Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Trump 2024 takes it's first victim 😂" video.

Another way to put that is that it's only stating the obvious.
5
@johnhughes5281 The other choice would be to give him a psych counseling session and point out his need to reconcile his claims with objective reality. IOW, he does apparently need it.
5
@prodigalpriest Yeah, but Our Scientific Democracy cherishes his service to the Progressive status quo.
4
I agree, but what we got instead might be better. We exposed more incorrigible RINO Senators and Pam Bondi might be able to sail in and accomplish even more because it's harder to accuse her of inherent bias when she starts to fire all of the losers at US DOJ. Elon Musk has stated that he's on the look out for RINO Senators to primary and Thune can be pressured consistently if he doesn't do a proper job. These morons that talk about taking months to wear down reformers shows you who their real paymasters are. And Gaetz can still help Bondi with whatever information he found while in Congress. The RINO ahole that worries me right now is the one being selected for FBI Director. But even that problem is mitigated by having Pam Bondi as US AG because the FBI is subordinate to US AG. The DOJ and FBI kooks can all be investigated by DOJ lawyers and hopefully special prosecutors of some kind. I predict an effort to launch at least one RICO investigation and maybe 2. One for Conspiracy Against Rights (or Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law) and another one for criminal racketeering to cast a wider net for those who can get caught up in the election interference BS but not the lawfare schemes. The Conspiracy Against Rights can start with whatever evidence John Durham gathered and the only ones who can't be prosecuted are those that won in court or got plead bargains already.
2
He's a typical Soviet Jacobin. And he'd fit right in serving Xi's "Presidency". The Social Darwinist cult always believes it knows who is winning the "Progress Through Evolution" game. And this guy brags about X number books and 5 decades and counting as a "professor" and this he thinks creates and supports his "authority" to spew pseudoscientific lunacy. What really, really cracks me up is that, and I really did think this the first time he showed up in this cycle, that his "keys" is "scientific". Because, as I have said a long time ago, it's pretty easy to predict who will win the Oval Office, most of the time. There are not that many single term Presidents and usually the "opposition" party in the US wins after a two term President must leave. Check the history for as long as you like. But anyway, you occasionally get a case like Jimmy Carter that choked badly, in very obvious ways. OK. Now move on to his claim that Bush 43 stole the election. LMFAO. Al Gore never had a chance! A third consecutive DNC Presidential term after Clinton? Reagan won in two consecutive landslides and only because of that and what he achieved did his VP manage to win a single term, otherwise the Demons would have won in 1988. Al Gore was never going to win because of that and that Hillary did not want him to win another term. She knows as much as I do that it's normal to predict 2 terms to the left and then 2 terms to the Constitutionalists. She planned on having the Republican Party win so that she could spend a stint in the Senate and then win in 2008. That plan itself was hatched before Bill Clinton even ran for President. And Al Gore also benefited from voter fraud that got serious starting in the 1988 Presidential elections but really the plans started evolving after Reagan's second consecutive landslide. Demon Rats don't actually win the national popular vote. California alone has had many millions of fraudulent ballots since they freaked out over Reagan. There are too many rabbit trails to follow here but the point is that even Hillary and just about everyone knows that these "keys" are just "wind socks" of a sort. So my real point is that Biden should not have won. I am sure he received at least 5 million fraudulent ballots in California alone. And Trump's outrage and legal maneuvers did not deter the scumbags that organize this. But he did scare the minions that would get send to prison of caught. So now they rely on ballot dumps and forcing counts but it's rare to have the people with their hands on the election tally systems willing to run the same ballot through the process over and over again. That is the only reason Kammy came up short versus Biden. Everyone knows that they're both idiots. So Lichtman and his keys falls for all of the hype and backfills his analysis based on feelings alone that "the incumbent usually wins if A, B, C, etc. but this election was so far from normal that the only thing that mattered was how successful the ballot fraud schemes would be. And this also explains why certain polls are never correct. The leftwing polls put out "aspirational" data to send out signals as to how much cheating is needed. Only a few polls get it right. And even they compensate for the "silent Trump vote" but what they really means is that the fraudsters try to predict their cheating and the honest pollsters look at statistics and predict how far short they will fall. Yeah, leftists love to participate in polls and most others don't. But pollsters can accommodate that. The biggest factor is that nobody can predict how each "blue" county will deliver for the DNC fraudsters. This moronic professor is dumber than Nate Silver. He's like one of those boomers that took too much dope as a student and he thinks his "academic credentials" are "proof" that all of those drugs had no deleterious effect on his brain.
1
He's a moron that thinks Trump voters were predestined and then "shockingly" all of the "independents" turned out to be racist misogynists. You just can't make this stuff up. But notice it takes just a few sentences to expose how stupid he is and he writes endless diatribes about his "keys" and tries to talk everyone in to agreeing with him. Until 2016 and 2020, I correctly predicted each Presidential victory but I just used very simply "statistical" data. Just look at each Presidential winner since Truman. And I know how much California cheats. I am never sure about any other "blue" States. I thought they would beat Trump in 2016 but I also had in mind that it's rare for either party to hold the White House for 3 consecutive terms. Obama didn't win like Reagan did. Obama was a controversial person and nobody was going to ride his coat tails just on that. But Trump was particularly easy to demonize and I admitted that I just could not predict it. In 2020 it got even crazier and I knew the minute I heard about CCP "COVID" bs and the timing coupled with Trump's first Impeachment that they were going to go insane. But they got Biden to run and I really had no idea if that would work. But notice I admit to the unknowns. It's not "13 keys". Because even if you had proved "13 keys" notice that they are not weighted and there's no allowance for inserting new keys that become relevant, never mind any chance to weight the value of these base level indicators. The "indicators" are mere considerations. Each election means rethinking the whole question. Professor moron doesn't know how serious people use statistics to make predictions. He's probably just the kind of guy running the CIA these days.
1
@ExaltedDuck Nobody ever claims that they don't cheat. The question is how much and whether "Equity" allows this two tier system under the Constitution and they know that it doesn't. Hence the threats to pack SCOTUS since every time they fail to get their way. The irony is that this is just what they did under Jim Crow but now they have better insurance that they can show they're "defending Black Voters" rather than blatantly disenfranchising them. And of course, as ever, they only have stories, not valid case evidence for their claims.
1
This nutty professor is one of the Misinformation Factory nitwits. While FDR was "socializing" the Federal government the Frankfurt School Marxists were "socializing" academia. Clowns like this guy think it's "Objective Science".
1