No. You can't draw a path to victory around your own expressed hurdles without defying the laws of the universe.
1. You stated Trump had a zero percentage (0%) chance of winning if he didn't cheat. Your exact words on the previous page were "I DID say he had ZERO chance to win only if he didn't cheat."
2. Therefore, Trump's only chance of winning required cheating.
3. It is impossible, given your quoted statement in item (1) above, for Trump to win or have won with no cheating.
4. This later statement (attempted justification) by you "As we can never know what the result would have been if he hadn't cheated" is logically inconsistent with your assertion that Trump had zero chance to win in the absence of cheating. We do know the result if Trump hadn't cheated -- by your words, he had ZERO chance of winning, i.e., he would have lost.
5. You are by definition an election-denier, despite all recent attempts to extricate yourself from that group.
INCORRECT! Try to understand this.
1) I have NEVER said Trump was an illigitimate President. I have never denied that he won the election. I have said he won. Can't be an election denier when I have never denied that he won.
2) I said he had ZERO chance to win UNLESS he cheated. Well, he cheated. I never said he won BECAUSE he cheated, only that any cheating wold change my declaration from ZERO chance to SOME sort of chance.
Sorry, brother, but you are wrong.
No. Now you are just obfuscating.
1. You stated Trump has zero chance of winning without cheating.
2. Therefore a non-zero chance of winning requires cheating.
3. In other words, if Trump won, there must have been cheating.
4. Trump did win, so according to you, he cheated.
5. At the moment Trump won, you became an election denier.
Pole wrote:
Can't be an election denier when I have never denied that he won.
Sure you can. The Trumpist election deniers say Biden won, but he did so by cheating, therefor the election is invalid and denied. You are doing the same with Trump. You are an election denier.
Pole wrote:
I said he had ZERO chance to win UNLESS he cheated. Well, he cheated. I never said he won BECAUSE he cheated, only that any cheating wold change my declaration from ZERO chance to SOME sort of chance.
You can't obfuscate and spin out of election-denialhood. The only way out is to expressly renounce your election-denial. That is all that the good American people of this board will allow.
we're only a few weeks away from the latest realization that the Republicans don't WANT to nominate and elect anyone but trumpists. We go through this over and over and always come to the same conclusion. We can wish that m'aga will start voting for normals but they won't.
I don't want them to start voting for normals... I want them to carry their trump embryo to full term and no putting up for adoption either - they need to own this colossal selection until the death of the GOP.
NUSA DUA, Indonesia (AP) — President Biden said Monday that Democrats still lack the power to codify abortion rights into law despite his party's stronger-than-expected performance in the midterm elections.
The excuses begin.
What was the excuse in 2009 when the Dems had total control?
we're only a few weeks away from the latest realization that the Republicans don't WANT to nominate and elect anyone but trumpists. We go through this over and over and always come to the same conclusion. We can wish that m'aga will start voting for normals but they won't.
I don't want them to start voting for normals... I want them to carry their trump embryo to full term and no putting up for adoption either - they need to own this colossal selection until the death of the GOP.
Trollimato/Ginamator - we haven't seen either of you in eons. We missed you both very much. Why did you both disappear at the same time when you insist you are not same person? No biggie - we love having you both back no matter how short-lived.
Just an absolute crook. And still not a single indictment. And almost certainly no convictions. Trump might be the most talented sales guy of all time.
NYT
WASHINGTON — Officials from six nations spent more than $750,000 at former President Donald J. Trump’s hotel in Washington when they were seeking to influence his administration, renting rooms for more than $10,000 per night, according to documents that his former accounting firm turned over to Congress. The governments of Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China spent more money than previously known at the Trump International Hotel at crucial times in 2017 and 2018 for those countries’ relations with the United States, according to the documents, which were obtained by the House Oversight Committee and released on Monday. The officials spent freely at the hotel, the records show. The Malaysian prime minister, for instance, hired a $1,500 personal trainer during his stay at the Trump hotel in 2017. The Saudi Ministry of Defense rented several suites, costing $10,500 each, with rooms reserved under the name “His Excellency.” Qatari officials spent more than $300,000 there in the weeks leading up to a meeting with Mr. Trump in 2018. The documents build on the public record of how Mr. Trump’s hotel brought in millions during his presidency from foreign governments. The Oversight Committee has previously estimated that the hotel received more than $3.75 million from foreign governments from 2017 to 2020, raising concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.
(1) It will force elected Republicans to decide if they want to cower to Trump or if they want to win general elections. Only Republican leaders can diminish Trumpism.
(2) It will hurt Walker's chance in Georgia.
(3) It might reduce the likelihood of frustrated violent m'aga republican acting out their anger. It gives them some hope.
I heard an interesting take on the GA runoff...
GA evangelicals are willing to hold their nose and vote for the unqualified, immoral abortionist Walker...if it meant Rs would win the senate. Evangelicals were willing to look at the long run and understand that an R senate would restrict abortion overall so even tho Walker is a mess they voted for him.
But now that the senate is lost they won't feel the need to break their moral code. they'll just stay home.
Just an absolute crook. And still not a single indictment. And almost certainly no convictions. Trump might be the most talented sales guy of all time.
NYT
WASHINGTON — Officials from six nations spent more than $750,000 at former President Donald J. Trump’s hotel in Washington when they were seeking to influence his administration, renting rooms for more than $10,000 per night, according to documents that his former accounting firm turned over to Congress. The governments of Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China spent more money than previously known at the Trump International Hotel at crucial times in 2017 and 2018 for those countries’ relations with the United States, according to the documents, which were obtained by the House Oversight Committee and released on Monday. The officials spent freely at the hotel, the records show. The Malaysian prime minister, for instance, hired a $1,500 personal trainer during his stay at the Trump hotel in 2017. The Saudi Ministry of Defense rented several suites, costing $10,500 each, with rooms reserved under the name “His Excellency.” Qatari officials spent more than $300,000 there in the weeks leading up to a meeting with Mr. Trump in 2018. The documents build on the public record of how Mr. Trump’s hotel brought in millions during his presidency from foreign governments. The Oversight Committee has previously estimated that the hotel received more than $3.75 million from foreign governments from 2017 to 2020, raising concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.
On the avoidance of prosecution, it's not about his sales skills, he just happens to be a loud mouth rich guy who gets away with everything. Most tend to keep their heads down when weaving through legal trouble. We are watching just how tolerant the system is to rich criminals.
GA evangelicals are willing to hold their nose and vote for the unqualified, immoral abortionist Walker...if it meant Rs would win the senate. Evangelicals were willing to look at the long run and understand that an R senate would restrict abortion overall so even tho Walker is a mess they voted for him.
But now that the senate is lost they won't feel the need to break their moral code. they'll just stay home.
"Their moral code" - Good one!
I just hope the GOP dumps tens of millions on him in the run off and inevitably get their a$$es kicked. It's scary how close he came to winning, but the Ds will close this one out now.
1) I have NEVER said Trump was an illigitimate President. I have never denied that he won the election. I have said he won. Can't be an election denier when I have never denied that he won.
2) I said he had ZERO chance to win UNLESS he cheated. Well, he cheated. I never said he won BECAUSE he cheated, only that any cheating wold change my declaration from ZERO chance to SOME sort of chance.
Sorry, brother, but you are wrong.
No. Now you are just obfuscating.
1. You stated Trump has zero chance of winning without cheating.
2. Therefore a non-zero chance of winning requires cheating.
3. In other words, if Trump won, there must have been cheating.
4. Trump did win, so according to you, he cheated.
5. At the moment Trump won, you became an election denier.
1. You stated Trump has zero chance of winning without cheating.
2. Therefore a non-zero chance of winning requires cheating.
3. In other words, if Trump won, there must have been cheating.
4. Trump did win, so according to you, he cheated.
5. At the moment Trump won, you became an election denier.
Um...nope. That's not at all what that means.
Yes. Yes, that is what that means.
1. You stated that Trump has a zero chance (0.00%) of winning without cheating. He cannot win without cheating, according to you.
2. Therefore -- (i.e., ergo, axiomatic, goes without saying, it necessarily follows) -- a NON-zero chance of winning (e.g., 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%, etc.) requires cheating.
Let me know when you've mastered the simple logic in steps 1 and 2 above, and then we can move on to the next steps. Do it, Poley! Make Aristotle proud.
1. You stated that Trump has a zero chance (0.00%) of winning without cheating. He cannot win without cheating, according to you.
2. Therefore -- (i.e., ergo, axiomatic, goes without saying, it necessarily follows) -- a NON-zero chance of winning (e.g., 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%, etc.) requires cheating.
Let me know when you've mastered the simple logic in steps 1 and 2 above, and then we can move on to the next steps. Do it, Poley! Make Aristotle proud.
1) I said he had zero chance to win...unless he cheats.
2) He cheated.
3) I NEVER said that the cheating invalidated his win. I never claimed that he wasn't the rightful winner of the election. Did the cheating take him from ZERO chance to a 1% chance? We can never know. My ONLY statement is that he had ZERO chance to win without cheating, and then he cheated. His cheating takes my ZERO chance away, because I made that a condition.
4) So, NOT an election denier. Trump election deniers have stated and continue to state that he won the election and that Biden stole the election. I have no similar view of the 2016 election and Trump. Trump won the election and was the legitimate President. He ALSO cheated.
I don't want them to start voting for normals... I want them to carry their trump embryo to full term and no putting up for adoption either - they need to own this colossal selection until the death of the GOP.
Trollimato/Ginamator - we haven't seen either of you in eons. We missed you both very much. Why did you both disappear at the same time when you insist you are not same person? No biggie - we love having you both back no matter how short-lived.
I love how you are still so butthurt over getting that wrong. Stick around for another 10 years and you might finally figure it out. Clearly whoever this Ginamator is also gets laughs from knowing you continue wasting your days here promoting trump for free.
1. You stated that Trump has a zero chance (0.00%) of winning without cheating. He cannot win without cheating, according to you.
2. Therefore -- (i.e., ergo, axiomatic, goes without saying, it necessarily follows) -- a NON-zero chance of winning (e.g., 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%, etc.) requires cheating.
Let me know when you've mastered the simple logic in steps 1 and 2 above, and then we can move on to the next steps. Do it, Poley! Make Aristotle proud.
1) I said he had zero chance to win...unless he cheats.
2) He cheated.
3) I NEVER said that the cheating invalidated his win. I never claimed that he wasn't the rightful winner of the election. Did the cheating take him from ZERO chance to a 1% chance? We can never know. My ONLY statement is that he had ZERO chance to win without cheating, and then he cheated. His cheating takes my ZERO chance away, because I made that a condition.
4) So, NOT an election denier. Trump election deniers have stated and continue to state that he won the election and that Biden stole the election. I have no similar view of the 2016 election and Trump. Trump won the election and was the legitimate President. He ALSO cheated.
You lose.
No.
You said Trump has zero chance to win unless he cheats – i.e., in the absence of cheating, Trump cannot win. That is your major premise.
Trump won.
It can only be concluded that Trump’s cheating caused him to win otherwise, according to your major premise, he could not have won.
What you are doing now is pretending that you left some nuanced room in there for (1) Trump cheating and (2) Trump winning, but (3) that the cheating did not necessarily affecting the winning. You clear and emphatic major premise above leaves no such room.
When you have to resort to new bent logic like “His cheating takes my ZERO chance away, because I made that a condition,” you are going backwards. No one takes you zero chance away, and you did not make it conditional or contingent upon anything. To the contrary, it is your starting and major premise.
You are an election-denier until you expressly renounce it. We will accept no further obfuscation from you.