There are but a few journalists I really trust: Miranda Devine, Molly Hemmingway, Taibbi and Kirn, Jonathon Turley, Lara Logan, Sharyl Atkisson, Schellenberger, Greenwald, hmmm... who else?
Don't forget Andy Ngo, who put his life on the line to report on the summer 2020 riots. And don't forget the Rasmussen Poll people, who run an accurate polling service while ALSO reporting on the issues that the establishment media won't cover, like the fake 2020 election.
I wonder why Israel doesn't do anything to the Palestinians living in Israei, Jordan, or Egypt. And also lets a whole bunch of them have Israeli citizenship. 23% of the population including 21% Arab Muslim and 2% Christian. Seems like at least the ones in Israel would be easier to "exterminate".
There's a reason that even the Muslim countries in the region will not take Palestinian refugees. They are creating most of the problems! Look at the history of these refugees in Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria. Everywhere they go they're a problem!
I’ve read Taibbi for years, even when I did not agree with his conclusions. He writes very well and actually uses factual information. Many opinion pieces are based on lies and misinformation. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
Vanessa Beeley, Rachel Blevins, Ben Swann, Fiorella Isabel, the nameless hundreds who've lost their lives in Gaza, Beirut and Syria, trying to expose the truth, and thousands more.
The dumber you are, the less likely it is that you'll see or believe that you are dumb. The smart person doubts and agonizes. The dumb person never questions his rightness.
Ex: newsrooms are filled with reporters who write about technical and science news but who couldn't factor a quadratic equation or balance a chemical equation if their life depended on it. Because they can't, they see the skill as unimportant to reporting. So it goes with every technical topic - heck, every topic. Ignorance is irrelevant.
To be fair, there are a lot of very technically expert people who wear Velcro shoes because they never learned how to tie their shoe laces. And also plenty of them who struggle to direct, manage, write or speak intelligently. I worked with a lot of PHD tech experts and experienced it first hand often and for decades. 😂
This certainly rings true. Leftists are so bad at running everything in part because they do not believe that people who actually understand a complex system, like the technologies our society depends on (water, electricity, oil and gas, manufacturing, mining, etc.) are to be trusted because they are "biased" or "captured by industry". So they substitute the totally uninformed and entirely political opinions of their own chosen "experts" to construct policies on all of these things. They cannot see that their political "experts" are so embedded in ideology that they have no idea how anything works and they don't want to know. Hence, they devise policies, that become law, and are completely unworkable because they defy the reality on the ground and sometimes the physics and chemistry of the system they are trying to regulate. It is so frustrating to actual industry experts to deal with the totally clueless regulators who cannot understand that they regulations they are trying to impose are impossible and full of c***. The California legislature and much of its government are classic examples of this. I don't know where else there are so many supposedly educated idiots as there are in government.
I could never figure that out. How, without a deep understanding of mathematics or music (as examples), can you teach either? Other subjects require subject matter experts, too.
"The dumber you are, the less likely it is that you'll see or believe that you are dumb. The smart person doubts and agonizes. The dumb person never questions his rightness."
2 sayings I keep in mind
1. "I'm Not All That Bright." When I say this, I'm not looking for a complement (Although one would not be refused :-)), but because its true.
2. 5 words to keep in mind "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong." Because I Have Been. I could have bought Cray stock when it 1st came out. Knew a guy who was a friend of the family. Turned it down. Not my wisest move.
But note that the dumbest people tend to be those who are somewhat bright — say, with IQs one or two standard deviations above average — but not quite smart enough to know how dumb they are.
No where is that more true than law enforcement, which is the basis for much of this opinion. People who watch videos or read the NYT have no idea of the practical application of use of force on a real human being, and they don’t get more real than George Floyd.
The top tier journos who type out or verbalise lie after lie are not stupid, even though they seem to be. They are obviously being told what falsehoods to spread. A few news anchors and even a CEO have resigned the last number of years but none of them has come forward to tell us why they have to lie. Perhaps only the CEOs and editors are contacted and told what the take on a matter would be. The journos know they're making fools of themselves but the pay is so good they stick it out. USAID comes to mind as a funder. Would be great if someone can break ranks and spill the beans about who dishes out the orders to the media. Come on Mr Deepstate's chauffeur, bring us more fun.
Great post, Sasha. I find myself thinking back on the past 4 decades and wondering all the lies we’ve been told.
700 pages of Hurricane Crossfire investigation just dropped and Peter Strzok is an absolute piece of shit. This would never have seen the light of day if Cackles had won the White House.
I think the real dynamic that will impact us for decades is the upcoming war with Iran on behalf of Israel. Hundreds of thousands will die, trillions of USD will be wasted and the devastation will take decades to address. Israel’s threat to attack are a clear and present danger. A false flag will be run up the flag pole and then comes the media screaming for patriotic response, conscription, distraction, and another endless war. We were in Vietnam for over 10 years and Iran is an infinitely stronger opponent than Iran. Ditto Iraq and Afghanistan. People will smirk next year remembering the trivia of tariffs, deportations, illegal immigration. Current censorship of criticism of Israel will be begged for as the lockdown on any and all criticism of our ally will be treated as treason under new war-time censorship orders. Buckle up.
I agree. The money factor dominated the media via USAID and money still controls it via phony NGOs funded by globalist sources. You can tell how lazy the propaganda media is by parroting the same words. The “resist” protests with Bernie as spokesperson are also being driven by money. It seems that sources are being close to be disclosed and legal cases are being built.
Not lazy in my opinion. Propaganda requires a concerted effort and a unified message across all mass media. The majority of people still rely on the MSM as their "trusted" source of information. 🤪
In new posts that I just saw, the new thing is to use the word "chaos" to describe what Trump is doing. There you go. Who is the person or committee that tells all these politicians (the media will folliw) what to say?
Save me a bit of typing. Tho OP a most excellent shining of light on the creepy crawly things scuttling around. But the rock hasn't been turned over yet.
To me its like they've been brain chipped and all are now just terminals of the mainframe. I have this image of them being linked to papa Klaus (Schwab). Recall how they would parrot the same phrase across nearly all TV networks during covid. I think some swallowed back a little vomit while doing it but the helluva good pay (some "earn" millions per year) made them brave.
Yes, on the coasts “journalists“ have been co-opted/seduced by the money and middle class lifestyle advertised by “all the presidents men“ etc. It’s ironically a throwback to the pre-progressive era, before the unfairness of Rockefeller
and the other monopolists, and the extreme poverty contrasted with conspicuously excessive wealth in the Gilded Age etc. provoked the digging by the new muckrakers.
Do they really know they are making fools of themselves? I think some if not most believe their own lies. I don't see how so many people can live with no self-respect for a paycheck. More likely, they are so captured by the giant web of lies that is the Progressive Project that they never look outside the bubble. A major theme of Sasha's Substack is about this.
Your soothing voice and level headed pros give me hope that our clown show headed up by Starmer will be voted out next time around, we could do with it to be sooner, truth be told, for there’s no telling what damage he may rain down upon us here before then.
He’s the opposite of Biden… whilst Biden didn’t know what day it was, our so called leader is knowingly focused on betraying the indigenous population in favour of our mass invasion of ‘peaceful’ visitors… we’re in a terminal decline, unless we can find our Trump equivalent….
Im not stepping foot inside the UK again until and unless a Populist government is elected there. Starmer got one thing right recently though. And that is his calling globalism as dead. You’re damn right it is, and not a moment too soon. Make England Great Again (MEGA!)
When a group believes a false assertion — like "Trump and Musk are Nazis" (which is an extreme and historically inaccurate label) — the challenge is less about just correcting facts and more about navigating emotion, identity, and trust.
A close friend of mine is quite moderate but reads the WaPo and NYT daily. He's a brilliant self made multimillionaire and spends much of his wealth mentoring underclass kids with a scholarship program.
The WaPo and and NYT are tremendously effective with their distortion, lies and outright propaganda .
He'll say things like - "it was a mostly peaceful demonstration" when cities are being burnt down. He'll mention intelligence officials know the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation etc.
When I take the time to challenge this stuff in a respectful way he realizes he's been duped. I invite dialogue and try to make sure I stick to the facts because he will check out what I've said.
I have yet to find anyone who is entrenched in leftist propaganda to react positively to facts and realize they’ve been duped. Mostly I find them challenging me with their own ‘facts’ and telling me facts are subjective. I’m still navigating how to engage in conversations because I can’t entertain this way of thinking. If facts are subjective then what is truth? It’s circular and makes no sense, but I’m happy to know you have a rational friend who can respond to facts accurately. There is a key relationship I’m not willing to give up on, although it’s dispiriting to realize she is more than likely not going to change her mindset.
Maintaining a friendship with someone who refuses reasonable discussion and says "truth is subjective" can be seriously draining, especially if you value honest, thoughtful conversations.
Sometimes the healthiest move is to gracefully drift apart — not in anger, just with peace.
You don’t have to declare a friendship breakup. Just let the contact slow, make room for people who do meet you where you are now, and be okay letting go of who someone used to be.
If it's a family member - then it's a difficult situation. I have a brother in law who will never change. I try to maintain a distant friendship by sending non political jokes or stories of interest. He's a good person but clearly deluded.
It’s a sister with whom I used to be very close. I refuse to allow political differences to create such a wedge, but when recently told by her that my vote is the reason ‘people are suffering’ (ie perceived threat of Medicare being cut, among other perceived threats-I voted for a fascist, etc.) and that I must own my vote, to which I replied, I do, and proudly’, she then became exceedingly self-righteous, claiming I must not be feeling the effects of such cuts (we’re both in our mid-60s, not totally dependent on Medicare). I always state we just have to agree to disagree, but to please state what has been cut, she couldn’t, or wouldn’t. So I do distance myself, for my own peace of mind, but it hurts knowing she has been captured to this extent. I can’t change her but I do allow myself to occasionally be the one dissenting voice in her world.
Agreed. I think she thinks she can change me (I used to be much more aligned with the left until 2020) and can’t accept the fact that we don’t think the same anymore. It’s crazy that in today’s world we rightfully celebrate differences, except for political differences.
Most times "to agree to disagree " is as good as you can do. Sometimes I try gentle humor. When someone claims "Joe Biden is sharp as a tack" I reply “If that’s sharp, I don’t want to see dull.”
Why it works: Humor disarms, makes the point, and is memorable. But use with caution — tone matters.
very sad,,once people are captured by marxist ideology it is a long haul to bring them back,,feelings are powerful and make you not think or trust reality
It seems more like they just know what side they are on, get their position on an issue from their “news source” of choice and go from there. I have a LOT of very liberal friends who every now and then ask me for my opinion on something, as in “surely you don’t believe…”
I brought up Trump’s attempts to end the Ukraine war, thinking that was at least something they’d support, and was FLOORED by their response. These one-time peaceniks had now turned into war-mongers, like their parents during the Viet Nam war. “We can’t let Putin (read:communism) win.” Strange times.
A very liberal friend of mine was going to go to the Anti Trump/Musk demonstration in a large western city. She was going with her very liberal ex hippie friends in their late 60s - Mike and Myra(names changed to protect the guilty). Mike hasn't worked in decades - bad back on disability . Myra is an HR person.
Mike decided at the last minute not to go so he stayed home and smoked pot. So my friend without a ride was upset but decided not to go.
They’re in my family as well and my BIL has been smoking the dope for years (he’s now 68) and I think he’s stuck in La La Land. He lives in a bubble and is suffering from TDS and America Bad!
This article was somewhat cathartic for me. Re-living that awful summer of 2020 through the video of Tucker Carlson’s reporting, and revisiting the insane defund the police movement reminded me that most of the craziness of that season— thankfully — has been or is being repudiated. BLM is properly sidelined, and D. C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s ridiculous homage to them through the “BLM Plaza” is now dismantled, and without so much as a peep of protest from the "resistance.” I’m guessing the silence is only because they are busy re-grouping and “rebranding” themselves; but I also think they know that a critical mass of folks within this country are just tired of them.The only media worth listening to in this season will have to commit to no lies and no insanity. Most will not meet that threshold, so they will fade into obscurity where they belong.
To get specific, Liberation Day tariffs (some of which have since changed and will continue to evolve) will result in impacts we haven't yet seen, so facts there have yet to be determined, resulting mostly in opinions and subjectivity. Context is also key.
"When a group believes a false assertion — like "Trump and Musk are Nazis" (which is an extreme and historically inaccurate label) — the challenge is less about just correcting facts and more about navigating emotion, identity, and trust."
Excatly which is why the peril is in starting to believe your own BS. Like you said, challenge is emotion and that's what makes people believe rather than facts. So if you are a Democratic nominee and you and your campaign believe this BS because it's emotionally stirring, and build a campaign around that, don't cry when you lose. Perception tends to replace reality but if majority of your electorate sees reality (Joe is demented, Trump isn't Hitler, Kamala doesn't know WTF she's talking about and is no agent of change, protests are not peaceful, Jan 6 was not New Pearl Harbor or anything close, etc) and yet your campaign pushes your perception, the disconnect will be fatal for you. And it was.
Problem that Democrats have is that they believe in all this astroturfed and flat out made up nonsense. It was repeated for to long that they started to take it as a fact.
Some Democrats—or at least some progressive activists and media voices—have compared Trump or Musk to Nazis or fascists, but it’s not an official party position, and most mainstream Democrats avoid that kind of language publicly.
What many Democrats actually believe about Trump:
- has authoritarian tendencies.
- He’s often accused of using fascist-style rhetoric (e.g., calling the press “the enemy of the people,” questioning election results, cozying up to strongmen).
- The term “fascist” has been used, especially among progressives like AOC or commentators like Rachel Maddow—but “Nazi” is less common, and not taken seriously in policy circles.
What many Democrats actually believe about Musk:
- Musk is controversial, especially since taking over Twitter (X) and reinstating previously banned accounts, including far-right figures.
- Some progressives accuse him of enabling hate speech and misinformation—but again, “Nazi” is rarely used in serious political debate.
- T-he more common charge is that he’s being reckless with the platform, amplifying extremists, or trolling the Left for attention.
Trump obeyed every ruling by SCOTUS during his1st term and now, is abiding by all court rulings, even the ridiculous and illegal ones that are coming fast and furious. How is that "authoritarian tendencies". Remember, "actions speak louder (actually, MUCH LOUDER) than words". When the press does what Sasha and so many others have pointed out, then they ARE the enemy of the people, because the people need an honest and trustworthy press to keep our constitutional republic. Trump doesn't "cozy up", he plays a game. Reagan did similar (but much more eloquently) with Gorbachev. The 2020 election was filled to the brim with irregularities (meaning, "against election regulations on the books") and illegalities (meaning, "against election laws on the books") and Trump was and is not alone in questioning the results (read "Rigged").
Cat C. - isn't it crazy that dems say Trump has authoritarian tendancies?! It's not like he's praised them or anything. Well, maybe a few like the following:
🇧🇷 Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil)
Often called “the Trump of the Tropics.” Trump praised Bolsonaro for his COVID-19 response and environmental policies, despite international criticism. After Bolsonaro lost the 2022 election, Trump claimed it was “stolen,” echoing U.S. election denial rhetoric. Publicly called Bolsonaro “a great man” and “a terrific leader.”
🇫🇷 Marine Le Pen (France)
Trump has expressed admiration for her nationalist platform. In 2017, he said she was “the strongest on borders, and what’s been going on in France,” implicitly supporting her presidential bid. While he didn’t formally endorse her, the praise was seen as a tacit boost to her far-right candidacy.
🇮🇹 Matteo Salvini (Italy)
Former Deputy PM and leader of the far-right League Party.
Trump has praised Salvini’s hardline immigration stance and populist style. The two met in 2020; Salvini has spoken warmly of Trump, calling him a role model.
🇵🇱 Andrzej Duda (Poland)
Praised by Trump for his nationalist agenda and anti-immigration policies.
Trump hosted Duda at the White House and lauded Poland as a model of “sovereignty and strength.”
🇭🇺 Viktor Orbán (Hungary) (listed earlier but worth emphasizing)
Trump has formally endorsed Orbán, calling him a “strong leader respected by all.” Orbán has dismantled democratic checks, repressed the press, and centralized power — hallmarks of authoritarian rule.
🇷🇸 Aleksandar Vučić (Serbia)
Trump helped broker economic normalization talks between Serbia and Kosovo. Called Vučić a “very good man” and praised his leadership.
Vučić has been accused of democratic backsliding and centralizing power in Serbia.
Trump said Duterte was “doing an unbelievable job on the drug problem,” despite thousands of extrajudicial killings.
🇹🇭 Prayuth Chan-o-cha (Thailand)
Military coup leader turned PM. Trump welcomed Prayuth to the White House and praised him, raising eyebrows since Prayuth came to power via military takeover.
Trump met with Nazarbayev in 2018 and praised his leadership despite a decades-long authoritarian regime. Nazarbayev ruled Kazakhstan with an iron fist for nearly 30 years.
🇨🇳 Xi Jinping (China) (covered earlier)
Trump said: “He’s a very, very good man,” and praised Xi’s handling of COVID early on.
🇷🇺 Vladimir Putin (Russia, Russia, Russia!)
Called him a “genius” for the Ukraine invasion strategy in early 2022 (he later walked this back somewhat).
Summary of Common Themes in Trump’s Praise:
- He tends to admire leaders who project strength, are nationalist, and assert control over their countries.
- Criticism of liberal democratic norms, press freedom, and checks on executive power is often absent or downplayed in his remarks.
- Many of these figures use anti-immigrant, anti-globalist, and populist rhetoric, aligning with Trump’s own brand.
Speaking of Russia, Russia, Russia, here's a few kind words Trump has used in Putin's favor:
🗓️ 2016 Campaign & Presidency (2015–2020)
🔹 “He’s a strong leader”
“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him… He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”
— Trump on Putin vs. Obama, Sept. 2016 (NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum)
🔹 "At least he's a leader"
“It’s not going to be Putin, believe me. If I’m president, it’s not going to be Putin. But Putin has no respect for President Obama. Zero. He’s got no respect for our president. At least he’s a leader.”
— CNN interview, Sept. 2015
🔹 Helsinki Summit (2018): “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia”
Trump sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian election interference:
“President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
— Helsinki, July 16, 2018
After massive backlash, Trump later claimed he misspoke (“would” vs. “wouldn’t”).
🔹 On Putin’s strength:
“He’s very smart… I mean, he’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart.”
— Fox Business, Oct. 2015
🗓️ Post-Presidency (2021–2024)
🔹 “Genius” and “savvy” – Russia’s Ukraine invasion (2022)
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”
— Feb. 22, 2022, on The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show
He later softened that language under pressure, but never fully walked it back.
🔹 “He’s got great control over his country”
“He’s got 200,000 soldiers. They’re right on the border… That’s very powerful.”
— Feb. 2022, same interview
🗓️ 2024 Campaign Trail
Trump has continued to avoid criticizing Putin directly.
He claimed he could end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours” by negotiating with Putin and Zelensky.
In March 2024, he said that if reelected, he would “rebuild relations” with Russia and praised Putin for being “a man who loves his country.”
🧊 Notably Missing: Condemnation
Trump rarely condemns Putin — even after:
The 2016 election interference
The poisoning and imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny
The invasion of Ukraine and war crimes allegations
Instead, he frames Putin’s actions in terms of strategic effectiveness or toughness.
Putin is widely considered a foe of the United States—not just by politicians, but by intelligence agencies, military analysts, and many U.S. allies. This label isn't about personal dislike; it's based on clear patterns of geopolitical opposition, subversion of Western institutions, and direct attacks on U.S. interests.
Here’s a breakdown of why:
🧠 1. Election Interference (2016 & Beyond)
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia, under Putin’s orders, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to:
Undermine confidence in democracy
Harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign
Help Donald Trump’s candidacy
Methods included hacking, leaking emails, and a massive disinformation campaign on social media.
Russian operatives have continued similar interference efforts in 2020 and 2024 elections.
FBI, CIA, NSA Joint Statement (2017): “We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”
🌍 2. Geopolitical Rivalry & Destabilization
Putin seeks to undermine U.S.-led alliances, especially NATO and the European Union, and restore Russia’s global influence.
Russia has backed anti-American regimes in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Putin’s strategy often involves disrupting Western cohesion by funding far-right and far-left movements in Europe and the U.S.
🛰️ 3. Cyberattacks
Russia has launched or sponsored numerous cyberattacks against U.S. targets, including:
The SolarWinds hack (2020) — a major breach of U.S. government agencies.
Ransomware attacks on pipelines, hospitals, and businesses (e.g., Colonial Pipeline in 2021).
These attacks compromise national security, energy infrastructure, and financial systems.
🔫 4. Military Aggression
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2014 and full-scale in 2022) directly opposes U.S. and NATO interests in Eastern Europe.
Putin’s goal of expanding Russian influence by force threatens the post–World War II international order.
He has also used military threats and nuclear rhetoric to deter U.S. involvement or support for allies.
📉 5. Human Rights Abuses & Authoritarianism
Putin’s regime is marked by:
The jailing or assassination of political opponents (e.g., Alexei Navalny)
Repression of free press
State propaganda and censorship
His model of authoritarianism is antithetical to U.S. democratic values.
🎯 6. Support for America's Enemies
Russia has supported:
Assad in Syria (while U.S. supported opposition groups)
Iranian military proxies
The Taliban in Afghanistan (even offering bounties for U.S. soldiers, per intelligence reports)
These alliances directly threaten U.S. strategic interests and personnel.
📍 7. Nuclear Posturing
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Ukraine war, escalating tensions with NATO.
His suspension of arms control treaties (e.g., New START) dismantles key safeguards against nuclear conflict.
🧩 Bottom Line:
Putin is considered a foe of America not because of ideology alone, but because he:
- Opposes democratic institutions
- Undermines U.S. elections
- Supports enemies of the U.S.
- Wields disinformation and cyberwarfare as tools of conflict
- Aggressively seeks to weaken America’s global leadership
- It's not a Cold War redux, but it's very much a conflict of systems—autocracy vs. liberal democracy—and Putin is one of its sharpest antagonists.
Obama rarely condemned radical Islam and in fact, made it a rule in his administration that the term "radical Islam" and "radical Islam terrorist/terrorism" could never be said, but only "Muslim extremism".
Trump said that Putin said that his administration did do the email leaks and Trump said he thought Putin acted like he was telling the truth when he said it. As for "not believing his own intelligence"....it was actually Obama's intelligence, left over from his admin., who lied about the Steele dossier, tampered with an email to continue the Crossfire Hurricane Russia collusion investigation (when the actual contents of the email would've stopped it and the lawyer who did that, got a slap on his wrist), lied about the Hunter laptop and so much more.
Biden's "Plan to combat domestic terrorism" paper was released by DNI Tulsi Gabert and it shows that Biden had planned straight-up authoritarian, anti-freedom actions to go against his (and Dems) political opponents.
A recent survey found that about half of liberal-leaning U.S. residents could justify the assassinations of President Trump and his government efficiency adviser, Elon Musk.
More than half of liberals say that destroying Tesla dealerships is acceptable. They also support Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old man accused of gunning down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, according to the survey by the Network Contagion Research Institute.
Democrat leadership constantly claims "the death of our democracy is near due to Trump/Musk". The hate they are stoking may provide some tactical political gain but enough people see through this stuff that the democrat party is in deep trouble long term.
Interesting survey. I would caution interpretation since these were asked on a 7 point scale from "not all justified {in killing Trump, Musk) to "completely justified" and across 9 self identifying political affiliations - Far Left, Liberal, Slightly Liberal, Middle of the Road, Slightly Conservative, Conservative, Far Right, No Affiliation and Something Else.
Results show about one-half of liberals" (Far Left, Liberal, Slightly Liberal) responded it's ok to kill Musk (49%), Trump (55%) & destroying Tesla Dealerships is partially acceptable (58%).
You would certainly see higher agreement among the Far Left subset, but how many "far lefts" were surveyed among the 1264 U.S. residents, balanced to reflect Census data on race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Are they representative of the population at large? Who knows, but "far right" are estimated in the range of 5-8% of US adults, while "far left" 3-6%, resulting in small sample sizes.
Far left or far right hold extreme views which is certainly seen here with a predominantly "far right" reader base.
I don't think the survey is "interesting", I think it's appalling (to say it's justified to murder, in cold blood, another person) and shows evil is sown in the hearts of many, which is a terrible place to be, for a nation and civilization.
I read Molie Hemingway's "Rigged" when it came out. It's an eye-opener.
I had given up on MSM back in the 1990s. You can't be paying any attention and NOT see that these are propagandists, not journalists.
I cringe every time the MSM reference "Trump's false claims" concerning election fraud. They've used that term thousands of times, but have not ONCE delineated what those claims are, or how they know them to be false. (Those of you who are satisfied with the court rulings concerning claims of election rigging should remember that judges are political opportunists, just like all the other politicians)
A party that rigs its own primaries and nominees rigged an election too? Do not say!
2016 - they rigged the primary for Hilary. Obama disuaded Biden from running since he would split votes. Wasserman Schultz pressed delegates to pledge to Hilary thus screwing over Bernie who got some real traction unlike Hilary
2020 - they rigged the primary for Joe. Made 5 candidates to drop at the same time to endorse Joe. Clyburn pressed SC delegates to pledge to Joe.
2018 midterms - boxes of unopened ballots were found and they were all for Democrats
2020 election - see above. It happened while most of America was asleep. Somehow, Joe got 81M votes. No one ever figured out where the difference disappeared in 2024 even if you calculate that some went to Trump (who got more votes than in 2020), some went to Kamala and some didn't vote.
2024 - Joe wins a primary without any real opposition cause everyone was told not to challenge him. Joe chokes at the national stage. They strip him off his nomination and install Kamala
There is no verified, court-accepted proof that the general elections in 2016, 2018, or 2020 were fraudulently rigged. Irregularities, yes. Suspect processes, maybe. But evidence of votes being altered, mass fraud, or rigging on a national level? No.
The "81 million" argument - high turnout in 2020 is not, in itself, evidence of fraud. It was the highest-turnout election in modern history, with mail-in voting expanded due to COVID. Biden had a huge anti-Trump coalition, not necessarily pro-Biden enthusiasm.
The "ballot boxes" story - stories of “boxes of ballots” surface every election cycle. Some turn out to be administrative errors, others are exaggerated or unverified social media posts. No conclusive, credible evidence has tied these to vote-rigging on a national scale.
Having 5 to 8 times the number of drop off boxes in Democrat areas and having vote harvesting when it's specifically illegal or against regulations is signs of "vote-rigging". Pres. Carter and SOS Baker did thorough research showing how easy it is to rig an election by way all-mail-in-balloting and use of unmanned ballot boxes and vote harvesters. So I'll never believe that 81 million voted for Biden. Whether there was enough fraud to swing the election in Biden's direction, we'll never know. I'm just thankful Trump's in office now (after losing a shite-ton of retirement money under Biden/Harris' inflation).
🔹 1. "Having 5 to 8 times the number of drop-off boxes in Democrat areas..."
This concern is partially rooted in reality, but context is crucial.
Ballot drop boxes are generally placed based on population density, not partisan affiliation.
Urban (often Democrat-leaning) counties have more people per square mile, so they naturally receive more boxes.
Rural (often Republican-leaning) areas have fewer people and more distance, so fewer boxes are spread over larger areas.
✅ True: In some swing states (like Georgia or Wisconsin), critics pointed out that some counties had more boxes per capita than others.
❗ Misleading: This is often presented as “vote rigging,” when in fact, it reflects local election boards' logistical decisions, often following state law or court rulings.
🔹 2. "Ballot harvesting when it's illegal or against regulations..."
This depends entirely on the state:
Ballot harvesting (someone collecting and submitting ballots on behalf of voters) is legal in some states (like California), limited in others, and banned in many.
Illegal ballot harvesting would be a serious offense — but there is no widespread evidence of it being used in a coordinated, outcome-changing way in 2020.
✅ True: There have been isolated cases of ballot misuse, both Republican and Democrat (e.g., NC-09 race in 2018).
❗ False: There is no verified evidence of a national scheme involving illegal ballot harvesting flipping the 2020 election.
🔹 3. "Carter and Baker said all-mail voting is vulnerable to fraud..."
Yes, but let's clarify what they actually said.
The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform did express concerns about mail-in voting and ballot collection:
“Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”
— Commission Report, 2005
However, they also supported expanding vote-by-mail with strong safeguards like voter ID, signature matching, and secure chain-of-custody.
✅ True: They highlighted potential vulnerabilities.
❗ False: They did not claim vote-by-mail or drop boxes inherently result in stolen elections. Nor did they oppose mail-in voting wholesale.
🔹 4. "So I’ll never believe 81 million voted for Biden."
That’s a belief, not a verifiable claim — and it’s important to separate feelings from facts.
81 million votes for Biden in 2020 were certified by all 50 states, Republican and Democrat alike.
Courts, including many with Trump-appointed judges, rejected 60+ lawsuits alleging fraud.
Trump's own DOJ, DHS, and Cybersecurity teams found no evidence of widespread fraud.
✅ It’s okay to question.
❗ But the claim that Biden didn’t legitimately win lacks evidence — and has been investigated thoroughly.
🔹 5. "We’ll never know if there was enough fraud to swing it."
Actually, we do know with high confidence:
Audits, hand recounts (like in Georgia), and court reviews confirmed results.
Bill Barr (Trump’s Attorney General): “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”
🔹 6. "Losing retirement under Biden’s inflation"
Inflation did surge under Biden (esp. in 2021–2022), due to:
COVID-era supply shocks,
Stimulus spending,
Global energy spikes (including the war in Ukraine).
But:
Inflation has come down sharply by late 2023 into 2024.
Markets have recovered, and interest rates are easing.
Retirement account performance also depends on personal asset allocation — not just presidential policy.
What you've written here, disregards what I wrote. In places IN CITIES where the populations were equivalent, THERE WERE LESS DROP BOXES in Republican-voting areas and as for the varies rules and regulations, the ZuckBucks people DEMANDED that these be suspended. Do some research instead of spouting your deceptions and distortions here.
Inflation was still going up in 2023! You ADD UP the quarterly inflation numbers as the year progresses!! The tariffs are for a very good reason - so we don't lose our constitutional republic to CCP China and/or a globalist EU/UN.
Bill Barr's remark was before most of the testimony and video came out; remember that he said "to date". AG Barr will always be a coward in my book. He did a speech (this was a year or so before the election) outlining the corruption and abuse and illegality regarding the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation and yet, NO arrests or indictments!
And it wasn't investigated thoroughly. What audits and court reviews? Audits in AZ found many ballots that appeared to be fraudulent but the state AG swept it under the rug! Same with other states. The evidence of fraud wasn't confirmed or denied in most all cases because state gov officials and courts didn't want to go there.
First off, "Trump's own DOJ, DHS, and Cybersecurity teams" were filled with lots of 'never-Trumpers', RINOS and Democrats (90%+ of all those in D.C. vote Democrat) and so I don't trust their judgement (that one guy saying the election was the "most secure in the history of our country" didn't have a brain cell in his head to believe that, with everything that happened - fake "water main breaks", other election counting shut downs "because we're all tired and have to go home and rest" - I think CNN reported that, and cameras going out, etc.).
And as for "....... found no evidence of widespread fraud", it wouldn't take wide spread fraud - just enough in the swing areas in the swing states - remember that Biden won by just a few thousands of votes SPREAD ACROSS MANY STATES.
Also, what I meant is that it's not logical, reasonable or common sense to believe that Biden got 81 million votes. I don't know if he won or not....can't go back in time and find out. As for the "all were verified by the states" and "courts rejected the lawsuits" (without hearing or seeing the merits, I'll add), it doesn't matter when it comes to what I saw on election day and what people videoed, witnessed, testified under oath, which makes it so I'll always question the 81 million votes and wonder about Biden's win.
The Carter/Baker report "supported expanding vote-by-mail with strong safeguards like voter ID, signature matching, and secure chain-of-custody", which Democrats have FOUGHT, TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST over the years. AND NONE OF THOSE THINGS were implemented in 2020 when vote-by-mail was "decreed" due to COVID. And many states that already had vote-by-mail or absentee voting didn't and don't have those save guards (Republican states do).
OF COURSE vote-by-mail and ballot harvesting inherently has more vote fraud or can have more vote fraud because IT'S JUST LOGICAL, whether Carter and Baker said so or not. I heard that the UN (or EU - can't remember which as it was 5 years ago) didn't even recognize vote-by-mail elections as legitimate until 2020 happened in the USA.
As for ballot harvesting, it's illegal for most states or allows for family members ONLY to take in ballots. That's with good reason, because the "chain of custody" is broken with ballot harvesting. I never said there was a "national plot" to ballot harvest, but the ballot harvesting that happened STILL could've resulted in illegal votes. Also, ballot harvesting was another reason why locals were so angry at the ZuckBuck operations (including the that district manager who quit).
As for the unmanned ballot boxes, do some research - in these cities that "Zuckbucks" were given and Zuck's people were actually there too, the bucks were CONTINGENT on them putting much LESS boxes (still in the big city) that leaned Republican (probably less density because some of the homes were larger but it was still in the city and not rural at all). Locals complained. One election manager (the head of a district, if I recall) actually quit because THEY WOULDN'T FOLLOW regulations and laws.
Claim: Trump's DOJ, DHS, and cybersecurity teams were composed of "Never Trumpers," RINOs, and Democrats, making their assessments unreliable.
Analysis: Key officials who affirmed the election's integrity were appointed by President Trump himself. For instance, Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), was a Trump appointee. He stated that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history," a position supported by numerous state and federal officials. There is no credible evidence to suggest that these agencies were predominantly staffed by individuals opposed to Trump. Moreover, courts across the country, including those with judges appointed by Trump, dismissed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results due to lack of evidence.
Campaign Legal Center
2. Alleged Election Irregularities
Claim: Incidents like water main breaks, counting shutdowns, and camera outages indicate fraud.
Analysis: Investigations into these events found no evidence of fraud. For example, the water leak in Atlanta was a minor incident that did not affect ballot counting. Temporary pauses in counting occurred in several states due to standard procedures and did not indicate malfeasance. No credible evidence has emerged to suggest that these incidents were part of a coordinated effort to manipulate the election outcome.
3. Margin of Victory and Targeted Fraud
Claim: It wouldn't take widespread fraud—just enough in swing areas to change the outcome.
Analysis: While it's true that small margins in key states decided the election, extensive audits and recounts in these battleground states, including Georgia and Arizona, confirmed the accuracy of the results. No substantial evidence of fraud that could have altered the outcome was found.
4. Biden's Vote Totals
Claim: It's illogical to believe Biden received 81 million votes.
Analysis: Biden's vote total reflects a combination of factors, including high voter turnout and increased use of mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. His total was approximately 7 million more than Trump's, consistent with national polling and voter registration trends. Multiple audits and certifications across states validated these results.
5. Court Dismissals of Election Lawsuits
Claim: Courts rejected lawsuits without considering their merits.
Analysis: Courts at various levels, including the Supreme Court, dismissed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results. These dismissals were based on thorough evaluations, with courts often stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence. The assertion that courts did not consider the merits is not supported by the legal records.
6. Carter-Baker Commission and Mail-In Voting
Claim: The Carter-Baker report recommended safeguards for mail-in voting, which were ignored in 2020.
Analysis: The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission did highlight potential vulnerabilities in absentee voting and recommended measures like voter ID and signature verification. In 2020, many states implemented such safeguards, including signature matching and secure ballot drop boxes. While not all recommendations were universally adopted, states took steps to ensure the integrity of mail-in voting.
7. Ballot Harvesting and Chain of Custody
Claim: Ballot harvesting breaks the chain of custody and could lead to illegal votes.
Analysis: Ballot collection laws vary by state, with some allowing designated individuals to collect ballots. States that permit this practice have regulations to maintain ballot integrity. No substantial evidence has been presented to show that ballot collection in 2020 led to widespread fraud or altered election outcomes.
8. "Zuckbucks" and Election Influence
Claim: Private funding from organizations associated with Mark Zuckerberg influenced election operations unfairly.
Analysis: Private grants were provided to election offices to assist with the challenges posed by the pandemic. These funds were used for necessities like personal protective equipment and staffing. Investigations have not found that these funds led to biased election administration or affected the election's integrity.
Conclusion:
The 2020 election has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and claims of widespread fraud have been consistently debunked by credible sources. While it's essential to address and investigate any allegations of irregularities, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the election was conducted fairly and that the results accurately reflect the will of the voters.
Mind you, if you insist on believing in debunked conspiracy theories, at least you're in good or bad company. Just today, Trump "truthed" about it: If the 2020 Presidential Election was not RIGGED, and it was, in so many ways.
This Trump "truth" was in the context of him also saying Zelenskyy and Crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty ( Ukraine) to begin that Putin started.
I didn't believe that 81 million people voted for Biden to begin with, but was really convinced because of how 2024 turned out. In fact, as the 2024 election night went on, I saw quite a few X-posts and FB posts, etc. that said, after seeing the numbers unfold during the night and into the next day: "Geez, maybe the 2020 election was rigged".
Biden was predicted to beat Trump by 10%tile points or so in polls nearest to the election. Trump did better than that. Trump is polarizing. Trump is divisive. Trump is delusional and has the emotional maturity of a 1 year old.
Who predicted it? Polls and MSM are often wrong about election results. Trump is pro-USA. That's polarizing to many and it's divisive to many. He isn't delusional, and he's more emotionally mature than the average Democrat!! As "Mr. Wonderful" (that guy on "Shark Tank") said yesterday, when it comes to Trump, he ignores the noise and focuses on the signal.
A couple of courts did allow 2020 election trials and they went all the way to the SCOTUS. I think it was Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito who voted to have the case go before the SCOTUS (they were outnumbered). As for declaring "there is no verified, court-accepted proof", that's a biased opinion rather than fact, because the courts (except for the two I mentioned above) wouldn't let the cases inside the door. There was no discovery done, no proof shown in court, so you can't say that it wasn't "accepted or verified" if it wasn't "put through the legal paces", so to speak. There where ballots counted that HAD NO ADRESSES or SINGATURES, or full names or... well, the list goes on and on with the irregular (against regulations) and illegal (against laws) stuff that happened during the 2020 election.
Thomas' wife isn't a seditionist. Did you know that in the USA we have a 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression? And that Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court of law?
After the 2020 election, Ginni Thomas exchanged 29 texts with Mark Meadows urging efforts to overturn the election results.
She expressed belief in conspiracy theories about election fraud and encouraged Meadows to “release the Kraken,” referencing Sidney Powell’s legal campaign.
2. Contacted Arizona Lawmakers
She sent emails to Arizona legislators, urging them to “choose” alternate electors for Trump, bypassing the certified election results.
This was part of a broader "fake electors" scheme being investigated by the January 6 Committee and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
3. Attended January 6 Rally (but not Capitol breach)
She confirmed attending the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, but says she left before the violence began at the Capitol.
She says she had no role in organizing the rally or encouraging illegal actions.
Critics argue that her actions helped legitimize a multi-pronged effort to subvert democracy, even if nonviolent. Supporters say she exercised her First Amendment rights, albeit misguidedly. Her actions aligned with or supported a broader campaign to overturn the 2020 election, some of which has been prosecuted as seditious conspiracy (e.g., the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys).
Instead of arguing with family or friends, ask them these questions when they bring up politics at your social gatherings: Where do you get your news? Did you feel it is down the middle and unbiased? How do you know? They may still argue, but perhaps you've planted a seed of doubt. You will almost never win a political argument. People have to come around on their own.
All of us have been subjected to leftist Indoctrination. remarkably, a majority remain stubbornly determined to pursue truth, wherever it leads. Even if it means we're wrong. Not so for those employed by the iron curtain. their jobs rely on being so in love w their own dumb leftist ideas they don't even why understand those ideas might be wrong.
Wonderful post! I am amazed at your brilliance in keeping a theme going with videos and posts, which belie the incredibly hard work and time you devoted to the task. As a two-time Obama voter who voted for Trump to keep Killary out of office, little did I know we would be sailing into journalistic shark-infested waters. I was still able to find truth on the internet on Rumble and elsewhere. Tracy Beanz was the first journalist to uncover the origins of the Russia Hoax. There were doctors on Rumble who revealed the dangers of the vaccine. If I tried to repost on Facebook, I would be put in Facebook jail.
The left lost a brilliant voice when you saw the truth, Sasha. Welcome to our world! You have helped us to understand all the pain we have endured for so long.
Media has gotten smug, intolerant, contrarian and nasty of anything opposing their viewpoints. It might get the people who love your shit but keeping the base besides the faithful you lose. MSM used to be about reporting everything now its the same and once you're the same people pick their own echo chambers that is more of their ideology.
I find Glen better when he has no natural allies when he gets into comfort zones, I noticed a lack of confrontation when he should know better. Maybe its me but when people get lulled is when peoples worst work happens, and Glens overall work has taken a nosedive because he doesnt push when he should.
Agreed. But Glenn fails his audience as an objective observer of both sides seeking to find middle ground. There is a cycle of violence and being on one side or the other perpetuates the conflict. I find John Mearsheimer a more balanced analyst and appreciate when Glenn has him on.
The Youtube commentariat fell heavily in Dave's favor, which I agreed with. I was disappointed that Dave did not center his arguments on America's funding of the Hamas/Israel conflict. War is fueled by money. I would like to see how fewer American taxpayer dollars would effect the overall quantity of violence in this asymmetric conflict. It is insane to keep doing what we have been doing.
Great essay. I knew the beginning of this was Covid, politicizing an epidemic ? From that point forward, I sought various sources to triangulate the truth. It took some time. Maybe too long for my patience, but I got to the truth and more importantly, reality. Which serves me well. When Trump won in 2024 and the other half of the country didn’t understand why, it was clear to me that they were trapped in their bubble. Fish do not understand water is the best way to explain it. The mainstream media is a farce.
Megyn Kelly was interviewed by a NYT reporter recently. During the interview, Megyn flipped the script and asked some great questions. Essentially revealing that the reporter and those from NYT, et al, are currently of the belief that their reporting is without bias. This came during the segment when Kelly was asked about bias in podcasts, a different lane than print, which is permissible. The NYT reporter stood her ground of no bias. Kelly was incredulous.
And the sad part about this, half the country is still watching ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc….
Kudos to Sasha who brings a lot of receipts to fortify her reasoning. A lot more than traditional media which brings parroted propaganda and deflection. Back in the day, the country had credible news organizations. At least I thought so. Now I'm not so sure.
The real problem with “mainstream” (left wing) media, is that most of them actually believe their own bullshit. The second problem is that when they finally understand that what they believe is bullshit, they dont change their minds. Its tribalism.
There are but a few journalists I really trust: Miranda Devine, Molly Hemmingway, Taibbi and Kirn, Jonathon Turley, Lara Logan, Sharyl Atkisson, Schellenberger, Greenwald, hmmm... who else?
Don't forget Andy Ngo, who put his life on the line to report on the summer 2020 riots. And don't forget the Rasmussen Poll people, who run an accurate polling service while ALSO reporting on the issues that the establishment media won't cover, like the fake 2020 election.
Kim Strassel, Tucker Carlson, Sasha Stone, Lillia Gajewski. Best is Glenn Greenwald- courageous beyond belief.
We had to get all the way down here to the 1-Like Section to see Sasha Stone. pshaw
Courageous for telling you what you’ve already decided to believe. How exceptional!
Now now. No need to be like that.
Batya-Ungar-Sargon
But don't bring up Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. That is a road she will never take usually by avoiding the topic altogether.
I wonder why Israel doesn't do anything to the Palestinians living in Israei, Jordan, or Egypt. And also lets a whole bunch of them have Israeli citizenship. 23% of the population including 21% Arab Muslim and 2% Christian. Seems like at least the ones in Israel would be easier to "exterminate".
There's a reason that even the Muslim countries in the region will not take Palestinian refugees. They are creating most of the problems! Look at the history of these refugees in Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria. Everywhere they go they're a problem!
Lee Fang
Megyn Kelly.
Catherine Herridge
I’ve read Taibbi for years, even when I did not agree with his conclusions. He writes very well and actually uses factual information. Many opinion pieces are based on lies and misinformation. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
Late entry; Elizabeth Nickson.
She’s amazing!
So basically you “trust” the journalists that tell you what you’ve already decided to believe. How brave!
Joe Scarborough!…just kidding. Alex Berenson comes to mind.
Catherine Herridge
Vanessa Beeley, Rachel Blevins, Ben Swann, Fiorella Isabel, the nameless hundreds who've lost their lives in Gaza, Beirut and Syria, trying to expose the truth, and thousands more.
Well said
Candace Owens
Although sometimes she's been really off the mark.
Yea. We all are sometimes.
The dumber you are, the less likely it is that you'll see or believe that you are dumb. The smart person doubts and agonizes. The dumb person never questions his rightness.
Ex: newsrooms are filled with reporters who write about technical and science news but who couldn't factor a quadratic equation or balance a chemical equation if their life depended on it. Because they can't, they see the skill as unimportant to reporting. So it goes with every technical topic - heck, every topic. Ignorance is irrelevant.
To be fair, there are a lot of very technically expert people who wear Velcro shoes because they never learned how to tie their shoe laces. And also plenty of them who struggle to direct, manage, write or speak intelligently. I worked with a lot of PHD tech experts and experienced it first hand often and for decades. 😂
My oldest son is a genius. Yet, he has lost a dozen gas caps over the years
I'm a Mensa member. That's not an unfamiliar profile.
Also a Mensa member, but as I always say, I'm very smart, just not smart enough to be a white-collar criminal. :)
I suspect there are several of us hiding out here.
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
-Socrates
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. - William Shakespeare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
This certainly rings true. Leftists are so bad at running everything in part because they do not believe that people who actually understand a complex system, like the technologies our society depends on (water, electricity, oil and gas, manufacturing, mining, etc.) are to be trusted because they are "biased" or "captured by industry". So they substitute the totally uninformed and entirely political opinions of their own chosen "experts" to construct policies on all of these things. They cannot see that their political "experts" are so embedded in ideology that they have no idea how anything works and they don't want to know. Hence, they devise policies, that become law, and are completely unworkable because they defy the reality on the ground and sometimes the physics and chemistry of the system they are trying to regulate. It is so frustrating to actual industry experts to deal with the totally clueless regulators who cannot understand that they regulations they are trying to impose are impossible and full of c***. The California legislature and much of its government are classic examples of this. I don't know where else there are so many supposedly educated idiots as there are in government.
Kinda like teachers that know “teaching” but not the subject they teach
I could never figure that out. How, without a deep understanding of mathematics or music (as examples), can you teach either? Other subjects require subject matter experts, too.
Cue up a video, I guess.
"The dumber you are, the less likely it is that you'll see or believe that you are dumb. The smart person doubts and agonizes. The dumb person never questions his rightness."
2 sayings I keep in mind
1. "I'm Not All That Bright." When I say this, I'm not looking for a complement (Although one would not be refused :-)), but because its true.
2. 5 words to keep in mind "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong." Because I Have Been. I could have bought Cray stock when it 1st came out. Knew a guy who was a friend of the family. Turned it down. Not my wisest move.
See Dunning-Kruger effect.
But note that the dumbest people tend to be those who are somewhat bright — say, with IQs one or two standard deviations above average — but not quite smart enough to know how dumb they are.
Trump must be crazy dumb in that case.
He seems to be confounding all his opponents so maybe not so dumb after all.
No where is that more true than law enforcement, which is the basis for much of this opinion. People who watch videos or read the NYT have no idea of the practical application of use of force on a real human being, and they don’t get more real than George Floyd.
The top tier journos who type out or verbalise lie after lie are not stupid, even though they seem to be. They are obviously being told what falsehoods to spread. A few news anchors and even a CEO have resigned the last number of years but none of them has come forward to tell us why they have to lie. Perhaps only the CEOs and editors are contacted and told what the take on a matter would be. The journos know they're making fools of themselves but the pay is so good they stick it out. USAID comes to mind as a funder. Would be great if someone can break ranks and spill the beans about who dishes out the orders to the media. Come on Mr Deepstate's chauffeur, bring us more fun.
Great post, Sasha. I find myself thinking back on the past 4 decades and wondering all the lies we’ve been told.
700 pages of Hurricane Crossfire investigation just dropped and Peter Strzok is an absolute piece of shit. This would never have seen the light of day if Cackles had won the White House.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/counter-intelligence-friday-april?r=1dig2i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Add Vietnam, Iraq WMD, Hunter, Floyd, Smollett, men are women, etc
I think the real dynamic that will impact us for decades is the upcoming war with Iran on behalf of Israel. Hundreds of thousands will die, trillions of USD will be wasted and the devastation will take decades to address. Israel’s threat to attack are a clear and present danger. A false flag will be run up the flag pole and then comes the media screaming for patriotic response, conscription, distraction, and another endless war. We were in Vietnam for over 10 years and Iran is an infinitely stronger opponent than Iran. Ditto Iraq and Afghanistan. People will smirk next year remembering the trivia of tariffs, deportations, illegal immigration. Current censorship of criticism of Israel will be begged for as the lockdown on any and all criticism of our ally will be treated as treason under new war-time censorship orders. Buckle up.
Thus spake the anti-Semite.
Thus spake the anti-Christian.
Being accepted by your peers in the newsroom is a major factor - the ultimate echo chamber.
I agree. The money factor dominated the media via USAID and money still controls it via phony NGOs funded by globalist sources. You can tell how lazy the propaganda media is by parroting the same words. The “resist” protests with Bernie as spokesperson are also being driven by money. It seems that sources are being close to be disclosed and legal cases are being built.
Not lazy in my opinion. Propaganda requires a concerted effort and a unified message across all mass media. The majority of people still rely on the MSM as their "trusted" source of information. 🤪
Absolutely to drill in the message. But, not to change a word or two? 😂
In new posts that I just saw, the new thing is to use the word "chaos" to describe what Trump is doing. There you go. Who is the person or committee that tells all these politicians (the media will folliw) what to say?
Save me a bit of typing. Tho OP a most excellent shining of light on the creepy crawly things scuttling around. But the rock hasn't been turned over yet.
I put it down to groupthink, in a nutshell.
To me its like they've been brain chipped and all are now just terminals of the mainframe. I have this image of them being linked to papa Klaus (Schwab). Recall how they would parrot the same phrase across nearly all TV networks during covid. I think some swallowed back a little vomit while doing it but the helluva good pay (some "earn" millions per year) made them brave.
This is so true and they lather in it happily
very creepy
Yes, on the coasts “journalists“ have been co-opted/seduced by the money and middle class lifestyle advertised by “all the presidents men“ etc. It’s ironically a throwback to the pre-progressive era, before the unfairness of Rockefeller
and the other monopolists, and the extreme poverty contrasted with conspicuously excessive wealth in the Gilded Age etc. provoked the digging by the new muckrakers.
Do they really know they are making fools of themselves? I think some if not most believe their own lies. I don't see how so many people can live with no self-respect for a paycheck. More likely, they are so captured by the giant web of lies that is the Progressive Project that they never look outside the bubble. A major theme of Sasha's Substack is about this.
Really enjoy your podcasts from here, the UK.
Your soothing voice and level headed pros give me hope that our clown show headed up by Starmer will be voted out next time around, we could do with it to be sooner, truth be told, for there’s no telling what damage he may rain down upon us here before then.
He’s the opposite of Biden… whilst Biden didn’t know what day it was, our so called leader is knowingly focused on betraying the indigenous population in favour of our mass invasion of ‘peaceful’ visitors… we’re in a terminal decline, unless we can find our Trump equivalent….
Thanks Sasha….
Im not stepping foot inside the UK again until and unless a Populist government is elected there. Starmer got one thing right recently though. And that is his calling globalism as dead. You’re damn right it is, and not a moment too soon. Make England Great Again (MEGA!)
I’m not going back there again either. I have Irish relatives there, I had staff there and vacationed there before and it was great; but no more.
When a group believes a false assertion — like "Trump and Musk are Nazis" (which is an extreme and historically inaccurate label) — the challenge is less about just correcting facts and more about navigating emotion, identity, and trust.
A close friend of mine is quite moderate but reads the WaPo and NYT daily. He's a brilliant self made multimillionaire and spends much of his wealth mentoring underclass kids with a scholarship program.
The WaPo and and NYT are tremendously effective with their distortion, lies and outright propaganda .
He'll say things like - "it was a mostly peaceful demonstration" when cities are being burnt down. He'll mention intelligence officials know the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation etc.
When I take the time to challenge this stuff in a respectful way he realizes he's been duped. I invite dialogue and try to make sure I stick to the facts because he will check out what I've said.
I have yet to find anyone who is entrenched in leftist propaganda to react positively to facts and realize they’ve been duped. Mostly I find them challenging me with their own ‘facts’ and telling me facts are subjective. I’m still navigating how to engage in conversations because I can’t entertain this way of thinking. If facts are subjective then what is truth? It’s circular and makes no sense, but I’m happy to know you have a rational friend who can respond to facts accurately. There is a key relationship I’m not willing to give up on, although it’s dispiriting to realize she is more than likely not going to change her mindset.
Maintaining a friendship with someone who refuses reasonable discussion and says "truth is subjective" can be seriously draining, especially if you value honest, thoughtful conversations.
Sometimes the healthiest move is to gracefully drift apart — not in anger, just with peace.
You don’t have to declare a friendship breakup. Just let the contact slow, make room for people who do meet you where you are now, and be okay letting go of who someone used to be.
If it's a family member - then it's a difficult situation. I have a brother in law who will never change. I try to maintain a distant friendship by sending non political jokes or stories of interest. He's a good person but clearly deluded.
It’s a sister with whom I used to be very close. I refuse to allow political differences to create such a wedge, but when recently told by her that my vote is the reason ‘people are suffering’ (ie perceived threat of Medicare being cut, among other perceived threats-I voted for a fascist, etc.) and that I must own my vote, to which I replied, I do, and proudly’, she then became exceedingly self-righteous, claiming I must not be feeling the effects of such cuts (we’re both in our mid-60s, not totally dependent on Medicare). I always state we just have to agree to disagree, but to please state what has been cut, she couldn’t, or wouldn’t. So I do distance myself, for my own peace of mind, but it hurts knowing she has been captured to this extent. I can’t change her but I do allow myself to occasionally be the one dissenting voice in her world.
So what does this mean for dealing with those who refuse to believe in the Truth?
Be patient and compassionate — not everyone is ready.
Speak the truth boldly, without arrogance.
Use questions, stories, and parables to reach hearts.
Know when to let go — some soil just isn’t ready for the seed yet.
Keep hope alive. Even hardened hearts can change
Agreed. I think she thinks she can change me (I used to be much more aligned with the left until 2020) and can’t accept the fact that we don’t think the same anymore. It’s crazy that in today’s world we rightfully celebrate differences, except for political differences.
Most times "to agree to disagree " is as good as you can do. Sometimes I try gentle humor. When someone claims "Joe Biden is sharp as a tack" I reply “If that’s sharp, I don’t want to see dull.”
Why it works: Humor disarms, makes the point, and is memorable. But use with caution — tone matters.
My story is similar, but with two of three adult children. Our relationship is therefore necessarily superficial. Breaks my heart.
I’m so sorry; that is so very sad
very sad,,once people are captured by marxist ideology it is a long haul to bring them back,,feelings are powerful and make you not think or trust reality
It seems more like they just know what side they are on, get their position on an issue from their “news source” of choice and go from there. I have a LOT of very liberal friends who every now and then ask me for my opinion on something, as in “surely you don’t believe…”
I brought up Trump’s attempts to end the Ukraine war, thinking that was at least something they’d support, and was FLOORED by their response. These one-time peaceniks had now turned into war-mongers, like their parents during the Viet Nam war. “We can’t let Putin (read:communism) win.” Strange times.
When I bring up "Trump’s attempts to end the Ukraine war" I get a response like "Putin plays Trump like a fiddle - Putin may have photos !"
A very liberal friend of mine was going to go to the Anti Trump/Musk demonstration in a large western city. She was going with her very liberal ex hippie friends in their late 60s - Mike and Myra(names changed to protect the guilty). Mike hasn't worked in decades - bad back on disability . Myra is an HR person.
Mike decided at the last minute not to go so he stayed home and smoked pot. So my friend without a ride was upset but decided not to go.
These people belong to a different tribe.
They’re in my family as well and my BIL has been smoking the dope for years (he’s now 68) and I think he’s stuck in La La Land. He lives in a bubble and is suffering from TDS and America Bad!
yes a different place,,I had friends who wept about life and kept saying over and over that life will be better when Obamacare would be passed
like they thought is was way more then just an insurance plan..Crazy
This article was somewhat cathartic for me. Re-living that awful summer of 2020 through the video of Tucker Carlson’s reporting, and revisiting the insane defund the police movement reminded me that most of the craziness of that season— thankfully — has been or is being repudiated. BLM is properly sidelined, and D. C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s ridiculous homage to them through the “BLM Plaza” is now dismantled, and without so much as a peep of protest from the "resistance.” I’m guessing the silence is only because they are busy re-grouping and “rebranding” themselves; but I also think they know that a critical mass of folks within this country are just tired of them.The only media worth listening to in this season will have to commit to no lies and no insanity. Most will not meet that threshold, so they will fade into obscurity where they belong.
Same…
To get specific, Liberation Day tariffs (some of which have since changed and will continue to evolve) will result in impacts we haven't yet seen, so facts there have yet to be determined, resulting mostly in opinions and subjectivity. Context is also key.
"When a group believes a false assertion — like "Trump and Musk are Nazis" (which is an extreme and historically inaccurate label) — the challenge is less about just correcting facts and more about navigating emotion, identity, and trust."
Excatly which is why the peril is in starting to believe your own BS. Like you said, challenge is emotion and that's what makes people believe rather than facts. So if you are a Democratic nominee and you and your campaign believe this BS because it's emotionally stirring, and build a campaign around that, don't cry when you lose. Perception tends to replace reality but if majority of your electorate sees reality (Joe is demented, Trump isn't Hitler, Kamala doesn't know WTF she's talking about and is no agent of change, protests are not peaceful, Jan 6 was not New Pearl Harbor or anything close, etc) and yet your campaign pushes your perception, the disconnect will be fatal for you. And it was.
Problem that Democrats have is that they believe in all this astroturfed and flat out made up nonsense. It was repeated for to long that they started to take it as a fact.
Some Democrats—or at least some progressive activists and media voices—have compared Trump or Musk to Nazis or fascists, but it’s not an official party position, and most mainstream Democrats avoid that kind of language publicly.
What many Democrats actually believe about Trump:
- has authoritarian tendencies.
- He’s often accused of using fascist-style rhetoric (e.g., calling the press “the enemy of the people,” questioning election results, cozying up to strongmen).
- The term “fascist” has been used, especially among progressives like AOC or commentators like Rachel Maddow—but “Nazi” is less common, and not taken seriously in policy circles.
What many Democrats actually believe about Musk:
- Musk is controversial, especially since taking over Twitter (X) and reinstating previously banned accounts, including far-right figures.
- Some progressives accuse him of enabling hate speech and misinformation—but again, “Nazi” is rarely used in serious political debate.
- T-he more common charge is that he’s being reckless with the platform, amplifying extremists, or trolling the Left for attention.
Trump obeyed every ruling by SCOTUS during his1st term and now, is abiding by all court rulings, even the ridiculous and illegal ones that are coming fast and furious. How is that "authoritarian tendencies". Remember, "actions speak louder (actually, MUCH LOUDER) than words". When the press does what Sasha and so many others have pointed out, then they ARE the enemy of the people, because the people need an honest and trustworthy press to keep our constitutional republic. Trump doesn't "cozy up", he plays a game. Reagan did similar (but much more eloquently) with Gorbachev. The 2020 election was filled to the brim with irregularities (meaning, "against election regulations on the books") and illegalities (meaning, "against election laws on the books") and Trump was and is not alone in questioning the results (read "Rigged").
Cat C. - isn't it crazy that dems say Trump has authoritarian tendancies?! It's not like he's praised them or anything. Well, maybe a few like the following:
🇧🇷 Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil)
Often called “the Trump of the Tropics.” Trump praised Bolsonaro for his COVID-19 response and environmental policies, despite international criticism. After Bolsonaro lost the 2022 election, Trump claimed it was “stolen,” echoing U.S. election denial rhetoric. Publicly called Bolsonaro “a great man” and “a terrific leader.”
🇫🇷 Marine Le Pen (France)
Trump has expressed admiration for her nationalist platform. In 2017, he said she was “the strongest on borders, and what’s been going on in France,” implicitly supporting her presidential bid. While he didn’t formally endorse her, the praise was seen as a tacit boost to her far-right candidacy.
🇮🇹 Matteo Salvini (Italy)
Former Deputy PM and leader of the far-right League Party.
Trump has praised Salvini’s hardline immigration stance and populist style. The two met in 2020; Salvini has spoken warmly of Trump, calling him a role model.
🇵🇱 Andrzej Duda (Poland)
Praised by Trump for his nationalist agenda and anti-immigration policies.
Trump hosted Duda at the White House and lauded Poland as a model of “sovereignty and strength.”
🇭🇺 Viktor Orbán (Hungary) (listed earlier but worth emphasizing)
Trump has formally endorsed Orbán, calling him a “strong leader respected by all.” Orbán has dismantled democratic checks, repressed the press, and centralized power — hallmarks of authoritarian rule.
🇷🇸 Aleksandar Vučić (Serbia)
Trump helped broker economic normalization talks between Serbia and Kosovo. Called Vučić a “very good man” and praised his leadership.
Vučić has been accused of democratic backsliding and centralizing power in Serbia.
🇵🇭 Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines) (as noted earlier)
Trump said Duterte was “doing an unbelievable job on the drug problem,” despite thousands of extrajudicial killings.
🇹🇭 Prayuth Chan-o-cha (Thailand)
Military coup leader turned PM. Trump welcomed Prayuth to the White House and praised him, raising eyebrows since Prayuth came to power via military takeover.
🇰🇿 Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan) (former leader)
Trump met with Nazarbayev in 2018 and praised his leadership despite a decades-long authoritarian regime. Nazarbayev ruled Kazakhstan with an iron fist for nearly 30 years.
🇨🇳 Xi Jinping (China) (covered earlier)
Trump said: “He’s a very, very good man,” and praised Xi’s handling of COVID early on.
🇷🇺 Vladimir Putin (Russia, Russia, Russia!)
Called him a “genius” for the Ukraine invasion strategy in early 2022 (he later walked this back somewhat).
Summary of Common Themes in Trump’s Praise:
- He tends to admire leaders who project strength, are nationalist, and assert control over their countries.
- Criticism of liberal democratic norms, press freedom, and checks on executive power is often absent or downplayed in his remarks.
- Many of these figures use anti-immigrant, anti-globalist, and populist rhetoric, aligning with Trump’s own brand.
Speaking of Russia, Russia, Russia, here's a few kind words Trump has used in Putin's favor:
🗓️ 2016 Campaign & Presidency (2015–2020)
🔹 “He’s a strong leader”
“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him… He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”
— Trump on Putin vs. Obama, Sept. 2016 (NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum)
🔹 "At least he's a leader"
“It’s not going to be Putin, believe me. If I’m president, it’s not going to be Putin. But Putin has no respect for President Obama. Zero. He’s got no respect for our president. At least he’s a leader.”
— CNN interview, Sept. 2015
🔹 Helsinki Summit (2018): “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia”
Trump sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian election interference:
“President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
— Helsinki, July 16, 2018
After massive backlash, Trump later claimed he misspoke (“would” vs. “wouldn’t”).
🔹 On Putin’s strength:
“He’s very smart… I mean, he’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart.”
— Fox Business, Oct. 2015
🗓️ Post-Presidency (2021–2024)
🔹 “Genius” and “savvy” – Russia’s Ukraine invasion (2022)
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”
— Feb. 22, 2022, on The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show
He later softened that language under pressure, but never fully walked it back.
🔹 “He’s got great control over his country”
“He’s got 200,000 soldiers. They’re right on the border… That’s very powerful.”
— Feb. 2022, same interview
🗓️ 2024 Campaign Trail
Trump has continued to avoid criticizing Putin directly.
He claimed he could end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours” by negotiating with Putin and Zelensky.
In March 2024, he said that if reelected, he would “rebuild relations” with Russia and praised Putin for being “a man who loves his country.”
🧊 Notably Missing: Condemnation
Trump rarely condemns Putin — even after:
The 2016 election interference
The poisoning and imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny
The invasion of Ukraine and war crimes allegations
Instead, he frames Putin’s actions in terms of strategic effectiveness or toughness.
Putin is widely considered a foe of the United States—not just by politicians, but by intelligence agencies, military analysts, and many U.S. allies. This label isn't about personal dislike; it's based on clear patterns of geopolitical opposition, subversion of Western institutions, and direct attacks on U.S. interests.
Here’s a breakdown of why:
🧠 1. Election Interference (2016 & Beyond)
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia, under Putin’s orders, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to:
Undermine confidence in democracy
Harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign
Help Donald Trump’s candidacy
Methods included hacking, leaking emails, and a massive disinformation campaign on social media.
Russian operatives have continued similar interference efforts in 2020 and 2024 elections.
FBI, CIA, NSA Joint Statement (2017): “We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”
🌍 2. Geopolitical Rivalry & Destabilization
Putin seeks to undermine U.S.-led alliances, especially NATO and the European Union, and restore Russia’s global influence.
Russia has backed anti-American regimes in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Putin’s strategy often involves disrupting Western cohesion by funding far-right and far-left movements in Europe and the U.S.
🛰️ 3. Cyberattacks
Russia has launched or sponsored numerous cyberattacks against U.S. targets, including:
The SolarWinds hack (2020) — a major breach of U.S. government agencies.
Ransomware attacks on pipelines, hospitals, and businesses (e.g., Colonial Pipeline in 2021).
These attacks compromise national security, energy infrastructure, and financial systems.
🔫 4. Military Aggression
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2014 and full-scale in 2022) directly opposes U.S. and NATO interests in Eastern Europe.
Putin’s goal of expanding Russian influence by force threatens the post–World War II international order.
He has also used military threats and nuclear rhetoric to deter U.S. involvement or support for allies.
📉 5. Human Rights Abuses & Authoritarianism
Putin’s regime is marked by:
The jailing or assassination of political opponents (e.g., Alexei Navalny)
Repression of free press
State propaganda and censorship
His model of authoritarianism is antithetical to U.S. democratic values.
🎯 6. Support for America's Enemies
Russia has supported:
Assad in Syria (while U.S. supported opposition groups)
Iranian military proxies
The Taliban in Afghanistan (even offering bounties for U.S. soldiers, per intelligence reports)
These alliances directly threaten U.S. strategic interests and personnel.
📍 7. Nuclear Posturing
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Ukraine war, escalating tensions with NATO.
His suspension of arms control treaties (e.g., New START) dismantles key safeguards against nuclear conflict.
🧩 Bottom Line:
Putin is considered a foe of America not because of ideology alone, but because he:
- Opposes democratic institutions
- Undermines U.S. elections
- Supports enemies of the U.S.
- Wields disinformation and cyberwarfare as tools of conflict
- Aggressively seeks to weaken America’s global leadership
- It's not a Cold War redux, but it's very much a conflict of systems—autocracy vs. liberal democracy—and Putin is one of its sharpest antagonists.
🕰️ Timeline: U.S.–Putin Confrontation Highlights
2000–2008: Putin’s First Two Terms
Event: Putin rises to power, begins centralizing control, limiting press freedom.
Tension Point: U.S. criticizes Russia’s war in Chechnya and democratic backsliding.
George W. Bush (2001): “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy… I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
(This quote aged poorly — Bush was later highly critical of Putin's authoritarian turn.)
2008: Russia Invades Georgia
Event: Russian forces enter South Ossetia and Abkhazia, breakaway regions in Georgia.
U.S. Response: Condemnation, but limited action.
Condoleezza Rice (Sec. of State): “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia… Russia is on a path to isolation.”
2012: Putin Returns to Presidency
U.S. criticizes Russia’s increasingly authoritarian stance and crackdowns on opposition.
Russia bans U.S. adoptions in retaliation for U.S. human rights sanctions (Magnitsky Act).
2014: Russia Annexes Crimea (Ukraine)
Major Shift: Putin’s forces seize Crimea — first land grab in Europe since WWII.
U.S. Response: Sanctions on Russia, military aid to Ukraine, NATO strengthens eastern flank.
Barack Obama: “Russia is on the wrong side of history.”
2016: U.S. Election Interference
Russia hacks the DNC, Clinton campaign emails, and floods social media with disinfo.
U.S. Intelligence Community (Jan 2017): “Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the U.S. election.”
Obama (2016): “This happened. It’s not fake news. It’s not my opinion — it’s the consensus of our intelligence community.”
2018: Poisoning of Sergei Skripal in UK
Russian agents use a nerve agent on a former spy.
U.S. expels dozens of Russian diplomats in response.
2020: SolarWinds Cyberattack
Russia hacks major U.S. government agencies and private firms via software supply chain.
U.S. Intelligence (2021): “Likely Russian in origin… unprecedented in scale and scope.”
2022: Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine
Putin launches a brutal war, claiming Ukraine “is not a real country.”
U.S. imposes sweeping sanctions, sends over $75 billion in aid, and mobilizes NATO.
Joe Biden: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” (March 2022)
Also Biden: “Putin is a war criminal.”
2023–2024: Continued Aggression & Nuclear Posturing
Putin suspends Russia’s participation in New START treaty.
Threatens nuclear escalation over Western support for Ukraine.
Sec. of State Antony Blinken (2023): “Putin has shredded decades of arms control progress and pushed the world toward a more dangerous era.”
2024–2025: Ongoing
Russia continues disinformation operations targeting U.S. elections.
NATO expands with Sweden and Finland, in direct response to Putin’s aggression.
U.S. and allies view Putin as the greatest threat to European stability since the Cold War.
Obama rarely condemned radical Islam and in fact, made it a rule in his administration that the term "radical Islam" and "radical Islam terrorist/terrorism" could never be said, but only "Muslim extremism".
Trump said that Putin said that his administration did do the email leaks and Trump said he thought Putin acted like he was telling the truth when he said it. As for "not believing his own intelligence"....it was actually Obama's intelligence, left over from his admin., who lied about the Steele dossier, tampered with an email to continue the Crossfire Hurricane Russia collusion investigation (when the actual contents of the email would've stopped it and the lawyer who did that, got a slap on his wrist), lied about the Hunter laptop and so much more.
Biden's "Plan to combat domestic terrorism" paper was released by DNI Tulsi Gabert and it shows that Biden had planned straight-up authoritarian, anti-freedom actions to go against his (and Dems) political opponents.
A recent survey found that about half of liberal-leaning U.S. residents could justify the assassinations of President Trump and his government efficiency adviser, Elon Musk.
More than half of liberals say that destroying Tesla dealerships is acceptable. They also support Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old man accused of gunning down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, according to the survey by the Network Contagion Research Institute.
Democrat leadership constantly claims "the death of our democracy is near due to Trump/Musk". The hate they are stoking may provide some tactical political gain but enough people see through this stuff that the democrat party is in deep trouble long term.
Interesting survey. I would caution interpretation since these were asked on a 7 point scale from "not all justified {in killing Trump, Musk) to "completely justified" and across 9 self identifying political affiliations - Far Left, Liberal, Slightly Liberal, Middle of the Road, Slightly Conservative, Conservative, Far Right, No Affiliation and Something Else.
Results show about one-half of liberals" (Far Left, Liberal, Slightly Liberal) responded it's ok to kill Musk (49%), Trump (55%) & destroying Tesla Dealerships is partially acceptable (58%).
You would certainly see higher agreement among the Far Left subset, but how many "far lefts" were surveyed among the 1264 U.S. residents, balanced to reflect Census data on race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Are they representative of the population at large? Who knows, but "far right" are estimated in the range of 5-8% of US adults, while "far left" 3-6%, resulting in small sample sizes.
Far left or far right hold extreme views which is certainly seen here with a predominantly "far right" reader base.
I don't think the survey is "interesting", I think it's appalling (to say it's justified to murder, in cold blood, another person) and shows evil is sown in the hearts of many, which is a terrible place to be, for a nation and civilization.
The reader base here doesn't hold "extremist views". That fact that you think so, is telling.
Then we have Josh Shapiro. I guess it's a both sides thing that's only worsening over time.
Excellent and compelling essay, Sasha; clear, complete, relevant, timely and organized.
Yes.
This just in...Yes, the 2020 election was rigged.
I read Molie Hemingway's "Rigged" when it came out. It's an eye-opener.
I had given up on MSM back in the 1990s. You can't be paying any attention and NOT see that these are propagandists, not journalists.
I cringe every time the MSM reference "Trump's false claims" concerning election fraud. They've used that term thousands of times, but have not ONCE delineated what those claims are, or how they know them to be false. (Those of you who are satisfied with the court rulings concerning claims of election rigging should remember that judges are political opportunists, just like all the other politicians)
A party that rigs its own primaries and nominees rigged an election too? Do not say!
2016 - they rigged the primary for Hilary. Obama disuaded Biden from running since he would split votes. Wasserman Schultz pressed delegates to pledge to Hilary thus screwing over Bernie who got some real traction unlike Hilary
2020 - they rigged the primary for Joe. Made 5 candidates to drop at the same time to endorse Joe. Clyburn pressed SC delegates to pledge to Joe.
2018 midterms - boxes of unopened ballots were found and they were all for Democrats
2020 election - see above. It happened while most of America was asleep. Somehow, Joe got 81M votes. No one ever figured out where the difference disappeared in 2024 even if you calculate that some went to Trump (who got more votes than in 2020), some went to Kamala and some didn't vote.
2024 - Joe wins a primary without any real opposition cause everyone was told not to challenge him. Joe chokes at the national stage. They strip him off his nomination and install Kamala
Perfectly democratic, eh?
Yeah and the irony of these recent protests by the Left talking about “Save Democracy” now that Trump is in office. Such nonsense.
There is no verified, court-accepted proof that the general elections in 2016, 2018, or 2020 were fraudulently rigged. Irregularities, yes. Suspect processes, maybe. But evidence of votes being altered, mass fraud, or rigging on a national level? No.
The "81 million" argument - high turnout in 2020 is not, in itself, evidence of fraud. It was the highest-turnout election in modern history, with mail-in voting expanded due to COVID. Biden had a huge anti-Trump coalition, not necessarily pro-Biden enthusiasm.
The "ballot boxes" story - stories of “boxes of ballots” surface every election cycle. Some turn out to be administrative errors, others are exaggerated or unverified social media posts. No conclusive, credible evidence has tied these to vote-rigging on a national scale.
Having 5 to 8 times the number of drop off boxes in Democrat areas and having vote harvesting when it's specifically illegal or against regulations is signs of "vote-rigging". Pres. Carter and SOS Baker did thorough research showing how easy it is to rig an election by way all-mail-in-balloting and use of unmanned ballot boxes and vote harvesters. So I'll never believe that 81 million voted for Biden. Whether there was enough fraud to swing the election in Biden's direction, we'll never know. I'm just thankful Trump's in office now (after losing a shite-ton of retirement money under Biden/Harris' inflation).
🔹 1. "Having 5 to 8 times the number of drop-off boxes in Democrat areas..."
This concern is partially rooted in reality, but context is crucial.
Ballot drop boxes are generally placed based on population density, not partisan affiliation.
Urban (often Democrat-leaning) counties have more people per square mile, so they naturally receive more boxes.
Rural (often Republican-leaning) areas have fewer people and more distance, so fewer boxes are spread over larger areas.
✅ True: In some swing states (like Georgia or Wisconsin), critics pointed out that some counties had more boxes per capita than others.
❗ Misleading: This is often presented as “vote rigging,” when in fact, it reflects local election boards' logistical decisions, often following state law or court rulings.
🔹 2. "Ballot harvesting when it's illegal or against regulations..."
This depends entirely on the state:
Ballot harvesting (someone collecting and submitting ballots on behalf of voters) is legal in some states (like California), limited in others, and banned in many.
Illegal ballot harvesting would be a serious offense — but there is no widespread evidence of it being used in a coordinated, outcome-changing way in 2020.
✅ True: There have been isolated cases of ballot misuse, both Republican and Democrat (e.g., NC-09 race in 2018).
❗ False: There is no verified evidence of a national scheme involving illegal ballot harvesting flipping the 2020 election.
🔹 3. "Carter and Baker said all-mail voting is vulnerable to fraud..."
Yes, but let's clarify what they actually said.
The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform did express concerns about mail-in voting and ballot collection:
“Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”
— Commission Report, 2005
However, they also supported expanding vote-by-mail with strong safeguards like voter ID, signature matching, and secure chain-of-custody.
✅ True: They highlighted potential vulnerabilities.
❗ False: They did not claim vote-by-mail or drop boxes inherently result in stolen elections. Nor did they oppose mail-in voting wholesale.
🔹 4. "So I’ll never believe 81 million voted for Biden."
That’s a belief, not a verifiable claim — and it’s important to separate feelings from facts.
81 million votes for Biden in 2020 were certified by all 50 states, Republican and Democrat alike.
Courts, including many with Trump-appointed judges, rejected 60+ lawsuits alleging fraud.
Trump's own DOJ, DHS, and Cybersecurity teams found no evidence of widespread fraud.
✅ It’s okay to question.
❗ But the claim that Biden didn’t legitimately win lacks evidence — and has been investigated thoroughly.
🔹 5. "We’ll never know if there was enough fraud to swing it."
Actually, we do know with high confidence:
Audits, hand recounts (like in Georgia), and court reviews confirmed results.
Bill Barr (Trump’s Attorney General): “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”
🔹 6. "Losing retirement under Biden’s inflation"
Inflation did surge under Biden (esp. in 2021–2022), due to:
COVID-era supply shocks,
Stimulus spending,
Global energy spikes (including the war in Ukraine).
But:
Inflation has come down sharply by late 2023 into 2024.
Markets have recovered, and interest rates are easing.
Retirement account performance also depends on personal asset allocation — not just presidential policy.
... well until those darling tariffs.
What you've written here, disregards what I wrote. In places IN CITIES where the populations were equivalent, THERE WERE LESS DROP BOXES in Republican-voting areas and as for the varies rules and regulations, the ZuckBucks people DEMANDED that these be suspended. Do some research instead of spouting your deceptions and distortions here.
Inflation was still going up in 2023! You ADD UP the quarterly inflation numbers as the year progresses!! The tariffs are for a very good reason - so we don't lose our constitutional republic to CCP China and/or a globalist EU/UN.
Bill Barr's remark was before most of the testimony and video came out; remember that he said "to date". AG Barr will always be a coward in my book. He did a speech (this was a year or so before the election) outlining the corruption and abuse and illegality regarding the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation and yet, NO arrests or indictments!
And it wasn't investigated thoroughly. What audits and court reviews? Audits in AZ found many ballots that appeared to be fraudulent but the state AG swept it under the rug! Same with other states. The evidence of fraud wasn't confirmed or denied in most all cases because state gov officials and courts didn't want to go there.
First off, "Trump's own DOJ, DHS, and Cybersecurity teams" were filled with lots of 'never-Trumpers', RINOS and Democrats (90%+ of all those in D.C. vote Democrat) and so I don't trust their judgement (that one guy saying the election was the "most secure in the history of our country" didn't have a brain cell in his head to believe that, with everything that happened - fake "water main breaks", other election counting shut downs "because we're all tired and have to go home and rest" - I think CNN reported that, and cameras going out, etc.).
And as for "....... found no evidence of widespread fraud", it wouldn't take wide spread fraud - just enough in the swing areas in the swing states - remember that Biden won by just a few thousands of votes SPREAD ACROSS MANY STATES.
Also, what I meant is that it's not logical, reasonable or common sense to believe that Biden got 81 million votes. I don't know if he won or not....can't go back in time and find out. As for the "all were verified by the states" and "courts rejected the lawsuits" (without hearing or seeing the merits, I'll add), it doesn't matter when it comes to what I saw on election day and what people videoed, witnessed, testified under oath, which makes it so I'll always question the 81 million votes and wonder about Biden's win.
The Carter/Baker report "supported expanding vote-by-mail with strong safeguards like voter ID, signature matching, and secure chain-of-custody", which Democrats have FOUGHT, TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST over the years. AND NONE OF THOSE THINGS were implemented in 2020 when vote-by-mail was "decreed" due to COVID. And many states that already had vote-by-mail or absentee voting didn't and don't have those save guards (Republican states do).
OF COURSE vote-by-mail and ballot harvesting inherently has more vote fraud or can have more vote fraud because IT'S JUST LOGICAL, whether Carter and Baker said so or not. I heard that the UN (or EU - can't remember which as it was 5 years ago) didn't even recognize vote-by-mail elections as legitimate until 2020 happened in the USA.
As for ballot harvesting, it's illegal for most states or allows for family members ONLY to take in ballots. That's with good reason, because the "chain of custody" is broken with ballot harvesting. I never said there was a "national plot" to ballot harvest, but the ballot harvesting that happened STILL could've resulted in illegal votes. Also, ballot harvesting was another reason why locals were so angry at the ZuckBuck operations (including the that district manager who quit).
As for the unmanned ballot boxes, do some research - in these cities that "Zuckbucks" were given and Zuck's people were actually there too, the bucks were CONTINGENT on them putting much LESS boxes (still in the big city) that leaned Republican (probably less density because some of the homes were larger but it was still in the city and not rural at all). Locals complained. One election manager (the head of a district, if I recall) actually quit because THEY WOULDN'T FOLLOW regulations and laws.
1. Trustworthiness of Federal Agencies
Claim: Trump's DOJ, DHS, and cybersecurity teams were composed of "Never Trumpers," RINOs, and Democrats, making their assessments unreliable.
Analysis: Key officials who affirmed the election's integrity were appointed by President Trump himself. For instance, Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), was a Trump appointee. He stated that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history," a position supported by numerous state and federal officials. There is no credible evidence to suggest that these agencies were predominantly staffed by individuals opposed to Trump. Moreover, courts across the country, including those with judges appointed by Trump, dismissed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results due to lack of evidence.
Campaign Legal Center
2. Alleged Election Irregularities
Claim: Incidents like water main breaks, counting shutdowns, and camera outages indicate fraud.
Analysis: Investigations into these events found no evidence of fraud. For example, the water leak in Atlanta was a minor incident that did not affect ballot counting. Temporary pauses in counting occurred in several states due to standard procedures and did not indicate malfeasance. No credible evidence has emerged to suggest that these incidents were part of a coordinated effort to manipulate the election outcome.
3. Margin of Victory and Targeted Fraud
Claim: It wouldn't take widespread fraud—just enough in swing areas to change the outcome.
Analysis: While it's true that small margins in key states decided the election, extensive audits and recounts in these battleground states, including Georgia and Arizona, confirmed the accuracy of the results. No substantial evidence of fraud that could have altered the outcome was found.
4. Biden's Vote Totals
Claim: It's illogical to believe Biden received 81 million votes.
Analysis: Biden's vote total reflects a combination of factors, including high voter turnout and increased use of mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. His total was approximately 7 million more than Trump's, consistent with national polling and voter registration trends. Multiple audits and certifications across states validated these results.
5. Court Dismissals of Election Lawsuits
Claim: Courts rejected lawsuits without considering their merits.
Analysis: Courts at various levels, including the Supreme Court, dismissed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results. These dismissals were based on thorough evaluations, with courts often stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence. The assertion that courts did not consider the merits is not supported by the legal records.
6. Carter-Baker Commission and Mail-In Voting
Claim: The Carter-Baker report recommended safeguards for mail-in voting, which were ignored in 2020.
Analysis: The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission did highlight potential vulnerabilities in absentee voting and recommended measures like voter ID and signature verification. In 2020, many states implemented such safeguards, including signature matching and secure ballot drop boxes. While not all recommendations were universally adopted, states took steps to ensure the integrity of mail-in voting.
7. Ballot Harvesting and Chain of Custody
Claim: Ballot harvesting breaks the chain of custody and could lead to illegal votes.
Analysis: Ballot collection laws vary by state, with some allowing designated individuals to collect ballots. States that permit this practice have regulations to maintain ballot integrity. No substantial evidence has been presented to show that ballot collection in 2020 led to widespread fraud or altered election outcomes.
8. "Zuckbucks" and Election Influence
Claim: Private funding from organizations associated with Mark Zuckerberg influenced election operations unfairly.
Analysis: Private grants were provided to election offices to assist with the challenges posed by the pandemic. These funds were used for necessities like personal protective equipment and staffing. Investigations have not found that these funds led to biased election administration or affected the election's integrity.
Conclusion:
The 2020 election has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and claims of widespread fraud have been consistently debunked by credible sources. While it's essential to address and investigate any allegations of irregularities, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the election was conducted fairly and that the results accurately reflect the will of the voters.
Mind you, if you insist on believing in debunked conspiracy theories, at least you're in good or bad company. Just today, Trump "truthed" about it: If the 2020 Presidential Election was not RIGGED, and it was, in so many ways.
This Trump "truth" was in the context of him also saying Zelenskyy and Crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty ( Ukraine) to begin that Putin started.
And I’m sure you’ve done a deep dive investigating all of it, including reviewing the multitude of affidavits.
I didn't believe that 81 million people voted for Biden to begin with, but was really convinced because of how 2024 turned out. In fact, as the 2024 election night went on, I saw quite a few X-posts and FB posts, etc. that said, after seeing the numbers unfold during the night and into the next day: "Geez, maybe the 2020 election was rigged".
And!!!!!! Trump won all battlegrounds also amazingly!! the city of Philadelphia, that in itself sas it all.
Biden was predicted to beat Trump by 10%tile points or so in polls nearest to the election. Trump did better than that. Trump is polarizing. Trump is divisive. Trump is delusional and has the emotional maturity of a 1 year old.
Who predicted it? Polls and MSM are often wrong about election results. Trump is pro-USA. That's polarizing to many and it's divisive to many. He isn't delusional, and he's more emotionally mature than the average Democrat!! As "Mr. Wonderful" (that guy on "Shark Tank") said yesterday, when it comes to Trump, he ignores the noise and focuses on the signal.
A couple of courts did allow 2020 election trials and they went all the way to the SCOTUS. I think it was Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito who voted to have the case go before the SCOTUS (they were outnumbered). As for declaring "there is no verified, court-accepted proof", that's a biased opinion rather than fact, because the courts (except for the two I mentioned above) wouldn't let the cases inside the door. There was no discovery done, no proof shown in court, so you can't say that it wasn't "accepted or verified" if it wasn't "put through the legal paces", so to speak. There where ballots counted that HAD NO ADRESSES or SINGATURES, or full names or... well, the list goes on and on with the irregular (against regulations) and illegal (against laws) stuff that happened during the 2020 election.
Thomas is no surprise, given his wife is a seditionist. The other 2 ? Who knows.
Thomas' wife isn't a seditionist. Did you know that in the USA we have a 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression? And that Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court of law?
What Did Ginni Thomas Do?
1. Texted Trump’s Chief of Staff (Mark Meadows)
After the 2020 election, Ginni Thomas exchanged 29 texts with Mark Meadows urging efforts to overturn the election results.
She expressed belief in conspiracy theories about election fraud and encouraged Meadows to “release the Kraken,” referencing Sidney Powell’s legal campaign.
2. Contacted Arizona Lawmakers
She sent emails to Arizona legislators, urging them to “choose” alternate electors for Trump, bypassing the certified election results.
This was part of a broader "fake electors" scheme being investigated by the January 6 Committee and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
3. Attended January 6 Rally (but not Capitol breach)
She confirmed attending the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, but says she left before the violence began at the Capitol.
She says she had no role in organizing the rally or encouraging illegal actions.
Critics argue that her actions helped legitimize a multi-pronged effort to subvert democracy, even if nonviolent. Supporters say she exercised her First Amendment rights, albeit misguidedly. Her actions aligned with or supported a broader campaign to overturn the 2020 election, some of which has been prosecuted as seditious conspiracy (e.g., the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys).
Víctor Davis Hanson.
Hard to climb out of a hole while you’re still digging it.
Instead of arguing with family or friends, ask them these questions when they bring up politics at your social gatherings: Where do you get your news? Did you feel it is down the middle and unbiased? How do you know? They may still argue, but perhaps you've planted a seed of doubt. You will almost never win a political argument. People have to come around on their own.
I would phrase it: "What news sources do you trust and recommend? I have a few (mostly former Democrats) that I have come to trust."
If they seem at all interested or receptive to my perspective, I then suggest checking out Taibbi, Shellenberger, Sasha Stone, Glen Greenwald.
Doesn't work. They just turn it back
All of us have been subjected to leftist Indoctrination. remarkably, a majority remain stubbornly determined to pursue truth, wherever it leads. Even if it means we're wrong. Not so for those employed by the iron curtain. their jobs rely on being so in love w their own dumb leftist ideas they don't even why understand those ideas might be wrong.
Example,,,,,Boys can menstruate and have babies
Wonderful post! I am amazed at your brilliance in keeping a theme going with videos and posts, which belie the incredibly hard work and time you devoted to the task. As a two-time Obama voter who voted for Trump to keep Killary out of office, little did I know we would be sailing into journalistic shark-infested waters. I was still able to find truth on the internet on Rumble and elsewhere. Tracy Beanz was the first journalist to uncover the origins of the Russia Hoax. There were doctors on Rumble who revealed the dangers of the vaccine. If I tried to repost on Facebook, I would be put in Facebook jail.
The left lost a brilliant voice when you saw the truth, Sasha. Welcome to our world! You have helped us to understand all the pain we have endured for so long.
Media has gotten smug, intolerant, contrarian and nasty of anything opposing their viewpoints. It might get the people who love your shit but keeping the base besides the faithful you lose. MSM used to be about reporting everything now its the same and once you're the same people pick their own echo chambers that is more of their ideology.
“Douglas Murray Falls Apart in Debate vs Dave Smith: Glenn Reacts.” (5 min)
Glenn Greenwald. Apr 11, 2025
https://youtu.be/wI7Cgsrv9UQ?si=lanUvaXatFDG4-mv
I find Glen better when he has no natural allies when he gets into comfort zones, I noticed a lack of confrontation when he should know better. Maybe its me but when people get lulled is when peoples worst work happens, and Glens overall work has taken a nosedive because he doesnt push when he should.
He does push when he should.
“Douglas Murray Falls Apart in Debate vs Dave Smith: Glenn Reacts.” (5 min)
Glenn Greenwald. Apr 11, 2025
https://youtu.be/wI7Cgsrv9UQ?si=lanUvaXatFDG4-mv
He does not push back hard enough when he has Norman Finkelstein on.
He doesn’t push back because he agrees with Finkelstein.
Norman Finkelstein: “Israel Is A Crazy State.” (14 min)
Glenn Greenwald. Sept 24, 2024
https://youtu.be/fCwFE7sxMIg?si=Lxc01QKJbWmHQsSe
Agreed. But Glenn fails his audience as an objective observer of both sides seeking to find middle ground. There is a cycle of violence and being on one side or the other perpetuates the conflict. I find John Mearsheimer a more balanced analyst and appreciate when Glenn has him on.
The team at Breaking Points also did a good analysis
https://youtu.be/4NCm1JJWAMQ?si=-XqaolfTF0OnsE3w
I did watch that. Breaking Points/Counter Points is very good. I watch them pretty much every day.
The Youtube commentariat fell heavily in Dave's favor, which I agreed with. I was disappointed that Dave did not center his arguments on America's funding of the Hamas/Israel conflict. War is fueled by money. I would like to see how fewer American taxpayer dollars would effect the overall quantity of violence in this asymmetric conflict. It is insane to keep doing what we have been doing.
Plus funding a genocide/ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not a good look globally for America.
Note to Hamas and the Palestinians: Don't start a war that you cannot win. There was peace on Oct. 6. Hamas terrorism broke that peace.
Israel is totally justified in defending itself. Terrorists must be defeated.
Great essay. I knew the beginning of this was Covid, politicizing an epidemic ? From that point forward, I sought various sources to triangulate the truth. It took some time. Maybe too long for my patience, but I got to the truth and more importantly, reality. Which serves me well. When Trump won in 2024 and the other half of the country didn’t understand why, it was clear to me that they were trapped in their bubble. Fish do not understand water is the best way to explain it. The mainstream media is a farce.
Megyn Kelly was interviewed by a NYT reporter recently. During the interview, Megyn flipped the script and asked some great questions. Essentially revealing that the reporter and those from NYT, et al, are currently of the belief that their reporting is without bias. This came during the segment when Kelly was asked about bias in podcasts, a different lane than print, which is permissible. The NYT reporter stood her ground of no bias. Kelly was incredulous.
And the sad part about this, half the country is still watching ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc….
Kudos to Sasha who brings a lot of receipts to fortify her reasoning. A lot more than traditional media which brings parroted propaganda and deflection. Back in the day, the country had credible news organizations. At least I thought so. Now I'm not so sure.
The real problem with “mainstream” (left wing) media, is that most of them actually believe their own bullshit. The second problem is that when they finally understand that what they believe is bullshit, they dont change their minds. Its tribalism.