2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!

China's hidden influence is becoming more known in the USA concerning the stolen elections and how government officials have been compromised. Here is a map of all the undersea cables existing and proposed, connecting China to other countries that allows them access to the internet. Are they helping to rig elections in other countries as well? The use of Dominion voting machines and other software systems designed to hack elections are being used world wide is my understanding. So, this is an interesting visual for understanding the complexity of it all.

www.dailydot.com

Google is building an underwater cable from the U.S. to Japan

Surprise! The Internet isn't really wireless.
www.dailydot.com
www.dailydot.com

Google ( funded by CIA) will partner with China Mobile International, China Telecom Global, Global Transit, KDDI Corp, and SingTel to invest $300 million in FASTER, while NEC will be the system supplier for the cable network. The group expects FASTER to be ready by the middle of 2016.
 

www.dailydot.com

Google is building an underwater cable from the U.S. to Japan

Surprise! The Internet isn't really wireless.
www.dailydot.com
www.dailydot.com

Google ( funded by CIA) will partner with China Mobile International, China Telecom Global, Global Transit, KDDI Corp, and SingTel to invest $300 million in FASTER, while NEC will be the system supplier for the cable network. The group expects FASTER to be ready by the middle of 2016.
I think you are seeing "reds under the bed"

Why do you think it is suspicious that China is connecting to the internet and is also funding more connections? The US, Australia, New Zealand, Europe all are involved in putting in new fibre connections across the globe. International connections are what make the internet. No international connections, no international internet. The more connections, the bigger those connections, the faster the internet runs.
 
“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” -- the unanimous 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court in Foster v. Love (1997)

Here are the highlights from a great article by attorney Ren Jander.

3 U.S.C. §1 of the Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit multiday elections to curtail fraud, and to infuse a prima facie sense of integrity in our electoral process. States that failed to make a final selection of officeholder by midnight of Election Day have violated the statute, subjecting the nation at large to the very evils strict deadlines were drafted to prevent.

If, at midnight, one candidate had enough of a lead, so that there was no mathematical possibility whatsoever of their being caught, then the final selection has been made. But if the outcome was uncertain at Midnight, the State violated the deadline, and its election is void.

Why wasn't the election in Bush v. Gore void? That nightmare dragged on for 37 days. Incredibly, the answer to this very relevant question is shockingly simple: That election wasn’t void because nobody asked the court to void it.

Success in the law is based on using magic words. It really is. If you don’t use them, the court has no obligation to fix your pleadings. But if you know the spell, and you know how to cast it on paper, miracles can happen. Revolutionary arguments surface even when long standing practices appear to have firm judicial support.

3 U.S.C. § 1 states: “The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.” The elections for President in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada were void at the stroke of midnight after Election Day, because a victorious candidate wasn’t discerned by Midnight."
 
I think you are seeing "reds under the bed"

Why do you think it is suspicious that China is connecting to the internet and is also funding more connections? The US, Australia, New Zealand, Europe all are involved in putting in new fibre connections across the globe. International connections are what make the internet. No international connections, no international internet. The more connections, the bigger those connections, the faster the internet runs.
I don't think its suspicious at all, of course this is the way the world works now. What I'm pointing out is, with this fraudulent election, the US people are beginning to see how much China has covertly infiltrated many areas including our voting machines which operate with parts from China and where connected to the internet during the election. It wasn't China operating the system in this case. These machines (or similar) and software are being used all over the world. I ask is it possible for China (as well as others of course) to be hacking elections around the globe. This was brought up by Sidney Powell not mentioning China specifically. Considering that so much of our computerized systems are made in China has me wondering what all they have access to. There may be more Red influenced peeps under the bed then we know.

China is coming up a lot in the media now so we'll see where that goes. The Biden's connection to China is the elephant in the room and unless he's placed as president, its not going away. The map is something I thought interesting, a new perspective for me, whats hidden under the water. Thought others may also find it interesting.


Hunter Biden received a $1.5 billion loan from the Bank of China after traveling on Air Force Two with daddy VP Joe Biden back in 2013, but his dealings with China didn’t end there.

An e-mail to Hunter Biden’s partner, SinoHawk CEO Tony Bobulinski, from a top Chinese official on July 26, 2017 shows the Chinese energy company CEFC proposed a $5 million “interest-free” loan to the Biden family “based on their trust on [Biden] family[.]”


A Chinese national named Fang Fang, AKA, Christine Fang targeted politicians in California between 2011 and 2015 at the direction of China’s internal spy agency and even had intimate relationships with two Midwestern mayors, according Axios.
 
This lawsuit filed by Texas appears to be the first action taken that could potentially be a 'game changer'. What I'm wondering is, why did it take so long for them to do this – why not file it earlier?

As I said earlier, the efforts of the Giuliani team has given me the appearance of a somewhat amateurish effort. I could be wrong, but that's how it has appeared to me as I've watched the hearings. Or, at the very least, Giuliani's group hasn't got any 'big players' on their side – they've been quite alone in what they have been doing.

On the other hand, if there ever was any methodical plan to this, maybe the evidence Giuliani's team has dug up so far was intended to have the effect of swaying the opinion of those legislators and other officials who have been 'on the fence' about the thing and who are not on the side of the 'bad guys'. So, maybe Texas waited for there to be enough visible evidence to gain more momentum?

Then there's the 'Kraken' couple of Sideny Powell and Linn Wood. I'm not sure about Powell but Wood has acted pretty unhinged and unprofessionally with his weird preaching and wild claims. I see him as either controlled opposition or a guy who's mentally challenged. Powell's comments about 'releasing the kraken' etc. have the same flavor. I'm not sure what's 'wrong' with her for acting like she does, maybe Wood has influenced her with his preaching, or something.
 
This lawsuit filed by Texas appears to be the first action taken that could potentially be a 'game changer'. What I'm wondering is, why did it take so long for them to do this – why not file it earlier?

As I said earlier, the efforts of the Giuliani team has given me the appearance of a somewhat amateurish effort. I could be wrong, but that's how it has appeared to me as I've watched the hearings. Or, at the very least, Giuliani's group hasn't got any 'big players' on their side – they've been quite alone in what they have been doing.

On the other hand, if there ever was any methodical plan to this, maybe the evidence Giuliani's team has dug up so far was intended to have the effect of swaying the opinion of those legislators and other officials who have been 'on the fence' about the thing and who are not on the side of the 'bad guys'. So, maybe Texas waited for there to be enough visible evidence to gain more momentum?

Then there's the 'Kraken' couple of Sideny Powell and Linn Wood. I'm not sure about Powell but Wood has acted pretty unhinged and unprofessionally with his weird preaching and wild claims. I see him as either controlled opposition or a guy who's mentally challenged. Powell's comments about 'releasing the kraken' etc. have the same flavor. I'm not sure what's 'wrong' with her for acting like she does, maybe Wood has influenced her with his preaching, or something.
All great points. Whenever things drag on and on, I have to remind myself how energy draining that can be. (2nd Stimulus package talk for how long now?) Somebody knows what they are doing. Draining everybody of energy. Those 4D STSers don't like to be anticipated.

I have to remind myself not to get too sucked in:

"Don't let the bastards wear you down" as the saying goes.
 
More trouble for Zuckerberg.

The FTC and 48 states are set to launch a legal assault on Facebook over claims of antitrust violations. The lawsuits seek to break up Mark Zuckerberg’s social media empire.

Politico reports that federal antitrust authorities and dozens of states are set to launch a double-barreled legal assault against Facebook over allegations of antitrust violations. Both lawsuits aim to force Facebook to break up its empire which includes messaging service WhatsApp and photo-sharing app Instagram.
Attorneys general from 48 U.S. states and territories, including New York, are behind one of the suits that was first hinted at last week. The second suit filed by the FTC is set to be filed later this afternoon.
The cases accuse Facebook of illegally using its power for more than a decade to push out rivals and buy out rising competitors, noting WhatsApp and Instagram as specific examples of this. Facebook has continued to purchase multiple companies despite recent scrutiny, Breitbart News recently reported on Facebook’s purchase of the customer service startup Kustomer in a deal valued at more than $1 billion.
The suit is part of the latest escalation in the power struggle between world governments and U.S. tech firms. In October, the Justice Department and a smaller group of U.S. states filed a similar antitrust lawsuit against Google.
Facebook has denied being a monopoly, noting that it ranks behind Google in how much revenue it takes from the $160 billion global market for online advertising. Google and Facebook maintain a duopoly over the online advertising market. Facebook currently has 2.74 billion users worldwide and disclosed in July 2019 that the FTC was investigating it for alleged antitrust violations. New York States attorney general, Tish James, announced two months later that she was leading a multistate coalition probing antitrust concerns of Facebook.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com
 
Seemed notable that the terms dumb, crazy and insane were also utilised, probably a dozen times, in the article.

It's that kind of rhetoric that makes me suspicious. I mean, why use such extreme language if it really is a frivolous lawsuit? In that case,, what harm is there in it except to further tarnish Trump's already very tarnished image in the minds of anti-Trumpers? Surely if it is so 'insane' it will be quickly dismissed by the SCOTUS, and all the anti-Trumpers can gloat and have another good laugh at him? Surely such a lawsuit could only be good for democracy in the US where the SCOTUS finally rules and dismisses ALL of Trump's allegations so far? Why are these people protesting so much? Is there something more important at stake?
 
This lawsuit filed by Texas appears to be the first action taken that could potentially be a 'game changer'. What I'm wondering is, why did it take so long for them to do this – why not file it earlier?

As I said earlier, the efforts of the Giuliani team has given me the appearance of a somewhat amateurish effort. I could be wrong, but that's how it has appeared to me as I've watched the hearings. Or, at the very least, Giuliani's group hasn't got any 'big players' on their side – they've been quite alone in what they have been doing.

On the other hand, if there ever was any methodical plan to this, maybe the evidence Giuliani's team has dug up so far was intended to have the effect of swaying the opinion of those legislators and other officials who have been 'on the fence' about the thing and who are not on the side of the 'bad guys'. So, maybe Texas waited for there to be enough visible evidence to gain more momentum?

I was thinking there are 3 main steps behind the process:

1. Reveal a bit about how the theft of the election was accomplished
2. In Dem-controlled states, be happy if the suits are shot down, because then:
3. Get the supreme court to step in and overrule the states

Trump wins, the Dems look bad, and there you have it.

Of course, none of the above guarantees a Trump victory in the end, but to me it sure does have the flavor of Trump and his manner of doing business. He likes to engage people's emotions with wild claims, and then do something that is actually effective and clever to win. What most people seem to remember is the emotion + victory, not that the wild claims didn't pan out in the end. The other side does the traditional thing, which is to use mostly intellectual arguments and weak emotional pleas (while being evil in the background).

Also, none of the above will prevent a huge Dem/Lefty 'backlash' should Trump win, but then the same thing happened with BLM and the protests and Trump's threat to declare martial law and all that. Nevertheless, it appears that more Americans actually agreed with him and voted for him - including blacks!

So if Trump wins, he'll be more popular than ever - and the backlash will be stronger than ever. He'll be able to declare martial law on a whim and he'll be supported. I was also thinking the other day how funny it would be if he created a 'dictatorship'. Wouldn't it be interesting if "dictatorship is coming to the USA" actually means something totally different than what we always imagined back in the Bush era?

Well, that never ends well... but then, neither does 'real democracy' apparently!!
 
Back
Top Bottom