Not purposefully. Can you give me an example? — NOS4A2

Well, you said this:

I know they’re going to win the election. The rigging and cheating has already begun. Not a single person has voted for Harris and she’s already the nominee. — NOS4A2

What rigging and cheating?

They threatened Biden to pull out of the race when they knew he was losing and replaced him with a candidate who did not even get a single vote.

Where is the rigging and cheating? Those words imply rules that have been broken. There's no cheating.

Those words do not imply rules have been broken. You’re starting to spread disinfo now.

Those words do not imply rules have been broken. You’re starting to spread disinfo now. — NOS4A2

To rig:
"Manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person."

To cheat:
"act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage"

So we need some fraud, some dishonesty, or unfair dealings. It appears none of that exists.

Those words do not imply rules have been broken. You’re starting to spread disinfo now. — NOS4A2

"Cheating" does not imply rules have been broken? Please. You can troll better than that.

So we need some fraud, some dishonesty, or unfair dealings. It appears none of that exists.

It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did.

"Cheating" does not imply rules have been broken? Please. You can troll better than that.

Uh oh, RogueAI appears with his valuable insight.

Further, [Durham] 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 — NOS4A2

Durham makes no allegation of a "two-tiered" system. What he said was this:

Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia.

This was the most damning thing Durham had to say about the matter: there was POTENTIALLY some confirmation bias involved. At the time at which these Russian memos were obtained, it had already been established that Russia was working to help Trump and hurt Clinton. This background knowledge would surely have influenced the investigation. Does the DOJ always follow up 100% of leads, irrespective of their deemed credibility? I doubt it.

Much of the information Steele provided was confirmed, most importantly - the basic fact of who Russia was trying to help and who to hurt. Contrast this with the Russian memos: there has been no evidence of any kind to corroborate any of their information. Durham tried to find corroboration, but found not one whisper of it. Durham's entire tirade is based on his opinion that the Russian memos (which we now know with certainty were disinformation) should have been treated as equally credible to the Steele memos. IOW, he laments the fact that investigators failed to waste their time pursuing it! The course the investigation actually took was fruitful, in spite of the fact that errors were made along the way.

Also consider the implications of the supposed "Clinton Plan": it would have meant that the Campaign was pushing some disinformation about Trump. I admit that I would find this appalling, but a Trump supporter - who embraces and repeats Trump's frequent lies, would be hypocritical to do so.

Read about it in this New York Times article! Let me guess, unnamed sources, current and former officials, — NOS4A2

Genetic fallacy. The Times article merely fills in a bit of context about the Russian disinformation memos:

"The [Russian] memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.

Durham says nothing that contradicts the above. He wrote, "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication." That's not a lot of daylight between his comment and the NYTimes quote: he's tacitly admitting that it could be fabrication. It IS clear that Durham sought corroborating evidence for the allegation, but came up with nothing. Even if one chooses to believe the FBI committed an error in failing to follow up, it's clear that this possible error wouldn't have made a bit of difference - it would merely proven to be a waste of resources.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about why Trump obstructed the investigation. I fully realize you don't care that he did, but how would you defend it to someone who's open-minded? Imagine some other politician being investigated by the FBI, who took steps to silence witnesses - don't you think that would be a major scandal if it came out?

I need to also respond to this:

It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did. — NOS4A2

As usual, you're repeating Trump-campaign propoganda.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed. If Democrats are unhappy with the way it played out (or Republicans fear this could happen to them) they can push to change the rules (as was done with the prior role of superdelegates). There aren't many Democrats who are upset with the result, though - despite so many Republicans trying to convince them that they should be.

It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did. — NOS4A2

It would be unfair if the Republican party wasn't capable of doing exactly the same thing if they so chose. Since the parties are following the same rules, it's fair.

It would be unfair if the Republican party wasn't capable of doing exactly the same thing if they so chose. Since the parties are following the same rules, it's fair.

Do you think it’s fair to the millions who voted for Biden in the primaries?

Do you think it’s fair to lie about Biden’s abilities up until the moment they couldn’t lie about it any more?

Do you think it’s fair to the millions who voted for Biden in the primaries? — NOS4A2

So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct?

Do you think it’s fair to lie about Biden’s abilities up until the moment they couldn’t lie about it any more? — NOS4A2

Who lied, and about what? Give us facts we can check.

So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct?

That’s wrong. The question at the end of the sentance indicates I was asking you a question.

Who lied, and about what? Give us facts we can check.

That’s wrong. The question at the end of the sentance indicates I was asking you a question. — NOS4A2

So you have no evidence of unfair practices, rigging, or cheating. Why did you assert it? Did you dream that there was some cheating?

Who lied, and about what? Give us facts we can check.

He probably was sharp when Schumer said that. 80 y.o. dudes don't go into dementia like falling off a cliff. Even those closest to him might just suspect at first.

So you have no evidence of unfair practices, rigging, or cheating. Why did you assert it? Did you dream that there was some cheating?

I already stated why so think it was unfair. Do you think it’s fair to the millions who voted for Biden in the primaries? Do you think it was fair to lie about his condition throughout his presidency, past the primaries, until 3 months before the election? Do you think it is fair that they threatened him to drop out, only when it was clear he would lose?

He probably was sharp when Schumer said that. 80 y.o. dudes don't go into dementia like falling off a cliff. Even those closest to him might just suspect at first.

Schumer said it 5 months ago after the Hur report came out questioning Biden’s mental competence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4465074-schumer-biden-mental-acuity-is-great/

I already stated why so think it was unfair. — NOS4A2

Ok, I missed it. Tell me again why you think there was cheating.

So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct? — frank

The Trumpsters kvetch but its Meshuggeneh. (That is about the limit of my Yiddish)

Anyone who is honest and paying attention knows that 1) unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary an incumbent president will be the nominee, 2) Biden's performance during the debate is compelling reason to have him step down. Not simply because he was likely to loose but because there is substantive reasons to question whether he is fit and able to be president for the next four years. 3) It is Trumpian conjecture that the primary voters feel that they have been treated unfairly. 4) There is good evidence that Harris enjoys greater voter approval that Biden did before stepping down. Most likely, many primary voters approve of the change. 5) The Trumpsters are pretending that it is a matter of fairness, but the only thing that they really think is unfair is that they spent a lot of time, effort, and money preparing to run against Biden.6) They question Biben's competency and wanted to make it a major campaign issue, but when after the debate more and more Democrats raised concerns and acted on it they cry foul.

Also consider the implications of the supposed "Clinton Plan": it would have meant that the Campaign was pushing some disinformation about Trump. I admit that I would find this appalling, but a Trump supporter - who embraces and repeats Trump's frequent lies, would be hypocritical to do so.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about why Trump obstructed the investigation. I fully realize you don't care that he did, but how would you defend it to someone who's open-minded? Imagine some other politician being investigated by the FBI, who took steps to silence witnesses - don't you think that would be a major scandal if it came out?

If he did obstruct the investigation, it was because it was an unjust investigation. Obstruction of justice is wrong, Obstruction of injustice is laudable.

As usual, you're repeating Trump-campaign propoganda.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed. If Democrats are unhappy with the way it played out (or Republicans fear this could happen to them) they can push to change the rules (as was done with the prior role of superdelegates). There aren't many Democrats who are upset with the result, though - despite so many Republicans trying to convince them that they should be.

I can repeat Biden campaign propaganda and get the same result. In a letter to Democrats:

“We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,000 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin.

This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared so badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.

Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?

I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.“

https://apnews.com/article/biden-letter-democrats-4562a72aa3a891e55261617d0d494d00

So as usual you’re spouting DNC and big donor propaganda.

The Trumpsters are pretending that it is a matter of fairness — Fooloso4

Maybe. NOS is really good at evasion. I'm trying to learn how he does it so I can do it. The first step is to reject something obvious, like the meaning of "rigging.". Then when your opponent hands you a definition of the word, you pick up something extraneous in the definition. The goal is to drag the victim into the weeds, puzzling over stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue. Then you ask them a question about what they think. "Do you think it's fair that cats are so dependent on humans? I mean, do you?"

Cool stuff.

NOS is really good at evasion. — frank

Who?

He has no handlers because he cannot be handled. He cannot even control himself. — Fooloso4

I've been reading that he has two campaign managers, Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, who have been trying to domesticate him and get him to stick to talking points. They were behind all the talk about the new, 'unifying' Trump after the NDE, and were also behind the pushback against Project 2025. But, as some commentator said, there's Teleprompter Trump and then there's Truth Social Trump, and the latter is the real one, and impossible to corral.

That’s odd because you still haven’t answered the question I asked. Bad faith can only get you so far.

there's Teleprompter Trump and then there's Truth Social Trump, — Wayfarer

An apt distinction.

Bad faith can only get you so far. — NOS4A2

Ain't that the truth?

Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? — NOS4A2

I'm pretty confident that for 99% of the people who voted for Biden in the primaries, the answer is "yes, actually".

It's just obvious nobody cares, and why should they? Biden had no serious opponents and very few people were invested in the outcome. Trying to make an issue out of this topic seems 100% useless from the perspective of Trumps campaign. Noone is going to be dissuaded from voting for the democratic candidate because they believe Biden was treated unfairly.

Swing voters with no party affiliation have even less reason to care about the "fairness" of the democratic primary. It seems to me it's more likely that complaining about the selection will make Trump look like a sore loser.

I’m sure that’s true, especially if one prefers expediency and power-grubbing over principle. So long as others recognize the hypocritical violations of their core principles, as Biden himself did, I’m fine with it. It’s enough for me that they reveal themselves for the frauds they are.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of.

If he did obstruct the investigation, it was because it was an unjust investigation. Obstruction of justice is wrong, Obstruction of injustice is laudable. — NOS4A2

That's laughable. Are all investigations unjust when hindsight shows the person was innocent? In this case, there's not even a rational basis to claim Trump was proven innocent - because Trump's obstruction was successful: who knows what Manafort may have revealed had he not been promised a pardon? And no, I'm not insisting Trump conspired with Russia, but it would be false to claim he was proven innocent. His obstruction undermined the investigation and thus tainted the conclusion. If there weren't so many bigger crimes by Trump, it would be a worthwhile campaign issue for Dems.

Regarding the investigation, there was a great deal of reason to be suspicious, and Trump's behavior (including the obstruction) is not the least of it. An innocent statesman would have merely expressed his confidence that the investigative process would prove his innocence. Instead, Trump's childish tirades have led to his cult members losing trust in the justice system. Despite errors being made during the investigation, they did not lead to inventing evidence or bringing false charges. That is the best evidence that the system works (setting aside the obstruction, which was clearly criminal).

I already knew you applauded Trump's illegal obstruction, and I expect you wouldn't care if Trump had conspired with Russia, either. I asked you how would justify it to an open-minded person. You obviously couldn't.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed.

as usual you’re spouting DNC and big donor propaganda. — NOS4A2

I had neither heard nor read Biden's statement. I stated something I believe to be factual based on m own analysis: the process was followed, no rules were broken. You didn't dispute that.

Biden had a perfect right to drop out, and others had a right to talk him into it. I would have accepted an open convention, had that occurred, but what I consider what occurred a better outcome because the prime objective was to defeat Trump - not to nominate the most popular loser.

I do generally wish incumbents weren't always the default candidate. Real choices would have been great, but there really weren't any - which actually makes the primary process meaningless when there's an incumbent. Since the primaries didn't offer a real choice, it doesn't make sense to suggest my will as a voter was ignored.

I am curious: since you so value democratic principles, are you in favor of eliminating the electoral college?

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of.

That’s the only thing you can say and it’s taken place of your arguments. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. But you have nothing to dispute it.

That's laughable. Are all investigations unjust when hindsight shows the person was innocent? In this case, there's not even a rational basis to claim Trump was proven innocent - because Trump's obstruction was successful

What obstruction of justice? You’re just mad because an innocent man protested a sham investigation, and now you wish he had been charged for it. Sorry, pal, no charges, no obstruction, so go find some more deep state propaganda to keep the conspiracy theory going.

I had neither heard nor read Biden's statement. I stated something I believe to be factual based on m own analysis: the process was followed, no rules were broken. You didn't dispute that.

That’s because you’re uninformed. The core principles were violated, just as Biden said. Remember that when they try to scare you about “threats to democracy”.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of. — Relativist

That’s the only thing you can say and it’s taken place of your arguments. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. But you have nothing to dispute it. — NOS4A2

I believe I've reviewed the facts with you before, but nevertheless I'll go over it again.

The law firm of Perkins-Coie represented the 2016 Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Marc Elias, a partner of at the firm personally hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump . Fusions research on Trump was already in progress, funded by GOP opponents).
Fusion’s research consisted of digging through court filings from Trump’s numerous lawsuits and through newspaper reports.

From their research, they saw a suspicious pattern of associations with Russians. This led Fusion to hire Steele to investigate further. Fusion told Elias only that they had hired someone from outside the US to collect intelligence about Trump’s ties to Russia. Elias gave no direction to the activities, and had no idea who was doing it. As the only conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign, this shows that there was no direct connection between this intelligence collection and the campaign. The work was ultimately funded by the campaign, but there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing (or direction) by anyone associated with the campaign (including Elias). Perkins-Coie paid Steele, and passed the charges along to the Clinton campaign – which incorrectly booked these costs as legal fees (based on the fees being incurred by the law firm – although it should have been identified as opposition research).

So...sure, they paid for it, but they had no idea they were paying for faulty intelligence. Furthermore, the campaign never used Steele's intelligence in their campaign. So the "propoganda I was referring to was the falsehood that the Clinton campaign wanted to make stuff up about Trump and that they used this in the campaign. That is categorically false.

So the "propoganda I was referring to was the falsehood that the Clinton campaign wanted to make stuff up about Trump and that they used this in the campaign. That is categorically false.

But they did.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi