[–] 17169205? ago (edited ago)
Suppose you and I want to show coordination through twitter but maintain plausible deniability: how do we do that?
One way, an obvious way, is that we post too similar posts (that might appear to fail plaigerism tests) sequentially. Crucially, the unknown figure would precede the public figure to demonstrate coordination.
Here’s why: if q posts after trump, that’s easy. The katzenstein brothers can do that. But the opposite order — the katzensteins post just BEFORE trump - doing that repeatedly is statistically impossible.
The dialogue was between trump and a q-kid at a rally. It was on video. I’ll see if I can find it but I’m in a phone so it might take a little while.
Edit: voat favorite Neonrevolt had it up at some point.
[–] 17169688? ago (edited ago)
Thats not true. If you post thousands of messages, often using words and phrases tump uses, talking about things going on with trump, then eventually some are going to line up like that. It's not proof of anything. You're just ingoring all the times that it doesn't line up like that. By you're logic, I could say that trump is coordinating with cnn because of all the time they posted a story then trump talked about that story.
[–] 17169970? ago
You’re trying too hard. My logic is flawless. Your idea about frequent posts making it seem like coordination fails too.
In your cnn example, YES!! Trump IS paying attention to cnn and his post proves that!
As to scattershot (q posting a lot)... that’s also a no-go.
A post takes, say, 5 minutes to compose and let’s say for the sake of your argument, that Q posts twice what he does and do does trump. If we allow 16 hours a day ... I don’t have a way to calculate it right now but you can. Look up “birthday paradox.” Substitute (Q’s post frequency + Trumps) / (16 x 20) and substitute the numbers. Then cancel 1/2 and you’re close.