The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-11-2020, 09:00 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
Aliens exist and Trump almost let it slip, says Israeli professor and former space official
Adela Suliman and Paul Goldman Dec 8, 2020A former Israeli space security chief has sent eyebrows shooting heavenward by saying that earthlings have been in contact with extraterrestrials from a "galactic federation."
"The Unidentified Flying Objects have asked not to publish that they are here, humanity is not ready yet," Haim Eshed, former head of Israel's Defense Ministry's space directorate, told Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper. The interview in Hebrew ran on Friday, and gained traction after parts were published in English by the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
A respected professor and retired general, Eshed said the aliens were equally curious about humanity and were seeking to understand "the fabric of the universe."
Eshed said cooperation agreements had been signed between species, including an "underground base in the depths of Mars" where there are American astronauts and alien representatives.
"There is an agreement between the U.S. government and the aliens. They signed a contract with us to do experiments here," he said.
Eshed added that President Donald Trump was aware of the extraterrestrials' existence and had been "on the verge of revealing" information but was asked not to in order to prevent "mass hysteria."
"They have been waiting until today for humanity to develop and reach a stage where we will understand, in general, what space and spaceships are," Eshed said, referring to the galactic federation.
The White House and Israeli officials did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment. Sue Gough, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, declined to comment.
A spokesperson for NASA said one of the agency's key goals was the search for life in the universe but that it had yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life.
"Although we have yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life, NASA is exploring the solar system and beyond to help us answer fundamental questions, including whether we are alone in the universe," the spokesperson said in a statement.
Eshed's ideas are spelled out in more detail in "The Universe Beyond the Horizon — conversations with Professor Haim Eshed" by Hagar Yanai published in November.
Eshed, who oversaw the launch of numerous Israeli satellites into space, said he was only speaking out now because attitudes were changing and people seemed more receptive.
"If I had come up with what I'm saying today five years ago, I would have been hospitalized," he told Yediot. "Today, they're already talking differently. I have nothing to lose. I've received my degrees and awards, I am respected in universities abroad."
In May, Trump said, "Space is going to be the future, both in terms of defense and offense ... we're now the leader on space," as he was presented with the official flag of a newly created military branch, Space Force.
Its focus, along with a Space Command, is on space as a military domain for the U.S., preserving satellites and communications and a focus on geo-politics in new terrain.
Eshed's comments immediately spawned jokes and theories online. At least half-a-dozen accounts have been created on Twitter claiming to be representatives to earth from the "Galactic Federation." Other users have asked for preferential treatment and meetings with the other-worldly group.
Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFOs for the British Ministry of Defense, described Eshed’s remarks as “extraordinary.”
“Either this is some sort of practical joke or publicity stunt to help sell his book, perhaps with something having been lost in translation, or someone in the know is breaking ranks,” he said.
Pope said the UFO and conspiracy theory community was excited but that questions remained including whether or not Eshed was speaking from direct personal knowledge and experience or whether he is repeating something he has been told.
“There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle here,” he said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...it/ar-BB1bJNPm
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 11:42 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 590
Total Cats: 114
I love it when narratives crumble. 
Don't forget the 60 Minutes interview when the chick was refuting the hell out of the Biden scandal. Wonder when their retractions will roll out?
Don't forget the 60 Minutes interview when the chick was refuting the hell out of the Biden scandal. Wonder when their retractions will roll out?
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 12:36 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
TXs response to PAs pathetic response:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...2020-12-11.pdf
First, as a legal matter, neither Texas nor its citizens have an action in any other court for the relief that Texas seeks here. Moreover, no other court could provide relief as a practical matter. The suggestion that Texas—or anyone else—has an adequate remedy is specious.
Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.
Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses 3 willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.
On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction..
Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.
Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses 3 willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.
On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction..
The public interest favors interim relief.
Defendant States accept that the public-interest factor collapses into the merits and do not seriously dispute the merits. See Section I, supra. Instead, they warn this Court about super-intending a national election and future challenges to every election. Although the merits should drive the public interest, neither States nor the public have a cognizable interest in unconstitutional results. And Defendant States are wrong about the impact of acting versus not acting:
Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin?
Acting now, once, removes any incentive for future lawlessness. Injunctions and/or acts of executive fiat that undermine the lawful election process will cease if the Court acts now. Chastened by this Court’s mandate, future non-legislative actors will know they must seek legislative ratification before an election for any changes to election procedures that they believe to be necessary or compelling.
The public interest demands ending the abusive conduct that produced this dilemma.
Defendant States accept that the public-interest factor collapses into the merits and do not seriously dispute the merits. See Section I, supra. Instead, they warn this Court about super-intending a national election and future challenges to every election. Although the merits should drive the public interest, neither States nor the public have a cognizable interest in unconstitutional results. And Defendant States are wrong about the impact of acting versus not acting:
Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin?
Acting now, once, removes any incentive for future lawlessness. Injunctions and/or acts of executive fiat that undermine the lawful election process will cease if the Court acts now. Chastened by this Court’s mandate, future non-legislative actors will know they must seek legislative ratification before an election for any changes to election procedures that they believe to be necessary or compelling.
The public interest demands ending the abusive conduct that produced this dilemma.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 12:40 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 278
Total Cats: 22
LOL @ Texas telling PA how to run their elections.....
Whatever happened to State Rights?? There is NOTHING in the Constitution which binds states to a Federal Law in how each state runs their elections.....
Worse yet, if the Election Boards (which are bi partisan mind you) agree to the rules PRIOR to the election, how can one now go in and retroactively change it?? Didn't the gop agree to the rule set?? If it was a (states) constitutional issue, why are we now just hearing about this??
The best part; all this just lines trumps pockets and pick all his supporters blind....
P.S That same Texas AG?? Yeah, he was indicted in 2015 under securities fraud, bribery, etc. So yeah, angling for a pardon, while the other states (which are staunch red) are angling to contnue under trumpism because of fund raising/his band of zealots.
Whatever happened to State Rights?? There is NOTHING in the Constitution which binds states to a Federal Law in how each state runs their elections.....
Worse yet, if the Election Boards (which are bi partisan mind you) agree to the rules PRIOR to the election, how can one now go in and retroactively change it?? Didn't the gop agree to the rule set?? If it was a (states) constitutional issue, why are we now just hearing about this??
The best part; all this just lines trumps pockets and pick all his supporters blind....
P.S That same Texas AG?? Yeah, he was indicted in 2015 under securities fraud, bribery, etc. So yeah, angling for a pardon, while the other states (which are staunch red) are angling to contnue under trumpism because of fund raising/his band of zealots.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 12:47 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
You realize 21 states, 2 territories, and DC are all part of the lawsuit now? This includes State Senators/Reps from both GA, AZ, and PA...
No one is telling them how to run their elections... you could even just read my quoted text. I know it's hard when CNN isn't just telling you want to think/say, but you can do it.
all this could be solved with a simple audit/verification of legal votes, or if the states followed their own laws.
Meanwhile Michigan has argued that the remedy would disenfranchise millions of voters, but if that's the case, then that suggests that Michigan officials disenfranchised those Michigan voters first...
No one is telling them how to run their elections... you could even just read my quoted text. I know it's hard when CNN isn't just telling you want to think/say, but you can do it.
all this could be solved with a simple audit/verification of legal votes, or if the states followed their own laws.
Meanwhile Michigan has argued that the remedy would disenfranchise millions of voters, but if that's the case, then that suggests that Michigan officials disenfranchised those Michigan voters first...
Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-11-2020 at 12:58 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 12:56 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 278
Total Cats: 22
Read your own stuff
That to me, sounds like Texas is telling other states how to run thier election
DC has NOT signed on to this nonsense. Please show me the actual document which states as such. Its is only 17 VERY red states as of a few hours ago........
The other states (as I mentioned but you have seemingly missed) are staunch red states (or the Rep are in staunch red districts). What they are scared of is being primaried by a staunch staunch trump supporters
.........fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes
DC has NOT signed on to this nonsense. Please show me the actual document which states as such. Its is only 17 VERY red states as of a few hours ago........
The other states (as I mentioned but you have seemingly missed) are staunch red states (or the Rep are in staunch red districts). What they are scared of is being primaried by a staunch staunch trump supporters
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 01:22 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 278
Total Cats: 22
So braineack, you seem reasonable.
Let me ask you this. You spent the last page and a half talking about this Hunter Biden laptop and how that compromises him.
Paxton was indicted on Security Frauds in 2015. As it turns out, the FBI just raided and (low and behold) confiscated his LAPTOP.
So, how is it, you spout religiously about Hunter Biden and this laptop but have remained silent on Paxton and all his misdeeds that he WAS INDICTUED ON. Mind you, Hunter is NOT an elected official and has NOT been indicted on........well....anything. However yet you fail to blast out all the indictment stories on Paxton and the "laptops seized by the FBI"?? Mind you, Paxton IS an elected member.......
How do you rationalize this??
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06...general-fraud/
Let me ask you this. You spent the last page and a half talking about this Hunter Biden laptop and how that compromises him.
Paxton was indicted on Security Frauds in 2015. As it turns out, the FBI just raided and (low and behold) confiscated his LAPTOP.
So, how is it, you spout religiously about Hunter Biden and this laptop but have remained silent on Paxton and all his misdeeds that he WAS INDICTUED ON. Mind you, Hunter is NOT an elected official and has NOT been indicted on........well....anything. However yet you fail to blast out all the indictment stories on Paxton and the "laptops seized by the FBI"?? Mind you, Paxton IS an elected member.......
How do you rationalize this??
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06...general-fraud/
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 01:50 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
The point made was about the Media's inability to report truth, and the willfulness to blatantly lie, and ignore, in order to support the agenda.
The bigger picture is about how they tried to impeach and remove Trump for uncovering what Joe and Hunter themselves did in the Ukraine after the revolution.
Swalwell slept with and paid a Chinese spy. With that in mind: How do you rationalize states violating their own laws, as well a federal laws & judges orders, in regards to allowing ineligible votes to count as valid?
2 + 2 = 5. Russia. Fraud claims are baseless.
The bigger picture is about how they tried to impeach and remove Trump for uncovering what Joe and Hunter themselves did in the Ukraine after the revolution.
Swalwell slept with and paid a Chinese spy. With that in mind: How do you rationalize states violating their own laws, as well a federal laws & judges orders, in regards to allowing ineligible votes to count as valid?
2 + 2 = 5. Russia. Fraud claims are baseless.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-11-2020 at 02:01 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 02:03 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 278
Total Cats: 22
.........So back to Paxton and Texas
If you are so wrought with the Media not reporting on truth, Paxton has been indicted. Paxton is compromised. Media reported the truth. Why are you all not up in arms about Paxton and how much he is compromised and ...."insert whatever"
And I am still waiting on your evidence for fraud. 50 states certified and trump has lost 55/56 cases. Mind you, trump and co weren't even in court arguing about fraud. They were arguing about process
So the narrative changed from
Fraud to Process to lets try to undermine State RIghts.........all after no evidence and losing 55/56 cases
lol! I can't even keep track....
If you are so wrought with the Media not reporting on truth, Paxton has been indicted. Paxton is compromised. Media reported the truth. Why are you all not up in arms about Paxton and how much he is compromised and ...."insert whatever"
And I am still waiting on your evidence for fraud. 50 states certified and trump has lost 55/56 cases. Mind you, trump and co weren't even in court arguing about fraud. They were arguing about process
So the narrative changed from
Fraud to Process to lets try to undermine State RIghts.........all after no evidence and losing 55/56 cases
lol! I can't even keep track....
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 03:09 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I'm still waiting for the evidence of quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine, and he was impeached for that.
How about proof there is no fraud?
There's video, voice recordings, data analysis, statistical impossibilities/anomalies, whistleblowers, eye-witness testimonies, and thousands of affidavits all pointing to wrong-doing.
What evidence do you have that these thousands of people are wrong?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who voted and live in a P.O. Box, actually live in a P.O. Box -- despite law saying that's a mail-in vote must have a real dwelling?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who voted who are over 120 years old are actually living?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who were underaged and still voted, are in fact of the legal age to vote?
What evidence do you have that says that Zachary Larsen is lying when he observed votes being counting for illegible voters not on voter-books?
What evidence do you have that says the 300% voter turn-out in WI counties was legitimate?
What evidence do you have that says the unusually high amount of "digitally adjudicated" ballots was legitimate?
What evidence do you have that says that election law was followed in these states?
What evidence do you have that says that despite 15,017 ballots marked as “Returned” between November 7th and November 16th, and the PA "law" which allowed ballots to be returned by the 6th, the 7,099 rejected ballots in PA is not incorrect?
What evidence do you have that all the other illegitimate votes allowed to be counted, as laid out in the TX lawsuit, are actually legal votes?
you see how this works?
He who counts last, counts the longest.
How about proof there is no fraud?
There's video, voice recordings, data analysis, statistical impossibilities/anomalies, whistleblowers, eye-witness testimonies, and thousands of affidavits all pointing to wrong-doing.
What evidence do you have that these thousands of people are wrong?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who voted and live in a P.O. Box, actually live in a P.O. Box -- despite law saying that's a mail-in vote must have a real dwelling?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who voted who are over 120 years old are actually living?
What evidence do you have that says the people in PA who were underaged and still voted, are in fact of the legal age to vote?
What evidence do you have that says that Zachary Larsen is lying when he observed votes being counting for illegible voters not on voter-books?
What evidence do you have that says the 300% voter turn-out in WI counties was legitimate?
What evidence do you have that says the unusually high amount of "digitally adjudicated" ballots was legitimate?
What evidence do you have that says that election law was followed in these states?
What evidence do you have that says that despite 15,017 ballots marked as “Returned” between November 7th and November 16th, and the PA "law" which allowed ballots to be returned by the 6th, the 7,099 rejected ballots in PA is not incorrect?
What evidence do you have that all the other illegitimate votes allowed to be counted, as laid out in the TX lawsuit, are actually legal votes?
you see how this works?
He who counts last, counts the longest.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-11-2020 at 03:41 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 03:25 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 278
Total Cats: 22
LOL. braineack is not even going to address Paxton's indictment hahahahahah!
Carry on. Let the wallllllll of memes continue. Some were chuckle worthy
Kreb came out and unequivocally stated there has been NO fraud. A staunch Rep that was fired by the pres.. States have had recounts (your whole counting last blah blah) So yeah. SCOTUS has denied Powel as well. PA judge basically said no proof. Not sure what else you need in terms of "proof"??
P.S I do not have to prove there is no fraud. Why? I am not the one screaming it/plaintiff. The onus is on plaintiff to prove as such......and so far, 55/56 cases lost show me there is none. And these are judges that were appointed by trump.....
Carry on. Let the wallllllll of memes continue. Some were chuckle worthy
Kreb came out and unequivocally stated there has been NO fraud. A staunch Rep that was fired by the pres.. States have had recounts (your whole counting last blah blah) So yeah. SCOTUS has denied Powel as well. PA judge basically said no proof. Not sure what else you need in terms of "proof"??
P.S I do not have to prove there is no fraud. Why? I am not the one screaming it/plaintiff. The onus is on plaintiff to prove as such......and so far, 55/56 cases lost show me there is none. And these are judges that were appointed by trump.....
Reply
0
0
12-11-2020, 03:30 PM
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
LOL. braineack is not even going to address Paxton's indictment hahahahahah!
Carry on. Let the wallllllll of memes continue. Some were chuckle worthy
Kreb came out and unequivocally stated there has been NO fraud. A staunch Rep that was fired by the pres.. States have had recounts (your whole counting last blah blah) So yeah. SCOTUS has denied Powel as well. PA judge basically said no proof. Not sure what else you need in terms of "proof"??
P.S I do not have to prove there is no fraud. Why? I am not the one screaming it/plaintiff. The onus is on plaintiff to prove as such......and so far, 55/56 cases lost show me there is none. And these are judges that were appointed by trump.....
Carry on. Let the wallllllll of memes continue. Some were chuckle worthy
Kreb came out and unequivocally stated there has been NO fraud. A staunch Rep that was fired by the pres.. States have had recounts (your whole counting last blah blah) So yeah. SCOTUS has denied Powel as well. PA judge basically said no proof. Not sure what else you need in terms of "proof"??
P.S I do not have to prove there is no fraud. Why? I am not the one screaming it/plaintiff. The onus is on plaintiff to prove as such......and so far, 55/56 cases lost show me there is none. And these are judges that were appointed by trump.....
Stop you are loosing.
Reply
0
0
