The more I see interviews like this, the more I wonder. Note the sheer bewilderment of the media hack speaking to her. Real or simulated? Looks real to me. Another vindication of the Herman/Chomsky Propaganda Model perhaps: only the most repeatedly-filtered goodthinkers get the prominent jobs where they get to read to camera the shite handed down to them by the ‘news’ manipulators - and they actually believe it? Seems so. In the US just now the detachment from objective reality is so widespread, that you can believe any lunacy you like, and some audience will take you seriously, because they have the same lunacy aboard. Not that I think that Sydney is spouting lunacy; it all sounds entirely plausible, predictable, even. Though I’ve no idea how sound the alleged Chavez connection is. Have to retain the open-minded scepticism about that. Should be a popcorn-filled run up to the New Year… :
Seems unlikely to me. Threats of violence, along with actual violence, predominantly come from right wing nuts in the US. To a body, Trump supporters.
Anyway it looks like her star is setting in any case, as the Trump legal team have disowned her.
Cheers
Yep! This latest twist suggests the Orange One’s departure more in chaotic farce than in any effective counter-attack. I suppose I should have guessed when they kept bringing that weird Chavez canard into their arguments. And now everyone will be using Giuliani’s ‘Death In Venice’ sweating hair-dye moment as the main memory of their attempted counter-attack; an utterly inconsequential babbling-point to bury the - absolutely obvious - evidence of massive fraud by the anti-Trump camp…
OTOH, what I was conjecturing about was the well-known tendency of US deep-state mafiosi to simply kill individuals who get really annoying to their schemes. Had the - alleged - Trump ‘team’ not been so busy shooting themselves in the feet, Sydney’s efforts might have drawn more danger to her. As it is, I assume they’ll just let the Trumpers bury themselves in ineffectuality, via one of the deep-state’s usual channels: pliant, palm-greased judges.
Hi RG
So I’ve been sort of following the story and I’m curious about this statement of yours
So far I’ve not seen any evidence at all that stands the slightest sniff test. Much like the accusations of Russian hacking the last time. Almost every court case brought by the orange-one had been thrown out for compete lack of evidence, even in very pro-republican states. And as for the bonkers claims about Chavez and Castro - well, delusional seems too polite a word. Even Trump couldn’t stomach that level of nonsense.
What is the actual evidence of fraud against el Trumpo? So far I’m just not seeing it. And, for context, I do believe the DNC totally rigged vot primary votes against Sanders, Yang and Gabbard
Cheers
Well, as you know, P, I labour constantly under the conviction that in this time of living always immersed in the Permanent Bullshit Blizzard, which treats all reality and all hard facts as pliable and - wherever necessary - ignorable and suppressible (in science and politics, as well as in ‘news’), I have literally zero sources of information that I can consider rock solid. How do we sit-at-home keyboard artists get hold of anything at all that we can trust with our lives? Soberly, I have no idea what can be trusted confidently.
In this situation, I gamble: I surf widely across many sources, those with which I resonate strongly, those which feel iffy, but nevertheless seem to have odd nuggets of trustable-feeling stuff, and those which are frankly detestable to my reckoning, but which still have a narrative to offer that may on occasion contain some persuasive hard realities; just surf the whole spectrum as widely as you can stand to do, shite-holes and all!
Everything I see is run through my on-board bet-ometer, my odds-guesstimating faculty - which is of course never cast-iron certain to be right, in the nature of things, and which works under the permanent willingness to change an assessment if new facts - or let’s just call them assertions - come in; permanently open-minded blanket scepticism, in other words. I am guessing, after all, as we all are. But each offered ‘fact’ and analysis is assigned a provisional, for-the-time-being odds weighting.
This is the best that any of we amateur key-boardists can hope to do, I guess. On the strength of that approach, I estimate that there is such a welter of smoke over the current POTUS-(s)election farce that there simply has to be some fire beneath; as much of an odd’s-on certainty as we’re ever going to get, in the circumstances.
FWIW, I sense that the Trump gang are losing this struggle, and the Biden gang - the donkeys - will eventually steal it, despite them having arrogantly barely tried to hide the rackets they’re running. The other faction - the elephants - are just as criminal, and clearly stole the 2000 (s)election for Dubbya. Also, I should be clear, I despise and detest both gangs, and have absolutely zero partisan leaning towards either schmuck-bunch. I don’t actually give a damn who gets into the White House, taking as I do Dmitry Orlov’s estimate, that it really doesn’t matter which clown-figure is in it, since the deep-staters who actually run the empire will continue to rule in any case.
Sorry I can’t furnish any more detailed evidence than that. But the fact is, in these PBB-sodden days I can’t find anything at all, from any source at all, on which I’d stake my great-grand-children’s lives. (Even the current-orthodoxy paradigm in hard physics is in turmoil at this time!) It’s all down to a gambler’s savvy, I guess. And on the strength of that, I assert that this particular circus has been an orgy of vote-swindling by the donkeys. It will come as clear as did the 2000 swindle, over time, with the gradual uncovering of multiple hindsights. So I dissent from being conned by it. For what it’s worth - which I think is nothing much - I estimate that Trump actually won it, but is going to be swindled out of it by the realpolitik steam-roller now in motion. Cheers, P!
PS: As an example of some information which I’d assign a fairly good odds-estimate, the multiple whistle-blows, affidavits and sworn testimonies which Sydney Powell keeps brandishing fit the bill. Will any of it make headway through the obviously-corrupt US legal system? Does the Pope shit in the woods…?
PPS: Jim Kunstler - who I assume knows more of the details of the (s)election than I do - has a few observations about the swindle. Jim is one of the voices who gets pretty good odds for reliability - at least from my bet-ometer:
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/talkin-turkey/#more-13543’
PPPS: Oh look! You can actually have grown-up privileges and write ‘clusterfuck’ without Auntie Bowdler swooping in to disable your link, because - Naughtyspeak! Not allowed! This hosting site actually allows adult use of real-world language! Shockhorrorstorm…!