Go ahead.

EDIT: Disclaimer, this was for one of the most principled politicians I've ever met. To this day, he will say he is an anarchist in public. (Although, he would say it in a pleasurable way)

Sure, so to change 0.5% of the vote, we would find people with demographics that people vote for.

For instance, if there is a women on the ballot, run another women because at least 0.5% of people vote for a women, so this splits the vote. Or find someone with similar/same names, bonus points if their signage only has their last name.

Anyone with the enemy's yard sign, gets the negative ad. Each neg ad was tested considerably.

There is a huge database of every voter, their petitions they signed, odds of being dem/gop, odds of voting, their pet names(if registered), etc... You go up to someone's house knowing they support guns because they signed a petition. Heck, the candidate would pretend they remembered the dog's name from a few years ago.

Lying and plausible deniability is like a daily thing. Looking back on it, I would have been sacrificed in a second for putting neg ads in people's mailboxes illegally.

Those are some heavy hitters. I feel like I forgot like 2 major stomach churning events, maybe I blocked them out. (Oh gosh, when I went to the enemy's campaign rally and put neg ads on everyone's cars, got followed by their staff, jumped over a fence/bush area to escape...) Okay, I'm only missing 1 stomach churning event from my memory. I think it was strategy related, maybe it had to do with old people.

Well, if you said it, it must be true and we must accept these anecdotes as the complete truth and you as the best source of it.

Well since you've responded sarcastically, it must be debunked.

There's nothing to debunk. That's the entire point. He's trying to prop up his claims with more claims. If we cannot determine the veracity of his anecdotes, they are of no use to us in determining the validity of his conclusions.

His entire response could be boiled down to "Trust me, bro".

I get the feeling he knows he cannot defend his position based on either commonly known information or on reasoning about the situation. So he has to purport to have special information that most don't. And that special information, which you cannot have, is enough to turn everything around. But he also won't give you enough information to independently verify. He won't tell you which campaigns he did these things for, which politicians he worked for. But they were top men. Top. Men.

You guys have convinced me that Democrats ignore scientists and Republicans listen to scientists.

Thank you for teaching me the party of Science and Data.

We've "convinced" you of the thing you came into this thread with. Or is this just a thinly veiled attempt at making others backtrack their words or apologize for impugning your integrity?

If you were truly concerned with "Science and Data", you would realize that vague, unverifiable anecdotes are only persuasive to those who are already persuaded. They are not a valid way to make a point.

Those sound like basic things that politicians or even salespeople do. You sound like you went in naive, got your mind blown, and now believe anything is possible. I hate to break it to you but you haven't uncovered any shocking secrets and your 'destroy the economy so we can beat Trump even though he is defeating himself with his handling of the epidemic' theory doesn't water.

So you think the Democrats ignored scientists?

Democrats are not some monolithic entity. A 'democrat' is basically someone in the US who votes who has empathy for others and/or isn't in favor of Christian religious doctrine as a basis for legislating morality and/or thinks that making it super easy for anyone to buy a gun makes gun violence exponentially more likely.

I really doubt they all coordinated to destroy the livelihood of millions of American's to make the president look bad when he was doing it just fine by himself day after day.

If you are going to go the conspiracy route why not look to Republican politicians? They are much more unified and they universally hate Trump (do you even remember the primary debates? He literally insulted other opponent's families) and they only got in line because he demonstrated he could destroy their career by motivating his base to action. They wanted him gone just as much as anyone else -- they just couldn't say or do anything overt about it.

But no, that didn't happen either. A idiotic narcissist who refuses to listen to anyone and is obsessed with how he looks under stage lights more than welfare of the American people can lose an election just fine on his own.

So you do think that most Democrats ignored scientists/science?

I know you've been asked this question 3 or 4 times now, and ignored it each time, but I thought maybe you'd answer it this time.

The question makes no sense. What democrats? What scientists? About what?

Do you think that men aged between 30 and 35 ignored wives?

Can you answer such a vague and useless question?

'Democrats', 'scientists', and 'ignored (about subject)' and 'at which point in time' are not things that you can just assume and the fact that you think you can group all these things into one question is baffling.

6/6 avoided question.

Have a good one bud.

You tried too hard to avoid the question. Next time, be genuine. You knew what I meant.

Seems to me like you were trying for a 'gotcha' and didn't get your cue and now you are dissapointed.

The Dems didn't make Trump bet everything on "ignore it and it will go away." He could have pushed for public health measures in February 2020 ("Stop the China Virus, wear a MAGA mask!"). He didn't. He squandered the opportunity to use gentle R reduction, so we had to jump to strong R reduction with lockdowns.

I know that following the science doesn't come naturally to Republicans, but this is basic shit. If you had figured it out then, you wouldn't need to be on Trump daiper duty in 2023.