2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!
- Thread starter Ruth
- Start date
I don't see any way Trump can overturn it at this point. To overturn the election would expose, for all the world to see, the very real and sorry state of American 'democracy' (not to mention Western 'democracy' by extension). There are just far too many people involved in the political 'system' that are NOT inclined to see it (and their reputations and credibility) dragged through the mud by that kind of exposure. Interestingly, there are a lot of ordinary Americans (and Europeans) who are just as invested in the 'system' remaining 'stable' (i.e. keeping the illusion alive) as the politicians.
It's a house of cards, but it's the only house of cards they have, and none of them are mad enough to pull the rug out from under their own feet, the SCOTUS included. I'd say that if it hasn't been explicitly stated to all relevant parties that this is a matter of 'national security', they're all pretty well aware that that is precisely what it is. And we all know for what and why 'national security' is usually invoked.
But no matter, the job of exposing the illusion has been done as best it could be, and understood by all those who are able to understand it. And that kind of separation or division, while fractious and chaotic, is necessary it seems (because it's 'What Is'). Notice how Trump has, for the past 4 years, been denounced by the MSM for 'dividing the country'. Slave masters and slaves alike don't react well to a section of the slaves showing a penchant for freedom and not 'getting along'. But free men and women are not slaves, not matter how much you try to convince them they are, or should be.
sbeaudry
Jedi Council Member
Even presuming there is some truth to the claims of interference it all smells strongly of being a red herring. Of it’s being just a ploy to trigger the reds under the bed conditioning of the easily fired up. One intended to dilute their focus on the election and deflect blame from those that may well have been involved in selling domestic political influence.
It's not exactly interference if it was in large part solicited...
The talk of military law and the like is worrying.
It may well happen, but to encourage it is surely yet another expression of our deeply conditioned tendency to look to hierarchy, force and power to bail us out. Just how much and how often do we have to suffer to realise that this never works? That fire can't be fought with fire without burning the house down?
This is just one view, but a good analogy to the situation is perhaps the problem of extracting performance from an organisation.
Power and force don't deliver motivation, only a conditional form of compliance with diktat. Driving a workforce by this means is similar to trying to hold a greasy ball bearing on top of an egg under your thumb. It can elicit lip service or limited and specific delivery of what is ordered, but look away for a moment and the inherent instability of the situation expresses itself. So that the oppressed switch off, leave and/or seek all sorts of ways to feather their own nests at the expense of the greater good.
When alternatively a work force feels a strong sense of belonging to a co-operation oriented community (one led by respected individuals of integrity and expertise) many if not most (it's a very deeply felt human response) are strongly motivated to contribute to that community. This motivation is internal, self-inspired and felt by large numbers of players.
Limited compliance is in that situation replaced by a wide ranging and pro-active creativity, co-operation and positive motivation. High levels of performance in this situation require only a measure of co-ordination and constructive guidance.
The complicating factor is the reality that there is always a significant fraction of the workforce that don't respond to this approach, that are instead driven by a very narrow form of short term self-interest. The conundrum is how to handle this contingent (which responds primarily to power) without coming down so heavily that the more enlightened contributors are not switched off.
Experience suggests that one very key trait shared by effective managers is the ability to project a hint of steel, while at the same time competently managing in a co-operation oriented, values and socially based manner.
It's a delicate balance. If the self-interested feel they can get away with it and call the bluff the game is lost - because the consequent requirement to come down heavily on them will irrevocably conflict with the prevailing culture and seriously damage the motivation of the rest. Resulting in who knows what damage to the organisation, and cost to all concerned.
The national political situation is not a lot different.
Trump's ability to survive and to get stuff done is not just dependent on people buying into his message - it's also heavily dependent on the layers upon layers of the self-interested throughout the bureaucracy sensing that there is a new show in town – that there will be serious consequences in the event that they step badly out of line.
If this perception cannot be maintained (and it’s as much about appearances as reality) and martial law and the use of force are required to suppress those taking advantage, playing for the other side or worse still engaging in open and possibly violent insurrection then the game is lost.
The 'war' (presuming sufficient power e.g. military and other backing etc is to hand) may well ultimately be won, but it's likely to result in horrendous suffering and to do very serious damage to the country and the society. Also to leave a legacy of hate requiring generations to recover from.
Even more limited options such as military law risk (as Catherine Fitts said) triggering highly oppressive responses from the system - responses which may very well not end when the dust settles. Especially if the wrong side 'wins'.
It can't be about winners and losers anyway - the 'other' side has to be integrated into whatever outcome if it's not to result in perhaps more serious division. This cuts both ways - the 'ancien regime' will if they ride roughshod over the wishes of 74M people also trigger serious trouble. Which in turn might very well lead to a cycle of ever more repressive legislation and loss of rights.
The implication of all of this is that Trump is engaged primarily in a game of perceptions. Military and wider power based backing are important enablers of short-term stability and change, but not because they can truly be used. The hope is rather that the perception of power will hold in check most of the forces that would otherwise oppose or take him down.
There's only a very few behind the veil pulling the strings, the real problem is the many throughout the system long conditioned to deferring to and likely in many cases profiting from the regime. They must ultimately be convinced that there is a new show in town, to fall in line...
We'd better hope that this process is well in train, because (quite apart from the scary matter of where the global control agenda seems intent upon taking us) while tempting for many the resort to other than perhaps very subtle and behind the scenes point applications of military and similar power risks opening the gates of hell.
It’ll be truly great (and I’m very optimistic that it’s happening – even if it won’t be exactly by the means we imagine) if we can somehow manage collectively to get through the current situation without descending into the historically typical violence.
If as is very possible this approach fails (and the various legal cases must surely be a bell weather for this – it’s getting right down to the point where enough reality/perhaps a wave of truly dramatic evidence that breaks people open has to get through to the average Joe to trigger a widespread change in perceptions) then perhaps the best option becomes the previously mentioned Gandhi approach.
As in an underground push for mass awakening leading to a subtle mass withdrawal of co-operation. No system can withstand this IF people truly act with conviction and from their hearts.
This also would likely be a true test of whether we in fact have truly awakened to any significant degree.
The risk of course is that the power players will instead up the ante in terms of the use of force and repression…
It's not exactly interference if it was in large part solicited...
The talk of military law and the like is worrying.
It may well happen, but to encourage it is surely yet another expression of our deeply conditioned tendency to look to hierarchy, force and power to bail us out. Just how much and how often do we have to suffer to realise that this never works? That fire can't be fought with fire without burning the house down?
This is just one view, but a good analogy to the situation is perhaps the problem of extracting performance from an organisation.
Power and force don't deliver motivation, only a conditional form of compliance with diktat. Driving a workforce by this means is similar to trying to hold a greasy ball bearing on top of an egg under your thumb. It can elicit lip service or limited and specific delivery of what is ordered, but look away for a moment and the inherent instability of the situation expresses itself. So that the oppressed switch off, leave and/or seek all sorts of ways to feather their own nests at the expense of the greater good.
When alternatively a work force feels a strong sense of belonging to a co-operation oriented community (one led by respected individuals of integrity and expertise) many if not most (it's a very deeply felt human response) are strongly motivated to contribute to that community. This motivation is internal, self-inspired and felt by large numbers of players.
Limited compliance is in that situation replaced by a wide ranging and pro-active creativity, co-operation and positive motivation. High levels of performance in this situation require only a measure of co-ordination and constructive guidance.
The complicating factor is the reality that there is always a significant fraction of the workforce that don't respond to this approach, that are instead driven by a very narrow form of short term self-interest. The conundrum is how to handle this contingent (which responds primarily to power) without coming down so heavily that the more enlightened contributors are not switched off.
Experience suggests that one very key trait shared by effective managers is the ability to project a hint of steel, while at the same time competently managing in a co-operation oriented, values and socially based manner.
It's a delicate balance. If the self-interested feel they can get away with it and call the bluff the game is lost - because the consequent requirement to come down heavily on them will irrevocably conflict with the prevailing culture and seriously damage the motivation of the rest. Resulting in who knows what damage to the organisation, and cost to all concerned.
The national political situation is not a lot different.
Trump's ability to survive and to get stuff done is not just dependent on people buying into his message - it's also heavily dependent on the layers upon layers of the self-interested throughout the bureaucracy sensing that there is a new show in town – that there will be serious consequences in the event that they step badly out of line.
If this perception cannot be maintained (and it’s as much about appearances as reality) and martial law and the use of force are required to suppress those taking advantage, playing for the other side or worse still engaging in open and possibly violent insurrection then the game is lost.
The 'war' (presuming sufficient power e.g. military and other backing etc is to hand) may well ultimately be won, but it's likely to result in horrendous suffering and to do very serious damage to the country and the society. Also to leave a legacy of hate requiring generations to recover from.
Even more limited options such as military law risk (as Catherine Fitts said) triggering highly oppressive responses from the system - responses which may very well not end when the dust settles. Especially if the wrong side 'wins'.
It can't be about winners and losers anyway - the 'other' side has to be integrated into whatever outcome if it's not to result in perhaps more serious division. This cuts both ways - the 'ancien regime' will if they ride roughshod over the wishes of 74M people also trigger serious trouble. Which in turn might very well lead to a cycle of ever more repressive legislation and loss of rights.
The implication of all of this is that Trump is engaged primarily in a game of perceptions. Military and wider power based backing are important enablers of short-term stability and change, but not because they can truly be used. The hope is rather that the perception of power will hold in check most of the forces that would otherwise oppose or take him down.
There's only a very few behind the veil pulling the strings, the real problem is the many throughout the system long conditioned to deferring to and likely in many cases profiting from the regime. They must ultimately be convinced that there is a new show in town, to fall in line...
We'd better hope that this process is well in train, because (quite apart from the scary matter of where the global control agenda seems intent upon taking us) while tempting for many the resort to other than perhaps very subtle and behind the scenes point applications of military and similar power risks opening the gates of hell.
It’ll be truly great (and I’m very optimistic that it’s happening – even if it won’t be exactly by the means we imagine) if we can somehow manage collectively to get through the current situation without descending into the historically typical violence.
If as is very possible this approach fails (and the various legal cases must surely be a bell weather for this – it’s getting right down to the point where enough reality/perhaps a wave of truly dramatic evidence that breaks people open has to get through to the average Joe to trigger a widespread change in perceptions) then perhaps the best option becomes the previously mentioned Gandhi approach.
As in an underground push for mass awakening leading to a subtle mass withdrawal of co-operation. No system can withstand this IF people truly act with conviction and from their hearts.
This also would likely be a true test of whether we in fact have truly awakened to any significant degree.
The risk of course is that the power players will instead up the ante in terms of the use of force and repression…
The first semi official mention of the EO.
Sidney Powell: Trump could trigger 2018 executive order
With time running out for President Trump, attorney Sidney Powell is raising the option for the commander in chief to invoke his 2018 executive order concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections.
Sidney Powell: Trump could trigger 2018 executive order | WND | by Joe Kovacs
With time running out for President Trump, attorney Sidney Powell is raising the option for the commander in chief to invoke his 2018 executive order concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections.
www.wnd.com
If they are trying to maintain the "integrity of our elections", I'm afraid that cow is already out of the barn, and running farther down the road everyday. I don't think 'exposure' is a job that can be finished any time soon. This is a clown show.Fair enough. I don't disagree. However, on this side of the fence then what is left? Martial law or Trump acquiescence? Or something else? As an aside, when is the new book coming?And.. thanks for all you and the chateau crew, and everyone else in FOTCM do. Much respect.
@SOTTREADER,
You may be correct or not. I do not know if you have served in any miltary capacity in your own country but I have. In the Vietnam era of the U.S. drafting of civilians there were instances of what was called "fragging" this was a revolt agaist even sub gereral levels of command.
I would not be so sure this level of integrity does not still play a part in this battle between good and evil. I love the Brits sense of keeping a "stiff upper lip" so to speak.
Just "wait and see".
Ocean
The Living Force
FINALLY: Arizona Senate Election Fraud Hearing Rescheduled For Monday Morning
FINALLY: Arizona Senate Election Fraud Hearing Rescheduled For Monday Morning
The Arizona Senate has finally called a full legislative hearing to investigate the irregularities seen during the presidential election.
nationalfile.com
The legislative hearing will include presentations from Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors
The Arizona Senate has finally called a full legislative hearing to investigate the irregularities seen during the presidential election.
The legislative hearing, complete with subpoena powers to fully investigate the election irregularities, was initially scheduled to take place in the Arizona Senate Judiciary Commitee on Friday at 9 AM.
As National File reported, the hearing would mark a significant step in the election integrity process. A previous hearing, in which President Trump’s legal team participated, involved multiple witnesses and serious analysis of the election, but did not have the full powers that a legislative hearing could provide, most notably the power to subpoena, and the requirement for sworn testimony.
However, the hearing, called by Senate President Karen Fann, was then cancelled, with no word as to when it would be rescheduled. National File understands the meeting was initially cancelled over coronavirus concerns.
On late Friday evening, the day the hearing was supposed to take place, Fann announced in a press release that the Judiciary Committee Hearing would now take place on Monday morning at 9 AM in order to “address the concerns over election irregularities.
I think Trump is going to present the electoral fraud as a coup. I think he is accumulating evidence to show who the traitors to the Nation are, those who have made a pact with the enemy. It's not very difficult to guess who they are. The fact that SCOTUS has refused to deal with electoral corruption (which may seem surprising but would be an advantage for Trump ) will allow Trump to take the case to a Military Tribunal. The charges are a crime against the US. Let's hope he succeeds and I trust him for that because he is a fighter.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
he
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
he
There have been so many egregious lies told to the US and world public over the years, so many flagrant acts of deception and corruption, I'm not sure flagrantly stealing the US election really stands out as that remarkable. As such, why not just suck it up, just like we've had to suck up all the other lies?
Last edited:
Well said! The only thing that has ever removed a well-entrenched corrupt elite (or at least sidelined them) is an angry and unified population. The elite in the US have created a very good bulwark against that by very successfully dividing the population.
Modern Western government's goal is to stay relevant and in power, they stay relevant and in power through creating a popular mandate for their power through creating (or exaggerating) 'crises' or 'threats' to the population (terrorism, global warming, covid etc.)
Stoke fear ----> Keep the population in thrall -----> Stay in power
Think about the fact that today in the USA, the only possible outcome of attempts to correct the elite corruption that led to a rigged Presidential election, is violence between two sections of the population. That violence would automatically validate the elite's position as 'protectors of the people'. Pretty slick, and sick.
Last edited:
All of the massive lies and corruption over the past 20 years, starting with 9/11, have gone unanswered. Nothing was 'done' about them, no one was held to account, there was no 'day in court', the 'bad guys' were not taken down. Collectively, we have all had to accept it. So why would we expect the rigging of the election to have a different outcome?
