The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

[The Annoyed Man]

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-e ... -campaign/

The interesting thing about this article is that, while casting the participants as "white knights", TIME openly admits that there was a behind the scenes cabal of big corporations and leftist activists that threw the election to Biden. And now, the left is urging people to disregard this article and not read it. I will be saving a copy as a PDF in the event that TIME takes the article down.

National Pulse analysis HERE.

[philip964]

With the MSM all in for the Communists, I have a real worry about the future for America.

Normally, at least as I remember the press seemed to always be a check on the government. Not any more.

The last 17 days have been dramatic, Biden or Biden's handlers certainly are not a do nothing group.

We worry about the 2nd amendment here. Since the January 6, 2021 penetration of the Capitol, I have really been concerned about the First Amendment. For some time except for maybe here and really even here, I watch what I say.

I never thought in my lifetime I would see this.

Time used to be a favorite of mine that I read cover to cover. Not any more for sometime.

They are not even a little afraid to admit, what is obvious to our side.

[mayor]

I'm concerned that, unfortunately, nothing will become of any admission by anyone or anything. Truth is now fluid.

[Middle Age Russ]

The Times article is a wonderful example of the winner being able to write the history. In the case of this election, the winner was clearly this shadow (Progressive) campaign, and this article is self-congratulatory. Essentially they are saying, "Look at us -- we won the election for Biden and all Americans (and Orange Man Bad)." They talk of disinformation, but it is clear what they mean by disinformation -- anything counter to their proscribed "truth". This whole article to me is disinformation.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Times article is a wonderful example of the winner being able to write the history. In the case of this election, the winner was clearly this shadow (Progressive) campaign, and this article is self-congratulatory. Essentially they are saying, "Look at us -- we won the election for Biden and all Americans (and Orange Man Bad)." They talk of disinformation, but it is clear what they mean by disinformation -- anything counter to their proscribed "truth". This whole article to me is disinformation.

Absolutely it is disinformation, but it also holds true to that old Jamaican saying: "the higher a monkey climb the tree, the more he expose himself." Yes, the article is self congratulatory; but it also baldly admits what the rest of us have known all along....that the Dems have completely captured the nation's electoral system, and we can no longer rely on that system to deliver unbiased results. The federal ballot box is in exactly the same peril as was the ballot box in Athens, Tennessee in 1946. Maybe it’s time for patriots to react the same way that patriots reacted in Athens.

[philip964]

The Times article is a wonderful example of the winner being able to write the history. In the case of this election, the winner was clearly this shadow (Progressive) campaign, and this article is self-congratulatory. Essentially they are saying, "Look at us -- we won the election for Biden and all Americans (and Orange Man Bad)." They talk of disinformation, but it is clear what they mean by disinformation -- anything counter to their proscribed "truth". This whole article to me is disinformation.

Absolutely it is disinformation, but it also holds true to that old Jamaican saying: "the higher a monkey climb the tree, the more he expose himself." Yes, the article is self congratulatory; but it also baldly admits what the rest of us have known all along....that the Dems have completely captured the nation's electoral system, and we can no longer rely on that system to deliver unbiased results. The federal ballot box is in exactly the same peril as was the ballot box in Athens, Tennessee in 1946. Maybe it’s time for patriots to react the same way that patriots reacted in Athens.

Will you be the first target?

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/th ... s.7058287/

A little history:

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/31 ... drone.html

After all you are the new threat to America.

[srothstein]

We have already launched at least one drone strike on Texas soil against an American citizen and most people applauded the action. I would like to point out that while we tend to think of drones as robot aircraft, they are not robots but just remote controlled by humans. If we properly define it as remote controlled vehicles, Dallas PD used a remote controlled robot carrying a bomb to kill a citizen in a fortified position in a parking garage. I agree that he was a criminal shooting at police and others, but does it justify the murder like that?

[Hoodasnacks]

We have already launched at least one drone strike on Texas soil against an American citizen and most people applauded the action. I would like to point out that while we tend to think of drones as robot aircraft, they are not robots but just remote controlled by humans. If we properly define it as remote controlled vehicles, Dallas PD used a remote controlled robot carrying a bomb to kill a citizen in a fortified position in a parking garage. I agree that he was a criminal shooting at police and others, but does it justify the murder like that?

While I share your concern about governmental overreach, I would not call that incident a "murder." If I had to make the call to do the same, I would send the robot before I sent officers into a dangerous situation. Maybe they could wait him out, but that would still present danger to the officers. That said, if I were president I would almost never send troops into an area where I could bomb it from afar. My soldier's life is worth more than a large amount of collateral damage. I imagine I am strange in how I would approach that...but the world would fear me, which generally works out pretty well for us.

Perhaps the overreach question that we disagree on is the initial decision to kill the individual. I agree that we would all be wise to be cautious on how we allow the government making that call. For me, if a guy goes on a killing spree (whether it is officers or citizens) and is still active, take him out.

Back on point--we are clearly living in a system with Oligarchical control from a "cabal" (Time's word) of government/company entities. I am almost of the mind that we cannot beat it at the national level. We should be able to create state laws that grant stronger protections against suppression of speech from big tech. Gov Desantis of Florida has introduced some good measures--e.g. fining social media for deplatforming anyone up for election in FL. I would go further to pass a state law that defines social media sites as "traditional public forums." We also need to elect people that are willing to require Texas to be a "sanctuary state" when it comes to 2A restrictions, mandates on insane education requirements, etc.

I continue to thank God that I live among Texans.

[The Annoyed Man]

We have already launched at least one drone strike on Texas soil against an American citizen and most people applauded the action. I would like to point out that while we tend to think of drones as robot aircraft, they are not robots but just remote controlled by humans. If we properly define it as remote controlled vehicles, Dallas PD used a remote controlled robot carrying a bomb to kill a citizen in a fortified position in a parking garage. I agree that he was a criminal shooting at police and others, but does it justify the murder like that?

That's a good question, although other than starving him out, I'm not sure what tactical alternatives the DPD would have had at that point....but I say this as a total amateur. But upon reflection, my guess is that the shooter would have ultimately taken his own life anyway, once it had sunk in that he was completely trapped and there was no getting out of there without surrendering. Given his actions up to that point, I can't imagine that he'd surrender, trusting that the PD would spare his life long enough to see the inside of a courtroom. I'm not suggesting that the PD would have done anything to him upon surrender; I'm just saying that he probably wouldn't have trusted them to spare his life if he surrendered. In the end, we never got to find out.

[srothstein]

While I share your concern about governmental overreach, I would not call that incident a "murder." If I had to make the call to do the same, I would send the robot before I sent officers into a dangerous situation. Maybe they could wait him out, but that would still present danger to the officers. That said, if I were president I would almost never send troops into an area where I could bomb it from afar. My soldier's life is worth more than a large amount of collateral damage. I imagine I am strange in how I would approach that...but the world would fear me, which generally works out pretty well for us.

Perhaps the overreach question that we disagree on is the initial decision to kill the individual. I agree that we would all be wise to be cautious on how we allow the government making that call. For me, if a guy goes on a killing spree (whether it is officers or citizens) and is still active, take him out.

I used the word murder in its legal sense. It was the intentional causing of the death of another human being. I believe that the "sudden passion arising from adequate cause" could be shown to make it a second degree felony instead of a first degree felony. This meets the legal requirements of Section 19.02 of the Penal Code. Necessity (PC. 9,22) and Self defense (9.32) or Defense of Others (9.33) MIGHT also be able to be proven, but those are defenses to a crime, not the removal of the crime. Even if I agree with those defenses in this specific incident (which I do not), my point was that some government official made a decision that they could kill an American citizen on American soil without fear of reprisal from anyone. If one government official can do that, it stands to reason that others can also make the same decision. Most people agreed with this decision in this case because of the suspect's action, but not everyone does. How many will agree when the government decides to use a Predator drone to take out someone who is planning a terrorist act? Note that this is just planning and not necessarily have taken ANY steps towards actually doing it? Do you trust the current Secretary of Defense with this authority? The one who has just ordered the whole military to stand down for one day so he can root out right-wing extremism?

And, as a retired police officer, I oppose this act because the job of the police is to arrest, not to try and then execute sentence on anyone. If the robot could have delivered an explosive like that, could he not have also delivered other substances that could have been a temporary neutralization? I know they have large canisters of pepper spray, possibly mixed with flash bang grenades to stun him and drive him out of the position he was barricaded into. It might have been possible to keep him penned in there, even if it took a day or two to starve him out. Maybe the robot could have carried in a communication device for hostage negotiators to use. Without a person being immediately threatened, hostage negotiators generally pride themselves on taking as long as it takes. I fully understand the emotions that the Chief felt. I might have done the exact same thing in his place. I just hope I would have been professional enough to behave differently.

Back on point--we are clearly living in a system with Oligarchical control from a "cabal" (Time's word) of government/company entities. I am almost of the mind that we cannot beat it at the national level. We should be able to create state laws that grant stronger protections against suppression of speech from big tech. Gov Desantis of Florida has introduced some good measures--e.g. fining social media for deplatforming anyone up for election in FL. I would go further to pass a state law that defines social media sites as "traditional public forums." We also need to elect people that are willing to require Texas to be a "sanctuary state" when it comes to 2A restrictions, mandates on insane education requirements, etc.

I continue to thank God that I live among Texans.

On both of these points, I believe we are in full agreement. Time admits there was a conspiracy to rig the election. There is nothing we can do at the national level at least for the next four years. Even in 22, if the Republicans take control of both houses, there is no way Biden/Harris would allow the bill to pass or get signed into legislation. There is a SCOTUS case (Pruneyard v. Robins) that private property owners cannot interfere with free speech. This doesn't apply to many places because it was based on the California Constitution. But if someone were to sue a company like Facebook that does business in California and allows its citizens free speech, then the equal protection clause could kick in to apply that policy nationally. Facebook's terms of service specifically require cases to be tried in California courts (either the federal Northern District or the state court in San Mateo county). It might take two cases, one by a California citizen and then one somewhere else, but maybe one case could force it. A good conservative lawyer could figure this out. I would also want to see fines for deplatforming ANYONE for political speech, not just someone running for office. But Gov. Desantis made a start at least and I give him kudos for that.

And I hope we all continue to thank God for living in Texas and other Texans.

[C-dub]

We have already launched at least one drone strike on Texas soil against an American citizen and most people applauded the action. I would like to point out that while we tend to think of drones as robot aircraft, they are not robots but just remote controlled by humans. If we properly define it as remote controlled vehicles, Dallas PD used a remote controlled robot carrying a bomb to kill a citizen in a fortified position in a parking garage. I agree that he was a criminal shooting at police and others, but does it justify the murder like that?

That's a good question, although other than starving him out, I'm not sure what tactical alternatives the DPD would have had at that point....but I say this as a total amateur. But upon reflection, my guess is that the shooter would have ultimately taken his own life anyway, once it had sunk in that he was completely trapped and there was no getting out of there without surrendering. Given his actions up to that point, I can't imagine that he'd surrender, trusting that the PD would spare his life long enough to see the inside of a courtroom. I'm not suggesting that the PD would have done anything to him upon surrender; I'm just saying that he probably wouldn't have trusted them to spare his life if he surrendered. In the end, we never got to find out.

Except for the possibility of that guy taking his own life, I think DPD had time on their side and there must have something else they could have done other than send in that "drone" in order to capture him alive with minimal risk to more officers. Maybe there wasn't, but he was cornered and not going anywhere. Emotions were running high for them and even I'm still affected by my friends loss today. My wife thinks it is a form of survivor's guilt. IDK I have also never discussed this with his widow, so I don't know her thoughts on this.