Insurrection 2021

[AnotherPleb]

Any tldr or do I really have to read 106 pages of highlights?

Autism.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Any tldr or do I really have to read 106 pages of highlights?

106 pages of bickering, no one knows what to expect on the 6th from the Trump Fanboys, though the leading guess is: "They'll shit themselves and do nothing".
The rhetoric of people on social media is growing more aggressive and in favor of violence by the day, though. However talk is cheap and these people might as well just be venting.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Any tldr or do I really have to read 106 pages of highlights?

Trump cultists coping hard that their lord and savior lost, while clinging to the desperate hope that they can still Trust The Plan and trust Q

 

[AnotherPleb]

Trump cultists coping hard that their lord and savior lost, while clinging to the desperate hope that they can still Trust The Plan and trust Q

I personally liked trump for pissing off the media but good God him and the cultists are 100% cringe.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Trump cultists coping hard that their lord and savior lost, while clinging to the desperate hope that they can still Trust The Plan and trust Q

I think that it does need to be added here:
Despite the heated rhetoric on social media, there still seems to be an attitude of "someone should do something - not me, though!" going around amongs their majority.
Qtards don't really want to save the country, they just want to sit back while the actual saving is done by some heroic patriots, guided by Trumps unwavering, unstoppable hand.

Which is astoundingly pathetic, when you think about it. They're not just all talk, even in their powertrip-fantasies, they rely on others doing all the work. It's not even "*I* am gonna show you! *I* will take revenge for [perceived injustice]!" it's always "*They* will take care of you and *I* will be the one laughing last!".
There are a few people who post about things they intend to do, but it sounds more like larping or venting, so whether they'll do something or not is dubious.

Chris at least made a crude comicbook about how he'll take revenge on CADD Chef, Mary Lee Walsh, Snyder, the Jerkops and so on in person...

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I think that it does need to be added here:
Despite the heated rhetoric on social media, there still seems to be an attitude of "someone should do something - not me, though!" going around amongs their majority.
Qtards don't really want to save the country, they just want to sit back while the actual saving is done by some heroic patriots, guided by Trumps unwavering, unstoppable hand.

Which is astoundingly pathetic, when you think about it. They're not just all talk, even in their powertrip-fantasies, they rely on others doing all the work. It's not even "*I* am gonna show you! *I* will take revenge for [perceived injustice]!" it's always "*They* will take care of you and *I* will be the one laughing last!".
There are a few people who post about things they intend to do, but it sounds more like larping or venting, so whether they'll do something or not is dubious.

Chris at least made a crude comicbook about how he'll take revenge on CADD Chef, Mary Lee Walsh, Snyder, the Jerkops and so on in person...

This is the same body of people who, to strike back at Nike and Keurig, blew up their own consumer goods (so they would go buy more consumer goods from another megacorp multinational)... rather than just boycotting the companies they disliked. And I guarantee you once the clout-chasing faded, they bought shit from those exact same megacorps again.

Everything's optics. That's why there's going to be someone at DC, I guarantee you, trying to cause a boomer stampede by trying to get the ones with shitty trigger discipline and nerves of rusted-out iron to snap. Because lots of people are going to show up to get some optics and pictures of themselves, clad in what they regard as toys and props.

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

Back in november and december there was events run primarily by Ali Alexander to "Stop the Steal" and be a "Million MAGA March" which ended up with only 40-60k at most. Trump drove by in his motorcade but never directly address the event in more then a tweet or two.

However there's a new event being promoted(via twitter) by Trump quite a bit. It's occuring in Washington DC on the same day Pence is suppose to count the electors votes. This is seen by many in the Trump movement as the last chance(until the goalpost gets moved further).
Trump even put out this trailer for it:

Who will be showing up?
The three main crowds will likely be Stop the Steal, Million MAGA march, and 3%ers/assorted Boomerwaffen. The Stop the Steal people are Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Ali Alexander, etc. The MMM people are people like Mike Cernovich, Lady Maga, Brandon Strayka, the Proud Boys, etc.
Here's the list from Stop The Steal's website but it's some of the speakers:


Where can I watch?
NTD will have coverage, but I'll try to have a few links here when it

What will happen? Civil war 2 electric boogaloo?
Based on the last events I expect antifa to have a showing but get overwhelmed during the day like the previous times, then go wild at night when they have the cover of darkness. However I will say Q boomers are particularly hyped for this event and ready to purge democrat scum, so that factor adds to it.






When is it happening?

Contrary to the title, the event will have a soft launch on Jan 5th as the early people, including the Proud Boys sent up their camps. At 5pm there'll be an "Eighty Percent Coalition Rally to Save America" preshow event. At that event there will be Alex Jones, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, etc. The plan is during the first night to set up a huge "tent city" and create a bubble of safety for marchers.
The second day, the 6th, is when they really plan to show up as a whole to march. They'll be walking from presidential park to the Capitol Building.

Where is it happening?
Washington DC dummy, but heres a map with the key areas highlighted.


I'm sure it'll be some fun.

Website:
https://wildprotest.com/ (https://archive.md/eo2Oq)

 

[Inventor of the Telephone]

Item nine is in the second part. My point pertains purely and entirely to the first part, which is the one that discusses variance on the vote on the whole; the first "time series analysis" is completely self-contained enough to draw its own conclusion paragraph. Generally speaking, if I can't trust your entire initial argument because your methodology clearly cooks the books by counting a delta of 50 as 10k, yeah.

To look at what numbers he's fucking with in detail for claims outside of the first part, it would take a while longer. More broadly, I would say it can easily be overlooked by the fact that people who live in cities are going to vote for the democrat more often both in-person and by-mail, and cities took longer to process the mail-in ballots than did rural areas. I'll look at this one real quick, too.

Spoiler: would have been better for you if I didn't: regarding part 2

Regarding his 'summary' assertions at the top:
1)philly and allegheny are fucking cities, so calling them deviant is stupid.
2) We did not have mail-in voting for anyone that wanted it in 2008-2016. Gee, wonder why that might be unusual in places with the highest % of mail-ins.
3) Turns out that younger, cosmopolitan people don't tend to register for political parties. 'Progressives' for example are often just independent, even if our primary is closed.

Item 1 choosing to display numbers over % is pretty suspect, given that Philly has about 12 times the population of Allentown. A 1% increase for Biden in Philly is bigger compared to a 10% increase in Allentown. Elk County has about 30k people. A 1% up in Philly is 50% of Elk County. See why this is him clearly fucking with the presentation of the data?

Item 2's comparing the behavior of Elk County to Bucks county in terms of enthusiasm is retarded. You'd have to be completely clueless about the Philly suburbs and surrounding counties, which is part of why trying to apply statistical analysis to the rural-urban divide is prime "wow this has a lot of numbers must be true" grifting.

Item 4 is again based on the raw number change, not the % change. This is stupid. Elk County getting 6k votes is a fifth of its population; Bucks getting 6k is just barely under 1%.

Item 5 is again basing the difference on TOTAL NUMBERS, NOT PERCENT. "It is curious that Mont and Allegheny would have large declines but also large increases" no, not at all, given your graph is averaging together -the populations of every single county in PA-.

Item 6 compares rural democratic registration to urban democratic registration by explicitly removing the urban registration (all 12 counties that are big) from its "average." This is clear manipulation, again. Elk County is not Allegheny in demography or registration habits.

Item 7 again removes the urban centers which would show you precisely why this analysis is fucking stupid. Independents and republicans voted for Biden in the urban-suburban counties. That "70%" number he throws around also counts independents and republicans in those other counties, by the way; he just hopes you won't notice. He is comparing " ALL biden votes" to "number of registered democrats."

Item 8 assumes, again, that voting behaviors between cities and rural areas would be the same. I really don't think I need to explain to you that Philly and Pennsyltucky are different. Also, fucking lol, he calculates the "normal" behavior of the biden votes:registered democrats by EXCLUDING the 11 counties, and then he performs this linear regression with them INCLUDED. Oh, except Philly and Allegheny; we still left those ones out when we did this. nigga lol

Item 9 compares ELK COUNTY TO ALLEGHENY COUNTY (but not to philly). Why has Philly been left out again and again? Oh, because it saw a -decrease- that was very minor in terms of % of votes, but very massive in terms of overall numbers as stated above, which would throw these equations into the bin. And it's -still- based on "votes obtained per registered voter," which was still calculated in item 6 by EXPLICITLY EXCLUDING philly and the 11 "outlier counties" which would reflect an urban trend.

Spoiler: maybe more clear

Basically, he has 90 'deltas' which are the changes over this period of time from one measurement to the next. He is only concerned with behavior within the start and end data point, so I guess what I should moreso be saying is that he alleges these numbers regarding what the behavior should have looked like at his end point, the 7th; by his mark, Biden should have been up by ~300k more votes by that end-mark.

However, each of those 90 deltas is put into a bin of 10k. There's 10k, 20k, 30k, 40k, etc. A delta of 100 goes into the 10k bucket; a vote of 10,001 goes into the 20k bucket. There is no rounding down.

Each of these 10k-buckets has a frequency based on the number of the original 90 deltas that falls within them - so, for example, if 60 of the deltas were <=10k, then the frequency of the 0-10k mark would be 66.6%.

With this, he does 10,000 different trials of taking 90 values based on those frequencies. Each of those values is one of the 10k ranges and added to the 'total' for that trial. Normal distribution becomes the 'expected' result where the random polling most closely matches the frequency distribution, which would be the center of his graph at the end that compares all of the different totals from all of the different trials in terms of how many times those totals emerged from the trial.

But, again, because a delta of 1 single vote (or even 0) is counted instead as TEN-THOUSAND VOTES by his frequency thing, his numbers are horrendously inflated. Notwithstanding that this is not a great system by which to judge an election, given that the basic assertion of this "statistical analysis" is "votes should come in timewise in roughly the same amounts," ie that the mail-in ballots should share some similarities to the earlier in-person votes of the day.

So yes, the conclusions suggests he "should" have more, but only if you ignore the inflation and assume that the votes he receives throughout this period "should" be uniform despite the fact that we're excluding the deltas from -all of the other time periods in which votes were tallied-.
Furthermore, you could 'normalize' the 10k increments by instead counting each one as its midpoint (5k, 15k, etc)... but this again assumes regularity that these increments would have no reason to obey; you would be underestimating them if 75% were over 5k, but still overestimating if 75% were below it. If he did that, he would call it out (and probably just use them as separate buckets / frequencies), though.

You are the most autistic poster on this entire forum. And that is why you're such an asset! Good hustle, tiger, good hustle.

https://thedonald.win/p/11ROGqB0eO/1621-be-there/c/

Sunday duds


Just how long is this revolution going to take? I've got to be back in the yoke by Friday at the latest.


A Boer in America has lots of hope for the 6th. Sad to say that South Africa 2 is more likely than America Reinvigorated. Sampling some of his posting history on Reddit makes him seem like a decent guy, and also makes me despise Reddit with an even greater fervor. Reddit is truly the internet's anus.

 

[mickey339]

Spoiler: methodology of his first premise

It would take a while to go through the whole thing, and I'm trying to learn some shit I'll wind up actually use. But to look through that first argument, he basically is looking at the differences in vote values between observations for the Biden team (ie, how much it increased each time). He compiles a set of ALLLLLLLLLL the various vote increases, and then adds together random samples of all of these various increments together 10,000 different times by adding together... his 'frequency' breakdown for the number of vote distributions times ninety.

Basically, he does 10,000 runs of taking 90 different values and adding them together from Figure 2, which is measuring the number of increments of the total which fell into the ranges (0-10k, 10k-20k, etc). This completely disregards the individual vote total increments that happened - it instead rounds them, presumably up (IE a vote increase in an interval that -was- 500 is now weighted at 10k). The frequency with which he selects each of the values is based on their frequency in the total, so the 10k one is theoretically likely to be picked 60-some percent of each 'pick' in the set of 90.

The AAN documentary took this into account though. A LOT of data science terminology incoming.
Basically when they first tested the variability the results weren't clear and could have swayed either to Biden or Trump but after taking into account the analytical method of the time values (ie. the difference in how long the physical ballots and mail votes were open ) the p-coefficient were close to zero. That would mean a crushing victory to big T.

Based on those 10,000 runs, he maps out the distribution of sum totals - IE, very few of the runs resulted in just 400k increases for Joe, and very many of them resulted in somewhere slightly below 900k increases. He uses this to conclude that the chance that Joe would land within 1% of Trump's total would be very, very unlikely.

Again. Time values.

Of course, as I said earlier, he would round up an interval of 100 extra votes to 10k extra votes, so that under-900k value is grossly inflated and as such the 'center' of his data is grossly inflated.

Not when exporting the xy function. Which ALL of the data scientists in the documentary did. This is basically the population sizes vs geographical extended of each county which HAS to be accounted for and when it is produces a roundup of over 90%.

But if he fucking LOST to Trump, by this model, it would be EVEN MORE UNLIKELY.
Any value that Biden landed at would in reality be very unlikely because IT'S AN ELECTION. This guy tries to fixate on the fact that he got so close to Trump, which surely must be abnormal! But then, what's normal...?

By this nimrod's metric, Biden's win would have been more "normal" if PA's voter turnout had been even higher. Assuming he'd need that extra 300k to be "normal," that means he'd need a 2% increased turnout of ALL PENNSYLVANIANS (not just VEP) in an election where PA already broke its record for voter turnout.

But this doesn't look into some of the intervals in breaking points (again, data science terms) of each ballot. When these numbers were removed, again, Trump got 67% of the voters. And that is even when the omega functions are multiplied with the barring values.



In short: literally every piece of data, no matter how you look at it points towards Trump winning by a landslide.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

You are the most autistic poster on this entire forum. And that is why you're such an asset! Good hustle, tiger, good hustle.

You have about twenty posts a day since your join date.

The AAN documentary took this into account though. A LOT of data science terminology incoming.
Basically when they first tested the variability the results weren't clear and could have swayed either to Biden or Trump but after taking into account the analytical method of the time values (ie. the difference in how long the physical ballots and mail votes were open ) the p-coefficient were close to zero. That would mean a crushing victory to big T.

"Data science terminology," huh? No, I don't think you read the paper or understand what a p-value is. The brief (and mostly wrong) interpretation of a p-value is that you can pretty reliably replicate the result. The fact that the original methodology could not suggests that the model they were using was fundamentally not suited for the data, so they changed the data by grossly inflating the deltas. The difference in how long the physical ballots and mail votes were open? This is already necessarily included in what a delta is - do you understand what a delta is?

They invented a trend, because the proper way to run this test would be take all 90 of those different deltas and pick 90 of them 'at random,' with each having a 1/90 probability. This wouldn't produce the trend they're looking for - which, by the way, the trend they're looking for suggests that a MORE cushing defeat to big T would have occurred in Pennsylvania.

Not when exporting the xy function. Which ALL of the data scientists in the documentary did. This is basically the population sizes vs geographical extended of each county which HAS to be accounted for and when it is produces a roundup of over 90%.

What function is the "xy" function? You see, a function is something that takes inputs and produces outputs related to them, in this case one that does something based on both the x and the y values. So what axis are we talking about? Population sizes versus geographical extent - how in the world would the literal size of a county be relevant in an election? You want to tell me that Alaska is a super important state?

The data is predicated literally on "what is the difference between two consecutive counts of Pennsylvania's vote total?" That's the data his conclusion is being based on - except he changes those values by rounding them up to the nearest 10k. Population sizes do not come into play in this analysis, nor does geography. Read the paper.

But this doesn't look into some of the intervals in breaking points (again, data science terms) of each ballot. When these numbers were removed, again, Trump got 67% of the voters. And that is even when the omega functions are multiplied with the barring values.



In short: literally every piece of data, no matter how you look at it points towards Trump winning by a landslide.

The... breaking points? Of a ballot? What the fuck are you talking about? Similar to the xy "function," you're suggesting a specific function on Ω without mentioning what it is supposed to be doing. I broke down how he cooked the inputs into every single "analysis" he ran, both in Part 1 and in Part 2 -- and running a function on cooked data without a plausible explanation for why you're doing it or what you hope to display is a sure sign that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Holy shit, you got bamboozled by someone saying "the fibnoculators applied here to the arrivaderci coefficient has sufficiently smorgorified our snibblebapples."

 

[Dr. Eggman]

Lots of daughters and wives will be inviting their black lovers over while daddy's away at the Trump march.

 

[Odnovo]

I do not understand the demoralization apes in this thread truly feel as if Biden had legitimately won. All elections are fraudulent, none of our votes matter, the 2016 election was also rigged because those who are really in charge felt that Hilary Clinton had too much baggage that would have uncovered too much and as such they had to go with Trump. Trump's problem was that he didn't always do what his handlers wanted him to do, and those who are really in charge weren't having it, so they gave the presidency to Biden, who will do whatever is told to him even though he has dementia. I also believe that unlike other presidents, Trump actually was genuinely trying to appease his voter base by doing them small favors, such as allowing the PATRIOT act to expire, de-escalating the wars in the Middle East and a stimulus check during the largely-Democratic induced economic collapse over a fake pandemic, although he was also doing it for himself. I feel that he really did want to eliminate corruption within the government (or at least did see it as a problem), but the thing is that the government is the swamp, and the swamp is not going to empty itself, at all.

There is no realistic way that Biden truly won (even though he'll have his office anyway) because if he had, you would be seeing other victories among the Democratic party, such as state legislatures flipped, governors installed, measures passed, and all sorts of bullshit. With the possible exception of Georgia, none of that happened, for the most part. The bellwether counties were also way off, which is unprecedented as far as I know. In addition, almost no one genuinely liked Biden, including many Leftists. From my own personal accounts, I never heard anyone say that they were going to switch from Trump to Biden; I only heard people talk about either not voting at all, or begrudgingly voting for Trump because Biden would ensure more lockdowns that would, in turn, literally destroy their livelihoods. Why would anyone vote for Biden if their jobs are on the line? Only those who wouldn't have to worry about losing a job in the first place, which is why the Democratic party is the party of both the privileged and their pet apes.

I get it; we are mad. For legitimate reasons, but we are mad. And whether or not there are shills here, there will always be those who will want to be on whatever side that "wins" and kick those who are currently down, because they are either insecure about being losers themselves, or they simply like doing that. Given the nature of this forum, you would find plenty of people like that here.

But don't lump us with Trump cultists or Qtards who are falling for an obvious government psy-op. A lot of us are not pissed that Trump lost (if it was between Trump and Sanders, and Sanders had won, I would still be afraid for the country, but I would nonetheless accept it because it would at least make sense), but that our government is corrupt as shit, and after decades or even centuries of shady shit behind the scenes, can do whatever it wants, when it wants, however it wants it, consequences be damned for the rest of us. And all of you niggers saying "LOL COPE YOU AREN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING CUCK", I don't know what to say about that, because you're really in the same situation as well, and if you really think that you are going to profit from Biden's win, then you're proof of a failing public school system.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

The AAN documentary took this into account though. A LOT of data science terminology incoming.
Basically when they first tested the variability the results weren't clear and could have swayed either to Biden or Trump but after taking into account the analytical method of the time values (ie. the difference in how long the physical ballots and mail votes were open ) the p-coefficient were close to zero. That would mean a crushing victory to big T.


Again. Time values.


Not when exporting the xy function. Which ALL of the data scientists in the documentary did. This is basically the population sizes vs geographical extended of each county which HAS to be accounted for and when it is produces a roundup of over 90%.



But this doesn't look into some of the intervals in breaking points (again, data science terms) of each ballot. When these numbers were removed, again, Trump got 67% of the voters. And that is even when the omega functions are multiplied with the barring values.



In short: literally every piece of data, no matter how you look at it points towards Trump winning by a landslide.

"It's totally legit, shame I can't show you anything, just take my word for it"
lolno.

What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - and up to this point, we don't even know if the documentary that you talk about even exists.

This just in: A documentary made in Uzbekistan has shown data by the Mossad analyzed by experts from the KGB that irrefutably proves that Biden is a leprechaun from outer space and Trump has actually won the election - no you may not see that awesome documentary, just blindly believe me.

I do not understand the demoralization apes in this thread truly feel as if Biden had legitimately won. All elections are fraudulent, none of our votes matter, the 2016 election was also rigged because those who are really in charge felt that Hilary Clinton had too much baggage that would have uncovered too much and as such they had to go with Trump. Trump's problem was that he didn't always do what his handlers wanted him to do, and those who are really in charge weren't having it, so they gave the presidency to Biden, who will do whatever is told to him even though he has dementia. I also believe that unlike other presidents, Trump actually was genuinely trying to appease his voter base by doing them small favors, such as allowing the PATRIOT act to expire, de-escalating the wars in the Middle East and a stimulus check during the largely-Democratic induced economic collapse over a fake pandemic, although he was also doing it for himself. I feel that he really did want to eliminate corruption within the government (or at least did see it as a problem), but the thing is that the government is the swamp, and the swamp is not going to empty itself, at all.

There is no realistic way that Biden truly won (even though he'll have his office anyway) because if he had, you would be seeing other victories among the Democratic party, such as state legislatures flipped, governors installed, measures passed, and all sorts of bullshit. With the possible exception of Georgia, none of that happened, for the most part. The bellwether counties were also way off, which is unprecedented as far as I know. In addition, almost no one genuinely liked Biden, including many Leftists. From my own personal accounts, I never heard anyone say that they were going to switch from Trump to Biden; I only heard people talk about either not voting at all, or begrudgingly voting for Trump because Biden would ensure more lockdowns that would, in turn, literally destroy their livelihoods. Why would anyone vote for Biden if their jobs are on the line? Only those who wouldn't have to worry about losing a job in the first place, which is why the Democratic party is the party of both the privileged and their pet apes.

I get it; we are mad. For legitimate reasons, but we are mad. And whether or not there are shills here, there will always be those who will want to be on whatever side that "wins" and kick those who are currently down, because they are either insecure about being losers themselves, or they simply like doing that. Given the nature of this forum, you would find plenty of people like that here.

But don't lump us with Trump cultists or Qtards who are falling for an obvious government psy-op. A lot of us are not pissed that Trump lost (if it was between Trump and Sanders, and Sanders had won, I would still be afraid for the country, but I would nonetheless accept it because it would at least make sense), but that our government is corrupt as shit, and after decades or even centuries of shady shit behind the scenes, can do whatever it wants, when it wants, however it wants it, consequences be damned for the rest of us. And all of you niggers saying "LOL COPE YOU AREN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING CUCK", I don't know what to say about that, because you're really in the same situation as well, and if you really think that you are going to profit from Biden's win, then you're proof of a failing public school system.

Quite amazing. I think it's possible to win Trumpist-bullshit-bingo with that paranoid ramble of a first paragraph alone.

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

Daughters and wives will be inviting their black lovers over while daddy's away at the Trump march.

Hey, some of those wives will be representing their lovers at the march too

 

[Dr. Eggman]

Hey, some of those wives will be representing their lovers at the march too
View attachment 1825922

The MAGApede's answer to the pussyhat.

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

It's the MAGA's answer to the pussyhat.

The virgin pussyhat vs the chad facedick

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

I really hope the Q boomers live up to 1/10th their promising

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I do not understand the demoralization apes in this thread truly feel as if Biden had legitimately won. All elections are fraudulent, none of our votes matter, the 2016 election was also rigged because those who are really in charge felt that Hilary Clinton had too much baggage that would have uncovered too much and as such they had to go with Trump. Trump's problem was that he didn't always do what his handlers wanted him to do, and those who are really in charge weren't having it, so they gave the presidency to Biden, who will do whatever is told to him even though he has dementia. I also believe that unlike other presidents, Trump actually was genuinely trying to appease his voter base by doing them small favors, such as allowing the PATRIOT act to expire, de-escalating the wars in the Middle East and a stimulus check during the largely-Democratic induced economic collapse over a fake pandemic, although he was also doing it for himself. I feel that he really did want to eliminate corruption within the government (or at least did see it as a problem), but the thing is that the government is the swamp, and the swamp is not going to empty itself, at all.

Yeah, I was also 14 once, great insight.

There is no realistic way that Biden truly won (even though he'll have his office anyway) because if he had, you would be seeing other victories among the Democratic party, such as state legislatures flipped, governors installed, measures passed, and all sorts of bullshit. With the possible exception of Georgia, none of that happened, for the most part. The bellwether counties were also way off, which is unprecedented as far as I know. In addition, almost no one genuinely liked Biden, including many Leftists. From my own personal accounts, I never heard anyone say that they were going to switch from Trump to Biden; I only heard people talk about either not voting at all, or begrudgingly voting for Trump because Biden would ensure more lockdowns that would, in turn, literally destroy their livelihoods. Why would anyone vote for Biden if their jobs are on the line? Only those who wouldn't have to worry about losing a job in the first place, which is why the Democratic party is the party of both the privileged and their pet apes.

Or Trump is uniquely unpopular even among people who otherwise -still- dislike the democrats, who are either independents or RINOs.
You do get that senators and governors aren't up every four years, either, right? This can lead to you having bad hands; even if the dems lose the georgia elections, they'll have performed as-expected for their senate lineup. The losses in the house are the more remarkable ones, which has been pretty clearly blamed on the retardation of progressive messaging. Governorships are local concerns and almost totally removed from the national dialogue or interest, particularly that of the president. In 2012, the dems -lost- a governorship net.

Are you seriously going to use your anecdotal experience as "PROOF?" By that metric, anyone who lived in a city should have expected Trump to get 20% of the vote, and yet it's wholly possible to not be a tard and to take into account that the world is more than the horizon. Oh, to be young again.

By the way, who'd rural appalachia vote for? What's the rate of pre-coof welfare there, eh?

But don't lump us with Trump cultists or Qtards who are falling for an obvious government psy-op. A lot of us are not pissed that Trump lost (if it was between Trump and Sanders, and Sanders had won, I would still be afraid for the country, but I would nonetheless accept it because it would at least make sense), but that our government is corrupt as shit, and after decades or even centuries of shady shit behind the scenes, can do whatever it wants, when it wants, however it wants it, consequences be damned for the rest of us. And all of you niggers saying "LOL COPE YOU AREN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING CUCK", I don't know what to say about that, because you're really in the same situation as well, and if you really think that you are going to profit from Biden's win, then you're proof of a failing public school system.

You actively want to overturn the results of an election that has been proven, far above any election certainly in this century, to be beyond reproach. (And in the process, you've jettisoned legitimate concerns about the integrity of mail-in processes and the archaic and chaotic nature of the US electoral process on the whole.) You're actively advocating for the disenfranchisement of millions upon millions of voters because of your emotions and some conjecture, while champions of your cause have started spouting about how they're going to agitate a civil war or that they're jesus 2.0. You're doomering and going 'oh woe is me, WOE IS ME, POLITICS IS CORRUPT' and acting like this is some great revelation to anyone but yourself.

Bruh, you're indoctrinated. You belong right in there with the cultists and the qtards, because your generation is the only thing setting you apart.

But there's still hope for someone as young as you - maybe read those posts where everyone here explains that we aren't necessarily fans of Biden (there's dozens of them! dozens!) and you're strawmanning like a maniac because you literally cannot comprehend your guy losing in an election.

 

[Terrorist]

Qanon pride parade that won’t do anything but line the pockets of the fags running it.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Trump is a very smart and competent man.

That's why he has conversations like this in person, with no recording devices around

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1345731043861659650

https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1345753643593687040

Ohhhh... wait. He didn't

At another point, Trump claimed that votes were scanned three times: “Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ‘em in three times.”

Raffensperger responded: “Mr. President, they did not. We did an audit of that and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times.”

Trump sounded at turns confused and meandering. At one point, he referred to Kemp as “George.” He tossed out several different figures for Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia and referred to the Senate runoff, which is Tuesday, as happening “tomorrow” and “Monday.”

His desperation was perhaps most pronounced during an exchange with Germany, Raffensperger’s general counsel, in which he openly begged for validation.

Trump: “Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? Because is what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal.
Germany responded: “No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.”
Trump: “But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?”
Germany: “No.”
Trump: “Are you sure? Ryan?”
Germany: “I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.”
It was clear from the call that Trump has surrounded himself with aides who have fed his false perceptions that the election was stolen. When he claimed that more than 5,000 ballots were cast in Georgia in the name of dead people, Raffensperger responded forcefully: “The actual number was two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted.”...

Yet Trump also recognized that he was failing to persuade Raffensperger or Germany of anything, saying toward the end, “I know this phone call is going nowhere.”

But he continued to make his case in repetitive fashion, until finally, after more than an hour, Raffensperger put an end to the conversation: “Thank you, President Trump, for your time.”

https://archive.vn/hRNMb