Trump 2024 ???

[buckwacker]

Both.

Ok, so is the fact that our intelligence apparatus manipulates elections, that they were committed to denying DT the presidency, that they'll cross almost any boundaries to get the job done in dispute?

 

[jamil]

Howbout being a little less nuanced and tell me exactly what was crazy about what I posted.

Are you gonna deny that you tend to have a pattern of dropping subtle jabs at times which I happen to pick up on? I don't think I'm the only one to notice it.

Based on that I got a vibe that you were taking subtle jabs since you repeatedly mention the word "beliefs" after I had made a number of posts talking about core beliefs. Were you just playing off my vibe as being crazy to proffer deniability that you engage in subtle jabs? Or are you talking about the substance of what I posted when I gave credit to Trump as well as DeSantis as being crazy?

Tell me what you mean Bug.

He still owes me an explanation. I’m sure you’ll get yours.

 

[jamil]

Ok, so is the fact that our intelligence apparatus manipulates elections, that they were committed to denying DT the presidency, that they'll cross almost any boundaries to get the job done in dispute?

And you evidence that they manipulated numbers is that they can manipulate numbers? Like I said, if you want to speculate that they did, fine. I habe no problem with that. It’s your insistence that it did happen with no evidence. Only wild ass claims from people who claimed that they had evidence. And they never presented it.

 

[KG1]

He still owes me an explanation. I’m sure you’ll get yours.

Don't stuff yourself with too much popcorn. You'll ruin your dinner.

 

[BugI02]

I looked at what there is substantiated evidence for and not. What Sydney Powell claimed has never been substantiated. Why should I believe her? She made claims. Promised evidence. And then nothing. But to keep your faith in the Kraken, you guys just insist she was thwarted. Again without evidence of that.

I don’t need to make up excuses for Trump’s loss. I think the confirmed things that happened in the key states where Trump lost, explains why he’s not president. Did Trump get ****ed? Yeah he did. But you guys need to believe there’s so much more to it than that. And maybe there is. But we kinda need proof for that. Which you don’t care about. You’re satisfied with intuiting your way through the world.

Has the fact that the voting machines were not connected to the internet (as is required by law in many jurisdictions) been 'substantiated'? Have the machines themselves been allowed to be examined? How about the software?

I believe some of the court cases around the election were companies like dominion fighting tooth and nail to NOT let that happen. Didn't some other company just plead guilty (or get convicted, I forget which) of keeping election data on servers in ****ing China?

Way to examine all sides of the issue, there, Janus

Weren't you the guy who used to say 'If it looks like you're hiding something, Ima believe you're hiding something'

 

[BugI02]

Howbout being a little less nuanced and tell me exactly what was crazy about what I posted.

Are you gonna deny that you tend to have a pattern of dropping subtle jabs at times which I happen to pick up on? I don't think I'm the only one to notice it.

Based on that I got a vibe that you were taking subtle jabs since you repeatedly mention the word "beliefs" after I had made a number of posts talking about core beliefs. Were you just playing off my vibe as being crazy to try and proffer deniability that you engage in subtle jabs? Or are you talking about the substance of what I posted when I gave credit to Trump as well as DeSantis as being crazy?

Tell me what you mean Bug.

I think the 'my (KG1's) interpretation of your post reminds me of something posted by somebody else somewhere and somewhen else' posits that I paid enough attention to such other posts to even know what you are talking about, hence the post of the 'pictures on wall connected by lines' illustration

OF COURSE I drop subtle jabs and sarcastic remarks in posts, as do most other people I engage with. You did the same thing, without the subtlety, by bringing up
porn-star ****ing again

Why would you assume I'm not saying exactly what I mean? When I say jamil should ask himself his signature question every time he goes on about how unbiased and erudite he claims to be, do you think I am subtly praising his acumen or calling BS? Think carefully, there will be a quiz later

Since I am a contemptible person, a Trump supporter for god's sake, why do you pay such close attention to what I say? Obviously I live to make unwarranted attacks on the guy you and jamil don't have. Off with my head!

 

[jamil]

Has the fact that the voting machines were not connected to the internet (as is required by law in many jurisdictions) been 'substantiated'? Have the machines themselves been allowed to be examined? How about the software?

I believe some of the court cases around the election were companies like dominion fighting tooth and nail to NOT let that happen. Didn't some other company just plead guilty (or get convicted, I forget which) of keeping election data on servers in ****ing China?

Way to examine all sides of the issue, there, Janus

Weren't you the guy who used to say 'If it looks like you're hiding something, Ima believe you're hiding something'

That’s not the quote. It’s that if you act like you’re hiding something. It’s reasonable to suspect that you’re hiding something. You haven’t presented any reason to believe so confidently in the Kracken other than to preserve your beliefs about Trump.

But at least you seem to have dropped the “jamil advocates whatever unmentionable thing” shtick.

 

[buckwacker]

And you evidence that they manipulated numbers is that they can manipulate numbers? Like I said, if you want to speculate that they did, fine. I habe no problem with that. It’s your insistence that it did happen with no evidence. Only wild ass claims from people who claimed that they had evidence. And they never presented it.

Ok, now I'm starting to see Bugs pov.

First the evidence is they can, they have, and they had stated motivation to do so. Criminals have been convicted in courts on exactly that sort of evidence.

Where did I insist that the kraken or whatever you want to call it happened? Where is your evidence that what you claim as verified fact resulted in fraud sufficient to move election results? It doesn't help your argument when you throw in hyperbole like "wild ass claims".

So maybe this will help. You're familiar with Al Capone, no? Do you believe he was guilty of a host of crimes for which he was never convicted? If so, why, when no evidence was ever presented? I think we can both state with near certainty that he was, but the only evidence the feds could muster in a legal case was tax violations. Now maybe what you're getting at is that we need some evidence to bring a legal case. How do you propose we do that when the perpetrator is both Al and .gov?

 

[BugI02]

He still owes me an explanation. I’m sure you’ll get yours.

'I'll owe you nothing and like it'

 

[jamil]

Ok, now I'm starting to see Bugs pov.

First the evidence is they can, they have, and they had stated motivation to do so. Criminals have been convicted in courts on exactly that sort of evidence.

C'mon man. There first must be a crime committed. What's your evidence that the crime was even committed? Because they coulda done it is not proof that a crime was committed, let alone that they did it. It's plenty to speculate on. And I guess if that's enough for you to confidently believe it, be my guest.

Where did I insist that the kraken or whatever you want to call it happened?

Well, let me rephrase then. You seem to be vigorously defending the belief in the Kraken. Seems kinda like the same thing. If it's not the same thing then you're vigorously defending speculation, which I've said I don't have a problem with. BTW Kracken is shorthand for Sydney Powell's wild ass claims, still left unsubstantiated.

Where is your evidence that what you claim as verified fact resulted in fraud sufficient to move election results? It doesn't help your argument when you throw in hyperbole like "wild ass claims".

I said that the things we know for sure explain the results, in the context of the point of asking why believe causes that you have no evidence for other than the word of people who have a reason to lie about it, over what the "Cabal" has admitted to? I don't have to prove that it DID cause the outcome, though I suspect it did. I'm saying it's a more supported cause than the wild ass claims. And calling it "wild ass claims" is intentional hyperbole to emphasize the weakness of the claims that Sydney Powell and others made, promised the proof, and then faded away. It takes yet another conspiracy theory without evidence to account for that.

So maybe this will help. You're familiar with Al Capone, no? Do you believe he was guilty of a host of crimes for which he was never convicted? If so, why, when no evidence was ever presented? I think we can both state with near certainty that he was, but the only evidence the feds could muster in a legal case was tax violations. Now maybe what you're getting at is that we need some evidence to bring a legal case. How do you propose we do that when the perpetrator is both Al and .gov?

ETA: I forgot to address Al Capone. It's easy to believe that a crime lord committed crimes. That they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean they believed wild ass claims about Capone without any evidence. I suspect they did have evidence.

---

I think the Kraken believers think there's more evidence for it than there is. And that's who I'm addressing here. You believe what Syndey Powell et al, while rightly discerning that Adam Schiff didn't actually have the Kraken on Trump that he claimed. Schiff's claims were wild ass too.

So anyway, what evidence is there that's actionable? You can't prove the alledged alterations changed the election because either, because you can't even prove there were alterations. You gonna go to the town square with your musket based on the word of Sydney Powell and a crackpot general?

I've said over and over, speculate all you want. Even strongly suspect. But to be so confident that these people are telling you the truth, especially when they have reasons to lie, I think is a waste of time.

And since we're talking about speculation, I suspect that the reason the fiercely loyal Trumpers want so much to believe the election was stolen by actually altering the votes, is that without a belief that Trump votes were actually changed to Biden votes, they have to come to terms with the fact that Trump lost the election because more people voted for Biden in the states that mattered, even if by rule changes and ballot harvesting. Kinda kills the idea of Trump as the nation's most popular president ever.

 

[KG1]

I think the 'my (KG1's) interpretation of your post reminds me of something posted by somebody else somewhere and somewhen else' posits that I paid enough attention to such other posts to even know what you are talking about, hence the post of the 'pictures on wall connected by lines' illustration

OF COURSE I drop subtle jabs and sarcastic remarks in posts, as do most other people I engage with. You did the same thing, without the subtlety, by bringing up
porn-star ****ing again

Why would you assume I'm not saying exactly what I mean? When I say jamil should ask himself his signature question every time he goes on about how unbiased and erudite he claims to be, do you think I am subtly praising his acumen or calling BS? Think carefully, there will be a quiz later

Since I am a contemptible person, a Trump supporter for god's sake, why do you pay such close attention to what I say? Obviously I live to make unwarranted attacks on the guy you and jamil don't have. Off with my head!

So my vibe was incorrect. Fair enough. I'll take your word for it. You've also gotten things wrong about me before based upon your interpterion of what I've said and I've set you straight as well.

 

[Ingomike]

Fascinating how Sydney Powell is the only source @jamil ever cites. Never the generals that actually shared what they could. WTF was their motivation to lie, lose their career and respect earned over a lifetime. I believe they were true patriots that were disgusted by the actions of the central state to thwart the will of the people.

But the serious business of overturning the people is a joke to some…

 

[Ingomike]

 

[Ingomike]

“According to a John Locke Foundation poll, Trump would win North Carolina in a landslide if the election were held today.“

“Fifty-five percent of voters favored the former president, while only 22 percent said they wanted to see Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla) take the win.“

“Former Vice President Mike Pence secured just eight percent of the vote, and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had five percent.“

“The poll found that Trump was favored the most (60 percent) by young voters aged 18-34 and people above 65. However, less than half of the voters were between the ages of 35-64.“

Trump Taking the Lead Over Entire GOP Playing Field

townhall.com

 

[jamil]

Fascinating how Sydney Powell is the only source @jamil ever cites. Never the generals that actually shared what they could. WTF was their motivation to lie, lose their career and respect earned over a lifetime. I believe they were true patriots that were disgusted by the actions of the central state to thwart the will of the people.

But the serious business of overturning the people is a joke to some…

Well, I said, et al. And I'm pretty sure I included the general at some point. This isn't the first time we've had this discussion.

But you're welcome to believe it if you want. It could be that they're fiercely loyal to Trump and went about doing what they though was necessary to try to keep him in power, I suppose it's possible that they followed his direction, if we're speculating.

 

[jamil]

“According to a John Locke Foundation poll, Trump would win North Carolina in a landslide if the election were held today.“

“Fifty-five percent of voters favored the former president, while only 22 percent said they wanted to see Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla) take the win.“

“Former Vice President Mike Pence secured just eight percent of the vote, and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had five percent.“

“The poll found that Trump was favored the most (60 percent) by young voters aged 18-34 and people above 65. However, less than half of the voters were between the ages of 35-64.“

Trump Taking the Lead Over Entire GOP Playing Field

townhall.com

The primary? I don't doubt that. Trump ain't winning NC in the General election. That state is turning deep blue thanks to all the big pharma jobs around RTP. It was a pretty red state back when I lived there.

 

[buckwacker]

C'mon man. There first must be a crime committed. What's your evidence that the crime was even committed? Because they coulda done it is not proof that a crime was committed, let alone that they did it. It's plenty to speculate on. And I guess if that's enough for you to confidently believe it, be my guest.


Well, let me rephrase then. You seem to be vigorously defending the belief in the Kraken. Seems kinda like the same thing. If it's not the same thing then you're vigorously defending speculation, which I've said I don't have a problem with. BTW Kracken is shorthand for Sydney Powell's wild ass claims, still left unsubstantiated.


I said that the things we know for sure explain the results, in the context of the point of asking why believe causes that you have no evidence for other than the word of people who have a reason to lie about it, over what the "Cabal" has admitted to? I don't have to prove that it DID cause the outcome, though I suspect it did. I'm saying it's a more supported cause than the wild ass claims. And calling it "wild ass claims" is intentional hyperbole to emphasize the weakness of the claims that Sydney Powell and others made, promised the proof, and then faded away. It takes yet another conspiracy theory without evidence to account for that.



ETA: I forgot to address Al Capone. It's easy to believe that a crime lord committed crimes. That they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean they believed wild ass claims about Capone without any evidence. I suspect they did have evidence.

---

I think the Kraken believers think there's more evidence for it than there is. And that's who I'm addressing here. You believe what Syndey Powell et al, while rightly discerning that Adam Schiff didn't actually have the Kraken on Trump that he claimed. Schiff's claims were wild ass too.

So anyway, what evidence is there that's actionable? You can't prove the alledged alterations changed the election because either, because you can't even prove there were alterations. You gonna go to the town square with your musket based on the word of Sydney Powell and a crackpot general?

I've said over and over, speculate all you want. Even strongly suspect. But to be so confident that these people are telling you the truth, especially when they have reasons to lie, I think is a waste of time.

And since we're talking about speculation, I suspect that the reason the fiercely loyal Trumpers want so much to believe the election was stolen by actually altering the votes, is that without a belief that Trump votes were actually changed to Biden votes, they have to come to terms with the fact that Trump lost the election because more people voted for Biden in the states that mattered, even if by rule changes and ballot harvesting. Kinda kills the idea of Trump as the nation's most popular president ever.

For all the darts you throw at bug, you seem to suffer the same rhetorical maladies you accuse him of. First, AGAIN, where have I claimed that the kraken (not so subtle prejoritive used to ascribe a position to me that you believe is easier to attack) occurred? I've said repeatedly there's ample evidence to indicate that the intelligence community involved themselves in the election to prevent the reelection of DJT because they view him as an existential threat to their order. I've never claimed I believed your boogeywoman had the kraken to release. When you have to continuously erect strawmen, it makes you argument look weaker.

1. There was no voter enthusiasm for Biden: he couldn't draw even meager crowds, polling (which always benefits dems) wasn't in his favor by believable margins, but he garnered more votes than any other candidate in history by a huge margin. Maybe we can chalk that up to all the illegal mail voting, unconstitutional rule changes , ballot harvesting, pick your excuse, but that still looks very suspect.

2. Then you have all the vote counting irregularities: tallies changing when supposedly no votes were being counted, election coverage for one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history inexplicably signing off for the night because "they stopped counting" only to resume with massive changes in vote totals that flipped a number of states to Biden, massive vote dumps for Biden with unrealistically small coinciding bumps for Trump. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that these can't be totally ascribed to the "the things they admit to". PC

3. Then we have evidence the the IC saw Trump as a threat. His administration was undermined from before he took office by powerful elements of the IC: Russian collusion, peepee tapes, the rest of the Steele dossier, Ukraine call, the laptop letter, and on and on. They seemed to be throwing everything they had at him short of attempting another JFK solution. Motive.

4. We know the IC have the tools to manipulate foreign elections and have done so, we know they have proposed to do and done terrible things, TO AMERICANS, with no regard for our civil liberties or constitutional constraints (operation mockingbird, operation northwoods). Seeing them describe DJT as such a grave threat to national security, democracy, or whatever buzzword sufficiently stirs the emotion of the gullible, it strains credulity to think they would not use the tools at their disposal to eliminate the threat. Capacity

Now the preceding elements are not the "hard evidence" that you insist must be present to convince you that "a crime was committed. The problem is the alleged perpetrators simultaneously would be holding and hiding the evidence and responsible for revealing and bringing the case.

So basically what you're saying is, that until my corrupt government provides evidence to the public of its corruption, the corruption is more plausibly explained by a set of less disconcerting elements and therefore the corruption probably doesn't exist.

 

[BugI02]

The work from home, doing OK, my Door Dash delivery guy knows my name set don't want their boat rocked

 

[KG1]

I'm counting on the FBI and the DOJ to get to the bottom of all this and investigate the CIA.. Then we'll see some action.

Should be any time now....

 

[Ingomike]

Now the preceding elements are not the "hard evidence" that you insist must be present to convince you that "a crime was committed. The problem is the alleged perpetrators simultaneously would be holding and hiding the evidence and responsible for revealing and bringing the case.

So basically what you're saying is, that until my corrupt government provides evidence to the public of its corruption, the corruption is more plausibly explained by a set of less disconcerting elements and therefore the corruption probably doesn't exist.

And I would add to your list that forensic accountantnts, the same ones that find financial frauds for the SEC and FBI found fraud in the election results.

But alas CNN does not report it so it did not happen in his eyes.