28
ShowMeTheSauce 28 points ago +28 / -0

My CNNTapes Wishlist:

  1. CNN knew the coronavirus wasn’t a big deal and pushed it anyways at the direction of the Democrats, nothingburger-style
  2. CNN caught on tape saying they think fraud is credible and suppressing it anyways
  3. Actively admitted suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story
  4. Coordination with big tech on stories to suppress

My Larpy CNN Tapes Wishlist:

  1. CNN coordinating with Coomer
  2. Biden or Harris on the conference call giving orders
  3. CIA on the call discussing payment to CNN
1
ShowMeTheSauce 1 point ago +1 / -0

On top of that, McInerny was also the one who said Iraq had WMD’s, so while I appreciate his support of our president, I do take everything he says with a grain of salt

1
ShowMeTheSauce 1 point ago +1 / -0

I understand evidence takes time. Confirmation of a news event that big does not take more than a “yes, that happened” from senior officials.

Took them no time at all to confirm Soleimani’s death, for example.

14
ShowMeTheSauce 14 points ago +14 / -0

Omg. No fucking balls.

Thank you for answering my question, it felt like I was missing some part of this story.

Nonetheless i feel like certification gained via intimidation shouldn’t legally hold water.

1
ShowMeTheSauce 1 point ago +1 / -0

1000?? THOSE ARE ROOKIE NUMBERS

2
ShowMeTheSauce 2 points ago +2 / -0

Before you go out and spend 10 hours digging up healthcare subsidies for covid across 50 nations, know that even if you find that info, there are lots of other factors that would likely drive so much more of the covid case count differences that it would drown out any relationship you find. Notably, those include case count standards, population density, political ideology, testing prevalence (biggest one), etc. getting rid of omitted variable bias is a pain in the ass unless you dig up an instrumental variable thats correlated with your X variable (covid subsidy) but uncorrelated with your Y variable (case count).

Fingers crossed one of our autists has the time to run that regression.

16
ShowMeTheSauce 16 points ago +16 / -0

I actually got that exact same response this week too! A step further, I pointed out how ridiculous 98% turnout rates were and they just said “that’s not unreasonable, mail-in voting made it a lot easier and people really hated Trump and wanted to vote this year”.

39
ShowMeTheSauce 39 points ago +39 / -0

Heads up to anyone presenting this fact to normies: what they’ll tell you is that urbanization has continued to shift more of the population toward concentrated city centers, requiring fewer and fewer county victories to win the presidency over time. I don’t have the time to do this but my hunch is that urbanization doesn’t happen THAT fast, and the large majority of that urbanization wave has long passed, so if you wanna have this talking point be AIRTIGHT, it’ll be useful to compare city vs rural % of population in US in 2012, 2016, and 2020 and show that it’s relatively unchanged.

3
ShowMeTheSauce 3 points ago +3 / -0

A word of caution to all the pedes here: having tried this yesterday (unsuccessfully), one must do this very very gently. If someone else brings up the impossibility of widespread voter fraud, perhaps start by having them explain to you why they think this is true, and ask targeted questions that bring their points into doubt. I didn’t do this and went in guns blazing with every claim i made ready to go on my phone, and happily offered to show every bit of backup and evidence right on the spot. They will refuse to listen, and one argument they’ll use is that they don’t have time to look into these things and that they trust the experts more than they trust you. Of course, when prodded about who exactly those experts were, the response was CNN, and even after debunking via raw video three claims by CNN in a row, it won’t be enough to shake their faith in fake news. You’ll be, as OP says, gaslit. Redpilling is a JOURNEY.

3
ShowMeTheSauce 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where the hell did you get 32 to 1?!?! Omg. Im betting against friends and family and they’re not willing to handicap the odds (but also, taking $32K off of any one of them is immediately friendship-ending lmao). But i did it at 1:1 anyways because fuck you I ain’t spoutin’ bullshit here and I’m ready to die by my words.

3
ShowMeTheSauce 3 points ago +4 / -1

$50? If it helps at all, one fellow pede put down $1400 the MORNING AFTER election night.

I understand your concern, but know that Sidney and Rudy’s cases are filed independently. A single judge cannot throw one case out and then throw the other one out too.

https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7ebpC6/doubled-down-on-my-trump-bet-tod/

7
ShowMeTheSauce 7 points ago +7 / -0

That has to be the most high energy shit I’ve ever heard. Post-election night fraud before a single affidavit was ever signed lmao LOVE IT. UNSHAKEABLE FAITH.

4
ShowMeTheSauce 4 points ago +4 / -0

In another post somewhere, i heard vegas odds improved for Trump after the Giuliani hearing in PA. Gonna use my winnings to get the biggest Trump flag money can buy, and run a laps around town to rub it in.

2
ShowMeTheSauce 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you for confirming im not the only one. Exhibit 26 sounded spicy af!!!

view more: Next ›