That's not even funny... and it's probably so on the way... This shit is starting to get scary.Rudy Giuliani didn't kill himself......
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not even funny... and it's probably so on the way... This shit is starting to get scary.Rudy Giuliani didn't kill himself......
They are words I use because they are part of my normal vocabulary. I don't speak in grunts. All I can tell you is this, from a strategic point of view. What the Democrats are doing is winning, and what the Trumpists are doing is losing. The question, in that situation, is why would a team that is winning change their strategy?This is why you are a deceptive asshole. You play word games.
I did not use the word proof. But there is plenty of evidence that something hinky is going on. NO observers, State laws not being followed, eyewitness accounts dismissed and plenty of big tech and MSM censorship of anything not approved by the powers that be. If we so much as say lets prove it with an audit and restore confidence, then the chodes accuse us of being Stalinesque. Go fuck yourself. JMHO
Facetiously and Stalinesque big words you use to confirm your ultimate wisdom. Stalinesque is you will bend to our will or else. The Dems agree with us or else is the perfect example of Stalinesque. Also JMHO
Your examples are not in the same context. Not even close.They are words I use because they are part of my normal vocabulary. I don't speak in grunts. All I can tell you is this, from a strategic point of view. What the Democrats are doing is winning, and what the Trumpists are doing is losing. The question, in that situation, is why would a team that is winning change their strategy?
And the proof was Stalinesque, and the same one people like the LBC have been throwing around. "If you didn't do anything wrong, why don't you cooperate to get to the bottom of this?" Kind of like "if you are innocent, why would you need a lawyer?" I honestly believe that you guys don't understand what you are saying here, and don't realize where it goes. I do give you that benefit of the doubt.
The examples are not, but the reasoning is. The point being that assuming the only motivation must be guilt, and then determining guilt based on that assumption is a slippery slope.Your examples are not in the same context. Not even close.
Yes, used as bait but not as proof.where we are going?
we are already there
those are already common LE interview techniques
Did you know that a Pterodactyl's penis could extend up to four feet, enabling it to mate while in flight?jeez, this ol' horse is hard to kill.
Question: If Trump and his crew were so switched on to the 'rigging' and were such badasses etc etc, how is it that a bunch of Demwits could STILL outsmart, outmaneuver and cover their tracks as they purportedly stole the election right from under him.
Question: If trump and his crew were so smart and as street wise as they said they were, why did they allow a bunch of fraudsters to lead their legal challenges to the results?
Question: the certitude with which you guys speak of the massive fraud is based on what? Your incredulity? The kraken?
Question: Where is the kraken?
Question: Is it still available?
I can't believe a fuckwit like trump got elected, but when he did I didn't think, even with his margins, that his victory was rigged, I just thought wow, even more people hate the Clintons than I'd hoped for. There's nothing surprising about the volume of voter turn out, if anyone had been paying attention to their local politics the turn out the vote was at fever pitch for over a year. Why do you think the Repubs were twisting themselves into unrecognizable shapes to try and stop voters from being able to vote.
Noone with an iota of intelligence can give credence to the idea that the dems were able to steal the election, they just hustled harder to get the voters out. Plus trump's a total twat, they had that going for them too.
trump was president while mueller ran his sham "investigation" for how many years?jeez, this ol' horse is hard to kill.
Question: If Trump and his crew were so switched on to the 'rigging' and were such badasses etc etc, how is it that a bunch of Demwits could STILL outsmart, outmaneuver and cover their tracks as they purportedly stole the election right from under him.
Question: If trump and his crew were so smart and as street wise as they said they were, why did they allow a bunch of fraudsters to lead their legal challenges to the results?
Question: the certitude with which you guys speak of the massive fraud is based on what? Your incredulity? The kraken?
Question: Where is the kraken?
Question: Is it still available?
I can't believe a fuckwit like trump got elected, but when he did I didn't think, even with his margins, that his victory was rigged, I just thought wow, even more people hate the Clintons than I'd hoped for. There's nothing surprising about the volume of voter turn out, if anyone had been paying attention to their local politics the turn out the vote was at fever pitch for over a year. Why do you think the Repubs were twisting themselves into unrecognizable shapes to try and stop voters from being able to vote.
Noone with an iota of intelligence can give credence to the idea that the dems were able to steal the election, they just hustled harder to get the voters out. Plus trump's a total twat, they had that going for them too.
What the Democrats are doing is winning, and what the Trumpists are doing is losing.
Sure. That is a fair description. Like I said the whole time, it is unjust. Rudy would have done the same, proudly, which makes it harder for me to care about this particular case.sort of like using fed le agencies to target political opponents for revenge while ignoring more obvious and more damaging potential crimes of the same nature by political allies and family members?
Let's hope. It would be easier if they didn't do such stupid shit. Likewise, the Republicans almost certainly would have retained Senate control without the Nov-Jan insanity.Except in the House...
Let's hope. It would be easier if they didn't do such stupid shit. Likewise, the Republicans almost certainly would have retained Senate control without the Nov-Jan insanity.
Anybody is more sympathetic than Giuliani. The dude practically invented the perp walk, happily traded up for bigger names with less culpability and basically used his tools as a prosecutor to become Mayor. He is a total piece of shit from the point of view of anybody who cares about civil liberties, and the use of the law to obtain power.I understand that position. I really do. Rudy has done well enough to fight his own battles and anyone in politics is going to have a lot of people out for revenge because it’s such a dirty, messy area.
The other side of that is if it can happy to Rudy then it can happen to anyone. Exactly like you said earlier, why change a winning formula. The more times it works the more likely it is to happen to people that are more sympathetic characters in the future.
Giuliani Shocker: FBI Refused to Take Hunter's Hard Drive
![]()
Giuliani Shocker: FBI Refused to Take Hunter's Hard Drive
When federal agents raided Rudy Giuliani's Manhattan home early Wednesday, they found a surprisingly cooperative target. The former New York City mayor quickly brought the agents into his study and began sharing his electronic devices with them, helping them fulfill...www.newsmax.com
A source close to Giuliani tells Newsmax that one of the agents pointed to a computer hard drive on the former mayor’s desk, asking about it.
Giuliani responded, “Oh that’s Hunter Biden’s hard drive.”
Giuliani offered to give the hard drive to the agents, telling them “it has evidence of President Biden committing multiple crimes with his son Hunter.”
Surprised, the agents reportedly not only rebuffed the evidence, they didn’t even bother to check what was on the hard drive.
In a statement released after the raid by Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello, the lawyer said the refusal to even look at the hard drive demonstrates the political nature of the probe of his client.
“Keep in mind that the agents could not read the physical hard drives without plugging them in, but they took Mr. Giuliani’s word that the hard drives were copies of Hunter Biden’s hard drive and did not contain anything pertaining to Mr. Giuliani,” the statement claimed.
“Their reliance on Mr. Giuliani’s credibility tells you everything you need to know about this case,” Costello added.
I wouldn't want them to take possession of it either, anymore than I'd want their mentors, the KJB, taking possession of it. At least not the original.The funny thing about the raid is that they didn't touch Hunter Bidens laptop.
Somebody owns the FBI, and it isn't the tax paying citizens.
They have been trying to get their hands on Giuliani for awhile now. Trying to get some dirt on him. The Democrat is like a Mob set.I wouldn't want them to take possession of it either, anymore than I'd want their mentors, the KJB, taking possession of it. At least not the original.
there's no harm at all. Never said there was.If you truly believe that vomit you just typed, then what harm would it be to just allow the audit of all the ballots and machines in the contested states....
I'll wait for a coherent answer....
Doc
they only allowed one audit (besides maricopa ongoing), and that found that 5200 votes were taken from trump and 2000 given to xiden.there's no harm at all. Never said there was.
But if you truly believe all the hype of 'massive voter fraud' then what harm is there in expecting some evidence and proof of it? Demanding an audit without any probable cause is a waste of time and money. Much like this thread.
I won't wait for a coherent answer, you don't seem capable of them.
there's no harm at all. Never said there was.
But if you truly believe all the hype of 'massive voter fraud' then what harm is there in expecting some evidence and proof of it? Demanding an audit without any probable cause is a waste of time and money. Much like this thread.
I won't wait for a coherent answer, you don't seem capable of them.
They are words I use because they are part of my normal vocabulary. I don't speak in grunts. All I can tell you is this, from a strategic point of view. What the Democrats are doing is winning, and what the Trumpists are doing is losing. The question, in that situation, is why would a team that is winning change their strategy?
And the proof was Stalinesque, and the same one people like the LBC have been throwing around. "If you didn't do anything wrong, why don't you cooperate to get to the bottom of this?" Kind of like "if you are innocent, why would you need a lawyer?" I honestly believe that you guys don't understand what you are saying here, and don't realize where it goes. I do give you that benefit of the doubt.
This is why you are a deceptive asshole. You play word games. No, he has reasoning, you can't tell the difference. This is why you're a dumb asshole.
I did not use the word proof. Because there isn't any.
But there is plenty of evidence that something hinky is going on. We're back to that "P" word that you don't like...
No observers Yes, there were observers, as there have been in every election,, State laws not being followed such as? (warning, answering this question will require the production of proof..., eyewitness accounts dismissed by whom? When? Where? See previous warning about proof... and plenty of big tech and MSM censorship of anything not approved by the powers that be. If we so much as say lets prove it with an audit and restore confidence your lack of confidence is based on what? Do you propose to allow audits of anything and everything that you FEEL isn't right? Are you that special, flower? , then the chodes accuse us of being Stalinesque. Go fuck yourself. JMHO
Some constructive criticism for you in red.Facetiously and Stalinesque big words you use to confirm your ultimate wisdom. Stalinesque is you will bend to our will or else. NO, that's not what it is. You don't understand satire or irony or the premise of a self-determining argument. See earlier reference to you being a dumb asshole. The Dems agree with us or else is the perfect example of Stalinesque. Also JMHO Your opinion isn't humble in premise or expression, it is however full of shit. JMHO.
I'm not even talking about I UT whether there was fraud. What I am saying is that it is completely plausible that demand are playing it this way because it has proven to be a winning issue for them. I think they believe that the longer this drags on the better it is for them. Especially in AZ wh where they have a senate election next year. It seems to me that Republicans lose with moderates when they claim fraud, and they keep conservatives from voting. I think this is borne out in results. As I have said on here before, the trump republican party is unique in that its chosen narratives are demotivating rather than motivating. If you are going to have a story, true or not, it should ateast be useful. Dems get that. They lie like dogs, but always to their own advantage.I agree with you more than most here on many things, but this is very insulting and typical academic bull shit. "You don't understand " . Anyone watching what has been blatantly obvious for the past 5 years damn well understands! It's been one attempt after another to take down the outsider that poses such a risk to all of these corrupt pieces of shit in DC on both sides.
How about this reasoning. Do you think the same people who used the FBI, FISA courts, all of media, foreign nationals and foreign governments, all in a huge plot to destroy this outsider just decided to stop after that little plan didn't work??? People who were that committed to commit all kinds of treasonous acts, stomp all over civil rights, and literally knew no end, just decided to "let it go" when the election came around? That just happened to coincide with the changing of election laws in all of these key places across the nation (done illegally by individuals not the legislature) ( I notice that no one has decided to challenge my previous post on this little tidbit)
So instead of trying to talk around the obvious how about let's just all admit that this whole thing is a fraud! If there had been only legally cast ballots counted, trump would have won in a landslide, and that's really what matters. Anyone with half a brain cell knows it. Even the damn dems know it, which is why they changed their talking points to "you can't prove it".
We are not talking about person A vs person B. We are not talking about team A vs team B. We are talking about "we". I think this needs approached as a personal internal issue. If part of your mind says you fucked up, and the other side said you were correct....do you ignore the side with a less positive outcome, or do you self reflect on both?The examples are not, but the reasoning is. The point being that assuming the only motivation must be guilt, and then determining guilt based on that assumption is a slippery slope.
Well I can come up with a few:there's no harm at all. Never said there was.
But if you truly believe all the hype of 'massive voter fraud' then what harm is there in expecting some evidence and proof of it? Demanding an audit without any probable cause is a waste of time and money. Much like this thread.
I won't wait for a coherent answer, you don't seem capable of them.
they only allowed one audit (besides maricopa ongoing), and that found that 5200 votes were taken from trump and 2000 given to xiden.
the corrupt officials running the election claimed it was caused by a failure to update one single tabulator.
and you believe that?
how does failure to update a down ballot entry do this?
View attachment 7614620
they hired some dem connected scum to run the NH audit. this cannot stand.Windham New Hampshire is going to allow a forensic audit to try and determine why it seems each republican lost an oddly similar number of votes that ended up being counted for the communist candidate.
The only reason these things are being discovered is through down ballot requests.
They are refusing to consider the Trump complaints.......Settled Science.
they hired some dem connected scum to run the NH audit. this cannot stand.
I see what you are saying, but again, I am not really addressing that. What I am addressing is the method of reasoning. When you say, "oh, well if they don't want to be part of the investigation, it can only mean X!" When if fact X,Y,Z,P,D and Q are plausible, and then you say, look at my argument, it has to be X, you are just indulging in question begging. You are accepting the contentious point, to wit what the resistance means, and then using that to get an answer. It is a bullshit method of reasoning. All I am doing is pointing out one other likely reason for the behavior, which is enough to destroy the reasoning altogether. That is the problem with building a house of cards. They fall easily.We are not talking about person A vs person B. We are not talking about team A vs team B. We are talking about "we". I think this needs approached as a personal internal issue. If part of your mind says you fucked up, and the other side said you were correct....do you ignore the side with a less positive outcome, or do you self reflect on both?
I see this like that. I dont care who won. I have a favorite, but a large portion claims fraud, right? Do we ignore 13% of the population( black people ) when they make noise? What harms is a looksie? We waist money on tons of shit. Give it a look! Make "we" comfortable that we have fair elections.
Cliff's notes?It is a valid rhetorical technique if the goal is persuasion.
It would not be correct logically though if you one to say that it is a valid argument in the sense that if all the premises were true then that would guarantee the truth of the conclusion, because it doesn't.
Right, because the simplest explanation for things is always a HUGE multi jurisdictional conspiracy perpetrated by people who, at all other times, are rabid political opponents.
Agree, but my issue, as with a lot of this stuff, is that smart people use these arguments as a means of persuasion, then dumb people take them as a proof of fact. I am pretty sure it is intentional, as it is one of the most tried and true ways to indoctrinate people in conspiracy, whether done by Rachel Maddow over Russia, or Darren Beattie over an election.It is a valid rhetorical technique if the goal is persuasion.
It would not be correct logically though if you one to say that it is a valid argument in the sense that if all the premises were true then that would guarantee the truth of the conclusion, because it doesn't.
So, he basically explained, but I would further say that question begging doesn't mean a question is begging to be asked, but that the answer to an important question is evaded rather than litigated. Once evaded, this important answer has become a given in the argument as described above, even though there has been no debate as to its veracity. So anything that flows from the begged question is dubious.Cliff's notes?
explain how antrim removed 5200 votes from trump and added 2000 to xiden.Right, because the simplest explanation for things is always a HUGE multi jurisdictional conspiracy perpetrated by people who, at all other times, are rabid political opponents.
It sounds like there was a mistake that was later rectified.explain how antrim removed 5200 votes from trump and added 2000 to xiden.
it wasn't a mistake.It sounds like there was a mistake that was later rectified.
good points.And, I don't want to be misleading about what I said earlier. Deductive reasoning is the language of math. Most people don't really talk like that or use it in that way for persuasion in every day language. Most people talk or attempt persuasion using inductive reasoning which an argument based on inductive reasoning would be evaluated on a continuum of strong to weak.
I meant more so that while technically true that if someone were trying to make a deductive argument like a mathematical proof then it wouldn't be valid but it's a common technique used for persuasion and inductive arguments. So the criticism would be based more on whether it's a strong or a weak argument and not as much valid or invalid like a proof in algebra like we had to do in high school lol
We do both, and we do them together. Usually we argue into premises inductively, then to conclusions deductively. The problem comes when the premises are poorly founded, but the conclusion presented as absolute. I also suppose it depends on your profession and peer group as to how much you see one or the other.And, I don't want to be misleading about what I said earlier. Deductive reasoning is the language of math. Most people don't really talk like that or use it in that way for persuasion in every day language. Most people talk or attempt persuasion using inductive reasoning which an argument based on inductive reasoning would be evaluated on a continuum of strong to weak.
I meant more so that while technically true that if someone were trying to make a deductive argument like a mathematical proof then it wouldn't be valid but it's a common technique used for persuasion and inductive arguments. So the criticism would be based more on whether it's a strong or a weak argument and not as much valid or invalid like a proof in algebra like we had to do in high school lol
The switch wasn't because of a judge, it was made overnight on election day. The clerk, apparently, made a mistake. Even the source for the report that kooks like Gateway Pundit used for this shit said they didn't see any fraud.it wasn't a mistake.
how does their explanation reconcile thousands of fake votes added to xiden and thousands stolen from trump?
the only reason it was "fixed" was a lawsuit and an honest judge that allowed an audit not run by the crooks that fixed the election.
wrong.The switch wasn't because of a judge, it was made overnight on election day. The clerk, apparently, made a mistake. Even the source for the report that kooks like Gateway Pundit used for this shit said they didn't see any fraud.
But I guess you KNOW.
Sure, though that assumes that all deductive reasoning we see is valid, and that we catch each invalid attempt. The point being that we constantly move back and forth between induction and deduction because we are always inductively crunching new data and deductively attempting to make sense of the world through our new assumptions. And of course your last sentence is correct, though it is kind of correct about a lot of things. Garbage in, garbage out, after all.The conclusion being absolute is the whole point of deductive reasoning. A valid deductive argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
Whether the premises are true is completely separate from whether the form of the argument is valid or not.
Which part? The switch was on 11/4-11/5. There was a "forensic accounting" of the votes in December, and they changed by a whopping 12 votes.wrong.
a down ballot candidate asked for a review, and a judge granted it.
you're a fucking retard that must be getting her facts from WaPo or CNN.
what "mistake" adds 2000 votes for a pedo and removes 5200 for a patriot?
At 5:30 PM on Friday, December 4, 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin A. Elsenheimer granted permission to William Bailey and his team of IT experts to conduct a forensic study of the 16 Dominion voting machines, tabulators, thumb drives, related software, and the Clerk’s “master tabulator.”Which part? The switch was on 11/4-11/5. There was a "forensic accounting" of the votes in December, and they changed by a whopping 12 votes.
The best you can do is call me a retard and switch my gender? You are an unmitigated fool.
Look, I can't tell you what happened other than that the explanation of a mistake is far more reasonable than of a mass conspiracy, especially given the speed with which it was rectified. It sounds, from all accounts, like there was clerk error. You are convinced it was fraud, but there is no particular reason to be convinced of that, and prattling on about pedophilia, stealing etc doesn't change that. And never will.where did the pedo get 2000 votes that never existed?
Dominion’s vote totals showed 663 people voted in a district where there were only 6 eligible voters and only 3 of those 6 actually voted. Somehow, Dominion added 660 additional votes to the final tally. (Second image)
![]()
no it isn't. you're a fucking retard.Look, I can't tell you what happened other than that the explanation of a mistake is far more reasonable than of a mass conspiracy, especially given the speed with which it was rectified. It sounds, from all accounts, like there was clerk error. You are convinced it was fraud, but there is no particular reason to be convinced of that, and prattling on about pedophilia, stealing etc doesn't change that. And never will.
What century in history is absent of conspiracies that were eventually discovered to in fact be true? Which decade?Look, I can't tell you what happened other than that the explanation of a mistake is far more reasonable than of a mass conspiracy, especially given the speed with which it was rectified. It sounds, from all accounts, like there was clerk error. You are convinced it was fraud, but there is no particular reason to be convinced of that, and prattling on about pedophilia, stealing etc doesn't change that. And never will.
Look, I can't tell you what happened other than that the explanation of a mistake is far more reasonable than of a mass conspiracy, especially given the speed with which it was rectified. It sounds, from all accounts, like there was clerk error. You are convinced it was fraud, but there is no particular reason to be convinced of that, and prattling on about pedophilia, stealing etc doesn't change that. And never will.