Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

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

9 hours ago, Sim said:

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. 

Seems about right. Post now, fact check later (or not). Are you actually just @realDonaldTrump’s base ops burner account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours 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

Wow, a political appointee fired by a politician.

Shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

 

v/r,

Gerald Walpin

  • Haha 1
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...