I'm actually still lol'ing at the fact that you tried to describe people like Kristol and Steele as not really being on the right.
I pray God will deliver us from this iteration of the Democratic Party
-
The report was neither conducted nor funded by the DNC.
The TIP report doesn't have to be conducted or funded by the DNC to be Democrat propaganda.
Oh, so now a study funded, written, and conducted by a right-left coalition is "Democratic propaganda"? OK. Cool.
Apparently funded by "Protect Democracy," a left-wing organization.
Protect Democracy is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting attacks, from at home and abroad, on our right to free, fair, and fully informed self-government.
Currently petitioning for the removal of US AG William Barr for investigating the previous administration's assault on free, fair and fully-informed self-government.
Directors are:
Ian Bassin was an associate WH counsel in the Obama administration.
Justin Florence was senior counsel on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, working for Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
-
And just to point out the obvious, the TIP report also doesn't end with the conclusion you suggest.
Read Appendix C, in which the ONLY scenarios not leading to public unrest are Biden wins.
Sorry, bro. You need to read that thing again. They do suggest that many scenarios will bring some unrest, dissatisfaction, or Constitutional crises. Nowhere do they suggest that the "only peaceful outcome" is a Biden win.
Pages 15-20 make it abundantly clear.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdfI've read it before. And no. Nowhere do they make that stark claim. Here, if you really, really believe that's what it says, then just cite the relevant passages here. All you need is something that says: only a Biden victory will result in a non-violent outcome. We await your research.
I've read it before as well. And that's what they claim.
You have the link to the document. It's pages 15-20.Nope. Sorry, bro. Quote or you lose.
Game 1: Ambiguous Result
"Neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the
streets to sway the result."Game 3: Clear Trump Win
"Game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes)."
"At the end of the first turn, the country was in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis characterized by: 1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment."
The other two scenarios involved Biden wins in which the violence referred to is not described.
Pretty straightforward, really.
-
And just to point out the obvious, the TIP report also doesn't end with the conclusion you suggest.
Read Appendix C, in which the ONLY scenarios not leading to public unrest are Biden wins.
Sorry, bro. You need to read that thing again. They do suggest that many scenarios will bring some unrest, dissatisfaction, or Constitutional crises. Nowhere do they suggest that the "only peaceful outcome" is a Biden win.
Pages 15-20 make it abundantly clear.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf
I've read it before. And no. Nowhere do they make that stark claim. Here, if you really, really believe that's what it says, then just cite the relevant passages here. All you need is something that says: only a Biden victory will result in a non-violent outcome. We await your research.
I've read it before as well. And that's what they claim.
You have the link to the document. It's pages 15-20.
Nope. Sorry, bro. Quote or you lose.
Game 1: Ambiguous Result
"Neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the
streets to sway the result."
Game 3: Clear Trump Win
"Game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes)."
"At the end of the first turn, the country was in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis characterized by: 1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment."
The other two scenarios involved Biden wins in which the violence referred to is not described.
Pretty straightforward, really.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdfLol. You're just digging the hole deeper. You don't understand what the gaming represents, do you? Do you actually think these are predictive exercises? Now, a lot of what you've said makes more sense (even if you still don't understand the TIP report).
Dude, go back and read the methodology of the gaming section. The part that comes before the section that you seem to be hyperemphasizing. I'm guessing maybe you skipped it entirely to get to what you thought was "the good stuff".
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?
You've already exposed yourself, kiddo. IF THEY NO LIKE TRUMO THEY RINO ONLY!!!
-
And just to point out the obvious, the TIP report also doesn't end with the conclusion you suggest.
Read Appendix C, in which the ONLY scenarios not leading to public unrest are Biden wins.
Sorry, bro. You need to read that thing again. They do suggest that many scenarios will bring some unrest, dissatisfaction, or Constitutional crises. Nowhere do they suggest that the "only peaceful outcome" is a Biden win.
Pages 15-20 make it abundantly clear.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf
I've read it before. And no. Nowhere do they make that stark claim. Here, if you really, really believe that's what it says, then just cite the relevant passages here. All you need is something that says: only a Biden victory will result in a non-violent outcome. We await your research.
I've read it before as well. And that's what they claim.
You have the link to the document. It's pages 15-20.
Nope. Sorry, bro. Quote or you lose.
Game 1: Ambiguous Result
"Neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the
streets to sway the result."
Game 3: Clear Trump Win
"Game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes)."
"At the end of the first turn, the country was in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis characterized by: 1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment."
The other two scenarios involved Biden wins in which the violence referred to is not described.
Pretty straightforward, really.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdfLol. You're just digging the hole deeper. You don't understand what the gaming represents, do you? Do you actually think these are predictive exercises? Now, a lot of what you've said makes more sense (even if you still don't understand the TIP report).
Dude, go back and read the methodology of the gaming section. The part that comes before the section that you seem to be hyperemphasizing. I'm guessing maybe you skipped it entirely to get to what you thought was "the good stuff".So you are denying that they only describe street violence occurring in scenarios where Biden does not win?
It's right there in print.
-
And just to point out the obvious, the TIP report also doesn't end with the conclusion you suggest.
Read Appendix C, in which the ONLY scenarios not leading to public unrest are Biden wins.
Sorry, bro. You need to read that thing again. They do suggest that many scenarios will bring some unrest, dissatisfaction, or Constitutional crises. Nowhere do they suggest that the "only peaceful outcome" is a Biden win.
Pages 15-20 make it abundantly clear.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf
I've read it before. And no. Nowhere do they make that stark claim. Here, if you really, really believe that's what it says, then just cite the relevant passages here. All you need is something that says: only a Biden victory will result in a non-violent outcome. We await your research.
I've read it before as well. And that's what they claim.
You have the link to the document. It's pages 15-20.
Nope. Sorry, bro. Quote or you lose.
Game 1: Ambiguous Result
"Neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the
streets to sway the result."
Game 3: Clear Trump Win
"Game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes)."
"At the end of the first turn, the country was in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis characterized by: 1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment."
The other two scenarios involved Biden wins in which the violence referred to is not described.
Pretty straightforward, really.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf
Lol. You're just digging the hole deeper. You don't understand what the gaming represents, do you? Do you actually think these are predictive exercises? Now, a lot of what you've said makes more sense (even if you still don't understand the TIP report).
Dude, go back and read the methodology of the gaming section. The part that comes before the section that you seem to be hyperemphasizing. I'm guessing maybe you skipped it entirely to get to what you thought was "the good stuff".So you are denying that they only describe street violence occurring in scenarios where Biden does not win?
It's right there in print.READ. THE. METHODOLOGY. SECTION.
*facepalm*
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?You've already exposed yourself, kiddo. IF THEY NO LIKE TRUMO THEY RINO ONLY!!!
If they vote Democrat they're not life-long Republicans. Obviously.
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?
You've already exposed yourself, kiddo. IF THEY NO LIKE TRUMO THEY RINO ONLY!!!If they vote Democrat they're not life-long Republicans. Obviously.
You're just embarrassing yourself now.
Close this window. Now go and research who Steele and Kristol really are. Then enter the world again, slightly embarrassed, but more educated about the tradition you think you belong to. -
(and yes. the methodology section is also "right there in print")
((it's often a useful guide to understanding a study. you should usually read it))The fact remains that the two scenarios not featuring a Biden win are also the two scenarios in which street violence is described as occurring.
-
(and yes. the methodology section is also "right there in print")
((it's often a useful guide to understanding a study. you should usually read it))The fact remains that the two scenarios not featuring a Biden win are also the two scenarios in which street violence is described as occurring.
READ. THE. METHODOLOGY. SECTION.
*bangs head on desk*
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?
You've already exposed yourself, kiddo. IF THEY NO LIKE TRUMO THEY RINO ONLY!!!
If they vote Democrat they're not life-long Republicans. Obviously.You're just embarrassing yourself now.
Close this window. Now go and research who Steele and Kristol really are. Then enter the world again, slightly embarrassed, but more educated about the tradition you think you belong to.Nope, you lied, you lied some more, you cast aspersions and you got called on all of it.
-
Never Trumpers are in the tank for Democrats. Nothing "right" about them.
Oh, so even though they are lifelong republicans, they don't count as being on "the right". Cool. So only you can determine who really counts as a member of the elect?
Who are they supporting in this election?
Oh. So now being on the right side of the spectrum means (and only means) "supporting Trump". I get it. You're just a MAGAbro. For a second, I thought I was dealing with someone who actually knew and understood the conservative tradition.
You haven't answered my question. Who are they supporting in this election?
You've already exposed yourself, kiddo. IF THEY NO LIKE TRUMO THEY RINO ONLY!!!
If they vote Democrat they're not life-long Republicans. Obviously.
You're just embarrassing yourself now.
Close this window. Now go and research who Steele and Kristol really are. Then enter the world again, slightly embarrassed, but more educated about the tradition you think you belong to.Nope, you lied, you lied some more, you cast aspersions and you got called on all of it.
Dude, this is really sad. Seriously, step away from the computer and educate yourself. Pride isn't your friend here.
-
And who knows? Maybe you'll actually start to learn what the conservative tradition is actually about.
Since we've already proven you cannot read for content and cannot conduct research, I'm sure you know precisely diddley-squat about "the conservative tradition" - which, incidentally, is not under debate in this thread.