Trump 2024 — The second term

[KG1]

Playing further plausibility games IM. I know you don't like the source, but could it also not be plausible based on the content of this article HKFan posted that Trump knew his fraud claims were false?

How Jack Smith can prove Trump knew he lost the 2020 election

Besides persisting in his claims of election fraud after having been told by authoritative sources they were baseless, Trump showed in other ways that he was uninterested in facts and evidence.

thehill.com

 

[Ingomike]

So Trump and company hired people and aid them a lot of money to do a job that they weren't capable of doing? They did it not once, but twice. I don't think that is the defense you think it is.

So they don’t try? They might have thought the investigations a long shot too.

 

[Tombs]

That sounds all well and good, but they know something that we all seem to forget:

They’re importing millions of new votes through an open border and have brain washed the youngest voting generations through MSM, SM, Government Schools, and every other medium to vote their way at a very high percentage.

Liberal parents produce liberal offspring almost assuredly, while Conservative parents are only batting 50-50, it seems.

We lost the ideological war because we didn’t infiltrate the communication infrastructures like the Left has over the last 100+ years.

They don’t need to win on their achievements or objective moral standards.

You have a majority of Gen Z who support literal terrorist organizations because their puppet masters tell them so.

Next thing on the global elitist agenda will be a mark on your hand or forehead so you can’t buy or sell without one.

Prepare accordingly.

You're thinking of the voter, which is a step behind the system. The system only cares about how the votes are counted.

Which means priority needs to be placed on controlling that system, rather than falling back on wishing things were like the olden days and hoping the problems magically go away.

Between abortions and vasectomies, I don't think liberal minded people are going to remain any sizable segment of the population long term.

 

[BugI02]

You keep talking about DeSantis. No one else is other than a couple of never-trumpers. I didn’t assassinate anyone’s character. I just laid out what I see.

Why is it so hard to admit the things that are obviously true? Does it hurt to say “I disagree with Trump on that.” That acknowledgement stops the back and forth.

I thought DeSantis would pan out. He’s done some idiotic ****. At this point I can’t be sure I’ll even vote for him. Reality is what it is. I can’t stop it by denying it. I might as well acknowledge the reality of it and move on. I just don’t get why that is so hard for the ardent Trump supporters to do.

You keep saying perfection is the enemy of good enough. That’s absolutely true. It’s a principle I believe in. It’s just not applicable to what’s happening here. I just want Trump to stop making unforced errors. He doesn’t need to be perfect.

You keep asking that, yet you never answer the question of why it is so important, personally, to you

Maybe just accept reality and move on? No coup to be counted

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 322859

So stunning! So Brave!

 

[BugI02]

I think that the results are perfectly explained by mail-in ballots, extended deadlines, and ballot harvesting.

When you say that, you are saying Biden was 17% more popular than Obama was in his first election - 11.8 million votes more; but he underperformed Obama (and Clinton!) with black and latino voters

I don't believe you

 

[BugI02]

So Trump and company hired people and aid them a lot of money to do a job that they weren't capable of doing? They did it not once, but twice. I don't think that is the defense you think it is.

Isn't that kind of diametrically at odds with the 'Trump can't hire good lawyers (or people in general)' narrative?

To be consistent, shouldn't you be concluding that the firms he hired to seek voter fraud were incompetent because he hired them?

 

[indyblue]

I think Mike’s point is that even the consultants can’t find evidence that’s been destroyed and buried.
So how can they possibly come to any other conclusion, without access to all of the evidence?

 

[BugI02]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

 

[jamil]

You keep asking that, yet you never answer the question of why it is so important, personally, to you

Maybe just accept reality and move on? No coup to be counted

View attachment 323173

It's a valid question.

 

[jamil]

When you say that, you are saying Biden was 17% more popular than Obama was in his first election - 11.8 million votes more; but he underperformed Obama (and Clinton!) with black and latino voters

I don't believe you

At least you asked if I was saying that instead of declaring that I was. Where have you seen me say that?

Biden is WAY less popular than Obama. Trump, on the other hand is literally Hitler. He wants to destroy our Democracy. Sorry if I get this mixed up, but I think you may have said you're retired. So maybe you have more choice about the people you're around. I'm still working, and let me say that even 4 years ago, you could not say in some settings, that you voted for Trump. That's how deep the hate goes.

People did not vote FOR Biden. They voted AGAINST Trump. I've said several times I'm voting not-ClownWorld™. Kinda the same concept. But you guys won't listen. You can't believe that that many people voted against Trump.

Let me ask you a similar question. Do you think 7MM votes were fabricated? Let me ask, in which states were most of that 7MM delta accumulated?

See what I did there with the MM?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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…

And if he had found proof of election fraud? Say even that overturned the election? Talk about a book deal....

 

[jamil]

Isn't that kind of diametrically at odds with the 'Trump can't hire good lawyers (or people in general)' narrative?

To be consistent, shouldn't you be concluding that the firms he hired to seek voter fraud were incompetent because he hired them?

I mean, but then, if you claim that logic is good, you set yourself up with an inconvenient dichotomy. Either Trump hires ****ty lawyers and ****ty forensic data experts. Or he hires awesome lawyers and awesome forensic data experts. That really where you want to be?

 

[jamil]

I think Mike’s point is that even the consultants can’t find evidence that’s been destroyed and buried.
So how can they possibly come to any other conclusion, without access to all of the evidence?

If it's been destroyed or buried, and therefore unavailable, why is this still a thing? Can't prove fraud in that case. So move on.

 

[jamil]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Yep. But absence of evidence is inconvenient if you're trying to prove there was fraud. So, maybe the next best thing is proving they got rid of it. I'll wait.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I would say the conflict of interest would have been if the guy had a book deal first and then accepted the job of analyzing fraud data that the Trump campaign hired him to do.

He didn't need to do the Trump deal if he already had a book deal and there is no proof that he did at the time he took the job from the Trump campaign.

in his own words he said he had an obligation to the Trump campaign to find the evidence that would hold up in a court of law and he reported his findings to them after their investigation that he could not.

Following that he had no further obligation to them. So if he wanted to take a book deal to document all that, I am unaware of any confidentiality clause that prevented him from doing so. If there was I haven't heard of a cease and desist that was filed against him for a breach anyway.

Good point... no NDA, apparently... amateurs! Lol!

Instead of taking the job he could've just done a paid analysis for the book publisher if they approached him first to write about their findings.

He could've done that without Trump's campaign hiring him. To me the book deal after the fact wasn't a conflict because the book deal is about their findings that they had already investigated and reported to the Trump campaign which they were trying to hide.

 

[BugI02]

At least you asked if I was saying that instead of declaring that I was. Where have you seen me say that?

Biden is WAY less popular than Obama. Trump, on the other hand is literally Hitler. He wants to destroy our Democracy. Sorry if I get this mixed up, but I think you may have said you're retired. So maybe you have more choice about the people you're around. I'm still working, and let me say that even 4 years ago, you could not say in some settings, that you voted for Trump. That's how deep the hate goes.

People did not vote FOR Biden. They voted AGAINST Trump. I've said several times I'm voting not-ClownWorld™. Kinda the same concept. But you guys won't listen. You can't believe that that many people voted against Trump.

Let me ask you a similar question. Do you think 7MM votes were fabricated? Let me ask, in which states were most of that 7MM delta accumulated?

See what I did there with the MM?

What's a 7 millimeter vote? Can I just pull some 280 Remington votes and use them instead?

 

[jamil]

What's a 7 millimeter vote? Can I just pull some 280 Remington votes and use them instead?

I dunno. Ask an old banker.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

According to the story on the first investigation, they reported their ENTIRE findings, that there was no substantial fraud found and WHY that meant it did not exist. For example, they found some dead people who voted...can count them on both hands... out of the 10's of thousands alleged. They found some folks who voted twice, again a small count and also likely bipartisan...people with two homes.

And a second investigation firm found the same thing.

Don't forget, the SoS in several of the states investigated all the claims, found them false AND explains why they were false.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

No... the biggest reason republicans have been losing since 2020 is all of this false "stolen election" **** that no one but a bunch of Trump cultists believe... and with good reason because there isn't a shred of credible evidence of it. None. Not in a single state to even call the result into question, let alone potentially overturn it... let alone in the SIX states required to reverse the overall election result.

 

[KLB]

Isn't that kind of diametrically at odds with the 'Trump can't hire good lawyers (or people in general)' narrative?

To be consistent, shouldn't you be concluding that the firms he hired to seek voter fraud were incompetent because he hired them?

Did you willfully ignore the context or is it too hard to look at what I was replying to?

Which do you think it is? Do you agree with Mike's take that Trump's campaign was simply duped, not once but twice but hucksters pretending they could find evidence just so they could publish books about it?

Or did they hire people that were capable that just couldn't find any real evidence of voting fraud?

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…