Why did his handlers even let him appear? — Wayfarer

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him.

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

Would any of these things even matter to the core followers of his cult? The only ones who might be swayed seems to be regular swing-voters who're on the low spectrum of education. All the people who are actually affected by political propaganda and demagogue speeches. But since the republicans found a cult that can feed them votes, they basically have a giant bag of votes that will never change, regardless if Trump at a rally, pulls off his meat face to be revealed to be a malicious alien.

Would any of these things even matter to the core followers of his cult? — Christoffer

Nothing matters to his cult.

It's the moderates and independents that he's losing.

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

No, I think he defies them. Wouldn’t be surprised to see them walk out.

It's the moderates and independents that he's losing. — Michael

But then the question is, if they didn't understand how he's unfit for presidency before, would any of the current problems matter to them? Being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office, so what's the parameters that actually matter to these people who aren't directly in the cult?

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

I suspect Biden and Trump share the same staff.

But then the question is, if they didn't understand how he's unfit for presidency before, would any of the current problems matter to them? Being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office, so what's the parameters that actually matter to these people who aren't directly in the cult?

As a cult member myself, being ruled guilty by a corrupt, anti-Trump, Democrat Judge, whose daughter raked in millions from the Biden and Harris campaign, is a badge of honor. Non-cult members are seeing that too and they’re joining in droves.

“A black job is anybody that has a job.” — Donald Trump

As a cult member myself, being ruled guilty by a corrupt, anti-Trump, Democrat Judge, whose daughter raked in millions from the Biden and Harris campaign, is a badge of honor. Non-cult members are seeing that too and they’re joining in droves. — NOS4A2

Having conspiracy theories invalidates your input's value in this discussion. Risking an ad hominem, you're mostly a laughing stock in this discussion. I'm not interested in discussing Trump with you so I'll just ignore any future writing that isn't a proper argument with actual substance.

I gave you my opinion, but since you cannot find what’s wrong in it, you fall back on what you know best.

If you fear the facts and resort to imagination, and seek only comments that validate what amounts to propaganda-driven gossip, you’re not fit for discussing anything. None of that is going to stop me from pointing out your failures.

If you fear the facts and resort to imagination, and seek only comments that validate what amounts to propaganda-driven gossip, you’re not fit for discussing anything. None of that is going to stop me from pointing out your failures. — NOS4A2

You don't provide facts in the way in support of your conclusions. You are doing the same as any other conspiracy theoris; connecting dots you want to connect between stuff that you deem to support those dots. It's impossible to deconstruct your arguments or have a proper discussion with you, as seen with how people try to do with you, because you're basically using all fallacies and biases known to man in order to just slither your way past what everyone says. I, and the others, have no problem discussing with people of opposite opinions, but such ability relies on the two interlocutors able to handle facts and arguments with epistemological responsibility. There's no point in discussing this with you because you don't care about such scrutiny.

I was simply answering your question, particularly regarding “being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office”. Or were you just wondering what members of your own cult were thinking?

You couldn’t dispute anything I wrote, resorting to ad hominem by your own admission, then lecture me about “epistemological responsibility”.

Re: DonOLD The Clown

He was always of White heritage, and he was only promoting White heritage. I didn't know he was Orange until a number of years ago, when he happened to turn Orange, and now he wants to be known as Orange. So I don't know, is he White or is he Orange? I think somebody should look into that.

:smirk:

The whole charade was the fruit of a poisoned tree, none of which should have went past a preliminary investigation, but all of which had been used against just one political campaign. — NOS4A2

Yes, Crossfire Hurricane led to Mueller. And despite the fact that you consider the investigation inappropriate because of mistakes made on 2 FISA warrants, the investigation was warranted by the evidence. Russia had stolen DNC emails, and Papadopoulos knew about it before it was released: a crime was committed, and a Trump advisor had knowledge of it. More evidence developed after that. Trump behaved suspiciously throughout the Mueller investigation - and that added more reason to investigate, irrespective of what reasons or excuses one makes for that behavior.

Durham doesn't even deny the investigation was warranted, he just opined it should have started as a "preliminary investigation", which would have changed nothing.

Like Trump, you are irrationally claiming the investigation tainted by the mistakes that were made, as an excuse to ignore what it exposed: Russian involvement (Trump STILL hasn't acknowledged this fact), cooperation with Russia by Trump staff, Trump's willingness to accept dirt on his opponent that was obtained illegally by a foreign government, and he was eager to hear what additional dirt they could provide (the infamous Trump Tower meeting) and to hear what they wanted in return. This happened. A crime wasn't committed only because Russia didn't actually have any new dirt to offer.

Perhaps you don’t know, or at least won’t mention, that “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server. — NOS4A2

I alluded to this in my prior post: the "intelligence" was from Russian intelligence! It was part of their misinformation to convince people they weren't involved. There was no evidence this occurred other than this Russian fabrication! No one took it seriously for that reason.Durham and Barr flew around the world to try and get more evidence of it, but failed - because there was nothing. Read about it in this NY Times Article

So independent was it that the incompetent and biased investigators on the failed Crossfire Hurricane investigation were simply moved to the office of the Special Counsel. — NOS4A2

You're referring specifically to Peter Strzok, and repeating Trump's slur. Strzok didn't like Trump. So what? The IG assessed Strzok's work and found no evidence of inappropriate actions. He was removed from the Mueller investigation because of the appearance of impropriety that resulted from the release of his private text messages (Strzok recently settled a lawsuit about his treatment). Durham judged that there was "confirmation bias" in the investigation, but that is debatable (investigators often follow their instincts). Durham's own confirmation bias is obvious. His judgement that a "preliminary investigation" should have been opened was made at the time the IGs report was issued, not after his investigation was concluded.
.
Serious question: if he had nothing to hide, why did Trump obstruct the investigation (which was a crime, btw) and why didn't he answer all the questions he was asked?

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

It is kinda odd that the Trump campaign and the GOP more generally don't seem to have a ready-made strategy against a Harris campaign. Obviously you can't stop Trump from just throwing random bullshit out there, but that could at least be framed by consistent messaging.

I kinda expected them to go all in on blaming her for their favourite topic - the border crisis - and just treating her as a hapless nobody with no qualifications.

I kinda expected them to go all in on blaming her for their favourite topic - the border crisis — Echarmion

They're trying, but "Harris was never given the portfolio of border czar ... instead, Biden asked Harris to lead diplomatic efforts to reduce poverty, violence and corruption in Central America's Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, as well as engage with Mexico on the issue."

... and just treating her as a hapless nobody with no qualifications. — Echarmion

She's the Vice President, a former Senator, and the former Attorney General of California, so that won't work.

I mean it's not like they're going to let the facts stop then. Anecdotally, many people don't seem to know much about Harris' previous career, which is a chance for both sides to try and cement a certain framing. So far the Republicans appear to be doing a rather bad job.

So far the Republicans appear to be doing a rather bad job. — Echarmion

Well that's just a truism.

You couldn’t dispute anything I wrote, resorting to ad hominem by your own admission, then lecture me about “epistemological responsibility”. — NOS4A2

You are making wild conjecture through right-wing bias, with no actual evidence of corruption against Trump. Since there are actual evidence presented for what Trump has done and which was the foundation for the court rulings, you have to provide an extraordinary body of evidence for your counter claims to supersede this. But what you're doing is rather make wild conjecture through an emotional response to everything. This lack of epistemic responsibility is further proven by how you look at the supreme court dismissal of Trump's guilt in a positive light, an act that should be equally treated as a line of corruption, this time in Trump's favor. The treatment you make of each event that's happened just underscores how any event that's favorable to Trump gets treated as a win in your posts, but anything even remotely in his disfavor gets a rant about how the democrats are corrupted. Your right-wing bias shines brighter than a neutron star, and it absolutely makes you fail epistemic responsibility. This is not an ad hominem, this is an analysis of your ability to stay neutral in analysis of what's going on about Trump. The reason why most of us are in a position against Trump is because it's been proven so many times over how unfit he is for presidency, and it's this sum of all parts that produce a consensus on the matter. If anyone tries to dispute this, then they need extraordinary evidence and rational reasoning to support such defense claims. So far, you've contributed nothing of the sort.

I don't really care what you think it exposed because all of it turned out to be a big nothing-burger. And I'm glad I saw those emails.

But no, Durham didn't just opine it should have started as a preliminary investigation.

He said they started a full investigation based on flimsy evidence. They did so "without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information", "without any significant review of its own intelligence databases", "without any collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities", "without interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received" or "without using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence". "Had it done so," writes Durham, "the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials". If you have any reason to dispute this, let me know.

Further, he writes of the two-tiered system. He writes: “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Comey and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action.”

Everyone knew of intelligence regarding the Clinton plan to tie Trump to Russians. The CIA knew, Obama knew, Biden knew, Comey knew, Strzok and McCabe knew. They let it happen.

I alluded to this in my prior post: the "intelligence" was from Russian intelligence! It was part of their misinformation to convince people they weren't involved. There was no evidence this occurred other than this Russian fabrication! No one took it seriously for that reason.Durham and Barr flew around the world to try and get more evidence of it, but failed - because there was nothing. Read about it in this NY Times Article

Read about it in this New York Times article! Let me guess, unnamed sources, current and former officials, like Adam Schiff or Hilary Clinton? Former officials like Comey, Strzok, and McCabe? Let me guess, Russian disinfo? Like Hunter’s laptop? This is what it has come to!

It's a complete lie. The Durham report goes over the specifics with named officials, where the Clinton intel went, where it came from, who had it, who knew about it, and what they did in response to it. No one interviewed mentions your claim as the reason they didn’t take it seriously. Brennan said he didn't even remember it. And against your baseless claim, no one in the IC knew the accuracy of the information. Despite knowing that they were using Clinton-funded dirt as their evidence, and that there was intel suggesting it might be a Clinton ploy, they didn't even stop to investigate. There is no evidence of even a cursory glance, "preliminary investigation", let alone a full blown investigation by Crossfire Hurricane, like the one premised on a dodgy dossier and some flimsy tip from an Australian ambassador, all of which turned up absolute garbage.

What we have is hindsight and evidence. We not only have the plan, the bad and biased actors, and the Clinton-funded dossier which lead the FBI, DOJ, and the media on a wild goose chase, we have the fact that it all played out on the world stage. They got played, the media got played, you got played.

Why did his handlers even let him appear? — Wayfarer

He has no handlers because he cannot be handled. He cannot even control himself.

His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that.

The judge’s daughter owns a company that helps Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win elections. The judge donated to democrats against ethics code. The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. The prosecutor was Biden’s top 3rd man in the Department of Justice. Are you just ignorant of all these things?

The judge’s daughter owns a company that helps Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win elections. The judge donated to democrats against ethics code. The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. The prosecutor was Biden’s top 3rd man in the Department of Justice. Are you just ignorant of all these things? — NOS4A2

This is the effect of misinformation: you post so much stuff that's obviously wrong that I don't make any assessment of your posts. Does freedom of speech require this sacrifice? That your communication approaches meaninglessness because its truth is dubious? I'm just asking.

What have I posted that is wrong?

What have I posted that is wrong? — NOS4A2

You do it all the time. I thought you were doing it on purpose. No?

Like what, for example?

Like what, for example? — NOS4A2

So you're saying you never intentionally post stuff that's wrong? You'd have to be delusional if that's true. C'mon.

Not purposefully. Can you give me an example?

His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that. — frank

This tells us something about him and his campaign. Their bad judgment is one thing. Trump's wild overestimation of his abilities to win people over is quite another. He had some success with the Art of the Schmooze in his business dealings, at least until his reputation caught up with him; but his attempt to dominate a room of journalists as if they must be put in their place and lying to them, shows how out of touch he is. No doubt the Trumpsters will applaud, but they are not the people he wants to convince.