Trump 2024 — The second term

[KG1]

I mean, really, who gives a **** about the opinions of a progressive, activist group of musicians? This doesn't affect anyone. Progressives hate Trump. Oh no!

 

[KG1]

I knew that...nevermind. I got nothing. The only thing I've ever been able to predict is what is gonna be my fault. There is nothing that my wife cannot make my fault. It's actually a running joke now.

I'm sure you can predict that Bug thinks you're full of ****

 

[jamil]

i'm sure you can predict that Bug thinks you're full of ****

I'm sure he's not the only one. I'd bet money that the "so you're saying..." guy thinks so too.

Meh. I'm not trying to please anyone.

 

[Ingomike]

I predicted this would be coming. Is any of this actual proof he's either "lying or been paid off or both." when he reported the findings of his investigation that he could find no sufficient evidence to support large scale voter fraud that would affect the outcome of an election?

Keeping in mind he said that his company was hired by the Trump campaign (not a J6 council) and had a paid obligation of approx. $700k from Trump's campaign to find evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF.

We live in a world of narratives. This guy is selling a book deal. The last has shown us that book deals are notoriously crafted for sales not truth. It takes intelligence to navigate the world of narratives and those waiting on proof will not have what they are looking for until they are being herded onto the boxcars…

 

[printcraft]

I knew that...nevermind. I got nothing. The only thing I've ever been able to predict is what is gonna be my fault. There is nothing that my wife cannot make my fault. It's actually a running joke now.

You are married, you should have seen that coming.

 

[jamil]

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF.

We live in a world of narratives. This guy is selling a book deal. The last has shown us that book deals are notoriously crafted for sales not truth. It takes intelligence to navigate the world of narratives and those waiting on proof will not have what they are looking for until they are being herded onto the boxcar.

No one is asking for absolute proof. Give me something credible. The problem is, the information you have you believed uncritically. Because it's information that confirms what you want to believe. That's just human nature. I have nothing tied up in it other than I'd rather believe Trump won. But without some reasonably credible information that says he did, I'm not committing that to belief. Maybe you're the one who's in the boxcar. You have no better information than I do about who is in the boxcar.

 

[bwframe]

Who??

Typical dem mentality. They are not sharp enough to get that all of these "smart" moves only bolster more support for Trump.

Go ahead, keep trying to cancel Trump in every way. See what you get!

 

[jamil]

You are married, you should have seen that coming.

I was young and Naive. No one told me. I think my dad knew and just wanted a good laugh for the rest of his life.

 

[Ingomike]

But. Certainly the analysis would turn up raids in Germany.

You did it again. I said that the guy who did the analysis did not turn up any evidence that the Germany raid happened. And then you say I'm saying something I did not say or imply. I did not saying hackers absolutely cannot get in a back door. But you said I'm saying that.

Why do you continually do that? If you don't answer any of my other points, I'd like an answer to that one.

Your implication was that the investigation not finding hacking of the election was evidence it did not occur. If you make your point clearer with less snark it may help…

 

[Ingomike]

No one is asking for absolute proof. Give me something credible.

Two DOD generals as whistleblowers are good enough for me to believe it highly plausible.

The problem is, the information you have you believed uncritically. Because it's information that confirms what you want to believe.

Never said I believed uncritically, I believe it plausible.

That's just human nature. I have nothing tied up in it other than I'd rather believe Trump won. But without some reasonably credible information that says he did, I'm not committing that to belief. Maybe you're the one who's in the boxcar. You have no better information than I do about who is in the boxcar.

The boxcar reference is to being hauled off to the camps, reeducation or otherwise…

 

[jamil]

Your implication was that the investigation not finding hacking of the election was evidence it did not occur. If you make your point clearer with less snark it may help…

Clearer? Snark? How many times have we been through this? If the "Germany" story were true, there should be some evidence of it happening. Shouldn't a data analysis turn up that data must have changed? If there isn't any information on that, how could we possibly corroborate that General's claim? Why should I take his word for it?

There's no snark in that part. Now. The stuff after with the tin foil hat? Yeah. That was definitely poking some fun.

 

[jamil]

Two DOD generals as whistleblowers are good enough for me to believe it highly plausible.

Did the whistleblowers and the generals testify under oath that it happened? That, along with some forensic evidence would probably make me take it more seriously. So. You got that kind of evidence?

Never said I believed uncritically, I believe it plausible.

Believing based on the above criteria is believing uncritically. I suspect it's more than merely plausibility given how vehemently you've defended it ever since it came out.

The boxcar reference is to being hauled off to the camps, reeducation or otherwise…

Same answer.

 

[Ingomike]

Clearer? Snark? How many times have we been through this? If the "Germany" story were true, there should be some evidence of it happening. Shouldn't a data analysis turn up that data must have changed? If there isn't any information on that, how could we possibly corroborate that General's claim? Why should I take his word for it?

There's no snark in that part. Now. The stuff after with the tin foil hat? Yeah. That was definitely poking some fun.

You saw none of the videos showing counts changing before our eyes election night? You have seen no analysis that late vote counts were running systemically as if by program, not random as they should? You missed all the program analysis, by the same analysts that catch financial fraud find anomalies in the tallies?

And no I am not spending hours to find all those links but most are in the old election threads if the posts are still there…

 

[jamil]

You saw none of the videos showing counts changing before our eyes election night? You have seen no analysis that late vote counts were running systemically as if by program, not random as they should? You missed all the program analysis, by the same analysts that catch financial fraud find anomalies in the tallies?

And no I am not spending hours to find all those links but most are in the old election threads if the posts are still there…

I saw that counts suddenly increased for Biden after counting had finished for heavily D precincts. I also heard partisans making the case you did. I read the links you guys posted. I mean, they did not pass the smell test.

Let's see someone who's not a partisan and heavily invested in Trump or Biden or the establishment, investigate it and tell us what happened. That's probably not possible. So probably we'll never know the truth. But you'll believe you do know the truth. I'm content, given the information I have, to say I don't know. And frankly, that was long enough ago that I don't give a **** other than I'd like to see steps taken to make elections trustworthy again.

If this information is so reliable, why did Trump not put that in his law suits?

 

[Ingomike]

Did the whistleblowers and the generals testify under oath that it happened? That, along with some forensic evidence would probably make me take it more seriously. So. You got that kind of evidence?


Believing based on the above criteria is believing uncritically. I suspect it's more than merely plausibility given how vehemently you've defended it ever since it came out.



Same answer.

In what setting would they have testified? There were no trials. There were no hearings. It was just swept under the rug by the narrative. It is easy to not believe the controversial. But flip the narrative and it is a fact whatever Eric Ciaramella and Vindman alleged, meaning this is all about what the narrative tells folks to believe…

 

[KG1]

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF.

We live in a world of narratives. This guy is selling a book deal. The last has shown us that book deals are notoriously crafted for sales not truth. It takes intelligence to navigate the world of narratives and those waiting on proof will not have what they are looking for until they are being herded onto the boxcars…

This is always your convenient way of avoiding saying that you have no actual proof at all to assert anything. Got it. You do not have actual proof that he "lied or was paid off or both." Just admit it.

You're no better than the left when it comes to discrediting someone with innuendo.

 

[Ingomike]

Let's see someone who's not a partisan and heavily invested in Trump or Biden or the establishment, investigate it and tell us what happened. That's probably not possible. So probably we'll never know the truth.

Agreed, not possible to find a neutral arbiter. Normally the dems and republic can but this is not normal because the neutrality must be between the establishment and AF and there are no neutrals on that.

But you'll believe you do know the truth. I'm content, given the information I have, to say I don't know. And frankly, that was long enough ago that I don't give a **** other than I'd like to see steps taken to make elections trustworthy again.

Again, I said it plausible.

If this information is so reliable, why did Trump not put that in his law suits?

Personally I believe this is information is the Kraken you were so devastated it did not materialize that it made you butt hurt against any that reported its existence…

 

[jamil]

In what setting would they have testified? There were no trials. There were no hearings. It was just swept under the rug by the narrative. It is easy to not believe the controversial. But flip the narrative and it is a fact whatever Eric Ciaramella and Vindman alleged, meaning this is all about what the narrative tells folks to believe…

Doesn’t change the facts. It just makes credible evidence harder to obtain. So in the absence of these standards do you just accept it because it tickles your ears?

It’s easy enough to believe the controversial when you have commensurate evidence. Wild claim? You better have wild evidence.

Did any republicans in the house and senate demand a hearing on this?

 

[Ingomike]

This is always your convenient way of avoiding saying that you have no actual proof at all to assert anything. Got it. You do not have actual proof that he "lied or was paid off or both." Just admit it.

You're no better than the left when it comes to discrediting someone with innuendo.

Bless your little heart.

Plenty of proof he was paid off, but you need to be smart enough to get it. I will simplify it for you, a book deal is by it very nature being paid to say something…

 

[jamil]

Agreed, not possible to find a neutral arbiter. Normally the dems and republic can but this is not normal because the neutrality must be between the establishment and AF and there are no neutrals on that.


Again, I said it plausible.

I’m not gonna go back though all the conversations we’ve had on this, but this seems too much like you’re backtracking on this. You have vehemently defended this which would be a little odd if you only thought it was plausible.

Personally I believe this is information is the Kraken you were so devastated it did not materialize that it made you butt hurt against any that reported its existence…

What? This does not make any sense. I’m talking about the language you used here. I don’t know what you’re saying. Please rephrase so I can figure out what you’re saying. Maybe throw in some punctuation.

Let’s be clear about what we’re both calling Kraken. I’m calling it that as shorthand to refer to all the incredible claims made about the election. Sidney Powell. The CIA thing. Etcetera.