Maggie's Farm

Yes, I wondered when somebody would bring up that point about Zuckerberg's hundreds of millions spent directly administering elections in key swing districts, in violation of the law. Joe Rogan is getting soft.

And it's good to see California finally tackling its traffic problems by banning cars, it'll leave plenty of room for the buses. Let's not forget: The High Speed Rail will already be electric! (I internally shudder a little every time I see Newsome's slicked-back, grinning Joker face).

Finally the story about men doing chores got me curious: Nowhere in the Hot Air clip does it mention men's chores, and nowhere in the referenced RealClearScience story is it mentioned, either. The latter just shows a guy out feeding livestock. Hah! Nice try, ladies.

Tell us about Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein

What posts? Please provide. I made no mention of social media.

The donated money was only 'related to COVID' in the sense of the shutdown's impact on voting - that would be a diversion on your part, by your definition. The purpose of the donations was to administer election activities in place of the appointed officials already being paid to do it, not treat COVID cases, and in districts that were majority Democrat, in an effort to get out the Democrat vote. That was the overwhelming common thread to the Zuckerberg donations. Were possessing keys or counting ballots the only activities overseen by S-R and his team? No; another diversion.

Yes those are some of your favorite tricks, yanking the steering wheel to divert the conversation. But I'm not in your car, dude, and I don't work for you.

'The courts say so', another favorite. But I didn't mention courts, just like I didn't mention social media - those are things you bring, and then abandon. The courts frequently said nothing on the election and refused to take up the issues (sometimes correctly, sometimes not)- but in all cases the courts usually rule on narrow issues that you like to paint with a broad brush 'as if' - another insinuation trick. You rely on careful articulation to misrepresent your arguments.

A felon with a mile-long rap sheet punches a Chinese lady in the face in NYC and is out with no bail the same day, future case to be dismissed. Meth-head homeless in San Fran bust into cars all day long and are not prosecuted. Did they break the law? Do the courts say so? No - because these cases are no longer prosecuted. The courts don't say anything, because there are no cases in front of them. Are voters getting mad enough to recall prosecutors? Yes - yes, they are.

We know how the election was gamed because we've read the stories written by the people that did it. We've read the well-footnoted books and articles. It's not a secret. Keep shoveling, hon, and pay no attention to the tide.

Nice try, but all of my points are salient, which is why I made them.

As you no doubt can find out, the state appointed a Special Counsel to look into the 2020 election, a retired state Supreme Court justice. I invite you to download and read your very own copy (tip: use a highlighter), which you should have gone to first and foremost, as I did. You will understand why I might take his opinions over yours.

Yes, that's what I thought you would do. A retired state Supreme Court justice found evidence of law-breaking, some of the infractions on the part of the Zuckerberg-funded civilians that were wrongfully given authorities they shouldn't have had to administer elections. He cited the relevant legal code supporting his findings. He provided evidence that the law had been broken - which was your original challenge.

Your answer? 'Judge is Bad Man', playing his politically-driven dismissal as if it were a refutation of his findings. Your usual obfuscation, diffusion, dissembling self. Keep shoveling, baby. That tide just has to be wrong.