also, trump cannot claim credit for the vaccine when pfizer was NOT part of operation warp speed, and his administration had no plans for large scale rollout.
he deserves no credit. he did nothing. he even caught the virus and got airlifted to the hospital because he is a fucking dumbass that could not mask up, wash hands, and take even the most basic of precautions.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i listened to only a portion of it, as I just can't willingly stand his voice anymore. personally taking credit for the vaccine and saving 10's of millions of lives. he actually said "without me as president you wouldn't have a vaccine". jesus h christ. his narcissism knows no bounds.
buh bye loser.
i wonder if he is sick. he did not sound well at all on that interview.
i was wondering the same thing, but then remembered i don't give a fuck
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
i listened to only a portion of it, as I just can't willingly stand his voice anymore. personally taking credit for the vaccine and saving 10's of millions of lives. he actually said "without me as president you wouldn't have a vaccine". jesus h christ. his narcissism knows no bounds.
buh bye loser.
i wonder if he is sick. he did not sound well at all on that interview.
i was wondering the same thing, but then remembered i don't give a fuck
i listened to only a portion of it, as I just can't willingly stand his voice anymore. personally taking credit for the vaccine and saving 10's of millions of lives. he actually said "without me as president you wouldn't have a vaccine". jesus h christ. his narcissism knows no bounds.
buh bye loser.
i wonder if he is sick. he did not sound well at all on that interview.
i was wondering the same thing, but then remembered i don't give a fuck
Ha! You're killing me today!
haha awesome.
it really is strange how much of a difference him being gone makes. like, jesus, I'm canadian, and it's a massive relief having that POS off the radar.
kinda having fun watching all the trumpsters constantly digging, all they come up with is shit, they think it's gold, so they writhe around in it, thinking we're the stupid ones.
enjoy your shitbath, trumpkins!
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
i listened to only a portion of it, as I just can't willingly stand his voice anymore. personally taking credit for the vaccine and saving 10's of millions of lives. he actually said "without me as president you wouldn't have a vaccine". jesus h christ. his narcissism knows no bounds.
buh bye loser.
i wonder if he is sick. he did not sound well at all on that interview.
i was wondering the same thing, but then remembered i don't give a fuck
Ha! You're killing me today!
haha awesome.
it really is strange how much of a difference him being gone makes. like, jesus, I'm canadian, and it's a massive relief having that POS off the radar.
kinda having fun watching all the trumpsters constantly digging, all they come up with is shit, they think it's gold, so they writhe around in it, thinking we're the stupid ones.
enjoy your shitbath, trumpkins!
It's hilarious. That's the what I'm thinking about when I read this shit about masks and vaccines. Trumpsters fight yesterday's battles.. impeachment, the election, masks, etc. Pfft.. You fucking lost. Suck it up and move on.
Genius. So much winning. Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy.
Why Republicans Are Still Skeptical Trump Lost
A new study shows election results are often polarizing.
In Arizona, the recount of votes from last November’s presidential election proceeds apace. In Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, Republican legislators continue to press “reform” legislation on the premise that the outcome was determined by fraud — a premise rejected over 50 times by state and federal courts.
But although the current level of lingering disbelief on the part of Donald Trump’s supporters is unusually high, a gap between the winning and losing sides’ willingness to accept the outcome of a presidential contest is nothing new. A just-released paper by MIT political scientists Jesse T. Clark and Charles Stewart III drills down into data on the topic and turns up some remarkable findings about voter confidence in the wake of the 2020 election. In particular, although the gap between the two sides’ belief that the contest was fair is by far the largest on record, the explanation may not be what one expects.
Ballot fraud has a long history in the U.S. During the 19th century it was endemic. Even Abraham Lincoln’s landslide re-election in 1864 was marred by plausible charges that military commanders allowed Republican soldiers to travel home to vote but kept Democratic troops in the field. Although changes in the process early in the 20th century greatly reduced the possibility of manipulating the count, in a close election many on the losing side still lean toward the view that the numbers were rigged. Lots of Republicans didn’t believe the results in 1960. Lots of Democrats didn’t believe the results in 2000.
Moreover, as Clark and Stewart point out in the new study, even apart from the outcome, shocks to the system of voting — a switch to new voting machines, for example — may reduce confidence that the ballots will be counted correctly. So the lingering skepticism among Trump supporters in the wake of 2020’s pandemic-induced process changes isn’t a surprise.
Which brings us back to the unprecedented gap between Democratic and Republican belief in fairness of the election. There are two basic ways to measure this belief: a voter’s confidence that his or her own vote will be counted fairly, and a voter’s confidence in the overall result. Although Clark and Stewart have much to say about the first, the second is where their findings are most sobering: “The divergence in opinions among Democrats and Republicans in 2020 compared to 2016, and even 2012, is obvious in virtually every state.”
Before going on, let’s be clear about what the paper measures. The authors are interested not in the absolute level of confidence of both sides but in the change of those levels after the election. Suppose that before the election, 52% of voters in Party A and 48% of those in Party B expect a fair result. After Party A wins, its confidence goes up to 55%, an increase of 3 points. Party B’s confidence drops to 45%, a loss of 3 points. Because Clark and Stewart are interested on how the election result affects confidence, they measure the sum of the change — here, 6 percentage points.
In 2016, as usual, the rise in confidence of fairness among Trump supporters added to the drop among Hillary Clinton’s supporters was 18.2 points — large, but hardly startling.
Now consider 2020. The post-election gap was an astonishing 48.6 points. This brings us to the startling part: “Contrary to expectations, the greater gap was not due to Trump supporters being especially non-confident, but because of the soaring confidence of Biden supporters.”
Here are the numbers: Among Trump supporters, confidence in the accuracy of the count, already at a historic low, hardly budged after the election. But the 24.1% pre-vote figure among Biden supporters ballooned afterward to an unheard of 72.8%. The cause of the 2020 gap, in other words, is not that Republicans became unusually suspicious about the outcome; it’s that Democrats became unusually certain that the numbers were right.
The authors suggest that 2020’s extreme Democratic confidence was “influenced by a strong negative repudiation of Trump’s calling the results of the election into question.” This proposition would turn conventional wisdom inside out: Trump’s unsupported pre-election claims of rigging may have depressed Republican confidence in the count’s fairness, but his equally unsupported post-election insistence on ballot fraud has influenced only Democrats.
What does all this mean going forward?
That depends. If the bombastic and controversial Trump proves to be unique, one would expect the passage of time — and of an election cycle or two — to bring us back to the “normal” political world, in which the views of fairness fluctuate in the short run around a great middle, depending on who wins and who loses.
But ideological certainties can be sticky. Today’s dispute over a particular election can become tomorrow’s axiom. So if the attitudes Clark and Stewart measure turn out to bespeak a new normal, our fragile democracy may be headed for a peculiarly unhealthy future.
also, trump cannot claim credit for the vaccine when pfizer was NOT part of operation warp speed, and his administration had no plans for large scale rollout.
he deserves no credit. he did nothing. he even caught the virus and got airlifted to the hospital because he is a fucking dumbass that could not mask up, wash hands, and take even the most basic of precautions.
Pfizer stated that he the idiot didn’t have anything zero nada zilch to do with the vaccine!
Also....I saw someone on twitter say she'd be good with Facebook letting him back if he apologizes and admits he lost, etc etc etc. Honestly, I would be good with that....but the ban would have to be re-imposed if he ever goes back on his word, which will inevitably happen (sooner than later). I think I like this idea because Trump will never admit he lost in the first place so it puts him in a tough spot and it lets FB save some face from the moronic cancel culture idiots.
Also....I saw someone on twitter say she'd be good with Facebook letting him back if he apologizes and admits he lost, etc etc etc. Honestly, I would be good with that....but the ban would have to be re-imposed if he ever goes back on his word, which will inevitably happen (sooner than later). I think I like this idea because Trump will never admit he lost in the first place so it puts him in a tough spot and it lets FB save some face from the moronic cancel culture idiots.
What do you guys think?
I think Fat Nixon sucks and he should stay off FB. However I agree if we can get him to apologize and admit they were lies, that would be even sweeter.
Also....I saw someone on twitter say she'd be good with Facebook letting him back if he apologizes and admits he lost, etc etc etc. Honestly, I would be good with that....but the ban would have to be re-imposed if he ever goes back on his word, which will inevitably happen (sooner than later). I think I like this idea because Trump will never admit he lost in the first place so it puts him in a tough spot and it lets FB save some face from the moronic cancel culture idiots.
What do you guys think?
I don't think an apology would do anything to calm his base. they'd know it wasn't sincere.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
I'm only speaking about her. she's gross. I've watched interviews, I've read her posts, etc. She is sickening.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Maybe someone can list some redeeming qualities of the current conservative movement and the repub party wholly owned by POOTWH? It’d be a short list, yes?
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
I'm only speaking about her. she's gross. I've watched interviews, I've read her posts, etc. She is sickening.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Other than her shameless devotion to Trump (an issue I have with many conservative commentators), I haven't seen anything sickening from her.
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
Eh......I would not label Candice Owens a "conservative commentator." She's not a member of the traditional conservative republican party. She's a member of the far right wacko version of the republican party.
Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator. David French is a conservative commentator Candice Owens is a provocateur like a bunch of these other far right podcasters.
No serious conservative would appear on her show or pay her any attention prior to the last 5 years. But this is now a cult, not a political party.
Also....I saw someone on twitter say she'd be good with Facebook letting him back if he apologizes and admits he lost, etc etc etc. Honestly, I would be good with that....but the ban would have to be re-imposed if he ever goes back on his word, which will inevitably happen (sooner than later). I think I like this idea because Trump will never admit he lost in the first place so it puts him in a tough spot and it lets FB save some face from the moronic cancel culture idiots.
What do you guys think?
I don't think an apology would do anything to calm his base. they'd know it wasn't sincere.
Eh......I would not label Candice Owens a "conservative commentator." She's not a member of the traditional conservative republican party. She's a member of the far right wacko version of the republican party.
Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator. David French is a conservative commentator Candice Owens is a provocateur like a bunch of these other far right podcasters.
No serious conservative would appear on her show or pay her any attention prior to the last 5 years. But this is now a cult, not a political party.
When I hear "far-right wacko," I'm thinking Alex Jones or that guy that started the Proud Boys. She's not there.
As for the "traditional conservative republican party," that barely exists anymore. Same with what was once the democratic party. 1990's Joe Biden might be considered a conservative by today's democratic party. And as for the republicans, right-leaning commentators (or whatever you'd like to call them) on internet platforms (Owens, Steven Crowder, etc.) say the things that 90's republicans always thought, but would never say.
Eh......I would not label Candice Owens a "conservative commentator." She's not a member of the traditional conservative republican party. She's a member of the far right wacko version of the republican party.
Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator. David French is a conservative commentator Candice Owens is a provocateur like a bunch of these other far right podcasters.
No serious conservative would appear on her show or pay her any attention prior to the last 5 years. But this is now a cult, not a political party.
When I hear "far-right wacko," I'm thinking Alex Jones or that guy that started the Proud Boys. She's not there.
As for the "traditional conservative republican party," that barely exists anymore. Same with what was once the democratic party. 1990's Joe Biden might be considered a conservative by today's democratic party. And as for the republicans, right-leaning commentators (or whatever you'd like to call them) on internet platforms (Owens, Steven Crowder, etc.) say the things that 90's republicans always thought, but would never say.
Eh......I would not label Candice Owens a "conservative commentator." She's not a member of the traditional conservative republican party. She's a member of the far right wacko version of the republican party.
Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator. David French is a conservative commentator Candice Owens is a provocateur like a bunch of these other far right podcasters.
No serious conservative would appear on her show or pay her any attention prior to the last 5 years. But this is now a cult, not a political party.
When I hear "far-right wacko," I'm thinking Alex Jones or that guy that started the Proud Boys. She's not there.
As for the "traditional conservative republican party," that barely exists anymore. Same with what was once the democratic party. 1990's Joe Biden might be considered a conservative by today's democratic party. And as for the republicans, right-leaning commentators (or whatever you'd like to call them) on internet platforms (Owens, Steven Crowder, etc.) say the things that 90's republicans always thought, but would never say.
Seems a little harsh. She's just another conservative commentator. Unless they're all despicable living creatures. Which would probably the consensus around here.
I'm only speaking about her. she's gross. I've watched interviews, I've read her posts, etc. She is sickening.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Other than her shameless devotion to Trump (an issue I have with many conservative commentators), I haven't seen anything sickening from her.
Comments
he deserves no credit. he did nothing. he even caught the virus and got airlifted to the hospital because he is a fucking dumbass that could not mask up, wash hands, and take even the most basic of precautions.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-EV 8/14/93
https://www.instagram.com/p/COP7hNyH9Vz/?igshid=6d0gs6gl1bno
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
it really is strange how much of a difference him being gone makes. like, jesus, I'm canadian, and it's a massive relief having that POS off the radar.
kinda having fun watching all the trumpsters constantly digging, all they come up with is shit, they think it's gold, so they writhe around in it, thinking we're the stupid ones.
enjoy your shitbath, trumpkins!
-EV 8/14/93
Speaking of today, 430.
HIS FAULT--HIS PEOPLE
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why Republicans Are Still Skeptical Trump Lost
A new study shows election results are often polarizing.
In Arizona, the recount of votes from last November’s presidential election proceeds apace. In Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, Republican legislators continue to press “reform” legislation on the premise that the outcome was determined by fraud — a premise rejected over 50 times by state and federal courts.
But although the current level of lingering disbelief on the part of Donald Trump’s supporters is unusually high, a gap between the winning and losing sides’ willingness to accept the outcome of a presidential contest is nothing new. A just-released paper by MIT political scientists Jesse T. Clark and Charles Stewart III drills down into data on the topic and turns up some remarkable findings about voter confidence in the wake of the 2020 election. In particular, although the gap between the two sides’ belief that the contest was fair is by far the largest on record, the explanation may not be what one expects.
Ballot fraud has a long history in the U.S. During the 19th century it was endemic. Even Abraham Lincoln’s landslide re-election in 1864 was marred by plausible charges that military commanders allowed Republican soldiers to travel home to vote but kept Democratic troops in the field. Although changes in the process early in the 20th century greatly reduced the possibility of manipulating the count, in a close election many on the losing side still lean toward the view that the numbers were rigged. Lots of Republicans didn’t believe the results in 1960. Lots of Democrats didn’t believe the results in 2000.
Moreover, as Clark and Stewart point out in the new study, even apart from the outcome, shocks to the system of voting — a switch to new voting machines, for example — may reduce confidence that the ballots will be counted correctly. So the lingering skepticism among Trump supporters in the wake of 2020’s pandemic-induced process changes isn’t a surprise.
Which brings us back to the unprecedented gap between Democratic and Republican belief in fairness of the election. There are two basic ways to measure this belief: a voter’s confidence that his or her own vote will be counted fairly, and a voter’s confidence in the overall result. Although Clark and Stewart have much to say about the first, the second is where their findings are most sobering: “The divergence in opinions among Democrats and Republicans in 2020 compared to 2016, and even 2012, is obvious in virtually every state.”
Before going on, let’s be clear about what the paper measures. The authors are interested not in the absolute level of confidence of both sides but in the change of those levels after the election. Suppose that before the election, 52% of voters in Party A and 48% of those in Party B expect a fair result. After Party A wins, its confidence goes up to 55%, an increase of 3 points. Party B’s confidence drops to 45%, a loss of 3 points. Because Clark and Stewart are interested on how the election result affects confidence, they measure the sum of the change — here, 6 percentage points.
In 2016, as usual, the rise in confidence of fairness among Trump supporters added to the drop among Hillary Clinton’s supporters was 18.2 points — large, but hardly startling.
Now consider 2020. The post-election gap was an astonishing 48.6 points. This brings us to the startling part: “Contrary to expectations, the greater gap was not due to Trump supporters being especially non-confident, but because of the soaring confidence of Biden supporters.”
Here are the numbers: Among Trump supporters, confidence in the accuracy of the count, already at a historic low, hardly budged after the election. But the 24.1% pre-vote figure among Biden supporters ballooned afterward to an unheard of 72.8%. The cause of the 2020 gap, in other words, is not that Republicans became unusually suspicious about the outcome; it’s that Democrats became unusually certain that the numbers were right.
The authors suggest that 2020’s extreme Democratic confidence was “influenced by a strong negative repudiation of Trump’s calling the results of the election into question.” This proposition would turn conventional wisdom inside out: Trump’s unsupported pre-election claims of rigging may have depressed Republican confidence in the count’s fairness, but his equally unsupported post-election insistence on ballot fraud has influenced only Democrats.
What does all this mean going forward?
That depends. If the bombastic and controversial Trump proves to be unique, one would expect the passage of time — and of an election cycle or two — to bring us back to the “normal” political world, in which the views of fairness fluctuate in the short run around a great middle, depending on who wins and who loses.
But ideological certainties can be sticky. Today’s dispute over a particular election can become tomorrow’s axiom. So if the attitudes Clark and Stewart measure turn out to bespeak a new normal, our fragile democracy may be headed for a peculiarly unhealthy future.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-28/2020-election-recounts-why-republicans-are-still-skeptical-trump-lost
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Good luck with facebook, though.
Secret William Barr memo saying not to charge Trump must be released, judge says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/04/politics/william-barr-memo-trump-memo/index.html
Also....I saw someone on twitter say she'd be good with Facebook letting him back if he apologizes and admits he lost, etc etc etc. Honestly, I would be good with that....but the ban would have to be re-imposed if he ever goes back on his word, which will inevitably happen (sooner than later). I think I like this idea because Trump will never admit he lost in the first place so it puts him in a tough spot and it lets FB save some face from the moronic cancel culture idiots.
What do you guys think?
-EV 8/14/93
Trump/Desantis 2024 on the other hand...
(gif removed, violates Posting Guidelines. - Admin)
-EV 8/14/93
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
opportunist. you forgot opportunist.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator. David French is a conservative commentator Candice Owens is a provocateur like a bunch of these other far right podcasters.
No serious conservative would appear on her show or pay her any attention prior to the last 5 years. But this is now a cult, not a political party.
When I hear "far-right wacko," I'm thinking Alex Jones or that guy that started the Proud Boys. She's not there.
As for the "traditional conservative republican party," that barely exists anymore. Same with what was once the democratic party. 1990's Joe Biden might be considered a conservative by today's democratic party. And as for the republicans, right-leaning commentators (or whatever you'd like to call them) on internet platforms (Owens, Steven Crowder, etc.) say the things that 90's republicans always thought, but would never say.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com