Trump 2024 ???

[BugI02]

Are you smoking crack? I dealt with your BS directly. I said that machines connected to the internet is not evidence that Trump was cheated out of the election. You got a lot more to prove than just a connection. You have to prove that votes were actually altered. I'd accept preponderance of evidence as the standard. The part about quantifying it because I knew you'd appreciate the reference.



I'm not sure that we'll even get preponderance of evidence. GWP et al doesn't even get us that much. They just print a claim with little to no evidence. It's not just GWP that does it. Every partisan news outlet does it for clicks and views. They're feeding what their readers want. They don't want facts. They want to be fed a story they want to believe in.

But anyway, I've never asked for absolute proof. That's just what you like to say to avoid the facts. Like you posting that article about voting machines connected to the internet. That's compelling evidence that a few dozen machines were connected to the internet. That's not going to get the election overturned for you. That doesn't prove that Trump was cheated. You were told he was cheated, and then you believed it. And that's all that it took.

I can be convinced with compelling evidence. It may be that compelling evidence is impossible to find. So then you have a choice. You can choose to believe the thing you want without it. Or you can choose to suspend belief until you have it. I am open to believing that votes were altered. I've been waiting almost 4 years for that compelling evidence. My belief is still suspended.

I will post what is next with the reminder that statistical analysis is one of the tools the US government uses to decide whether a foreign election being monitored shows indications of fraud

I doubt you'll read it all but it is a pretty good synopsis of statistical anomalies

Perhaps SD4L and HKF would be kind enough to at least read paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, which deal with the Georgia election that they seem to think was honest and above-board - I guess because an establishment republican they like oversaw it and then felt moved to increase voting security AFTER the horses had left the barn

Debunking Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Against President Trump

The expedited timeline by which 2020 election procedures were changed signals a regime that's sinking into unmanageable corruption.

americanmind.org

 

[Ziggidy]

And it just doesn’t stop.

You cannot convince me that this is not an orchestrated effort to keep Trump from running. In addition, you cannot convince me that we are not in the middle of a bloodless coup; very possibly the end of the coup.

Pig Pile: Katie Hobbs Says Arizona Should Prosecute Trump for Challenging 2020 Election (Audio) | The Gateway Pundit | by Kristinn Taylor

Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) said on Tuesday that President Trump should be prosecuted by Arizona for challenging the 2020 presidential election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Okay. Now I see where your leap of logic comes from. You think that I don't trust Kemp because he didn't play into the "boldfaced lies by Trump." That's false. I don't trust Kemp because he's a chamber-o-commerce neocon. My distrust for Kemp stems from before he was elected and has more to do with his membership in the league of ********ers like Pence, Holcomb, and the like.

I don't know a lot about Kemp, but I do know that he didn't fold his tent and run like Govs Pence/Holcomb did from blowback from progressives and the MSM (or MLB) over conservative policy put forward into state law.

Do you have instances when he crumbled and groveled to the progs?

 

[bwframe]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Keep digging that hole deeper, lol! It's not like influencing, or attempting to influence, testimony before a grand jury is illegal or anything.

What a maroon!

 

[foszoe]

By Trump-appropriate standards, he should have done it in his first 100 days

By Trump standards, he has until the last month in office!

I know what you trying to say, but to hold water for your argument, did he run on a campaign promise of doing so?

 

[jamil]

I will post what is next with the reminder that statistical analysis is one of the tools the US government uses to decide whether a foreign election being monitored shows indications of fraud

I doubt you'll read it all but it is a pretty good synopsis of statistical anomalies

Perhaps SD4L and HKF would be kind enough to at least read paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, which deal with the Georgia election that they seem to think was honest and above-board - I guess because an establishment republican they like oversaw it and then felt moved to increase voting security AFTER the horses had left the barn

Debunking Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Against President Trump

The expedited timeline by which 2020 election procedures were changed signals a regime that's sinking into unmanageable corruption.

americanmind.org

Most of the stuff discussed in the article concerning 2020 elections, are among the things I have said there is evidence for. But, none of that supports any kind of claim that the election was hacked because of networked voting machines or whatever. And not that we should be unconcerned about voting machines being connected to networks. I mentioned an article someone posted on Twitter where some expert from UofM released a report on several voting systems, listing many exploits found. One was something to the effect of being able to alter votes by scanning a QR code.

The existence of these exploits, per se, isn't proof that the affected machines were exploited. It does bring into question the integrity of elections on equipment that could be exploited.

 

[jamil]

Keep digging that hole deeper, lol! It's not like influencing, or attempting to influence, testimony before a grand jury is illegal or anything.

What a maroon!

View attachment 293279

Isn't that a bit of a reach? He posted his opinion on social media that he doesn't think the guy should be testifying? You think that's a crime?

 

[jamil]

I don't know a lot about Kemp, but I do know that he didn't fold his tent and run like Govs Pence/Holcomb did from blowback from progressives and the MSM (or MLB) over conservative policy put forward into state law.

Do you have instances when he crumbled and groveled to the progs?

Being a chamber-o-commerce neocon ********er isn't failing to stand up to progressives to defend his 'conservative policy' whatever that is. Kemp is an establishment guy pushing establishment policies. Some overlap with things that put Americans first. So, I suppose I would say in most cases, a chamber-o-commerce neocon ********er would be better than a Democrat. But it's not a given. And it's not desirable if there's better.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Keep digging that hole deeper, lol! It's not like influencing, or attempting to influence, testimony before a grand jury is illegal or anything.

What a maroon!

View attachment 293279

Stating an opinion is not influencing or attempting to influence anything.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Being a chamber-o-commerce neocon ********er isn't failing to stand up to progressives to defend his 'conservative policy' whatever that is. Kemp is an establishment guy pushing establishment policies.

For example what?

While SoS purging inactive voters (following the law) that had been left on for year-and-years is "establishment policy"?

While governor signing a 6-week abortion ban is "establishment policy"?

While governor seeking to overturn ObamaCare, opposing Medicaid expansion and adding work requirements for Medicaid recipients is "establishment policy"?

Opposing COVID lockdowns and mandatory masking was "establishment policy"?

Maybe not the greatest governor, I don't know, but not in league with spaghetti spined Govs Pence and Holcomb.

Some overlap with things that put Americans first. So, I suppose I would say in most cases, a chamber-o-commerce neocon ********er would be better than a Democrat. But it's not a given. And it's not desirable if there's better.

Who dat?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Isn't that a bit of a reach? He posted his opinion on social media that he doesn't think the guy should be testifying? You think that's a crime?

Stating an opinion is not influencing or attempting to influence anything.

Yeah... he just posted on social media what a witness before a grand jury investigating him should/shouldn't do. That's always hunky-dory, lol!

It's not like he called him or something....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah... he just posted on social media what a witness before a grand jury investigating him should/shouldn't do. That's always hunky-dory, lol!

It's not like he called him or something....

He stated an opinion. Just who is he influencing (besides you)?

 

[jamil]

Yeah... he just posted on social media what a witness before a grand jury investigating him should/shouldn't do. That's always hunky-dory, lol!

It's not like he called him or something....

Is it a crime? I don't know if it's "hunky-dory" per se, but I don't see anything awry or nefarious with it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

He stated an opinion. Just who is he influencing (besides you)?

Is it a crime? I don't know if it's "hunky-dory" per se, but I don't see anything awry or nefarious with it.

Wait... he's either the leading candidate for the most powerful position in the world... telling someone what they should or shouldn't do... or he's not.

Take your pick... but you don't get to have it both ways.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Wait... he's either the leading candidate for the most powerful position in the world... telling someone what they should or shouldn't do... or he's not.

Take your pick... but you don't get to have it both ways.

Again, he stated an opinion of what he should or should not do. Wipe the spittle off your screen and read that again. He's not influencing anyone (except you). And yes, even those running for president get to have an opinion, apparently much to your chagrin. So yes indeed we do get to have it both ways. Check out the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[BugI02]

Wait... he's either the leading candidate for the most powerful position in the world... telling someone what they should or shouldn't do... or he's not.

Take your pick... but you don't get to have it both ways.

Well, you're always on about how he can't possibly win, so you can't have it both ways either

Trump is either a genuine threat to win it all or his opinion couldn't be threatening

 

[foszoe]

Wait... he's either the leading candidate for the most powerful position in the world... telling someone what they should or shouldn't do... or he's not.

Take your pick... but you don't get to have it both ways.

Instead if back and forth...has anyone been prosecuted for such behavior before? Is there historical precedent?

 

[jamil]

Wait... he's either the leading candidate for the most powerful position in the world... telling someone what they should or shouldn't do... or he's not.

Take your pick... but you don't get to have it both ways.

What? By what reasoning? There is nothing nefarious about it. Tell me. What am I missing?

 

[BugI02]

Again, he stated an opinion of what he should or should not do. Wipe the spittle off your screen and read that again. He's not influencing anyone (except you). And yes, even those running for president get to have an opinion, apparently much to your chagrin. So yes indeed we do get to have it both ways. Check out the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

No, no! You misunderstand! Knee-jerk vitriolic Trump hate IS the carefully considered, high information viewpoint - with extra points for hoping the Dems will put the guy who isn't your guy into the number one spot for you (because he can't get it done himself). That's why people taking a closer look at 'swamy can only be motivated by DeSantis hate or envy or something - as if it would be possible to envy someone augering in