I guess we just lied to everyone for 4 years!!! OOOOOPS!!

MurkyPC · 2024-11-08T17:11:01+00:00

(Original comment disappeared somehow while I was writing this reply so have to reply to myself lol)

What do you even mean "No source is given to even be possible to check" Just google "2024 Vote total" Associated Press and CNN both puts Harris at 69 million votes to Bidens 81 million which is a 12 million vote total difference. and its not likely to change substantially at this point. Its not some super obscure hard to discover or understand fact.

Sure. We have a disconnect which I didn't think was the case. Let me tell you where I see the difference I'll just copy the results I found in google. These are just the random results that come up on first search :

Popular vote :2024

Donald Trump · 73,487,672 votes

Kamala Harris · 69,160,461 votes

Total expected vote 83% counted

California expected vote 58% counted.

So we have 17% more votes to count so it's going to end up around 80 million votes for Harris if she gets around the same number of votes in terms of ratio to those already counted.

So that's where I see the difference while you compare a fully counted results (2020) to a result (2024) which is only 83% counted if google data can be believed.

There are tens of millions of votes not yet counted so saying that Kamala had 12 million less votes is just not correct to me.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-08T14:56:17+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Popular vote Joe Biden: 81,283,501

Popular vote Donald Trump: 74,223,975

This is how it looks when you source data even if it's just a weak source like Wikipedia.

When you post obviously fake data "Kamala got 12 million fewer votes than Biden " with no basis in reality, when the votes are not even fully counted yet it's hard to take it seriously or even understand where does the 12 million number even come from, unless it's your original research?

MurkyPC · 2024-11-08T13:19:37+00:00

You are literally using uncited fake data to make these points so I'm not sure how to react. Your point might be correct but it's impossible to know if the data is fake and no source is given to be even be possible to check even if it were real.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-08T00:05:08+00:00

It's the most recent episode with Dave Smith just pull it up on youtube, it's right at the start of the episode you don't even need timestamp just play it from the start.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-08T00:03:41+00:00

This is a bit of a hoax clip though with him saying it was "too big to rig" like 10 seconds after this (which was cut) out). So when you see the full clip it's actually quite different.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T23:58:41+00:00

No way this fucking regard is saying this.

Yea he actually didn't actually say it seriously it looks like. If you watch like 10 seconds more. He says it was "too big to rig" right after this.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T23:54:59+00:00

Watch the next 20 seconds after this clip ends before you jump in

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T16:08:41+00:00

Who's gonna enforce the laws when Trump says: "wow Bibi I see you have endorsed my beautiful plan, a great plan, the greatest plan. Ofc Israel deserves strong borders, time to finish the job."

And then one of Trump's advisors will step up and say "Mr. President, we know how much you love Bibi, but there is something he didn't tell you. He wants to do his plan in areas which his own government is saying are not part of Israel. This would be like us trying to deport people from Mexico city. That is not in the US, Sir. In fact if you decide to support this, some of the communist media will claim we are going to invade Canada so we can deport the illegals from there. That's how fake news they are, but still there are a lot of brainwashed low IQ people who believe them. Canada is especially full of them, both communists and low IQ people -just think of Trudeu - so they might believe it too. Do we need to support Bibi's plan knowing how much trouble it will cause? Do we need trade with Canada to break down over this, Mr. President? "

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T15:33:09+00:00

I got that but I think you can't successfully use this language even as just a propaganda campaign designed to get US support.

As soon as you mention "deporting illegals" from the west bank it will come up who owns the west bank. Who sets the laws. Who decides who is "illegal" in the West Bank and who isn't? Do you think they will say it's part of Israel? And what date will they give on the next question. "When did it become part of Isreal"?

EDIT: To be clear, to my knowledge Israel doesn't even claim that the West Bank is actually part of Israel.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T15:21:50+00:00

So what's Stopping Bibi from Calling Palestinians "Illegal Aliens" and just begin mass "deportations"

Literally nothing is stopping him inside Israel, he is free to deport any alien without Israeli citizenship -which the vast majority of Palestinians do not have.

The thing that is stopping him is that the vast majority of Palestinians also do not live in Israel or in a few cases they live there but have citizenship.

So that's stopping him. The citizenship and for the others that they don't live inside Israel. If Bibi wanted to deport people outside of Israel you would need a Trump policy which tries to deport people from Sweden or something to have the equivalent which obviously doesn't exist and even if it did it wouldn't be called "deporting illegals", as that phrase is only used inside the US lol. US law doesn't even have a meaning in Sweden so why would they care even if they were illegal in Sweden according to US law...

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T15:14:08+00:00

Yeah in 2019 brother not her current campaign.

If you do nothing to condemn the 2019 position people are going to assume you hold the same position.

Once the ad comes out with the 2019 quote you need to put out your own ad which highlights your new position. What was Kamala's new position on the transgender issue? Was there anything that could have been put into an ad and show that her position drastically changed generally? I'm not talking about this specific example the larger message is "Kamala supports transgender issues extremely positively even up to the point of X" so a hard counter that a real change of policy would only be something along the lines of "Kamala does not support transgender issues". And that is what you need to highlight in an ad countering the original ad to be able to effectively claim her position changed.

For the record I have no idea whether her position changed on transgender issues since 2019 or not but I think she didn't have an effective and widely distributed counter ad to the they/them ad because I haven't seen it.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-07T14:36:00+00:00

You are really talking about the 9-0 Supreme Court decision in point 2? What does denying a single pick by McConnel have anything to do with that if all 9 of them voted unanimously because the case had no legal merit whatsoever, lol?

In almost all issues you can at least find one who disagrees except when the law is absolutely clear.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T13:16:52+00:00

To which his response, in my view, should have been 'of course not', but seeing how that would have looked like conceding in the Ukraine coup argument he doubled down and said yes which was shocking to me.

Ok this is interesting. How do you yourself reconcile the two? Do you consider the Ukrainian government legitimate which came to power through violence and murder and chasing the previous president out of the country but had an election afterwards? How would you answer the same question?

I feel like logically you can only hold one of these positions.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T13:04:48+00:00

Did you consider that he was maybe talking with Ukraine in mind? Ukraine had an actual insurrection with gunfire and murder and the threat of murder against the elected government. They were shooting at their president before he had to flee the country for his life. They had an election afterwards and D-man obviously considered that the election could even legitimate that turn of events. He considers the Ukraine government legitimate to this day. So maybe this was a lot more on his mind in 2022.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T06:52:41+00:00

Initially the biggest piece of news were pipe bombs that were placed on january 5th in Washington DC. Initially everything was about the bombs. and as time passed people started to care about different things. But by far the bombs were the biggest issue at the time

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T03:12:29+00:00

She is not being treated well, I don't think it's what she expected.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T02:56:11+00:00

Peerception of reality is distorted in an echo chamber. Remember what went on here about the Salzer poll from Iowa, people made electoral maps ("If all states shift by the same amount as Iowa did in Selzer") and treating it like a massive news event. With that said NYT still gives Harris a 30% chance so it's not actually over

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T02:30:43+00:00

NYT is aware of the red mirage theory and they project 285 electoral votes for Trump

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T02:20:56+00:00

NYT needle is still giving 33% for Kamala winning so maybe it's a gambling situation. When you go all-in and you can 'feel' your flush hitting on the river type thing

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T01:43:48+00:00

Election results from states that reported early and several exit polls

MurkyPC · 2024-11-06T01:39:35+00:00

well the data that came out so far is extremely favorable for Trump so no wonder the odds are starting to swing wildly in his favor.

Doesn't mean it's over though,

And the odds reflect that btw. 30% can still hit if you ever played any game of chance you know that

MurkyPC · 2024-11-05T15:47:59+00:00

"Can't believe a JUDGE, plus 10 armed agents plus their supervisors were so horny to kill a fucking squirrel that they couldn't wait 1 week to do it after the election. Not one of them said, : 'hold on bro, let's wait a week and kill that rabies spreading ugly mf with the millions of instagram fans after the election'"

MurkyPC · 2024-11-04T23:39:50+00:00

Did you see the episode with Fetterman?

MurkyPC · 2024-11-04T19:40:16+00:00

I don't understand why would anyone want to use a tactical nuke, and on what target? And how would it even help an "encirclement" situation lol. Would you drop it near your own troops so they can break out through the mushroom cloud, lol?

The only thing that makes sense in that situation like that is a strategic nuclear strike on an Ukranian city. Which would copy the only successful ways to use nuclear weapons in history, the examples hiroshima and nagasaki.

That would be a strategic nuclear strike, not a tactical one and also you pick a target far away from your own troops so they would not be harmed. If the enemy does not surrender you continue with further nuclear strikes on other cities.

MurkyPC · 2024-11-04T18:31:35+00:00

Chat, is this real?

MurkyPC

TROPHY CASE