One Word Has People Convinced Mike Pence Wrote Anonymous New York Times Op-Ed

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Deetermined

Nixon won in a landslide....and Trump.lost the popular vote.

Well its good we dont elect president with the popular vote then isnt it?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Muninn

Please if trump could he would have already.
All trump ever has is a bunch of hot air.

Hey, the two of you have something in common then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Don't get triggered for me disagreeing with you. Also I never claimed the article was fact. You are welcome to quote me saying exactly that. I said and suggested there is supporting evidence that corroborates the story, but at no point have I said I believe the article and it is factual.

Triggered? It would take a lot more than you to trigger me. Didn't say you claimed it was true. I said you automatically believe it because it feeds your hatred for Trump.

I don't care about your life story.

Good, never asked you to. There's definitely one of us triggered in this conversation, and it isn't me.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Deetermined

Nixon won in a landslide....and Trump.lost the popular vote.

Well its good we dont elect president with the popular vote then isnt it?

They still can’t get past the fact the Dems lost in 2016 because they think “flyover” constituents are irrelevant.

Nice theory. I don't see the payoff, unless he's maneuvering himself to be the next prez.

He is literally the only human being in my nearly 50 years of living on this earth that I've ever heard use that word. Keep in mind that I've been on here for years following links and watching videos and I read about 30-50 books every year. You would think I would have come across that word before. That's what gives this theory a little bit of credibility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only sane position is to wait for more verification and in the meantime assume its very suspect.

Moreover i dont get why people from both sides of the political spectrum are not angry over a secret group of people (probably mostly unelected) working within the govt to undermine a President.

Here is a hint: Pence is not the only person who has used
the word loadstar. I am not going to name names
but a well know professional who is part of the Resistance
has used this word more than Pence, only many many years
ago. There are also other clues such as the two paragraphs
about John McCain.

This Op Ed was professionally written, and is at least half hoax.

It is most certainly not a whistle blower.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually the off-topic subject was a set-up to see if you had your blinders on. Feel like a duck.

I won't poke your comfort bubble anymore, I'm sorry if I disrespected or misinterpreted you in any manner.

Enjoy life in Wonderland.

Lol. I don't care what it was setup for. Offtopic is offtopic.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Moreover i dont get why people from both sides of the political spectrum are not angry over a secret group of people (probably mostly unelected) working within the govt to undermine a President.

Why? Read my signature.

a reply to: UKTruth

Moreover i dont get why people from both sides of the political spectrum are not angry over a secret group of people (probably mostly unelected) working within the govt to undermine a President.

Because they are liars. The whole time they complained of Trump ruining democracy, abusing the constitution, it was them doing it all along.

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Good, never asked you to. There's definitely one of us triggered in this conversation, and it isn't me.

No. I'm pretty sure it is you. Deflecting to talk about the poster is a trick of triggered people.

Cause if you can't discuss a topic without having to deflect to ad hominem or strawman the other person then you suck at arguing. So I'm leaning on the triggered part.

a reply to: UKTruth

Anyone assuming it's all real and the NYT is playing with a straight bat on this really is a moron.

Trump thinks it real and is totally obsessed about it.

a reply to: Swills

I would guess the word was used intentionally to make it appear as if Pence had written it.

Or as a trigger word for other purposes.

Occult purposes.

!

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: Swills

I would guess the word was used intentionally to make it appear as if Pence had written it.

Or as a trigger word for other purposes.

Occult purposes.

!

It could have also been used because the author just liked Pence's description of McCain. I have my doubts that one word proves who wrote the op-ed. Though I can see why the case was made.

This "theory", in my opinion, gives even more weight to another explanation. I subscribe to the notion that this was actually a low- to mid-level person in the White House who didn't identify themselves to NYT, or lied about who they were, and is just saying they're a top-level official because they want to create distrust and suspicion among the actual high-level Trump people.

The irony here, of course, is that this idiot probably thinks they're doing some patriotic duty, but all they're really doing is hurting the country. Trump isn't going anywhere, and meanwhile the more he has to deal with nonsense like this the less time they have to focus on the real issues facing the country.

Way to go, resistance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Good, never asked you to. There's definitely one of us triggered in this conversation, and it isn't me.

No. I'm pretty sure it is you. Deflecting to talk about the poster is a trick of triggered people.

Cause if you can't discuss a topic without having to deflect to ad hominem or strawman the other person then you suck at arguing. So I'm leaning on the triggered part.

It's an opinion piece, until the person who wrote it, you, or someone else can provide something to substantiate it, there's no point in discussing it. Other than to speculate. Prove to us this is a true piece, and I'll happily discuss it with you.

The only thing interesting about the article is the use of one word, and that is even suspect, as I doubt Pence is that stupid to use it and give himself away.

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
It's an opinion piece, until the person who wrote it, you, or someone else can provide something to substantiate it, there's no point in discussing it. Other than to speculate. Prove to us this is a true piece, and I'll happily discuss it with you.

Then why are you here discussing it? The way I see it there are three threads on ATS alone discussing this topic. There is CLEARLY something to discuss about it regardless if the author's identity is unknown. It's fine if you don't want to discuss it; just leave the thread. But telling other people they have nothing to discuss because you want to keep your head in the sand isn't going to work.

The only thing interesting about the article is the use of one word, and that is even suspect, as I doubt Pence is that stupid to use it and give himself away.

Maybe to you. Clearly others disagree. Since you have nothing more to say then I guess you'll be leaving the thread now so as not to take it off topic with something else (like discussing strawmen about other posters on ATS) right?

originally posted by: burntheships
Here is a hint: Pence is not the only person who has used
the word loadstar. I am not going to name names
but a well know professional who is part of the Resistance
has used this word more than Pence, only many many years
ago. There are also other clues such as the two paragraphs
about John McCain.

This Op Ed was professionally written, and is at least half hoax.

It is most certainly not a whistle blower.

What keeps you from naming the person you're thinking of?

I see that John McCain himself has used the term, "lodestar". I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that this op-ed was written by McCain before his death and asked to have it published after he was gone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why am I here discussing it? I don't know. Why are you or everyone here discussing it? Because that's really all we can do until more evidence comes about to show it as true, or just another jab at trying to hurt Trump. Discussing it means looking at every angle.

And you aren't the person responsible for determining who leaves a thread or not. I'm not going anywhere. Don't like my opinions or what I say...next time don't reply to my post that you weren't involved, or addressed in.