Re: OT: Kamala Victorious in Pennsylvania!

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 09:18:50 -0800, John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 2024-11-01 3:47 p.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:39:31 -0700, John Robertson wrote:
 

On 2024-10-31 4:42 a.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:50:46 -0700, John Robertson wrote:
>

On 2024-10-30 4:51 p.m., Cursitor Doom wrote:

The earliest state to declare in the 2024 presidential election has
Kamala the clear winner over Trump! I'm kind of 'guessing' other
swing states will follow suit. Democracy's great ain't it?
>
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2024-10-30/abc-mistakenly-airs-

election-

result-showing-harris-winning-pa

>
Not the first time this sort of thing has happened, won't be the last:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman
>
Really, you need to get a life that doesn't involve being a Russian
stooge.
>
John :-#)#

>
>
Quote from our own cited source:
>
"On election night, this earlier press deadline required the first
post- election issue of the Tribune to go to press before states had
reported most of the results from the polling places."
>
The first three words above are key here. This was merely an innocent
example of a newspaper attempting to get a scoop in advance of its
rivals when under extreme time pressure. They took a chance, made a
guess and it turned out to be the wrong one. Same thing happened with
Time magazine's embarrassing "Madam President" front page splash
showing Hillary Clinton as having beaten Donald Trump. Another innocent
mistake from jumping the gun.
The 'Pennsylvania Incident' bears no such comparison. Those figures
(purportedly *precise* figures, mind) were accidentally released a
whole week in advance of the election day - let alone the date any such
result might become available subsequently!
Really, you need to get a life that doesn't involve being a WEF stooge.
>
>

You honestly think the people could keep that secret?

 
Nope. And it really doesn't matter. Look what happened with 9/11.
Countless whistle-blowers and umpteen DVDs released with a mountain of
evidence to show Bush-Cheney complicity and much else besides. And what
did all those sterling efforts achieve? A whitewashed 'report' that barely
even referenced the chief smoking gun, Building 7. Same with Obama's fake
birth certificate. A crude and obvious forgery which was dissected and
analysed by all manner of document experts and law enforcement officers
who concluded there was an undeniable case to answer. Their videos
uploaded to Youtube and mass-circulated. Again: what did that achieve?
These elites are untouchable and will never see the inside of a courtroom.
The legacy MSM covers for them and mocks dissenters as "conspiracy
theorists" when there's nothing 'theoretical' about any of it.
 

That newspapers all over the country have already got their front pages
ready with invented numbers to show that Ms. Harris won the election by
X number of votes?

 
The cognoscenti on ZH made a prediction about the course of the election
and see it playing out along these lines:-
We know Trump is at least a dozen points ahead of Harris with the
electorate, but the media will stick rigidly to the line that they're
neck-and-neck and the race is "too close to call" (get used to that phrase
as you'll be hearing it a lot over the next few days). The result (a
Harris win is *guaranteed* regardless, BTW) won't be announced right away.
Because the race was 'so close' there will need to be multiple re-counts
which will take several days to complete and will conclude that Harris
just about pipped Trump to the post by the narrowest of margins - and the
'Democrats' (was there ever a more ironic name for such a party?) will be
home and dry for another 4 years.
Now I don't know if the Hedgers' prediction will come true or not, but
it's nevertheless a very widespread view on the Right and based on
previous form, entirely plausible.

>
So "we know Trump is at least a dozen points ahead of Harris with the
electorate..." and just where do you get that information? Zerohedge
again? You do kn ow they have their own agenda, eh?
>
You do recall that Trump has ALWAYS said that he won 't accept election
results where he doesn't win. All three elections he has been consistent.
>
Bah, waste of time talking to you.
>

 

How would that be possible without an infinite number of leaks? You
think the newspapers don't have reporters and many of them are
Republicans or Libertarians or?? There would be massive records, emails,
phone calls, conferences, etc. to co-ordinate such a venture, and there
wouldn't be leaks like s sieve? Look how well Republicans can keep
secrets! They are no better than anyone else.
>
The only way to keep a secret is to TELL NO ONE! This has been known
since humans first told stories.
>
You are a useful idiot for someone because you just don't understand
human nature.

 
WEll, we shall see. Time, as they say, will tell.

>
>
Yes, and Trump will try to steal the election again when he loses - you
don't think the women of the US have any opinion on him? They know he is
dangerous to their freedom.They are outvoting men in almost every early
polling station.
>
You enjoy your fascist ideals and craven mockery of equal justice for all.
>
I'm not an anonymous poster on usenet like you - which means simply that
you don't have the courage of your convictions.
>
Life, liberty, and fair treatment for all are mine.
>
John :-#(#

As a conservative I find nothing in your last sentence to disagree
with. Our differences are in our approach to making this laudable aim
an actual outcome. My approach is based on empiricism and pragmatism
whereas yours is based on Marxist theory and wishful thinking. Any
house built on a flawed foundation will eventually fall. I want to
build a house for future generations which will withstand more than
just a light breeze.