"Throwing every legal challenge at the wall to see what sticks" isn't exactly 4D chess. He's batting a little over 50% right now on even having cases heard, much less victories; a little under half of what's been filed, the courts have either already found against his campaign or summarily dismissed for being too half-baked to waste court time on.
Circling back on this, there is one aspect in which I'd agree it's 4D chess: 60% of the money Trump is raising right now for these lawsuits is going to pay off campaign debts from the election. It doesn't matter how frivolous the lawsuits turn out to be if it keeps Trump from having to dig into his own pocket to pay for his campaign.
But that's only "4D chess" in the sense that it's a con, run by a conman. A classic con, in the sense that people believe the money donated is for one purpose and it's used for another.
States can't change their rules for certification of electors without a governor's signature. If a state tried to pull some nonsense like changing the selection of electors away from the process as encoded in law before Nov. 3, that'd be new law and (a) would require a governor's signature or a veto-proof majority and (b) may actually be ex-post-facto if the current law is structured such that it declares how electors related to the votes cast on Nov. 3, so could be stopped by state courts.
The fantasy that Republican state legislatures could steal the ability of the people of their state to choose the President is just that: fantasy.
Yeah, none of the money Trump is spending is for that. The only thing he cares about is staying President so that he has the authority to pardon himself. He's a man riding a tiger; people look at him and go "how brave and strong he must be to master that beast," but the wise know he can't stop, because the moment he does the tiger eats him. Citizen Trump is on the hook for breaking the laws of the state of New York.
There's no reason to believe he'd even want to "crush" the "central banking system." His value is delineated in dollars. If the dollar collapses because central banking has collapsed, he's out most of his fortune.
I don't think I'll ever understand why people think this guy isn't a rich man on the side of the wealthy.
> The only thing he cares about is staying President so that he has the authority to pardon himself.
Projection. Everyone in DC is gonna kill themselves if Biden doesn't make it because they know they're gonna either face a firing squad or do life in prison.
> There's no reason to believe he'd even want to "crush" the "central banking system."
Portrait of Andrew Jackson hanging in the Oval Office.
> I don't think I'll ever understand why people think this guy isn't a rich man on the side of the wealthy.
You'll have to be clearer in your meaning. Yes, there is a portrait of one of America's worst Presidents hanging in the Oval Office. That President served during a time predating the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and World War II. Whatever he thought about central banking doesn't apply to the economic realities of the early 21st century. Is your argument that Trump would tear down central banking because Jackson is his hero and wanted to tear down central banking during his administration? Because I don't think you're arguing that Trump is profoundly stupid, but a hero-worship-based attack on a cornerstone of the global economy would be profoundly stupid.
The rest of your statement is Q conspiracy nonsense that I will discount out of hand, because I don't debate the unreasonable.
You're right, that is hilarious. That media source grossly misunderstands martial law, states of emergency, and presidential authority. If Trump tries to declare the election null and void, that's simply a coup attempt on his part, nothing more. He's welcome to try it, and I look forward to the US Marshals responding accordingly.
If that's indicative of where you're getting your information, I understand why this is the information you keep presenting.
Actually, with the data from the servers, they will be able to show when the software was ordered to start switching votes. They will be able to petition SCOTUS to nullify the election because of such broad foreign election interference and send it to the House.
And as far as a coup attempt, there hasn't been any certification of the election results yet. How could there be a coup when the results aren't yet known?
What did you think about the CIA not being invited to the overseas raid? Methinks the Fed Govt. is learning how to do without them, almost as if the CIA's days are numbered.
The lawyer of the man suing to have the American election overturned is not a reliable source of factual information. That's like believing Charles Manson's lawyer when he says his client is innocent.
Get a third-party confirmation on anything Sidney Powell does not say under oath. Even in the quote from her, we can see she is not the primary source on this information. "But I do not know if good guys got it or bad guys got it." She's relaying information she's received second-hand, and since her client is known to believe unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, it's safe to assume a modest probability that the second-hand source is unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
(Also, as a useful first-pass filter on baloney, any news story that starts with a blast-word like "HUGE!" is probably not going to pass the sniff test for veracity. Rags use blast-words because they have to make up for their lack of integrity with spectacle. News organizations with a reputation to lose just use short-sentence headlines).
a) Trump is a primary source of what Trump said; there's no fact checking involved. You either take Trump as a reliable source of info about himself, or you don't. If you don't, this entire conversation is moot because you're claiming a guy who can't even tell who his legal team is is playing 4D chess. If you're trusting some "my mother's cousin's sister works at the Pentagon and she heard what's really going on is" source over the words of the plaintiff in these cases, that's your problem.
b) Check the dates of the tweet vs. the headline. She was on his legal team; now she's not. Kicked off. Incompetent hiring isn't 4D chess.
Honestly, this is the problem with QAnon. If the only way to conclude the dumbest guy in the room is actually the smartest guy in the room is to assume he's the smartest guy in the room and to work backwards to figure out how that might possibly be true, Occam's Razor suggests we already have our answer.
He's referring to the new information that two of the young lawyers that were involved in the Bush v Gore case, are now supreme court justices installed by Trump
I don't follow. A 269-269 split, given how the states have broken, is staggeringly unlikely. Multiple states would have to be flipped, and since US elections are so distributed, it's unlikely for SCOTUS to find in such a way as to change the results of more than one of these states, if any.
And even if the election somehow ended up in the 12th Amendment case of the House deciding: the House is trending Democrat control.
"Grilled" is a strange way to describe "Reached a compromise in his position as Chair of the Judiciary Committee to suppress the testimony of four women whose stories supported Anita Hill's." Biden's soft-handling of the question of Thomas's conduct has been raised as a concern during this Presidential campaign.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/supreme-court-trump...