The Fake News Media, working in close conjunction with Big Tech and the Radical Left Democrats, is doing everything they can to perpetuate the term “The Big Lie” when speaking of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud. They are right in that the 2020 Presidential Election was a Big Lie, but not in the way they mean. The 2020 Election, which didn’t even have Legislative approvals from many States (which is required under the U.S. Constitution), and was also otherwise corrupt, was indeed The Big Lie. So when they try to sell the American people the term The Big Lie, which they do in unison and coordination, think of it instead as the greatest Fraud in the history of our Country! An even greater Hoax than Russia, Russia, Russia, Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, or any of the other many scams the Democrats pulled!
Starting back in July 2020, I hosted a weekly podcast where I was joined by Neil “Keego” Keegan and we chatted about the run-in to the 2020 US Presidential Election while also looking at explanations of all the different mechanisms involved.
Click here to listen to the final episode recording January 22, 2021 or click here to back and check out the full series.
Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful, light and I think you said that hasn’t been checked and you’re going to test it. and then I said suppose you bring the light inside the body which you can do either through the skin or in some other way and I think you said you’re going to test that too. sounds interesting (doctor says something). then I see the disinfectant knocks out in a minute and there is a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because as you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs it would be interesting to check that use medical doctors but it sounds interesting to me….
… I once mentioned that maybe it does go away with heat and light and people don’t like that statement very much because the fake news didn’t like it at all I just threw it out as a suggestion and it seems like that’s the case
Having bought his way on to the stage, the former New York mayor was somehow unable to pay his own brain to come up with the right answers to the absolute thrashing he was given by the other candidates, particularly Elizabeth Warren, in Nevada on Wednesday night.
Yet his money has also bought him a TV station, so I had to laugh at the way his employees cobbled together a series of clips that came under the title “highlights”.
First and foremost, it has to be the only place you’ll find Bloomberg using a line which I have to assume he thought would win him the debate hands down. Check it out for yourself, it comes first in the above clip. In fairness, the package does include some attacks on him, but definitely not the most hard-hitting ones. Nothing about stop and frisk, nothing about refusing to release his employees from their Non Disclosure Agreements, nothing about his reported misogyny.
Personally, I reckon Bernie Sanders was the winner on the night. Warren definitely had a good night attacking those around her but I reckon she’s so far behind in the polls that her performance may have helped Sanders more than herself.
I think Bernie did really well to dodge the blows thrown at him – the usual ones on Medicare for All were harmless enough, but since he has pulled away as the front runner there are some new modes of attack, both of which are ambiguous yet well supported by the corporate media.
One such line of questioning is over the release of his medical records. A spokesperson for his campaign said this narrative was similar to Birtherism and she’s right. He has released letters from three different doctors with plenty of information following his heart attack last year. If he releases more, will that be enough to stop the media from pursuing the whole “what’s he hiding?” narrative?
Then there’s the so-called “Bernie Bro’s”. Apparently not only does Sanders have to take ownership of all the negative comments posted online by his “supporters”, he is also the only one with this problem. Both points are complete nonsense, yet the MSNBCs and CNNs of this world persist in highlighting them. Aren’t these the same people who went on about Russians creating fake account to stoke division in US politics?
It will be very interesting to see how the Nevada caucuses turn out this weekend. Assuming they do work out, that is, given what happened in Iowa. JLP
SO glad I was able to get this vid online – I strayed over the 10 minute mark so Instagram wouldn’t take it!!! Might switch to YouTube completely in future…
UPDATE THURSDAY – below you’ll find a couple of sources which show I’m not alone in my opinion…(phew!)
As of 5 pm EST on Wednesday, Buttigieg and Sanders are tied with 11 delegates apiece. And declaring that the great centrist hope has won something is something that corporate media are clearly eager to do—even in an exceedingly close race in which, rather famously, not all the votes have been counted yet.
We saw it with David Norris here in Ireland in 2011, when the Irish mainstream media took a letter of clemency the progressive candidate wrote 10 years previously as an excuse to associate his name with the word “pedophilia” on virtually a daily basis until he withdrew from the campaign.
It happened to Jeremy Corbyn from the moment he became the Leader of the Labour Party in 2015, with the tactics remaining more or less the same (although much of the attacks came from within his own party) although you can replace the word “pedophilia” with “Antisemitism” and it contributed greatly to an embarrassing election defeat last December
Now with Bernie Sanders showing himself to be leading the polls in Iowa, CNN is doing it to him, just a day before the last Democratic debate before the first caucus takes place.
The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren’s apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president. The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The key words in the above quote are in the headline – “sources say”. To be fair to CNN, they at least tack them on, although being at the end, they could well be ignored. There is certainly nothing in the opening passage of the article itself to suggest that they are second (third? fourth?) hand reports of a private conversation.
As you can see, MJ Lee categorically states at the end of the quote : “Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.”
They do include a response from Sanders himself, albeit halfway down the page :
“It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
They do walk it back slightly today, quoting Warren herself who claims : ‘I thought a woman could win; he disagreed‘. An important distinction, yes? That immediately throws into question how this exchange was interpreted. HOW did he show his disagreement, Senator Warren? Did he actually say “I disagree”? Did he actually say something along the lines of “I do not believe a woman can win”? Or, as I suspect, did he happen to be shaking his head right after you said “I think a woman can win”? That COULD suggest disagreement, but it could also suggest he was shaking his head while forming his thoughts. We don’t know.
Whatever the strategically planted attempts to be ‘fair’, there is no doubt that the overwhelming slant of these articles is that there is a suggestion that “misogynist” is to Sanders as “antisemite” supposedly was to Corbyn (you hear nothing about it now he has said he’s stepping down as leader) and “pedophile” supposedly was to Norris (he’s still a Senator!).
The Young Turks, who are Bernie backers, offer this take on the story :
All of this leads me to believe that Bernie shouldn’t be the nominee, but only because I fear that if that were the case, the US corporate media would then consider Trump the lesser of two “evils” and continue to give the president’s rhetoric infinite free air time much as they did in 2016.
Since I primarily want that orange moron out of the White House, and it seems that the Democrat darling is Joe Biden, I would probably be supportive although I reckon it would be a smart move to nominate Warren as his VP, while publicly promising to adopt some of the progressive platform in the first term as a sweetener.
I would be satisfied with such an arrangement, although my ideal choice would have to be Bernie. It’s just a shame that the only reason not to have a Progressive government is that the corporations wouldn’t be agreeable. Even if it’s not in my lifetime, I hope a day will come whereby their objections won’t matter. JLP