Claude Badley

Registered Guest
For the red stuff...
The hysterical exaggerations of the threat Trump posed weren’t destructive because they were unfair to Trump, they were destructive because they created the false impression that those who came before him and those who will come after are not equally depraved.
The others including Biden are certainly depraved. But, equally depraved? Don't we give any credit at all, for at least giving lip service to positive values, as the Democrats often do?

It's all too easy to imagine Trump invoking the Insurrection Act to overthrow his opponents; not so easy to imagine the Democrats doing the same.
read: "...for at least being more hypocritical about what matters," :D

Yours faithfully

Jerry Russell

Staff member
"...for at least being more hypocritical about what matters,"
That's exactly what I meant. Here's an excellent essay by Jonathan Last, explaining the difference between Democratic Party hypocrisy and Republican nihilistic crap. He starts by quoting Oscar Wilde. (Or was it Voltaire, or de la Rochefoucauld? Seems to be a popular saying...)

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. It is one of the guardrails against nihilism.
Example: Senator Hornswaggle says, “I believe in family values. A man shouldn’t cheat on his wife or live a double life where he’s a husband and father sometimes and a carousing lout on Saturday nights.”
And then we find out that Senator Hornswaggle has been catting around and living a double life.
That’s hypocrisy. And it’s a good thing.
Why is it a good thing? Because it’s a sign that the culture still has ideals and norms which people are ashamed to violate in public. It’s a sign that we believe in virtue.
What if we lived in a world where Senator Hornswaggle felt liberated to say, “Yeah. I like strippers and I’ve got some shorties stashed on the side and so what? LOL nothing matters.”
That’s nihilism. That’s a sign of a culture that’s circling the drain.


Active Member
For Donald Trump, the most realistic, legal, scenario for him being reelected President is in 2024. He would be 78 that year, just as Joe Biden is turning 78 this year. There is also precedent for this, as Grover Cleveland was elected President in 1884, defeated in 1888, and then elected President again in 1892.


Active Member
I got my last solitary solicitation two days ago, so I guess it's not everybody.
Er, I may have made a big mistake posting on this thread. Since doing so, I have received half a dozen political solicitations, is Big Brother watching "Postflaviana"? (lol)

Jerry Russell

Staff member
is Big Brother watching "Postflaviana"? (lol)
I wonder how much of a donation would be necessary to appease Big Brother? A dollar a day keeps the jackboots away? I'm not even sure which party is the anti-fascists and which party is the anti-anti-fascists. Who am I supposed to pay for protection??

Now, I disagree with Dr. Shiva on two points.
Watching the comments on Dr Shiva's video, I was led to another blog site by Naim Kabir that raised basically the same point as my first objection...

The thing is, you’d always expect the negatively sloping line he shows, by mathematical definition. The guy’s misleading us into thinking that we should expect a flat line because he thinks we’re idiots. Let’s dig into why a negatively sloping line is inevitable given how he’s set up his problem.

Yes, you'd expect a negatively sloping line, unless there is a perfect correlation between the party preferences of the straight-ticket voters and the individual-candidate voters. But, Kabir continues...

Why Ayyadurai Is Wrong
We’re gonna keep this as simple as possible. Let’s say that each precinct has two main populations of people: Republicans who vote with a straight-ticket ballot and Non-Republicans who do a split-ticket vote. We’re dropping out other voters because Ayyadurai doesn’t address them in his analysis at all.
No, there are four populations: Republican straight ticket voters, Democratic straight ticket voters, Trump split ticket voters and Biden split ticket voters. Ayyadurai assumes that the party affiliations of the split ticket voters can be predicted by the percent of straight ticket voters (wrong!) while Kabir wants to assume that all split ticket voters are Democrats (which is even more wrong!!).

Kabir goes on to generate and plot some random data sets, showing that the points fall along a negative sloped line. But his negatively sloping lines are more gentle than Dr. Shiva's actual data. His simulation doesn't show split ticket voters in strongly Republican precincts voting mostly for Biden.

The accusation in Kabir's blog is that Dr. Shiva is a completely self-aware charlatan who thinks his audience is made up of idiots. Actually, towards the end of the blog, Kabir hits Dr. Shiva's error right on the nail...

Here’s a common objection from respondents: why do we assume a flat probability of split-ticket vote percentages? What if the probability of split-ticket votes for Trump is correlated with the % of straight-ticket Republican voters in a precinct? ...
The only way you’d get the flat line — which Ayyadurai asserts is “expected” — is if the correlation between split-ticket Trump votes and straight-ticket Republican votes is exactly 1:1.
This would be incredibly unlikely.
The correlation would not be 1:1, but these variables should not be uncorrelated, either. In fact the assumption of a 1:1 correlation strikes me as an honest analytical error, rather than an intentional deceit.

To "assume a flat probability" is also wrong: but, Kabir's "respondents" have raised this "common objection" and Kabir hasn't taken it seriously, at least not to the extent of fixing his model. Kabir invites his readers at Medium to engage in debate. But I'm not sure how that would turn out, considering that my objection has already been commonly raised and inadequately answered.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Ayyadurai is looking closely at the Dominion voting machines because of his experience running for Senate in the Massachusetts Republican primary. He's absolutely convinced, as a matter of ground truth, that he was robbed of a victory. He says he ran a very intense campaign, attracted lots of popular support, and covered the state with yard signs and bumper stickers. He thinks his volunteers called virtually every Republican in Massachusetts. By contrast, he says his opponent, Kevin O'Connor, was a complete non-entity, and hardly campaigned at all.

I don't find this 100% convincing. O'Connor, a successful attorney, got an endorsement from The Sun newspaper and many other Republican notables. By contrast, Dr. Shiva is a highly polarizing individual whose stance on many issues is controversial to say the least. It's very possible that he was his own worst enemy in the race, and that all his efforts only served to energize the voters to get out and vote for his opponent, the safe choice. Or at any rate, if Dr. Shiva was a more introspective personality, he could at least bring himself to consider this possibility.

At any rate, Dr. Shiva greeted the news of his defeat with total disbelief. And he quickly found irregularities. In the days following the election, Ayyadurai put out three videos, an hour and a half each, that I haven't watched yet. And then he went on the you-tube interview circuit, creating more hours upon hours of videos about the election. Fortunately he created this summary or folks like me, who don't have the patience to sit through long videos.

The segment starting at 1:25 shows statistical analysis of the voting data. Without being sophisticated enough myself to jump to any conclusions, the graph at 1:36 of vote totals vs. time does show a bizarre discrepancy between the votes counted early vs. late, and I can't explain why the graph at 1:32 (number of votes each precinct) doesn't show a more normal gaussian distribution.

Dr. Shiva went on to demand the "ballot images", which Massachusetts says were never saved at all. What's happened to the original paper ballots? Dr. Shiva doesn't say!!

Ayyadurai is also involved in a strange tiff with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.... It seems they are battling it out for leadership in the alternative medicine and anti-vaxxer space. RFK Jr's side of the dispute is here:

Dr. Shiva's lawsuit against RFKJ's article, asking for $95 million in damages for defamation, is here:

My summary:

(1) Dr Shiva accused RFK Jr of refusing to shake his hand. Pictures show them embracing, But the handshake looks a little tentative. Ayyardurai levels the accusation that RFKJ was less than friendly, because he endorsed Hillary and raises money for his "Big Pharma" nephew Joe. Seems to be true, although neither Hillary nor Joe are leaders of the pharma industry as far as I know.

(2) Dr Shiva says that Del Bigtree, Mark Blaxill, Polly Tommey, Rashid Buttar, Candice Edwards and Allison Chapman are all "controlled opposition". RFKJ thinks this is ridiculous. I tend to agree with RFKJ here.

(3) RFKJ says that Dr Shiva hired a full-time "negative researcher" to dig up dirt on the above-named anti-vaxx campaigners. Dr. Shiva categorically denies this.

(4) RFKJ says that Dr Shiva's company, Cytosolve, partners with pharmaceutical companies including vaccine makers. This seems to be absolutely true, although RFKJ has made some minor exaggerations of the extent of the partnerships.

(5) RFK Jr says that another of Dr Shiva's companies, Echomail, "made his fortune running email operations for President Bill and Hillary Clinton", and is also involved in a partnership with Microsoft. Again this seems to be absolutely correct, although Echomail had many other clients in addition to its foundational contract with the Clinton administration.

(6) Ayyuradai is not on record as an opponent of 5G. Seems to be true.

(7) Ayyuradai was funded by Peter Thiel to file an expensive defamation lawsuit against Gawker. RFK Jr says that Dr Shiva lost the lawsuit, while Dr Shiva says that he got a big settlement. Seems to be true all around.

(8) RFK Jr says that Dr Shiva is so aggressively a partisan Republican that he is driving Democrats out of the "Health Freedom Movement" -- and yet at the same time, Dr Shiva is on record with his support for Che Guevara's Marxist revolution. All true.

Overall, I don't think Dr Shiva is going to win his defamation lawsuit against RFK Jr. In fact it looks like frivolous litigation to me.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
The ringleaders of the plot to kidnap and/or murder Michigan's Gov. Whitmer are out of jail on bail, even though the state Attorney General was begging to keep them locked away. In the prosecution brief, the AG revealed:

'Plan A' in alleged terror plot: 'Execute tyrants' at Capitol, on TV
Then there was Plan B: Storm the Capitol while the Legislature was in session, lock every door, and burn down the building with everyone inside.
Aside from the Detroit News, the WSWS seems to be the only media outlet to mention these plans. They're mostly too busy ridiculing Trump's "Temper Tantrum" and his legal setbacks.

Presumably these released murder plotters will be making a beeline for the Million Maga March, scheduled for tomorrow.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Daniel Hopsicker's lead story at his webpage is "A Short History of Election Fraud". As Hopsicker demonstrates through one example after another:

See, what election services companies do—besides every so often fitfully count votes—is distribute the graft. Executives and managers from the largest American election service companies have been convicted of bribery and suborning public officials in more than a dozen states. There’s not an election company out there that hasn’t been convicted of enough felonies to make the most hardened criminal blush.
But, convicted felons, take heart! While a felony conviction may be enough to disqualify you from voting in places like Florida…Even multiple felony convictions in no way disqualifies you from counting the votes.
Is this a great country, or what!