Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

I wouldn't waste time on this "Jermain." His last posting cycle was almost ten years ago. It ended predictably.

[Breccia]

I wouldn't waste time on this "Jermain." His last posting cycle was almost ten years ago. It ended predictably.

I agree, he must be terrified his man Trump is going to prison.

On topic -- if that's okay with everyone? -- the DWAC vote is on the way so naturally other sources are discussing it. Axios brings up two points I don't think we've discussed.

One, Truth Social has been emailing its users, asking them to support the merger.

"Wait, they get a vote?"

Only if they own the DWAC stock. This appears to be a Trump-style PR campaign. Trump must be really worried the deal is going to fall through -- which he should be, the site has no staff, no infrastructure, and nobody goes there. It's a bad buy.

And two,

Truth Social has never disclosed its financials, including loans or how much Trump himself invested, so it's unclear how long the company could remain financially viable were the DWAC merger to fail.

There's a reason you don't show your prospective buyers your books. It's because they suck.

Navarro's contempt trial is about to begin as well. Like Meadows, Navarro is claiming he is protected by Executive Time. We'll see how long that lasts, but, by saying "Trump made me do it" on the record, he's making the RICO case stronger still. Meadows hasn't exactly been helping Trump much, either.

Meadows made clear in his own testimony at last week’s hearing that Trump viewed the false electors as a significant part of his strategy to remain in power. He said he sent an email pushing the campaign to assemble those slates because he feared a tongue-lashing from Trump.

“What I didn’t want to happen was for the campaign to prevail in court action and not have this” lined up, he said.

“Why?” prosecutor Anna Cross asked him.

“Because I knew I’d be yelled at by the president of the United States,” he said.

I have to admit, "I engaged in treason against the United States, because Trump might have called me mean names" is not a defense I expected to see raised. Does kind of fit the brand, tho.

[Jermain]

By the way, the Venn diagram of a "legally cast vote" and a "cureable ballot" is a single circle. Most states t hat allow ballot curing have voting process rules that REQUIRE that if a ballot is rejected due to a "cureable" fault that the voter be contacted and given a timely window in which to have their ballot cured.

The second sentence annihilates the first. It can't be a single circle if some states don't allow curing.

[Kaleredar]

The second sentence annihilates the first. It can't be a single circle if some states don't allow curing.

So you seem to think ballot curing is “rigging.”

[Shadowferal]

So you seem to think ballot curing is “rigging.”

You really don't want to feed this...
His arguments are classic libertarian shit. He posts rubbish while demanding substance from those that respond, which he then derides and ridicules and dismisses no matter the truth of substance.

I'm convinced that libertarians prefer suicide to any admission that they are just wrong on every level. So any arguments with them is an immense waste of time.

[Jermain]

So you seem to think ballot curing is “rigging.”

It would also be rigging if it was taken away now, among other novel practices.

[DarkTZeratul]

Which party is advantaged by the rules?

Making it easier for people to vote advantages everyone. If the people for whom it became easier to vote are overwhelmingly of one party, then the problem was that they were selectively disadvantaged in the first place.

[PosPosPos]

It would also be rigging if it was taken away now, among other novel practices.

So, a whole lot of bad-faith, self-serving nonsense by you - according to you it's rigging if they rig and it's still rigging if they don't rig, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Everything has to fit your wild, conspiracy-ridden narrative you have constructed based out of absolutely nothing.

[Breccia]

DWAC punts, gives second 12-month extension.

Well, we'll see how that works out. During those 12 months, they will continue to bleed money and hope Trump doesn't return to Twitter during the actual election season.

It'll be an interesting few days in court. Trump's most iconic supporters, the Proud Boys, are being sentenced. Every single one of the Georgia co-conspirators plead not guilty by mail, jury sleection has begun in Navarro's contempt case, and the NY AG is asking for sanctions against Trump's lawyers because, as she proves in her latest court filing, they've made the same motion five times now. Incidentally, the judge has already called that repeated filing nearly frivolous the second time they tried it, suggesting that sanctions will, in fact, happen.

[Odinfrost]

Glad to see that "stall stall stall" isn't working in one case. Let's hope it will be the same in the others

[Gigantique]

One would think that if one case bulldozes their attempts at stalling indefinitely the co-conspirators should start sweating even harder in the other cases too.

[Aphelios]

Rigged isn't fraud. Fraud is a loser angle.

Sir, I’m going to ask you to refrain from posting this or you could be infracted for spreading misinformation. You are not allowed to talk about the validity of the 2020 presidential election but you are more than welcomed to question the 2016 election. Good day!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Sir, I’m going to ask you to refrain from posting this or you could be infracted for spreading misinformation. You are not allowed to talk about the validity of the 2020 presidential election but you are more than welcomed to question the 2016 election. Good day!

Mueller procured evidence that there was extensive communication between team Trump and the Kremlin. The entire Republican apparatus didn't care. And Trump got to be president anyway. The Steele Dossier gave us extensive information on how foreign money had made its way in to the hands of multiple government officials, as well as large corporations to push a pro Trump narrative. There's no information about any sort of ballot rigging in regards to 2016 but plenty of foreign money in hands of highly influential areas.

Trump has broken numerous laws in his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. He's all but been officially linked to the Jan 6th insurrection and attempts to interrupt peaceful transfer of power, in addition to losing court cases that challenge the rulings due to lack of any material evidence that the 2020 election was rigged in any way. People can scream Ballot Curing and whatever else they want. Laws were broken and we came dangerously close to having our democracy overthrown, and now Trump gets to pay the price.

Anyway, if you need the rules clarified, conspiracies in particular are not allowed on this site. The 2020 election results have been challenged in courts of law, overseen by Trump appointed judges who all found that there was no voter fraud, or at least not any that would have changed the direction of the election. Yeah there were like 10 people who voted 2-10 times but they were all Trump voters ODDLY ENOUGH.

Hope this helps, if you need coaching on what is and isn't conspiracy we're always here to help.

[Breccia]

Sidney Powell first asks her RICO trial to be moved up, then asks judge to move the Smartmatic lawsuit back because of the RICO lawsuit.

Powell, noting that her criminal case is headed for trial “on or about October 23, but no later than November 3, 2023,” asserted that in the absence of a 90-day stay of the civil defamation lawsuit she will be faced with the “‘significant dilemma’ of having to defend both lawsuits simultaneously and whether to assert or waive rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution here.”

The little-noticed filing and attached memorandum in support of a stay from Powell’s attorney Joshua A. Mooney last Friday asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Donald Trump appointee, to pause the Smartmatic proceedings until Nov. 29. Judge Nichols is also presiding over Dominion’s lawsuit against Powell.

Powell’s team argued that multiple factors support a stay of proceedings, including the promotion of “better judicial efficiency.” The defense asserted that a 90-day stay would be “relatively insignificant” and that any “hardship would be minimal for Smartmatic.”

“The allegations against Ms. Powell in both actions are based upon many of the same alleged underlying events, legal theories, and other allegations. The Smartmatic lawsuit, especially given how Smartmatic has chosen to prosecute it, cannot be litigated without implicating the Fulton Action,” the memo said. “Given this close relationship, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.”

"If this will be such a big deal, why did she move one trial to when she knew another one was waiting?"

Possibly purely to delay the other one.

"Isn't she claiming this is all about her First Amendment rights? If everything she did was nice and bigly and yuge, why is she worried about the evidence in one case affecting another?"

Probably because she's lying about it being a First Amendment case, and that she knows she's guilty.

"Is there anything that could come up in the defamation lawsuit that would actually affect her criminal case?"

Yes, she could say on the stand "I knew Smartmatic machines could be broken into, because I broke into one."

"Didn't Powell say:"

Assuming the prosecution does not realize its error in indicting her and agree to dismiss this wrongful prosecution before trial immediately, Ms. Powell can be tried alone in three days at most and should receive a judgment of acquittal when the State rests

"in the filing? And if so, why is she asking for a pushback of a full month when she says she'd need three days?"

That's awfully specific for a question, but yes, she did say that, and of course the answer is "she knows she's guilty and the State won't dismiss".

The passing allegations of her “false statements” to the January 6 investigation by Congress—for which the State has no jurisdiction—are taken out of context, the allegations are themselves insufficient as a matter of law, and her statements were true.

"If the statements were true, does it matter if they were taken out of context?"

No.

"If the statements were true, or false for that matter, does it matter if she said it to Congress or to Jimmy Kimmel?"

No. The "jurisdiction" issue is because she's hoping to get moved to federal court, I assume.

"If the statements are true, would it matter if they were sufficient? Fraud requires dishonesty."

Well, I assume statements like "I broke into a voting machine" would be true and also evidence against her.

"Does this have any chance of success? Trump lawyers have a nearly negative batter's average."

Actually, Smartmatic might be okay with it. Their lawsuit gets much stronger when applied against a convicted felon and perjurer. Georgia is not going to court with charges against Powell based only on one appearance before Congress, in which Powell expressed an opinion. Georgia is going to court with charges that Powell conspired to commit criminal acts and engaged in some. Also, there may be yet more evidence that Georgia has that Powell knew the election was fair and legal, and Smartmatic gets to use that.

But they shouldn't allow it. Just because it wouldn't hurt their case doesn't mean they should let Powell pick and choose the battlefield. You blitz them while they're still setting up their tents. Smartmatic is just in the enviable position of having all the cards, Powell is not just objectively guilty but also objectively defamed them. She's dead already, she's just choosing her gravesite.

[Flarelaine]

Moderation in this thread would be really helpful right now...4 pages wasted now.

The way our infraction system works is incremental and posters without unexpired prior infractions need to post something truly egregious to be banned right away. Even when you posted, this was a work in progress.

[Breccia]

The highly partisan January 6th Committee of political Hacks and Thugs has been found to have DELETED & DESTROYED all evidence and findings of the recently ended Committee of TRUMP persecution and hatred.

This is a highly illegal act to, among other things, protect Crazy Nancy Pelosi for her grossly incompetent, or intentional, actions regarding her weak and inadequate response to security measures taken at the Capitol, for which she was responsible. This evidence is now criminally destroyed!

-- Donald Trump

Trump goes on to say that Jack Smith should be investigating that, instead of him.

"What is he talking about?"

He's lying. The closest thing to reality that even resembles this statement is one Congressman saying some testimony was not archived. That's not the same. In addition, of course, nothing the Jan 6th committee found was proof of Trump's innocence. Such evidence does not exist. It's the same as they tried doing with the Jan 6th security footage, trying to find video clips of people not committing crimes and claiming it's more important than the other clips of the same people committing crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

The way our infraction system works is incremental and posters without unexpired prior infractions need to post something truly egregious to be banned right away. Even when you posted, this was a work in progress.

What an interesting point you have made. I wish I had thought about it when I reported his first post, then PMed you and others about it, well over 24 hours before this. You know, the link to laws expanding remote voting and claiming it was rigged elections? Or the second post, where he said "all elections are rigged"? I know you were looking, you did infract another post of his, but those two remain uninfracted. Or did they not count as egregious or incremental enough?

By the way, you should check your inbox. I sent you something, let's say, "incremental" to look at.

[Flarelaine]

What an interesting point you have made. I wish I had thought about it when I reported his first post, then PMed you and others about it, well over 24 hours before this. You know, the link to laws expanding remote voting and claiming it was rigged elections? Or the second post, where he said "all elections are rigged"? I know you were looking, you did infract another post of his, but those two remain uninfracted. Or did they not count as egregious or incremental enough?

By the way, you should check your inbox. I sent you something, let's say, "incremental" to look at.

Reporting is fine and important. I have the old boilerplate explanation: we don't work here. I strive to make at least two passes a day. If I leave just when a trolling spree is starting it can easily go nuclear while I do the work I'm actually getting paid for. We clean up but we're not on standby 24/7.

Also posts in the same spree can be adjudicated as a batch so you won't see separate infraction messages. I stress that the original purpose of infractions was warning posters that they crossed the line and giving them time to amend their posting behaviour; tagging each post would be counter-productive.

[Breccia]

I stress that the original purpose of infractions was warning posters that they crossed the line and giving them time to amend their posting behaviour

That's an interesting thing to say about someone who spammed four pages full of conspiracy theories. I would suggest that "the original purpose" of giving someone a warning with one infraction one time in the center of a four-page spamming spree 12 to 24 hours past isn't especially helpful, but the last time I made a suggestion like that, I was infracted for it. So instead I'll say @Chonogo does not speak alone.

But it does sound like you're a little overworked. Maybe this will help:

- mod snip -

[The Stormbringer]

@Breccia Sniping at the mods in this thread really isn't constructive. I get being frustrated and wanting the trolls to be handled more swiftly, especially ones with a clear history of being trouble-makers, but this is just rude, dude.

[Flarelaine]

That's an interesting thing to say about someone who spammed four pages full of conspiracy theories. I would suggest that "the original purpose" of giving someone a warning with one infraction one time in the center of a four-page spamming spree 12 to 24 hours past isn't especially helpful, but the last time I made a suggestion like that, I was infracted for it. So instead I'll say @Chonogo does not speak alone.

But it does sound like you're a little overworked. Maybe this will help:

- mod snip -

We do not discuss specific grievances.