Yeah, the protonmail thing is strange. But look at the archived version of the who.is: https://archive.is/rfVBp - creation date is September 2016, it seems (?)
Look at the archived page, though. Domain registered in September 2016:
Has anyone ever seen a Trump hat like this before? Seems off.
This 'pede right here nailed it.
FREE
"SHILL"? Fuck off, asshole. I've been on The_Donald since 2016 & put a shit ton of volunteer hours in here. I've commented under a few people's comments to get more eyes on it. I imagine most people don't go back to read through others' comments on random posts, so didn't think many would have read it if I had only commented once.
Thanks, Debbie. I'm not good with faces! The eyebrows do look different for sure.
I can't tell!!! I think the nose differences are just the angle. The moustache could be just trimmed differently, but the eyebrows are different, too, so would he change eyebrows for a performance? IDK, IDK.
Thanks for checking. I just can't tell.
Dom Tullipso: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qQElJUYnM
Is that him?
Is he this guy exposed as a prankster by Tuck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qQElJUYnM ?
Is it the prankster Dom Tullipso? Someone please check. Looks like the same guy to me, but I'm terrible at recognizing faces https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qQElJUYnM
Can someone with better face recognition than mine check if he's the prankster "Dom Tullipso" exposed by Tuck in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qQElJUYnM ?
Lol, yes!
Can you briefly explain why it's wrong for bigger counties to be more D? Seems like the bigger the city the more commie it is, at least in my experience.
Sigh. From a new account. Q-esque. You didn't even bother to split your treatise into paragraphs, 'pede. Not that I don't want to believe you, but precisely because I do want to - I'm skeptical.
They need to hurry the eff up.
OK, dumb question: but since the counties are sorted from small to large, doesn't this show that the larger the county the more pro-Biden it is, which is the intuitive result anyway?
UGH. I WANT TO AGREE WITH YOU, I REALLY DO. That being said, Scott is also a master of pretending he didn't say something he actually said, or strongly suggested, if things don't go the way he expected them to go.
Still, I do think you've got a bit of point. I want to believe.
Anybody has a link???
GP was the first one to expose the dead voters in Michigan. He inspired 'pedes here to search the online MI voters database that led to us finding tens of thousands of dead voters across different states.
That's true. On the other hand, at that point there was no by-county data and the numbers were a bit off from what was reported for Anterim. (May have been due to aggregation or rounding error, or whatever.) Most importantly, though, what it does confirm is that ACTUAL GLITCHES do appear as vote reversals in the data stream. Doesn't confirm that all the vote reversals in the data stream are ACTUAL GLITCHES.
Anyway, YES, in light of the confirmed glitches, ALL OF THE VOTE REVERSALS SHOULD BE AUDITED/LOOKED INTO/NUKED.
Oh yeah, good point.
Definitely true! But we only have publicly available data, and the analysis was of a data feed meant for the media - would be good to know some details about how the voter data gets fed into it.
OK, so I ran the "most important speech I have ever made" and it was labeled as "suspicious", but when I ran the one from 6 hours ago, it labeled it as "no deep fake detected".
Weird? I used the links from youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720O_yBLrTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFADopBnb_U&t=2s