Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Mark1 said:

You've made 8000 posts in this thread.  At one point last week you were averaging one post every 18 seconds.  Your position is well established.  Everybody including yourself knows why you chose to present this specific story in a long line of similarly themed things you've pointed towards over the last few weeks.  Feigning offense at the fact that I 'assumed' something because it wasn't explicitly contained within a paticular post won't get you anywhere with me.

It's time to face reality.  They said it couldn't be done, but George Soros and the New World Order organized the most complex conspiracy in the history of the world, infiltrated Dominion, and unleashed cutting edge CIA technology called Hammer and Scorecoard to surrupticiously steal the election without leaving a trace.  An entity capable of pulling that off isn't going to have left enough untied loose ends (like 2600 uncounted ballots in 30+ counties) lying around to make a difference.  It's over.  They won this battle.  Gotta reconstitute for the next one so you can win the war.

Well, it has been about 13 hours without a response.  Be prepared for Guardian's Magnum Opus. 

I'm sure @Sim is getting a BitChute video ready that supports all his positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, drewpey said:

I get that there is a legal road the Trump party is going to pursue, but ultimately we've seen a number of these avenues slowly dry up.  A quick daily scan of POTUS twitter doesn't seem to paint a realistic grasp of his situation, and his resolve seems to strengthen each day and his vocabulary grows more desperate as he paints himself the victim of a grand conspiracy and the real winner.  Do you trump supporters think that, hypothetically if his legal avenues don't pan out and the electoral college votes Biden in he will simply change his tune and respect the process then or do you think he will fight until the 21st?

Putting out a lot of smoke, noise, and bombast via Twitter, and then subsequently walking it back is kinda Trump 101.

Early on, it did seem like there were a lot of legitimate questions about the election.  Indeed, most of those have not stood up to any level of scrutiny.  I anticipate Trump and his team will continue to push back until the Electoral College formally casts their ballots on 14 Dec.  There is some precedent after all; Bush v Gore wasn't decided until 12 Dec.

Assuming there isn't some kind of last minute "Hollywood-style reveal" of damning evidence in the next four weeks, I assume Trump and his team will start executing a more or less orderly exit after the Electoral College casts their vote.  I'm sure there will be all kinds of media speculation about Trump refusing to leave, which will all turn out to be false.  As much as Trump gets vilified, I sincerely doubt he'll barricade himself inside the Oval Office as some seem to think.

I would have liked to see someone in power use this moment to advocate for a more confidence-inspiring federal election process.  Would have loved to see Joe Biden stand up the morning of 4 November and state his full support for Trump utilizing all legal means to verify a fair election.  Alas, that didn't happen.

We have such a vast array of technology and wealth at our disposal, and yet we continue to look like a banana republic when the elections end up being close.  Would love to see something change.  Instead though, the memories of the 2020 election will start to fade, and we'll do it all over again another 4/8/12 years down the road.

Edited by Blue
missing words
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said I said all 2600 votes went to trump. I did not. = misquote
But you did. It doesn't have to be explicit.

By saying that the 2600 was 20% of the difference between Biden and Trump and that 4 other counties like this could flip the state, you're saying all those votes were for Trump. Othwise, it takes a lot more than 4 additional counties for the state to flip.

So you either believed/wanted people to read it as the 2600 were all for Trump, or you're just REALLY bad at math and critical thinking. Honestly, I'm not sure which it is at this point.

It's ok if you initially read it as they found 2600 Trump votes, but don't act offended when someone corrects you.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok man. You win. You tell me what I said without saying it to win your perceived argument. Your truth = whatever you want to say and make the truth.
I'm just trying to explain how your statement read. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt in my first response saying I didn't believe you were trying to be misleading. But I guess I was wrong there. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that it was misleading.

If you did understand what the data said, then you knew your 20% and 4 states numbers were way off. Which means you were purposely misrepresenting it to push your narrative, which is much more disappointing for a guy that always pushes "facts and evidence".

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it. You read it and understood it to mean something I didn’t mean or say. Wasn’t pushing a narrative other than math and red flags and seeing what everyone thought about the article. But like I said, whatever man, thanks but no thanks for your benefit of the doubt.

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Guardian said:

One county, 2600 votes and I think GA is split by about 14000 votes. That’s almost 20% of the current difference between Biden and trump. So 4 more counties with similar mistake could turn GA.

Guardian. Here’s your logic:

1) 2600 votes were just found in one county

2) GA is split by 14k votes

3) 4 more similarly sized counties could turn GA (5 total)

Lets do the math.

2600 x 5 = 13,000 total potential votes

You need 14,000, so to determine the percentage that would need to be for Trump:

14,000/13,000 = 1.077

So, I guess by the logic of only reading literally exactly what you said, you would just need 107.7% of all the votes in 5 equally sized counties to be found and to go to Trump.

Can we call that accurate?

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Got it. You read it and understood it to mean something I didn’t mean or say. Wasn’t pushing a narrative other than math and red flags and seeing what everyone thought about the article. But like I said, whatever man, thanks but no thanks for your benefit of the doubt.




So you're just bad at math, got it. Again, like was just shown in another comment. The only way your math makes sense is if 100% of the votes go to Trump.
Guardian. Here’s your logic:
1) 2600 votes were just found in one county
2) GA is split by 14k votes
3) 4 more similarly sized counties could turn GA (5 total)
Lets do the math.
2600 x 5 = 13,000 total potential votes
You need 14,000, so to determine the percentage that would need to be for Trump:
14,000/13,000 = 1.077
So, I guess by the logic of only reading literally exactly what you said, you would just need 107.7% of all the votes in 5 equally sized counties to be found and to go to Trump.
Can we call that accurate?
Come on man, don't read into his logic. If he didn't explicitly type the words, he didn't say it. He's just using math. Any conclusions you come to in order for his math to make a lick of sense is your problem.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian. Here’s your logic:
1) 2600 votes were just found in one county
2) GA is split by 14k votes
3) 4 more similarly sized counties could turn GA (5 total)
Lets do the math.
2600 x 5 = 13,000 total potential votes
You need 14,000, so to determine the percentage that would need to be for Trump:
14,000/13,000 = 1.077
So, I guess by the logic of only reading literally exactly what you said, you would just need 107.7% of all the votes in 5 equally sized counties to be found and to go to Trump.
Can we call that accurate?

Relax, this is his game. You're just playing into his hands. I did for way too long. Not worth the time, I'm just trying to save yours. He'll continue to post stuff without explicitly saying what he really means, then attack you with all the immaturity he'll later accuse you of. Go back and look at his stuff. From time to time he says something intelligent, then attacks like a kid again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Relax, this is his game. You're just playing into his hands. I did for way too long. Not worth the time, I'm just trying to save yours. He'll continue to post stuff without explicitly saying what he really means, then attack you with all the immaturity he'll later accuse you of. Go back and look at his stuff. From time to time he says something intelligent, then attacks like a kid again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really SLACK. They are using facts and details to try and refute what they understood me to say. You just get emotional, call people names or put them down, say NUH UH, and go grab a victory mamosa.

Cheers Lt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Guardian said:


Not really SLACK. They are using facts and details to try and refute what they understood me to say. You just get emotional, call people names or put them down, say NUH UH, and go grab a victory mamosa.

Cheers Lt!

Dude just address the point above or take a break. Not being able to back down, no matter what, isn’t winning over many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. I did back down. Said you guys win. That’s fine. I don’t care to argue. I get it. What I said made you guys think something other than what I said. It’s a waste of time. I didn’t say 2600 trump votes. I didn’t say 5 total counties like this and he could win. I see how you guys think I was alluding to that but I wasn’t. Just pointing it out. And I said it makes a difference. I didn’t say trump wins trump wins screw all of you trump wins. I applaud you guys for trying to understand. I think if your didn’t you should have asked questions instead of accusing. Or making assumptions.

Oh yeah and the word SLACK is synonymous with limp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. I did back down. Said you guys win. That’s fine. I don’t care to argue. I get it. What I said made you guys think something other than what I said. It’s a waste of time. I didn’t say 2600 trump votes. I didn’t say 5 total counties like this and he could win. I see how you guys think I was alluding to that but I wasn’t. Just pointing it out. And I said it makes a difference. I didn’t say trump wins trump wins screw all of you trump wins. I applaud you guys for trying to understand. I think if your didn’t you should have asked questions instead of accusing. Or making assumptions.

Oh yeah and the word SLACK is synonymous with limp.


Love it, there's that class shining through. Clearly a mature, valued member of any squadron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

I'm sure @Sim is getting a BitChute video ready that supports all his positions.

Guardian can defend his own positions.  But if you want some juicy conspiracy right-wing theories, I can share a few.  

 

Dominion machines send voter count to Germany.

Those servers were raided by US military few days ago. 

Hard drives showed that Trump won by 420 electoral votes. 

With help of interdimensional aliens guided by Alex Jones. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seadogs said:

Lol, Wayne county didn't certify their results. Whoops, there goes MI. Isn't that a little bit strange? 

Gee.. it's almost like there's a partisan reason it didn't happen this time instead of the past. Good to know the upstanding Republicans have really been interested in cleaning up this issue for years.

""Out of balance" poll books were also found in the August primary and the 2016 general election results, but the Wayne County board still had voted to certify the election, per the News...Detroit's poll books were found to be 72% out of balance in the August primary. Also, in 2016, vote totals for 59% of the Detroit precincts could not be reconciled, mostly because of finding too many had voted, per the News."

It goes to the next board up, then Sec State apparently according to that article.

@Sim yea...I'm not going to trust @trumprulzz for my latest/greatest news.  Here's an interesting question, why couldn't you link the tweet this bot account linked?  Why are you not just referencing the Newsmax tweet?

As for Heather Mullins, why does every "Real America's Voice" news article link to https://justthenews.com for the article text?  That's super legit for a trusted reporting sources. 

Why does she only have 2 tagged video articles from earlier this year, and 4 other ones that come up on site search. Again, totally normal for a professional news organization.

You click on "News" on their site, and it's their War Room podcast, which looks like it has Bannon on it a lot.  You legit think this site, and it's "reporters," are a credible source of news?  She doesn't even have a link to the site in her Twitter Bio. 

None of that is suspicious to you, but CNN, Fox, DailyWire...hell, the Washington Examiner, are too MSM for you to trust.  Damn...you're straight "Email Forwards from Grandma."  Let me know when your Nigerian Prince is ready to send you the money he promised.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, slackline said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/trump-fires-head-u-s-election-cybersecurity-after-he-debunked-n1248063

Trump fired Chris Krebs via Twitter for having a spine... What a stand up president.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's too bad.  Dude is legit in the cyber community.  He knew what he was doing, and really turned that org around and got it working well with industry and community.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Sim yea...I'm not going to trust @trumprulzz for my latest/greatest news.  Here's an interesting question, why couldn't you link the tweet this bot account linked?  Why are you not just referencing the Newsmax tweet?

I agree that info is shady to the max. I also don't know if newsmax post their videos which are easily linked. Call it lazy-shit-posting.  

Edit.   As for Heather Mullins. I have no freaking idea of who she is or if the info is legit. To me it seems legit. But time will tell. 

Edited by Sim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...