This article lays out the process of evaluating who is a greater threat to Trump in the general election and how to figure out who is telling you the truth about that and who is lying.

::::::::

Amid the flurry of news in recent days, especially surrounding the impeachment and the run up to the Iowa Caucuses, loyalty to one's political faction grew stronger, as evidenced on Facebook, Twitter and spurred on by partisan attacks in mainstream media. Most people don't have an interest in looking at any facts which might contradict their beliefs, but if we learned anything from 2016 it should be that ignoring inconvenient facts is a sure path to disaster, and yet so many people are willing to let go of the absurdities that have become the doctrine of the political faith, they are about to recreate it.

In a day and age when people are not only feel entitled to their own opinions but their own facts, looking for "truth" can be extremely difficult. Almost any kind of evidence can be cherry picked. Statistics and polls can be designed to create a better outcome for a given candidate. Out of context soundbites turned into propaganda, quickly made viral in the charged partisan environment. Along with that are our own psychological aversion to what we don't want to hear.

But there are some ways to evaluate a source. The manner in which a fact comes to light can reveal a lot about its validity. If something is leaked or hacked, if it is revealed without the consent of parties due to a subpoena or as part of an expose, by a whistle blower, it lends a lot of credibility to the revelations. Someone who is spinning or creating propaganda, wants you to see their version of the "truth" they spread it far and wide. Someone who is resistant to a fact coming out is trying to hide the truth.

In the Lev Parnas video a rare window of truth was exposed about the true threat to Trump's presidency. The video was being recorded without the knowledge of the participants. It was revealed by Parnas later, following his being indicted and cooperating with prosecutors. In part, he was trying to prove Trump's claims that he didn't know Parnas was a lie. The video clearly proves that end. But it also reveals that Trump, Don Jr. and the other participants in the conversation were, in their own words only concerned about one candidate in 2016, Bernie Sanders.

Now some have been making the argument in recent weeks that Bernie's rise is due to right wing support for him as part of a strategy to get the weakest candidate in a head to head with Trump. This theory has to be investigated because the exact same tactic was used in 2016 to get Hillary on the ballot. Rush Limbaugh, convinced Donald Trump would easily beat Hillary, actually encouraged his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary in the primary if they were in an open state where they could do so. Limbaugh clearly outlined that Hillary was the most beatable ad that getting her as the nominee would be the best way to help Trump win. So is this what is being done with Bernie? The video clearly shows that this is not the case. In the video you can hear Trump, Don Jr. and others in the room emphatically stating that if Bernie were the nominee, "It would have been much harder." The acknowledge that Trump was focus on trade, jobs and economic woes, and that he and Bernie were both drawing their massive popular support from voters based on these traits, in spite of their differences in HOW they would solve the problem.

Don Jr even makes the statement, "There was no hate." (with Bernie) so the Trump campaign factored in the on the ground reality that Hillary was not popular, that she was seen as corrupt where Bernie was not. She came across as a rich elitist. Trump came across as a rich populist and an outsider. And Bernie came across as a populist of the people. They also acknowledge Bernie's huge support among millenials saying "they were all over it." Getting new people out to vote was something the democrats needed, and Bernie could have done that.

They even go so far as to say that the ONLY candidate they didn't want to see Hillary pick as a VP was Bernie because they didn't want Bernie's base, of which Trump says, "I got 20% of Bernie's voters. Most people don't realize that."

So what of all this talk that Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Is there any evidence to support that? Absolutely none. This information is created and pushed without basis by the media. It is in their interest to have Biden and they are trying to convince you to believe their narrative, but there is nothing to support this claim.

In fact, at the end of the conversation, someone suggests Biden may run again. The response? Laughter. Riotous, unplanned, secretly recorded, now exposed, laughter. This was their organic response to a Biden run, "I hope he runs again!" If Biden were really the biggest threat to Trump, why would they laugh at the idea behind closed doors?

You be the judge for yourself. The link to the video is below along with the dialogue as best I could transcribe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxSGKB3Sj0&t=2310s

At 54:50 into the video

A female voice says to Trump, "You are the only one that could have won against her."

Trump: "That's true"

Trump interjects, "I beat the Bush dynasty."

The woman continues, " You were the only one who would call her out on her lies""

Parnas, "That's right. Two dynasties you took out"

Trump, "Crooked Hillary"

Woman continued: "and her constant stuff, nobody else would have done that everyone else would have been too polite, they would have not mentioned it""

Trump interjects, "Obama would have been easier, second term"

A second man's voice, "You would have destroyed him."

Trump, 'Ronmey never should have lost it. Obama would have been much easier second term "

A man (maybe Parnas says, "The big mistake was (eboka?) opening up his mouth getting that tape with the hispanic"

A third man, "You think Obama would have been easier than Hillary?"

Trump, "I think so. I think Obama, second term, not first."

A fourth man, "He (Obama) was damaged goods. Romney just couldn't get it done."

A man with a slight southern accent, "He disappeared on the debate. (cross talk) He disappeared on the debate"

A man who sounds farther back in the room says, "Bernie Sanders:... they rigged it" Bernie " Bernie would have beat Hillary in the primary.. "

A man who sounds like Don Jr. "that would have been tougher"

Man who first mentioned Bernie says, "Yep, I agree."

A man who sounds like Don Jr. says, "Because there was no hatred."

Parnas, "Right. You're right there was no hatred"

A woman adds, "Millenials were all over it."

Parnas says, "Millenials were all over it."

A man "But she - As great as he was, half of my motivation working was (not let her do it)."

A man, "That's what a big part of it --"

Trump, "If she would have picked Bernie as her vice president it would have been tougher"

A woman, "Oh yeah"

Trump, "She picked a real stinker"

A man, "Yeah, her..Oh yeah Kaine, I couldn't even, was was a plus"

Trump "Because Bernie, all those people who hated her so much who voted for me. You know, I got 20% of Bernie voters. People don't realize that. Because of trade. He's a big trade guy he basically says we're getting screwed on trade and he's right. And I'm worse than he is, but, and we can do something about it. I don't know if he could have."

"Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would have been tough. The only one I didn't want her to pick. Now, then you say, people say no it would have been easier because then her, sort of establishment normal democrats, would have come to me, so she may have lost a lot of votes too."

Parnas "You're right so you don't know."

Man who sounds like Don Jr: "I think the Democrats, the only thing they do well is stick together"

"Yeah they really have"

Woman, "What is the deal with Bernie and Hillary why is he not sticking up for himself?"

A man, "He should be going crazy"

Trump, "It is funny how he has not gone crazy, right?."

"Because they took him in a locked room and they had a conversation"

A man "Of course, of course. They had a conversation"

A man, "They had to"

The man who sounds like Don Jr. "They had to -- he has three beach houses"

Parnas,"Of course. 100%""

"He should be going nuts"

"You think he'll be running?"

"I don't think so."

Trump: "I think he might"

Trump "Yeah because he's doing a lot of television and usually when they do a lot of television, it usually means they are going to run."

A man, "Biden seems like he seems like---"

A man, "Biden"

(laugher)

A man, "I hope Biden runs."

(more laughter)

Authors Bio:

I was born in 1970 in Wheeling, WV and have lived here all my life. I come from mostly Irish Catholic coal miners and railroad workers. My original academic interest was in teaching foreign languages studying both French and Spanish in High School. After high school I married and had two children.

My first jobs were waitressing and hotel housekeeper and Medicaid Billing Clerk. I received my Associates in 2003 studying social services and child development. I took several years off from college to focus on working and trying to raise a family. I returned to school in 2006 and graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice from West Liberty State College (Now West Liberty University) in 2008. I worked in the security field for 13 years.

My interests include politics, law, history, travel and language. I have been called a conspiracy theorist at times, but often remind my critics that often the only difference between a conspiracy theory and history is 40 years.

I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to hold its government accountable and to push for the government to serve the people not the other way around.

In November 2019 I started a podcast called Project 99 where I talk about politics, psychology, language, history and other topics from the viewpoint of the 99 percent. It is available on anchor, spotty and many other platforms. You can also follow the podcast on twitter at project99cast.