Cliffs

1) Even derps admit that the bulk of people know that no fraud happened.

2) The derps are repeating the narrative told to them why going to court will be pointless, thus it proves they would win if they went to court or something.

2) Be sure to buy more pillows, but be careful of Antifa agents striking when you do.

All the best.

Pretty sure you have this backwards but your use of the term "latter" makes it circular when you already misidentified the parties.


Very sure you have this backwards. The burden of proof will be on the nutjobs trying to obtain decertification. This high bar will never be met by your 300 nut job brethren witnesses.

This isn't an answer at all. In what court will the lawsuit be filed? Who will be the plaintiff? Why will the plaintiff have standing? What remedies would the court be able to order?

If you actually knew the answers to these questions, you would understand that a lawsuit could never be successful.

You apparently believe that federal courts exist to resolve any sort of grievance that a person wants to bring to the court's attention. But that's not how the court system works.

You know how to solve this problem.

Yes, in the fantasy world where a lawsuit ever got to this point, bingo of course has the burden of proof backwards.

You'e allowed to do whatever you want. But when you say the Mueller report did X with no caveats or alerting your audience to the fact that you have a highly heterodox view and the author of the report clearly says it did not do X 'm fine with calling that a lie.

I understand it sucks for you that you have to cherry pick things to fit your biases like apologists because an honest reading of the facts don't help you. But the solution to that is to try to overcome your biases.

Ahh so when you said there was no evidence of Putin and Russia wanting Trump to win as a factual point, what you meant is 'Putin did say he wanted Trump to win but you don't believe him'.

Is that right?

As per the post just preceding this it is clear you have a habit of saying 'X did not happen' and then when it is proven to have happened you pivot to 'ya but they did not mean it'.

Huh? This gets our discussion exactly backwards. You said Trump was going to win but not for covid because he was an incumbent and there wasn't a recession. That's looking at factors which have "historically mattered somewhat" and is a highly limited approach to prognosticating 2020. I've actually given you a completely non-historical reason to doubt that analysis which was Trump's weak vote numbers in key states compared to midterm candidates like Baldwin, Whitmer and Casey. This is a completely non historical
argument for a simple reason. Even when the president's party gets destroyed in a midterm (Clinton 94 Bush 06 Obama 10) the amount of votes statewide candidates get in states the president won never comes close to surpassing the President's totals. A computer simply looking at numbers could have easily seen flagged the sort of shallow incumbent + economy argument you are trying to use.


Your ability to get this backwards is amazing. I'm making a pretty unique argument about midterm vote totals that I honestly never saw the media cover. You're parroting stuff about dementia Joe not having the energy to run a non pandemic campaign that was one of the most talked about 2020 themes on Hannity, Tucker Carlson and pushed massively by right wing media.

I thought you would understand my Greenstein c-bet analogy.

Let me try another angle. Do you have a wife or gf? If so do they ever ask you questions about their appearance? Actually let me back up. Have you seen dudes with wives or girlfriends? Have you ever observed or heard those guys talk about the phenomenon of their significant others asking the dude if they look fat in a particular outfit? Do you see how there is no information in the response, which is always going to be no?

A joint press conference next to the most powerful man in the world isn't the time to say unflattering things about POTUS when there is 0 cost to lying and huge up side to it.

Pro tip: You have to concede you lose on some points where it is beyond obvious in order to maintain the appearance of a shred of credibility. You really stepped in **** here and you should admit it.

An unpaid volunteer, Papadopoulos, supposedly makes some offhand comment (while drunk) with the word Russia in it and that justifies a 3 year investigation which, never, at any point, produces any evidence of any wrongdoing?

When the FBI was asked by a Senate intelligence committee why warrants were requested to spy on Carter Page when Popadopoulos was supposedly the main interest they said:
"Papadopoulos' comments didn't particularly indicate he was the person interacting with the Russians"
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/am33.pdf

That's on pg. 13 of the executive session transcript of the house intelligence committee. On pg 14 is the answer to what investigative techniques were used on Popadopoulos. It's completely redacted. We can know all about Carter PAge wiretap, but whatever resources they put into Paps is a big security secret. ok.

Deuces McKracken - Putin and Russian never said they wanted Trump. NEVER.

QP - posts video of Putin saying "yes we wanted Trump'

Deuces McKracken - Oh he said it but is does not count because I have reasons.

QP - Not how that works. If you wanted to make that point you would have said 'Putin had said it but here is why' and not 'Putin never said it'

Deuces McKracken - haha you stepped in it. You should admit it.


QP - I do admit I stepped in sh*t here and that is you. You are trolling clown.

Within the larger context that interview happened it was pretty unflattering though. trump--lots of Russia didn't help me win and actually i think pooty wanted hillary to win. putin--uh ya I wanted trump to win and told my people to try to make it happen. It was like chopping his nuts off right in front of him.

Can safely ignore anything you say from this point forward. You make claims with absolutely no evidence. There is no evidence of the 300 disenfranchised voters political affiliation...but plenty of yours.

Democrats: [Shuffles cards] is a threat to our democracy.

Also Democrats: We object to analysis of the election results where our guy won with thousands of fact witnesses and will press charges against anyone who canvasses voters.

Also also Democrats: Voting machines can be hacked and we've seen it in real time

Also also also Democrats: We have built the greatest voter fraud machine in history

Finally you have a half accurate summary after some editing.

But overall you keep doing this thing where you focus on some insignificant aspect, like what Putin wanted, and then you make the case for it so poorly that I feel the need to correct you. Then we go back and forth on said insignificant aspect. It's kind of like the Iraq WMDs debate. Everyone got caught up on whether they had them or not and simply conceded the premise, the utterly ridiculous premise, that if they had them then the war was justified. We shouldn't have been in Iraq whether they had WMDs or not.

Why are you so focused on aspects that don't matter? In fact how the investigation started really doesn't matter either. Like let's take what clearly happened and assume it's true. Let's assume that Brennan just decided Trump and Flynn were not going to uproot what the defense sector has going no matter what and concocted some sham investigation to take Trump and Flynn down on obstruction and, in the meantime, create an anti-Trump rumor mill to run negative ads against Trump. If we were to just drop the charade we all know that's what really happened. Were that true but, by accident, they actually caught Trump in legitimate impeachable offenses I wouldn't really give a damn that it started crooked. It's how the investigation was conducted- disinformation warfare of the type now being waged by the other side. Phantom ballots and phantom Russian state ties to troll farms are just different lies with the same purpose. Where does this lead?

Your argument still appears historically based to me. In the absence of covid I think historical analysis applies. But both the character of Trump and the pandemic are unprecedented developments which call for more ad hoc, mechanistic analyses.

You make absolutely no sense, I never even discussed the party affiliation of the nutjib witnesses nor do you know mine. You do not understandi which party has the burden of proof in our legal system, do you?

But before you put me on ignore, tell us when the lawsuit gets filed and which court.

While not agreeing with you methodology, Trump supporters all have a huge blind spot when it comes to the character of DJT. While 4 /10 people love him, 5/10 people hate him for the same character traits/flaws. His loyal followers were always outnumbered by voters that couldn't stand him. His incompetence and that of his administration didn't help either.

I mean I agree trump's character was kinda unique for a President--but also for things like being willing to string together almost comedic levels of lies all day long--among other things But there's also the reality that--depending on the day he was sold as an anti-establishment hero(which is kinda just lol on many levels) or well, actually he's just been a bog standard republican if ya think bout it And part of what even made it possible for him cover the entire gamut of some issues is tied to his supporters accepting that.

That first election was super close too and had he taken a more standard political approach(vs trying to alienate as many people as possible) things might've played out differently. Maybe he thought he could win people over in the end or maybe he didn't care but his character combined with all of that attention turned out to be a bad combo--tons of people were chomping at the bit to vote him out.

Yeah I think one of the better arguments for Trump losing in 2020 sans covid was that he wouldn't have been running against Hillary. Trump v Hillary saw the two most disliked politicians in American history since they started measuring that running against each other. That should tell us something about where our politics are BTW. Still, without covid you can't just tuck Biden away for weeks at a time and the rest of the Democratic field, minus Bernie, was like the bar scene from Star Wars. No way will I ever believe any of those freaks could have beaten Trump.

If Trump had any brains he could have been a lot harder to deal with. His die hards were willing to give him a lot of room to placate the mainstream while believing he was just peddling BS to the establishment while really having their xenophobic/racist/sexist agenda at heart. Had he done something like offer a real olive branch to Black people he could have taken the edge off his image to the mainstream while winking and nodding to his base who would keep supporting him. He had this relationship with his base, communicating in dog whistles which the mainstream dog whistle descramblers couldn't detect because they weren't steeped enough in the more nuanced and obscure articulations of White supremacy. We are all lucky he is stupid, but then again being that stupid gives can give you a certain swagger that intelligent people can only fake.

So it sounds like what you are saying here is that you screwed up. On the sole point we were arguing of whether Putin and Russia said they wanted Trump to win it sounds like you fully retract that Putin and Russian never said they wanted Trump and you now admit they did say it.

Great, you were wrong. Take the L and move on. No one cares why you were wrong.

You don't seem to be making an argument at all anymore. You made a shallow claim on how Trump was likely to win and haven't expanded on it or adequately responded to criticism on why it doesn't make sense,

I believe what I said was that the investigation never established the claim, taken for granted, that Putin had a strong preference for Trump. It's not a bad inference, but there was never any hard evidence to back it up. When pressed for evidence, you provided that video which you are still refusing to admit was a dumb move because Putin's statement contains no information.

It's possible I missed something. Was there an internal communication among the Russians discovered in which Putin credibly states his preference? You have a chance to disprove my claim. It's a real chance because it is difficult to prove a negative, that there is no real evidence of Putin's preference. But if that video is all you've got you're just making my point for me.

It's stated on Page 1 of the Mueller report:

"the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome"