American Politics

[QUOTE=JustTK;2803243]More evidence that COVID vaccines cause excess deaths. This is really for Tiny, who appears at least open to reading / watching new evidence:
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G1SWjL7gmQ[/URL]

Of course, this will get zero coverage by the corporat ecaptured mainstream media since they are sponsored by Big Pharma too.[/QUOTE]A youtube video, talking about a study (that may or may not have taken place) that has not even been peer reviewed. Very nice touch with the false title of "Get the latest information from the CDC. ".

What kind of scientist would release a study that is not peer reviewed.?

[QUOTE=ErsatzJulian;2803227]Did you actually read this article? It is mostly an opinion piece that it is kind of beside my point that no one has heard the doctor's side because they have been bound by patient privacy laws.[/QUOTE]No, I did not read it, but you are the second dumb Dem to miss the point. Only point of linking the article was to get a link to the lawsuit.

[QUOTE=ErsatzJulian;2803227]As for my assertion that citing The Daily Mail does not prove anything, I stand by it because the proof of its shoddy journalism is self-evident in the article because there is no attempt to present the other side's position.[/QUOTE]Okay, so I look at the LA Times story, "It's part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care. It resembles the right-wing attack on abortion rights. ".

For a Democratic douche like you, that is not one sided bias.

As for your claim that the Daily Mail did not present both sides, that was impossible to do.

"Kaiser, for the moment, can't discuss Cole's case without her express permission because of federal and state patient privacy laws. That might change when Kaiser files a formal response to the lawsuit, which could be weeks or months from now. ".

[QUOTE=ErsatzJulian;2803227]
Finally, just knock it off with the insults. It makes you sound like a petulant child and nobody respects that.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ErsatzJulian;2800415] For all you know, Chloe Cole finds it more worthwhile now to be the poster child for conservatives against gender-affirming care that she is misrepresenting her position about the sex-change operation when she was about to undergo it.[/QUOTE]When someone files a lawsuit because they were not happy with their sex change surgery, you have no right to say that she is misrepresenting her position on sex change surgeries. Duh.

And then you blasted the Daily Mail because they reported on this lawsuit and called it shoddy journalism. No, that is what is called news. The LA Times calling it a "right wing attack" like the attack on abortion rights is not news but Democratic douche opinion that you consider news.

I will make you a deal. Quit being a stupid fool and I will quit calling you one.

I would also ask that you quit being a closed minded Democratic douche but it is best to take one step at a time.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2800587]Well, your own source[/QUOTE]LOL. I repeat the only reason I linked this article was to get to the lawsuit.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2800587]"In fact, studies indicate that only 1% to 2% of transgender individuals "detransition," and that often happens because of discrimination and other social pressures, not because the patients genuinely feel they have made a mistake about their gender identity. ".[/QUOTE]You and the LA Times are not qualified to review the quality of studies. For example, this one has a 6% dissatisfaction rate but has a 37% response rate. [URL]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28471328/[/URL].

Of course, there are no links to these studies with 1 and 2% dissatisfaction rates.

"Proponents of these bans assert that puberty blockers and hormones used in such care endanger the lives of adolescents. They say the youths may be going through a phase that they'll soon outgrow and the treatments are based on overly indulgent diagnoses of "gender dysphoria".

The truth is just the opposite. Gender dysphoria diagnosis is neither novel nor a fad, as some partisan critics assert. Instead, it's recognized by professionals as a serious medical condition. ".

No, the truth is no one knows and the first rule of medicine is do no harm.

This is the same kind of reckless "expert" driven bullshit as the Covid vaccines. They were claimed to be safe and effective and now two years later, we all know (well maybe not you Democratic douches) that they were anything but.

[QUOTE=Elusive;2803271]A youtube video, talking about a study (that may or may not have taken place) that has not even been peer reviewed. Very nice touch with the false title of "Get the latest information from the CDC. ".

What kind of scientist would release a study that is not peer reviewed.?[/QUOTE]Its a preprint. A widely recognised form of research disclosure. A preprint is a full draft research paper that is shared publicly before it has been peer reviewed. Preprints achieve many of the goals of journal publishing, but within a much shorter time frame. The biggest benefits are: credit, feedback, and visibility. [URL]https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/[/URL] As John Campbell states, the likelihood of the paper being peer reviewed and published is low due to corporate capture.

The study may not have taken place? What evidence do you have of that? The url is in the video, look it up.

False title? What false title?

It must be truly scary to have so much cognitive dissonance that you just shoot out the first wildest accusations you can come up with.

[QUOTE=Elusive;2803271]
What kind of scientist would release a study that is not peer reviewed.?[/QUOTE]An ethical one.

Two things that will never be in peer reviewed journals regardless of the evidence:

1. Covid vaccines kill people.

2. Opioids are under prescribed.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2803385]

It must be truly scary to have so much cognitive dissonance that you just shoot out the first wildest accusations you can come up with.[/QUOTE]No doubt. The people screaming "go science go" with regards to the Covid vaccines are the ones least likely to have looked at the data. You have to be a Democratic douche to think the Covid vaccines are safe and effective now.

Rand Paul was on Fox and made the point people were smarter than many thought. Like 99% of seniors who vaxxed but rates for children were miniscule. This is the Democrats biggest nightmare: people thinking for themselves.

But the real kicker of a video was this. Sorry, TK, your video was more informative but this one was more fun. Only Russell Brand can make the end of the world and science seem funny.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOGVy8TYHI[/URL]

[QUOTE=TheCane;2803134]Comeuppance time is finally here! And we're just getting started. [B]Bust his balls[/B]! His former attorney went to jail for the same stuff. And what goes around comes around. Next!

[URL]https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-hush-money-stormy-daniels/index.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Yep, that is the biggest and most damning American Politics Real News item of the day. But typically dumb Repub hillbilly wingers would rather post wildly off this forum's topic nonsense like all the imaginary deaths the Covid vaccine caused, how close they are to choosing a sex change operation for themselves if they read or hear just one more mention of it being their right to choose it and so on.

This first Trump indictment might in and of itself be less legally threatening than the idictments he has earned for worse crimes. However, this one is critical in that it was the gateway crime that allowed him and his Repub supporters and partners to inflict historic levels of economic disaster, death and destruction on America and most of the world.

Sure, Repub FBI Director Comey's contribution likely shifted enough votes to Trump at the last minute in 2016 to put him in the White House. Russia's extraordinarily high level of collusion with Camp Trump, the RePutinKlan Party and winger media like Fux News certainly shifted just enough votes to do it.

But there was nothing illegal about those pro Trump campaign moves. They were merely unethical and Anti-American.

However, this Trump campaign election rigging move to put him in the White House was illegal.

And without any one of those bits of election interference or this illegal one, Repub Icon and current 2024 RePutinKlan Party prez nominee frontrunner Trump could not have flushed Trillions in American taxpayer dollars down the shitter with nothing to show for it except a million fewer jobs created with their economic "stimulus" legislation than without it.

He couldn't have golfed through 3-4 non existant Infrastructure Weeks over the golf course of 4 miserable years.

He couldn't have done so much to weaken American democracy, alienate our pro democtratic allies and strengthen his Masters Putin, Xi, Kim and other authoritarian dictatorships around the world.

He couldn't have pulled the key Pandemic Prevention and Response agents out of China to make Xi feel better and against all expert advice not to do something so stupid and dangerous many months before the first coronavirus cases emerged in secrecy when only a couple of months' heads up about it to responsible parties would have easily averted Trump's Pandemic and all the problems that followed.

Therefore, 1,000,000+ Americans and many more people around the world would not have been mass murdered.

Worldwide economies would not have crashed and millions upon millions of jobs destroyed amid neccessary Trump's Pandemic mitigation closures.

We would never have suffered those monumental losses and the lingering Supply-Chain destruction-based Inflation.

America and the world would have definitely been better off in ways beyond words had Trump not illegally rigged the 2016 election in his favor with this Original Sin crime for which he has now been indicted.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2803290]No, I did not read it, but you are the second dumb Dem to miss the point. Only point of linking the article was to get a link to the lawsuit.

Okay, so I look at the LA Times story, "It's part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care. It resembles the right-wing attack on abortion rights. ".

For a Democratic douche like you, that is not one sided bias.

As for your claim that the Daily Mail did not present both sides, that was impossible to do.

"Kaiser, for the moment, can't discuss Cole's case without her express permission because of federal and state patient privacy laws. That might change when Kaiser files a formal response to the lawsuit, which could be weeks or months from now. ".[/QUOTE]This quote is from the LA Times, not the Daily Mail. If the LA Times can write that the doctor issued a generic statement that "it provides patient-centered gender-affirming care that is consistent with the standards of medical care and excellence and. Founded on sound research and best medical practices," then so can the Daily Mail. The fact that it did not shows that its standard of journalism is questionable at best.

And if a number of your readers fail to understand your point, perhaps the problem lies not with the reader but your poor writing?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2803290]When someone files a lawsuit because they were not happy with their sex change surgery, you have no right to say that she is misrepresenting her position on sex change surgeries. Duh.

And then you blasted the Daily Mail because they reported on this lawsuit and called it shoddy journalism. No, that is what is called news. The LA Times calling it a "right wing attack" like the attack on abortion rights is not news but Democratic douche opinion that you consider news.

I will make you a deal. Quit being a stupid fool and I will quit calling you one.

I would also ask that you quit being a closed minded Democratic douche but it is best to take one step at a time.[/QUOTE]Please read my post carefully: I called the Daily Mail shoddy journalism because their article was one-sided and did not even tried to present the other side's position; nowhere did I write that it is shoddy because it reported on this lawsuit.

As for your claim that I am misrepresenting her position, I would like to point out that I did no such thing. I suggested that it is possible that she may have had a change of mind between the surgery and now; if she feels aggrieved now, she is perfectly entitled to. But to sue her doctors because she had a change of heart, that's problematic.

And, by the way, what would you call the conservative's action on this matter? You yourself used the words "attack on abortion rights" to describe to it; so does that mean that you agree with the LA Times' description?

Finally, why are you so angry? Are things in the real world not going your way and one way that you feel better is by blasting your vitriol here to make yourself feel better about yourself?

[QUOTE=JustTK;2803243]More evidence that COVID vaccines cause excess deaths. This is really for Tiny, who appears at least open to reading / watching new evidence:
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G1SWjL7gmQ[/URL]

Of course, this will get zero coverage by the corporat ecaptured mainstream media since they are sponsored by Big Pharma too.[/QUOTE]Good one JustTK. I spent two or three hours looking at the paper in question and related info. And for a while was having second thoughts about getting my second bivalent COVID booster this month.

However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.

Here's the paper in question:

[url]https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0350/v1/download[/url]

The Norwegians performed a regression analysis between excess mortality (dependent variable), and vaccination uptake, month number, average 2020 to 2021 mortality relative to 2016 to 2019 mortality, and life expectancy (independent variables) and they came up with a correlation, which I believe is spurious, given their intent is to show the vaccines are killing lots of people. If they'd instead used deaths from heat waves and from COVID the disease, I suspect they would have come up with a better correlation. The heat deaths occurred mostly in France, Spain, Germany, and Portugal, countries with high vaccination uptake rates. There were virtually none in the low vaccination uptake rate countries, which are mostly in Eastern Europe.

I'm too lazy to look at COVID deaths by month and country quantitatively, in an Excel spreadsheet, but have looked at graphs of deaths versus time during 2022 for the highest and lowest vaccination uptake countries in the Norwegians' paper. And it looks to me like COVID deaths per capita were lower for whatever reason in the lower uptake countries in 2022, which were all in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, after the winter of 2021/2022, that is, after the worldwide Omicron wave, the death rates from COVID went down to really low levels in the lowest vaccination countries, while they did not in the highest vaccination countries. So, again, I'd attribute part of the Norwegian's findings to higher death rates from COVID in the low vaccination countries.

Despite what Fauci, the CDC, and other health authorities would tell you on one hand and what the anti-vaxxers would tell you on the other, both vaccines and past infection provide good immunity against severe disease. And also COVID did not move through Europe uniformly. You may recall that initially in 2020, Eastern Europe (low vaccination uptake countries) had low rates of COVID infection, but later caught up and in some instances surpassed western European countries in per capita COVID deaths. So anyway I don't think the fact that the Eastern European countries had lower per capita death rates from COVID, the disease, in 2022 is an argument for superiority of getting immunity through disease instead of vaccines. In fact, for people my age anyway, I think that's a stupid argument.

Now I'm weak in statistics. The only info I see in their paper that gives me an idea of whether their correlations are statistically significant is Figure 1 C on page 5, which shows their data fits (the straight lines) and actual data (yellow or orange line) for percentage excess deaths by month. They emphasize the fact that the % excess deaths is increasing 2022. The reason is that you expect that % excess deaths in January and February should be higher, because of the Omicron wave. But why are they higher still in July? Why, it must be the aftereffects of the vaccines! Again, I'd chalk that up to heatwave deaths. The excess deaths fall off a lot in subsequent months.

The excess death rates go down after July. Without the July data, the Norwegian's correlation looks a lot less impressive.

Finally, there's other research, which looks to be better quality to me, that contradicts the Norwegian's hypothesis. Here are a couple of links. The first is particularly good and more comprehensive than the Norwegian study -- see Figure 6 in particular.

[URL]https://healthfeedback.org/what-can-explain-the-excess-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-europe-in-2022/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319484/[/URL]

Now, you will see posts on social media showing a correlation between higher vaccination rates and higher mortality or hospitalization rates from COVID within single countries or counties or wherever. The UK and Israel probably account for the majority. They're bogus, as they fail to segment by age group. In parts of the UK, for example, a lot more old people got vaccinated than young people. And old people are mostly the ones who were hospitalized and died with COVID. Correct for age and it's obvious the vaccines prevented hospitalizations and death.

Also, if you look like a country like Taiwan, which was walled off from COVID through travel restrictions, you'll see higher all cause mortality in the vaccinated. Contrary to what Fauci, the CDC, the WHO and other health authorities would have you believe, thousands or tens of thousands of people have died from COVID vaccines. Millions however have died from COVID the disease. It's a numbers game. And for people my age, but perhaps not yours, the decision to get the vaccine was a no brainer.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2803873]Good one JustTK. I spent two or three hours looking at the paper in question and related info. And for a while was having second thoughts about getting my second bivalent COVID booster this month.

However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.

Here's the paper in question:

[url]https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0350/v1/download[/url]

The Norwegians performed a regression analysis between excess mortality (dependent variable), and vaccination uptake, month number, average 2020 to 2021 mortality relative to 2016 to 2019 mortality, and life expectancy (independent variables) and they came up with a correlation, which I believe is spurious, given their intent is to show the vaccines are killing lots of people. If they'd instead used deaths from heat waves and from COVID the disease, I suspect they would have come up with a better correlation. The heat deaths occurred mostly in France, Spain, Germany, and Portugal, countries with high vaccination uptake rates. There were virtually none in the low vaccination uptake rate countries, which are mostly in Eastern Europe.

I'm too lazy to look at COVID deaths by month and country quantitatively, in an Excel spreadsheet, but have looked at graphs of deaths versus time during 2022 for the highest and lowest vaccination uptake countries in the Norwegians' paper. And it looks to me like COVID deaths per capita were lower for whatever reason in the lower uptake countries in 2022, which were all in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, after the winter of 2021/2022, that is, after the worldwide Omicron wave, the death rates from COVID went down to really low levels in the lowest vaccination countries, while they did not in the highest vaccination countries. So, again, I'd attribute part of the Norwegian's findings to higher death rates from COVID in the low vaccination countries.

Despite what Fauci, the CDC, and other health authorities would tell you on one hand and what the anti-vaxxers would tell you on the other, both vaccines and past infection provide good immunity against severe disease. And also COVID did not move through Europe uniformly. You may recall that initially in 2020, Eastern Europe (low vaccination uptake countries) had low rates of COVID infection, but later caught up and in some instances surpassed western European countries in per capita COVID deaths. So anyway I don't think the fact that the Eastern European countries had lower per capita death rates from COVID, the disease, in 2022 is an argument for superiority of getting immunity through disease instead of vaccines. In fact, for people my age anyway, I think that's a stupid argument.

Now I'm weak in statistics. The only info I see in their paper that gives me an idea of whether their correlations are statistically significant is Figure 1 C on page 5, which shows their data fits (the straight lines) and actual data (yellow or orange line) for percentage excess deaths by month. They emphasize the fact that the % excess deaths is increasing 2022. The reason is that you expect that % excess deaths in January and February should be higher, because of the Omicron wave. But why are they higher still in July? Why, it must be the aftereffects of the vaccines! Again, I'd chalk that up to heatwave deaths. The excess deaths fall off a lot in subsequent months.

The excess death rates go down after July. Without the July data, the Norwegian's correlation looks a lot less impressive.

Finally, there's other research, which looks to be better quality to me, that contradicts the Norwegian's hypothesis. Here are a couple of links. The first is particularly good and more comprehensive than the Norwegian study -- see Figure 6 in particular.

[URL]https://healthfeedback.org/what-can-explain-the-excess-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-europe-in-2022/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319484/[/URL]

Now, you will see posts on social media showing a correlation between higher vaccination rates and higher mortality or hospitalization rates from COVID within single countries or counties or wherever. The UK and Israel probably account for the majority. They're bogus, as they fail to segment by age group. In parts of the UK, for example, a lot more old people got vaccinated than young people. And old people are mostly the ones who were hospitalized and died with COVID. Correct for age and it's obvious the vaccines prevented hospitalizations and death.

Also, if you look like a country like Taiwan, which was walled off from COVID through travel restrictions, you'll see higher all cause mortality in the vaccinated. Contrary to what Fauci, the CDC, the WHO and other health authorities would have you believe, thousands or tens of thousands of people have died from COVID vaccines. Millions however have died from COVID the disease. It's a numbers game. And for people my age, but perhaps not yours, the decision to get the vaccine was a no brainer.[/QUOTE]For everybody who is convinced that the COVID vaccines caused a massive amount of deaths, it will make no difference whatsoever regardless of the number of studies, papers, etc. That say otherwise.

These "everybody knows" folks are the same ones who believe cockamamie conspiracy theories like Chinese thermostats changed votes in the 2020 election or that Italian space lasers changed votes or that JFK (or is it JFK, Jr?) is really alive or that the Earth is flat or that the moon is made out of green cheese.

Mark Twain attributed quote this to Benjamin Disraeli. Something for think about those who love to quibble about ephemera. Ah, but who first said, "the devil's in the details " ?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2803873]Good one JustTK. I spent two or three hours looking at the paper in question and related info. And for a while was having second thoughts about getting my second bivalent COVID booster this month.

However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.

Here's the paper in question:

[url]https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0350/v1/download[/url]
[/QUOTE]Again, thanks for taking the time to look at the paper Tiny. I think if you watch John Campbell's accompanying / explanatory video to the paper, you would find answers to several of you concenrs. The university has no skin in the vax game. It is an independent body.

They did account for many possible confounding variables such as other causes like heat waves and COVID deaths. These were accounted for and the correlation still exists.

You have now seen evidence of excess deaths (that you orginally stated would motivate you to consider seriously that vax deaths were occuring in significant numbers), and evidence of higher deaths in highly vaxxed countries. You have also seen copious evidence that this evidence that is contrary to the state message is being suppressed. If you want to keep denying it, that's up to you. Note - these stats ignore vax injuries - these are said to be a huge number.

I think when the Rep Party gets in to power next time, we will see even more truth coming out. Rand Paul seems determined to get to the truth. That's great to see bcos although Trump was a huge liar, the Dem Party has become that party of lies and cover ups.

Excellent interview here by Kim Iversen with Jill Stein, including a discussion on the importance of 3rd parties.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foGvzhA7Gc[/URL]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2804097]Again, thanks for taking the time to look at the paper Tiny. I think if you watch John Campbell's accompanying / explanatory video to the paper, you would find answers to several of you concenrs. The university has no skin in the vax game. It is an independent body.

They did account for many possible confounding variables such as other causes like heat waves and COVID deaths. These were accounted for and the correlation still exists.

You have now seen evidence of excess deaths (that you orginally stated would motivate you to consider seriously that vax deaths were occuring in significant numbers), and evidence of higher deaths in highly vaxxed countries. You have also seen copious evidence that this evidence that is contrary to the state message is being suppressed. If you want to keep denying it, that's up to you. Note - these stats ignore vax injuries - these are said to be a huge number.

I think when the Rep Party gets in to power next time, we will see even more truth coming out. Rand Paul seems determined to get to the truth. That's great to see bcos although Trump was a huge liar, the Dem Party has become that party of lies and cover ups.[/QUOTE]Hi JustTK, looking over the paper, I see they did kick out the heat wave deaths in their Model 5. And perhaps you could say they partly controlled for COVID deaths by including the average 2020 and 2021 mortality relative to 2016 to 2019 mortality as an independent variable. That is, perhaps higher death rates in 2020 and 2021 would be correlated with lower death rates in 2022. And, again, I don't have a good background in statistics. All I can do is look at figure 1 C and say from that the July data really pushed up the slope of their data fit. So anyway their case isn't convincing to me. A large part of it is that I just don't see how the vaccine could have worse long term effects than severe disease from COVID. And a person is less likely to have severe disease if he's vaccinated.

Also, except for Poland, the countries with low vaccination uptake rates are relatively small places. Most of the data, since it's weighted by population, is from countries that have small differences in vaccination rates. You can see this on Figure 1 D of the Norwegians paper. I'd guess the majority of the data is from countries with vaccination uptake rates of 72% to 75%.

I'd refer you again to Figure 6 in the following, which looks at many more countries, and shows "0" correlation between excess deaths and vaccination rates:

[url]https://healthfeedback.org/what-can-explain-the-excess-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-europe-in-2022/[/url]

I did listen to Campbell, and didn't get much more out of it than what I read in the paper. He does do a good job of emphasizing some of the points though.

We should revisit this in about six months or a year. It will be interesting to see if the Norwegians case holds up for time periods after September of 2022.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2803464]Yep, that is the biggest and most damning American Politics Real News item of the day. But typically dumb Repub hillbilly wingers would rather post wildly off this forum's topic nonsense like all the imaginary deaths the Covid vaccine caused, how close they are to choosing a sex change operation for themselves if they read or hear just one more mention of it being their right to choose it and so on.

This first Trump indictment might in and of itself be less legally threatening than the idictments he has earned for worse crimes. However, this one is critical in that it was the gateway crime that allowed him and his Repub supporters and partners to inflict historic levels of economic disaster, death and destruction on America and most of the world.

Sure, Repub FBI Director Comey's contribution likely shifted enough votes to Trump at the last minute in 2016 to put him in the White House. Russia's extraordinarily high level of collusion with Camp Trump, the RePutinKlan Party and winger media like Fux News certainly shifted just enough votes to do it.

But there was nothing illegal about those pro Trump campaign moves. They were merely unethical and Anti-American.

However, this Trump campaign election rigging move to put him in the White House was illegal.[/QUOTE]Here you go, here you go! And more indictments to come. Like I said, we're just getting started! He's going to be so tied up in legal problems that he can't even begin to think about being president again: [URL]https://www.aol.com/news/york-city-trumps-dreams-delivers-145741875.html[/URL]