Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
At one point during the livecast recording of this week's episode on Zoom, a commenter said the score was "Lucretia 6, Hayward 0," so naturally I thought I was only behind by two field goals, and thus easy to make up in the 4th Quarter. But then the commenter clarified that he was using soccer scoring, which meant that I was getting crushed. "Ask Paul," he added unnecessarily. Oh well.
What led to this ignominious rout? I foolishly tried to make the case that not all statistical anomalies (like the occasional clusters of twins born in small towns from time to time) are proof of something wrong, including voting, but Lucretia wasn't having any of it, and to be sure while statistical anomalies may be just that, when you have several "anomalies" all trending in the same direction, pattern recognition takes over. But what are the legal remedies? It is not clear we can count on the courts to correct the counts.
At least the Supreme Court delivered one clear remedy for religious liberty this week, and our second whisky shot this week went beyond this ruling to talk a bit about the police power generally, and why many legal histories—but also Chief Justice John Roberts, alas—get this wrong.
The new whisky for this week is another Japanese blend, Kisoyama, which can't be said three times fast after you've had a few shots without lapsing into "your momma's so fat" jokes.
Steve Hayward
"Lucretia"
Discussion (7)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
@StevenHayward, it looks to me like the original numbers do add up. Drawn from the three most impressive allegations of illegal votes at "Keeping Track of Election Fraud":
Now someone does need to check Crowder's work using the original Michigan data. And those numbers of non-citizen voters are estimates. But you could cut those estimates in half and still get the same 3 swing states illegally flipped for Biden.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
On the night of the election, former Speaker Gingrich said, on at least 1 network, a dump of 23,000 votes, all for Biden, appeared out of the blue.
Did he mis-speak? Or lie? Or did it happen---Steve or Lucretia has a better chance of getting a response from Newt than do I but IF TRUE, there really is something stinking up the place---NO?
In Ohio, 94% of the requested absentee ballots came back and were counted and the #s added up and TRUMP WON.
In other states, such as Penna. it was reported that @ 1.6 million ballots were requested. @1.8 ballots were RECEIVED...and @ 2.4million were COUNTED...and Biden WON... I'm too old for new math but old math says that those data stink. How long does it take for a first year law student to work up a brief that a Court and/or the MSM could NOT ignore?
I don't get it....I was originally #NeverTrump in 2016 but moved 180 degrees........and I'm cynical and confused and really angry at the 4th Estate.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So I finally got an answer @ Pennsylvania....misreporting. One bit of data was the ballots requested for the primary AND NEGLECTED to account for the ballots requested for the General Election. As a result there was no 'new math'---just bad info being repeated ad infinitum and woven into nefarious activity.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Sworn affidavits are not circumstantial evidence. They're witness statements given under penalty of perjury.
Lets do quick check, if this election took place in Bolivia there is no way the US State Dept would accept the results.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I find it a bit much to hear "You should have complained about mail in ballot fraud months before the election" and in the next breath "and remember we heard those things about Trump shutting down post offices.". Yeah, those two are related. It's a bit thick to hear beforehand "there isn't a problem here" and afterwards "Well it's too late to fix the problem now."
Look, I realize that you guys aren't the problem here. I just despise the "It's too late to fix the problem now" argument because it's fundamentally unjust. Legally it might be impossible to fix; I can understand that. But pretty much the first thing anyone learns about the law is that legal doesn't mean just. What a great deal of the establishment class has forgotten is that it's not "legal" that matters, but "just".
Speaking of which, I'm 100% behind Lucrecia on the "Congress shall make no law" actually meaning "Congress shall make no law".
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
On the Trump campaign’s failure to prep for voter fraud, I’ve heard Hans von Spakovsky complain that that Republicans in general and the Trump team in particular were not really willing to listen to his advice. Remember that they only got a professional campaign manager in July, until then there was social media guy in charge. A bunch of rookies on their first rodeo. It’s a miracle they got so far.
You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.