What if Putin told him that he didn't do it. You can't expect Trump to trust US intelligence experts over a former KGB officer, can you?
LOL. That was literally his defense of Russia collusion in the US election in 2016. As an aside, I still think 'Russia Collusion' is a very horrible headline/name when the most that was done was ad buys and efforts to make already divided Americans more divided. Makes it sound much worse then it was, even if it was very horrible. But like shit, if you have top intelligence people saying that Russia did this -- from many different parts of the US government -- then what is there to talk about? May China have been involved too, yes, but that's not something that they're saying right now. If the intelligence community is looking for some sort of way to get public support behind some sort of war with Russia, then I understand the concerns of Trump, but that's not what he's pushing here. If he really wants to 'get to the bottom of this' you setup some sort of bipartisan committee in Congress to see what they can find on the matter if you don't want to trust shadowy figures, but yet again, not what is happening here. |
|
|
|
|
Just a random question here, are you using these posts as a way to try to get people to come to your website? Not too keen on the whole -- pushing random links on people in an attempt to get them to go to your BS blog.
Legitimate question - not going to click the link cause -reasons- but still.
Onto what the post is about here. Does anyone really care about what Putin has to say about it? Guy is totally trying to send a message about opposition leaders and whoever his other enemies are in the country that they will be killed and everyone will know that Russia did it and THEY WILL STILL GET AWAY WITH IT.
|
|
|
|
Will he try to pardon himself??
Why? He didn't do anything wrong. Allegedly. Nor did any of his family members or family pets like Giuliani. Surely he wouldn't be pardoning them for no reason. No, I would not bet any money on that LOL. Currently waiting on my pardon confirmation in the mail. I submitted my form both online and by USPS. Maybe the USPS delays are slowing it down? All of my crimes, both committed prior to the pardon and after should be forgiven so I should be good forever now. Guy is totally going to try to pardon himself, lol. |
|
|
|
|
I mean, does that really change anything?
If everyone in the US (as an example) takes the corona virus vaccine and then they all go to Russia and back, most of them are going to be totally fine and not spreading anything even if they do violate quarantine orders after an international flight.
But if everyone in the US wasn't vaccinated and then went to Russia and came home, more of them would come home with the virus and spread it people who also are not vaccinated.
If you're vaccinated you won't be getting the coronavirus any longer and that's the end of the that. Not really sure how this is an argument against vaccines, but here we are.
|
|
|
|
$600
I think based on the timing, for those who have $600 in the bank, most of this stimulus money will be spent by consumers. Based on the savings rate earlier this year, most of the $1200 stimulus money was put into savings and paid down debt. Consumer spending was down in November, which may signal a slow Christmas shopping season this year. If there is too much inventory left over after Christmas, production of goods would have to go way down to avoid inventory glut, triggering a recession. Trump has signaled that he is not going to sign the bill in its current form, which has the $600 stimulus checks and is demanding the checks be increased to $2000 a person. Not sure why this wasn't something that the WH was negotiating for before, or if Trump just wanted some of the media power, would make sense if that was the case. Kind of a weird way of using the bully pulpit, as he could've just used it BEFORE negotiations were done and assembled his supporters to force the GOP to do that. |
|
|
|
I've seen liberals and conservatives upset about this and I'm not sure why. $600 was offered PER WEEK for months in addition to the normal unemployment insurance people got, meaning you would get your normal fraction of salary from unemployment + 600 bucks no questions asked. That works out to $15/hr for 40 hours of work per week. Then, on top of this, they gave $1200 in stimulus months ago on top of the unemployment bonus. Even now, they added $300 per week in additional unemployment insurance if you are still unemployed. It's like people don't understand that the government can't just foot the bill for Americans out of work for 9 entire months. At some point, that's on you for not getting a different job in another field. Having the fed print money like it grows on trees is going to make the inflation rate go out of control. I'm more concerned that people seem to be ignoring the growing debt of the world's largest economy.
Enough of government backed monopoly money. Open up the economy entirely, let people work.
I'm personally upset about this, but for a whole other reason all together. The reason is that 950B from this stimulus package will go to tons of different agencies to handle different things and not much will get back into the hands of regular everyday Americans. The most effective form of stimulus is direct payments, not crazy formula programs that will slowly trickle down to people if you make sure to apply or whatever whatever whatever. Unemployment is great and all, but it'll only help you if you are literally unemployed. If you have less hours or a less pay, then you MAY qualify for unemployment though you may not as well. Some states are stingy then others when it comes to qualifying. The only way you're able to get all of that federal unemployment money is from qualifying for state benefits. Airlines are going to get about $15B from this package, which is great and all, but I hope they're also forced to reemploy the workers that they laid off if they're going to be given a ton of federal money. |
|
|
|
I still don't buy how Biden could score 80 million votes and managed to flip states in a very narrow margin. However, I don't live in the US to feel if the hate for Trump is so overwhelming to make this phenomenon happen.
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by millions also, and most of the states Biden flipped were flipped by Trump in 2016 by narrow margins. But yeah, the hate for Trump is overwhelming. If you don't agree with him he doesn't give a shit about you and he makes that clear. Just as a fair point here, there are a TON OF PEOPLE in the US -- around 40% of Americans, who have a cult like love for Donald Trump. Not to take away from the cult like hate of Donald Trump, but I just thought that was an interesting point. Obviously all of those 40% are Republicans, but still just an interesting point to bring to the table. But yes, all of the states that Joe Biden 'crazily flipped' were states that were solid blue for some time and only Trump had been able to flip them in 2016 with a promise to bring manufacturing back to these hard hit states. (Ex: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc) |
|
|
|
Trump tweeted that 92% of Republicans think the election was rigged...
Depending on the definition of "rigged", he might be right. If you include media bias/interference a part of the word rigged, the number sounds believable.
I think a better polling question would be something related to the amount of voter fraud. Something like - "Do you believe there was enough voter fraud present to overturn the election results". The percentage would probably drop considerably.
Lot of Republicans doubt the fairness of the election, this poll is saying somewhere in the realm of 60-70% of them, though these same Republicans who were polled do still think (a majority of them at least) that Joe Biden won the Presidency. Ton of Republicans think that vote counts / mail in ballots caused fraud too, this poll is saying above 80% of them think that. So yes, Republicans think the election was rigged. Doesn't change if it was or not. I like your question though, that's a good one. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/12/11/who-won-the-2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-or-donald-trump-depends-whom-you-ask/Interesting source. It mentions that a survey found over 50 percent of Republicans believe that Trump actually won. I'm not sure if there's a twist to this. You can't misinterpret "winning" an election, there's no ambiguity. Hope there's not that many delusional Republicans. Here are some more polling outlets talking about all of this Politico - https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488 - 70% of Republicans think the election wasn't free/fair, 78% beleive there was fraud from the mail in ballots,. NY Times has an interesting spin on things, as partisanship cause people to think that there's no way their candidate could lose without fraud. They go the angle of seeing how many Republicans actually believe these claims - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/upshot/republican-voters-election-doubts.htmlI like the NY Times way of this, as many said the same thing in 2016 in regards to actual fraud when it comes to ballots (which the Russians never did), and probably in 2012 and 2008 as well. |
|
|
|
Trump tweeted that 92% of Republicans think the election was rigged...
Depending on the definition of "rigged", he might be right. If you include media bias/interference a part of the word rigged, the number sounds believable.
I think a better polling question would be something related to the amount of voter fraud. Something like - "Do you believe there was enough voter fraud present to overturn the election results". The percentage would probably drop considerably.
Lot of Republicans doubt the fairness of the election, this poll is saying somewhere in the realm of 60-70% of them, though these same Republicans who were polled do still think (a majority of them at least) that Joe Biden won the Presidency. Ton of Republicans think that vote counts / mail in ballots caused fraud too, this poll is saying above 80% of them think that. So yes, Republicans think the election was rigged. Doesn't change if it was or not. I like your question though, that's a good one. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/12/11/who-won-the-2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-or-donald-trump-depends-whom-you-ask/ |
|
|
|
Ross Ulbricht shouldn't be serving a life sentence, but he does deserve some time. Dude is also very weird, but you can't charge him for that. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-silk-road-agents-charged-20150330-story.htmlSaw this article today, apparently some federal agents tried to extort him for some BTC, and this eventually led Ross to try to set up a hit man for hire. I read his wiki and if I recall correctly there wasn't enough evidence to charge him for the hit man spiel, so he is serving life for setting up Silk Road and probably some other related charges. I'd rather see Snowden get pardoned tbh. Snowden's crimes were a greater contribution than ordering meth online. Totally agree with the fact that he does deserve some time. There's nothing within the current set of laws that would allow for anyone to say that he shouldn't go to jail for some amount of time. Guy was facilitating hundreds of millions - or even billions (not sure) -- of drug transactions online and taking his cut for himself. He didn't do it all out of the kindness of his heart. Drug laws should totally be reformed yes, but they're not reformed yet and NONE of us want judges just writing their own laws cause that whole thing can cut both ways. Snowden and Assange totally deserve a pardon before this guy. But if all of them can get it and drug law reform can come, then that's amazing too. |
|
|
|
From her response: Thank you for the invitation to speak about the Nov. 3 general election with the House OversightCommittee. I am aware of the hearings the Committee has conducted, and am concerned that contrary toyour desire to “get to the bottom” of election questions, they are instead amplifying already debunkedconspiracy theories and previously disproven claims of people who lack basic knowledge of electionadministration, and in doing so undermining the integrity of the election and wounding our democracy.
In a recent hearing of your committee, leadership was handed over to an out-of-state private attorneyhired by a political candidate who lost in the recent election. That individual proceeded to spout falseand baseless accusations against Michigan public servants - including more than 1,600 election clerksand tens of thousands of election workers. He called Wayne County’s chief judge, a Republicanappointee, a “hack” and suggested various individuals should be prosecuted based on zero evidence ofwrongdoing. Just prior to the hearing this same attorney suggested that you and your colleagues would be threatened if you did not act as he would like and overturn the outcome of the election, despite thefact that Attorney General William Barr, the FBI and CISA have confirmed its security and accuracy.Indeed, the hearing was deemed such an embarrassment, lacking in merit and any form of decorum, thatit was mocked on national comedy shows as a clear waste of taxpayer dollars. Can't blame her for turning down the invitation. I have to comment on the very high error rates, like 68%, of Dominion machines. I believe those were caused by a bug, possibly triggered by operator's poor training.
I believe that "normal" fraud settings would be something like: switch 5% - 10% from Trump to Biden, which is much harder to detect.
There is also the issue of the actual ballots, just flipping votes would be eventually detected. Some of the real ballots for Trump could have been removed and sent to
shredding / burning, while fake ballots for Biden (possibly printed in China) could have been brought to replace them. So finding shredded ballots (which are supposed
to be preserved) is essential in proving that there was a vote switch.
nonsense^^^ Don't be so gullible. Gotta respect the ability to so quickly audit people online with real information that is supported by facts. No reason to walk into a literal ambush that would force yourself to be in the clown show. Why even do that to yourself? Lawsuits has been used by Trump campaign / Republican officials and so on and it has brought nothing to the table as they have nothing backing them. It's over. |
|
|
|
(From the Donald.win website)
lol are you serious? You're telling me that 'TheDonald.Win' isn't a reputable website that people use with reputable journalists? God, how could that be possible? It's almost as reputable as NY Times, WSJ, Axios (my new personal favorite), and so on and so forth. Would they? I thought electoral vote counting objections are voted on by each chamber separately via simple majority.
Looking into it more, I think that I was wrong and you're right about that. It seems that both chambers have to first agree to accept an objection, which the House won't do under Democratic control. (Or maybe Trump will promise Medicare for All to get some Dem defectors?  ) There may still be some doubt. I heard an interview with an unbiased legal expert on C-SPAN a while ago who seemed uncertain what would happen if there were objections and eg. Pence started playing games in the joint session. Pretty sure you were thinking of if no one got above 270 in the voting count meaning that every state would get one delegation sent based on who controls the state legislatures in their states. Republicans control the majority there, with 26(?) states. (Pretty sure) But yeah, the process of this is simple majority in both chambers. A Republican in the House is going to need someone in the Republican in the Senate to back their proposal. Pretty sure Mo Brooks has not announced who his Republicans' senator is at this point, as he is already planning on bringing this up on the House floor once objections are asked for. This shit is getting pretty old pretty quickly though, lol. |
|
|
|
These outages not only hit regular people trying to use their google accounts, it hit people in education, google workplaces (gsuite), and so on and so forth. It's really crazy to sit down and think about how much google controls in a persons life, and how an outage could literally just put their life on pause for a large amount of time. Email, Calender, Play Store, Google Classroom, literal HOSTING OF WEBSITES, and so on. Google, like any other company who maintained a crazy grip on services, will lose its footing to another rival. That's Capitalism.
I'll wager that a significant percentage of the 'outages' we'll see will be associated with a re-implementation of big parts the internet and supporting infrastructure in order to correct some 'defects'. The main 'defect' being that it allows people to exchange information without 'proper oversight'.
Not exactly sure on what is being said here. This seems like a pretty normal outage. Google could block anyone they don't want using their services at any point for any reason. Why would they need to cause massive issue for millions of others to achieve that goal? |
|
|
|
It's okay to play games to pass the time. OK for entertainment. Playing games increases intelligence. But the main thing is how long the game is playing. Kids or people of any age have no problem playing it for 30 minutes to 1 hour. If you cross it, you will get addicted. Everything is harmful, whether it is a virtual or artificial game. Everybody is brainwashing us when it comes to virtual games. Be practical, all games are useless except physical games.
Being a hardcore gamer doesn't automatically mean you are addicted. I used to be one several years ago and I still managed to get good grades and have a balanced life. It lasted one and a half a year for me, it was so fun and enjoyable. And yes, too much of a good thing is a bad thing, so I eventually got bored and I quit my hardcore CS:GO gaming phase. Just like most things, most people may go through short term addictions to certain things though it will eeb and flow. But there's always this small group of people who take addiction to the next level and can't control how much they love something. Those are the people who you see on local news at night peeing in buckets and continuing to play while their health degrades and they haven't showered in a week. Video Games can be addictive, totally. But I think it has much more of a social stigma compared to watching TV, Movies, etc. Video games look worse for some weird reason, when they're a perfectly suitable thing to do in moderation -- just like every other recreational activity people do. |
|
|
|
Highly doubt he'll be running in 2024. He is going to use that money to pay off campaign debts, as the campaign used a ton of money -- like many do -- and then use the rest of it for his Leadership PAC. These PAC's have a lot of free reign in regards to what he can do with it. He could finance a bid in 2024 with it, though I highly doubt be runs again.
He can pretend to run and funnel that money to Mar-a-Lago while he sits there tweeting. Funny you say that, that's actually something that Business Insider was exploring -- not directly going to the Mar A Lago, but if the money can go to friends/family members. Answer: Yes. The money can go to friends / family / himself (businesses) - https://www.businessinsider.com/donations-trump-leadership-pac-pay-family-finance-2024-presidential-bid-2020-11Highly doubt the people that are donating money to this even know that this is the case, but that's politics, eh? |
|
|
|
I sure hope it goes through. Dude's facing double life sentence + 40 years for creating a freakin platform, and is facing a far far worse sentence than literally murderers and pedophiles.
Hopefully Julian Assange and Edward Snowden also has a chance.
Kinda missing the part that he created a marketplace to sell illegal drugs on it. Do I think a marketplace like this is much safer then buying drugs from random people? Yes. But both of these are illegal so it's not like we should just ignore that. But yes, he did have a longer sentence then people who literally have killed other humans. Pretty crazy to think how our justice system is setup. I think Snowden and Assange have a bit of a better chance -- I think Trump will be able to spin this into the whole 'THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ABUSED THEIR POWERS AND THESE GREAT PATRIOTS EXPOSED IT. NEVER AGAIN WILL SOMEONE BE TREATED AS HORRIBLE AS ME BY THE DEEP STATE' Something along those lines. But onto the point about Ulbricht -- There's been rumors that he has some powerful backers in the Trump admin which may give him that chance. Unsure how they're going to sell this in regards to the PR side of things, but we'll see. |
|
|
|
So PrimeNumber7 paid early.
First, it was a pleasure working with you. I paid early because I don’t see any realistic path for Trump to be president in 2021, and I think that Trump should acknowledge that Biden will be president (legitimate or otherwise) next year, and he can start his next Presidential campaign if he do chooses. For the good of the country. Why do that when you can just raise $200+M off of a totally bullshit cause and continue to maintain the grip of the party around yourself? Highly doubt that Trump is going to concede normally, his twitter has been too crazy recently. He's told too much of the party that this is a scam and they fully believe him, around 70% of the GOP thinks there was election fraud. Hopefully for the good of the country he does concede, because it is over. Having a $200mm + war chest before he even leaves office gives him a huge advantage in the 2024 general election, and I doubt he will have serious competition in the primaries if he decides to run. I didn't say that Trump should concede the election, I said he should acknowledge that Biden will be the next president. There were irregularities in multiple states, voting rules were changed without the state legislatures (despite the constitution requiring that state legislatures set voting rules), and rules were applied unevenly. This was why I made this bet with DaveF, as I thought that Trump had a pretty solid argument. I think Trump's strategy was to make outlandish claims via proxies (Sydney Powell, and Rudy Giuliani) in order to get republican controlled state legislatures to send republican electoral college voters to the EC despite the results showing that Biden won their state's election. I think the problem was that the claims were too outlandish, and were not supported by facts. Trump's legal team never made a serious effort into having the courts address what I believe were serious deficiencies in the election. I think Trump was afraid the SC would be hesitant to throw out a deficient Presidential election on fairly minor issues, even though they were large enough to swing the election in Biden's favor. Highly doubt he'll be running in 2024. He is going to use that money to pay off campaign debts, as the campaign used a ton of money -- like many do -- and then use the rest of it for his Leadership PAC. These PAC's have a lot of free reign in regards to what he can do with it. He could finance a bid in 2024 with it, though I highly doubt be runs again. Guy now has 200M that can dangle around the Republican party as a way to ensure that they keep him insulated from litigation from the incoming administration and to keep defending him fron NY state / other state charges. If Trump's claims had held some amount of real evidence, that would really be something. Though that's just not the case. Claims were garbage though Republican voters are gobbling it up. I'm curious to see how public Trump is once Biden takes office. |
|
|
|
So PrimeNumber7 paid early.
First, it was a pleasure working with you. I paid early because I don’t see any realistic path for Trump to be president in 2021, and I think that Trump should acknowledge that Biden will be president (legitimate or otherwise) next year, and he can start his next Presidential campaign if he do chooses. For the good of the country. Why do that when you can just raise $200+M off of a totally bullshit cause and continue to maintain the grip of the party around yourself? Highly doubt that Trump is going to concede normally, his twitter has been too crazy recently. He's told too much of the party that this is a scam and they fully believe him, around 70% of the GOP thinks there was election fraud. Hopefully for the good of the country he does concede, because it is over. |
|
|
|
...
If suddenly I was at the center of a qanon level crazy conspiracy and millions of delusional Trump followers were convinced I was helping Hugo Chavez make America Communist by changing millions of votes...I wouldn't be making any public appearances for a while either. No matter what I said or did or proved, if it's critical of Trump - it's bias fake news, witch hunt, etc. If it's critical of Trumps enemies, it's 100% true and oh so obvious.
Odd how it's the same people that were pushing the Russian Collusion Conspiracy theory on Election Interference for several years are now ... Wait, that' you! But there was merit to the Russian stuff. The info relating to Russia buying ads and sowing disinformation online to get people to be divided is something that did happen, and there is evidence to support it. Multiple people charged. Did Donald Trump collude? No. There's no evidence to support that. But did the Russians sow disinformation and try to divide Americans from one another? Yes. That was the goal and that is what happened. What's the goal here Spendulus? |
|
|
|
Univision has a violent reaction, cuts away from him and starts calling him a liar
I can't watch the linked video (unless I start messing about with the VPN), but other channels have been doing similar. Some may be because they don't want to report on 'facts' that have been widely discredited, but I suspect a lot of channels are doing it purely for the drama so they can cause controversy and sensation by - gasp! - cutting away from the president!!! Look at this channel! So daring! So edgy! Watch us now! You never know what crazy/outrageous thing we'll do next! The question of balance and accuracy in mainstream media is obviously a difficult one. You want people to be free to say what they want, but at the same time you don't want to give airtime to liars who mislead people with obvious untruths. Not talking about Trump at all here, it's a wider issue. We have this across all sorts of topics, where channels that are supposedly (or do even actually try to be) impartial are fastidious in giving airtime to opponents of any reported view. For example, despite near unanimity amongst climate scientists on the subject of human-caused climate change, many channels will allow a climate-skeptic equal airtime, even though they're representing a tiny minority view. But channels decide for themselves on what is 'too much', for example here in the UK if there is someone talking about evolution, the channels are unlikely to give airtime to creationists, because evolution has become established fact. I suspect in other countries this standard may be different. But the line is always drawn somewhere. If someone says a problem is 'global', then there aren't going to be many channels giving airtime to flat-earthers disputing the world 'globe'. The question is where to draw the line, and what constitutes 'truth'. No easy answer. I don't think inaccuracies in the media are as much of a problem as blatant bias, censorship, and activism. Activists are parading themselves as objective journalists when it's not the case. It's always been there, but Trump has made it obvious that "objective" news outlets aren't actually objective but use their air time to push a narrative, looking at you CNN, NYT (and more). I'm reminded of NPR, a publicly funded entity, which literally refused to cover anything related to Hunter Biden for being "unsubstantiated" which was complete and utter horse shit - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-covering-the-hunter-biden-laptop-story-and-now-president-trumps-son-wants-to-defund-it-11603386611They didn't want to cover it because it went against Joe Biden. People forget alot of media bias comes from the ability to just not cover a story, compared to the regular thought narrative of the story being changed. A lot of news companies will just not cover a particular story in an attempt to shield it from public light. In my own opinion though, the Hunter Biden story at first was NOT able to hold it's own weight. If you're unable to get any outlet besides the NY Post to push out your story then there is a problem. Why didn't FOX cover it as well? That's the issue there. The second story now, about the whole email from one of his business partners about him having to amend his return is something else though. That's a real story with some legs on it. Lot of people have to just stop WATCHING the news and instead READ the news, makes it a bit easier to cut through some of the garbage. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
