
Disclose.tv on Gab: ''
Disclose.tv on Gab: 'JUST IN - Fox 26 Reporter Ivory Hecker says live on air that she has been "muzzled" by Fox. Corp and announces Project Veritas will drop her story tomorrow.'gab.com
Ivory Hecker didnt kill herself.
call your county coroner and ask for total death numbers for each of the last 5 years.
you can also ratio with the total population...
my county did see an increase in total deaths for 2020. it is higher than "expected" given calculated population growth. certainly many more variables not factored...but at least in my AO, there was an increase in total deaths for 2020...
you can also ratio with the total population...
my county did see an increase in total deaths for 2020. it is higher than "expected" given calculated population growth. certainly many more variables not factored...but at least in my AO, there was an increase in total deaths for 2020...
The fact they are even discussing HR1 indicates that....this is going to be shocking to some.........THEY DO NOT GIVE TWO FUCKS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!
Ashli Babbitt's husband says shooter cop must be named
Aaron Babbitt told Tucker Carlson on Monday that he still hasn't been told which officer was responsible for fatally shooting his wife Ashli Babbitt inside the US Capitol on January 6.
too late dickweed
The Japanese had a cultural remedy for his crimes.......but being as we live in a state of "no shame" he wont get it.
Ask them.........Perhaps we find out where all the ammo has gone.
This is not good.
How committed are we to the Republic, them to "fundamental change"?
A ballot with a watermark which would lead one to believe that if there were ballots without watermarks they would be considered to be fraudulent.
Havent seen any pictures yet though of ballots without watermarks.
Oh God. This fuckstain again.
I think he is pointing out a truth.
I think he is acutely aware of what happened over the last 8 months and he is reveling in our predicament and certainly enjoying our hypocrisy.
We have given him his cudgel by not having our own house in order.
Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Someone here who works in the medical community did make a good argument for how the big numbers were generated from small samples. As as engineer, I have a built-in suspicion of this practice, because it seems that all the interesting bits of data like to hide in-between the sampling events.Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
Former CDC director Redfield explains why he believes COVID-19 emerged from lab, WHO 'compromised'
EXCLUSIVE: Robert Redfield, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, explained the reasoning behind his opinion that a lab leak was the most likely explanation for the COVID-19 pandemic’s origins.
www.foxnews.com
Agreed. He's pointing out our own hypocrisy in a way that's very difficult to do from within, and because anything associated with Russia turns into a partisan pissing match, it has a secondary effect of driving a wedge. Well played, Mr. Putin.
I'm not a pain in the ass.Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
don't forget, early on they isolated and sedated patients and basically killed them with vents.Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
i would suggest many of these deaths were caused by medical errors, since it was already the 3rd leading cause of death.
Unhinged Liar Katie Hobbs Comes Unglued! Demands Senate Take Action In Wild WaPo Hit Piece | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Unhinged liar Katie Hobbs submitted a junk opinion piece to the Washington Post on Tuesday.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Putin is a very smart man. Not that I like that SOB as he is as evil as they come, but I'll give credit where it's due. He waited and manipulated, got PJ, and now is busy pointing out how we, The Republic, cannot even follow our own rules and a mockery we've become on planet Earth, Milky Way. He's loving this, as are china, iran, terrorist groups, all enemies of the USA. Our allies, whilst they may have disliked "orange man" they certainly are probably beyond disbelief at what happened here.
Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
So you acknowledge that rat poison is 99% good food, and only 1% poison.
And does that make the recipient any less dead?
ABC: One Scientist Who Signed Lancet Letter Dismissing Lab Leak Theory Now Thinks Lab Leak Is More Likely, ‘Several’ Now Uncertain
On Monday's broadcast of ABC's "Good Morning America," ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran reported that one of the scientists who signed a | Clips
www.breitbart.com
My concern at this point is that we've got this option, and then we've got Choid's hypothesized option (the resign-nominate-resign process that would restore Trump to the presidency), and then we've got option C which probably involves a military coup of some sort, and then maybe there's Option D which involves the Supreme Court flexing its muscles. The 2nd and 4th options are the only one that guarantees the Republic continues to stand, but would almost certainly create an irreparable internal divide that would be ripe for explotation by an adversary. So, yeah, interesting times.
ABC: One Scientist Who Signed Lancet Letter Dismissing Lab Leak Theory Now Thinks Lab Leak Is More Likely, ‘Several’ Now Uncertain
On Monday's broadcast of ABC's "Good Morning America," ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran reported that one of the scientists who signed a | Clips
So what's causing ABC News to stir the pot regarding this story? It's not because of their undying dedication to the pursuit of journalistic integrity.
For a pretty smart guy, you dont seem to be paying very good attention to current events.
The court doing so would not only be outside their mandate, but would also lead to one or three, because it presupposes that a negotiated outcome was not possible. So either the two parties would be left to battle it out, or the military would have to step in.
There is also the far more likely option that there wasn't significant fraud and that all of the speculation is for naught.
If you're china and you know a defector with direct knowledge that the virus was purposefully released, maybe you get out in front of that with 'lab leak'.
Now that hypothesis gets pretty spicy. I tend to regard this as being highly unlikely (roughly the same probability that this virus magically jumped from bats to humans). But if indeed this is the case, and that the current administration has become aware of this, then back-dooring the Chinese lab leak hypothesis through 2nd-rate leftists outlets (Buzzfeed, VF, Newsweek, et al) makes sense. And it might also explain why big outlets like the NY Times are treating this whole story as if it was radioactive. Still seems like a stretch, but it's worth pondering.
I think the other hypothesis is that the current administration knows that a conflict with China is brewing, and it wants to establish justification for whatever is yet to come. If the US finds itself on its heels after, say, an invasion of Taiwan and a subsequent naval ass-kicking in the South China Sea, then it might help to have proof of a bioweapon attack prior to letting go with a few tactical nukes (a sequence of events recently described in "2034").
If you are planing a war with China, and have even remotely looked over history, it would be in your best interest to plan to use nukes, first and as many as needed, as big as needed.
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge
www.revolver.news
Robert Barnes Article of the Day: Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Jun 15, 2021 at 10:41am
More evidence coming out continually... "In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted. The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency....this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.
If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister."
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News
Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.
www.revolver.news
Robert Barnes Article of the Day: Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Jun 15, 2021 at 10:41am
More evidence coming out continually... "In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted. The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency....this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.
If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister."
Last edited:
I remain optimistic that we'll be able to hug it out.
If Roberts has a say it will be...."Yes this was Unconstitutional but I am redefining it as an election on "Mean Tweets" rather than the Presidency, so Joe Biden won and the voters will get a say otherwise in the next election."
There is a reason the military is being purged right now.
Oh God. This fuckstain again.
Probably why they want Bryer to retire NOW!
Replace him with someone Lenin would be proud of and its Kagan, Sotomayer, the new guy and Roberts. Guessing Kavanaugh will join in.
Last edited:
I believe there is a Constitutional correction. If the Vote was corrupt and Trump won, then the Inaug of Biden is UnConstitutional and Void. Trump could be sworn, end of story.
Of course if SCOTUS were going to make that ruling? Trump would likely be sworn in secret before it was made public. This would assure continuity and prevent any enemies from trying to seize an advantage in the confusion. Including Domestic enemies. JMHO
Of course if SCOTUS were going to make that ruling? Trump would likely be sworn in secret before it was made public. This would assure continuity and prevent any enemies from trying to seize an advantage in the confusion. Including Domestic enemies. JMHO
Fire up the FN plant and start pouring out 240Bs with an infinity belt to feed them.
Rifles wont have enough fire power if we get in a land battle with them.
Our only option is to win from under the sea.
We are a Naval power. They are a land power.
"Invading" them shouldnt even be considered.
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News
Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.
Robert Barnes Article of the Day: Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Jun 15, 2021 at 10:41am
More evidence coming out continually... "In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted. The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency....this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.
If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister."
You understand that the Reichstag fire was not the result of a Communist Jew right?
There isn't. SCOTUS would have to make it out of whole cloth. Not saying they wouldn't, or even that they shouldn't, but it is definitely not contemplated anywhere. But my main point, which I think is correct, is that IF there is provable fraud, then one of two things will happen. Either there will be a negotiated outcome, or there will be conflict. The court may help negotiate that outcome, but if it goes to the court as an issue that is intractable going in, why would it be less intractable coming out? That implies that respect for the court is greater than the lust for power.
I still think it is extremely unlikely that there is much there. I'm happy to wait and see, but without treating the claims of each side with the same level of skepticism, we are all flying blind. And not that I do, I am definitely more skeptical of the Trumpist arguments for the reasons I have laid out before. But I am willing, and would be happy to be, wrong.
There have been several 9-0 votes of late. This could be setting the stage for a 9-0 vote invalidating the Election and voiding the Inaug of Biden. The only peaceful hope would be a unanimous decision.
What's the likelihood that we get the long-awaited (by some) Constitutional Convention? It's the perfect setup - we've got this really bad situation, the Constitution doesn't address it, so let's get together and blow up the whole thing.
I'm not suggesting that this was the plan all along, but it sure would be one way to take advantage of a crisis.
I'm not suggesting that this was the plan all along, but it sure would be one way to take advantage of a crisis.
The court could rule Trump won if the Biden winning votes were all missing or forged. And in the audited count Trump won.
A constitutional convention would be a disaster. Do you realize what the majority of people in this country would want?
