ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Cool. They (who?) have tapes of him saying it (what?).
Should be simple to quote it precisely, include the context, and provide the tape, then?
Ok unfit may be the wrong word I think it was a sympathetic old man with no memory that a jury would be sympathetic to .
You think what was? Are you quoting someone who evaluated Biden's mental competency to stand trial? Was that person qualified to do so? Do you think just a person saying this means anything at all?
For what? Be specific. Cite the US Code and then provide the concrete evidence showing it happened. This can be done for Trump rather easily. Can you do it for Biden?
That's awesome. They polled their readers to ask them if they committed fraud. They said yes of course we did. They then used this as evidence that there was fraud and used the percentages of respondents as representative of everyone in their calculations.
And you took it so seriously you posted it here with a straight face.
mj
"That means that even if the level
of fraud shown by our survey (28.2 percent of all
mail-in ballots) substantially overstates the true
level of fraud that occurred, Trump would still have
won in most of the likely scenarios, with only three
exceptions, as noted above."
A CNN Legal Expert not a Fox one
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/...
We will find out more as the Special Counsel will be testifying and share the recorded conversations
Broken YouTube Link"That means that even if the level
of fraud shown by our survey (28.2 percent of all
mail-in ballots) substantially overstates the true
level of fraud that occurred, Trump would still have
won in most of the likely scenarios, with only three
exceptions, as noted above."
These are the same people who claim smoking is good for you, right? If we can't trust them to conduct a fair and unbiased study, who can we even trust?
Are you just a troll, or are you actually stupid enough to believe what you post? Honest question.
"That means that even if the level
of fraud shown by our survey (28.2 percent of all
mail-in ballots) substantially overstates the true
level of fraud that occurred, Trump would still have
won in most of the likely scenarios, with only three
exceptions, as noted above."
Oh yeah, I read that. Can you quantify "substantially overstates" for us? They certainly didn't. So since their readers who had no reason not to lie responded at 28.2% that they live in a different state than they voted in (yep, that passes the eye test for sure!) then even if the real number was, oh let's say 15% then Trump still would've won. Most of the time.
lol
Yeah. There wasn't 28% fraud, Brian.
There wasn't 15%, which would qualify as a substantial overstating when they said 28%.
It would be a fraction of a percent. Anything higher than that is literally a joke.
And there only evidence is a poll that THEY CONDUCTED.
I knew you were gullible, but this is impressive.
A CNN Legal Expert not a Fox one
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/...
We will find out more as the Special Counsel will be testifying and share the recorded conversations
Broken YouTube LinkSo, no, then. You cannot produce a direct quote, nor the tape. Got it, thanks.
And no, then. You cannot produce the US Code and concrete evidence of that US Code being specifically broken, like we can with Trump.
Got it again, thanks.
New ballot fraud study concludes that Trump almost certainly did win the 2020 election.
I think these clowns surveyed 1040 people, correct? And when did they conduct this survey? Just loooooooooooooooooool, Losern, Jr.
I don't think Biden won because of mail ballot voter fraud at all.
But can we all agree that you should have a voter ID (free of charge ofc) and only vote in person? Militaries and similar situation should have special booths set up for them. Same for people in hospitals, mobile booth.
Would it cost more? Probably.
But elections are core functions of democracy so it's ok to spend more to guarantee the process.
It's also beyond absurd that we don't know the completely full perfect count in 12-24 hours, like normal countries do.
And of course, strictly and only paper and pencil voting.
Oh and voting day should obviously be a federal holiday
That's awesome. They polled their readers to ask them if they committed fraud. They said yes of course we did. They then used this as evidence that there was fraud and used the percentages of respondents as representative of everyone in their calculations.
And you took it so seriously you posted it here with a straight face.
mj
If I’m not mistaken fraud vote is a federal crime right ?
And they just admit they committed it ?
I wonder if they would keep the same story if they would actually charged them ?
That's awesome. They polled their readers to ask them if they committed fraud. They said yes of course we did. They then used this as evidence that there was fraud and used the percentages of respondents as representative of everyone in their calculations.
And you took it so seriously you posted it here with a straight face.
mj
Show me where it says they polled their readers.
Usually the people conducting a poll describe their sampling methods, which is crucial to determine the validity of a poll.
"Online voluntary anonymous participation" is usually the bottom low of poll quality.
You are exactly right. That fact that they did not extensively describe how the sample was selected is conclusive itself.
Without that data this poll is completely useless. We'll wait for that data to be supplied before giving it any weight at all.
But yeah, they defo polled their readers. It just looks like they put it up on their website.
You are exactly right. That fact that they did not extensively describe how the sample was selected is conclusive itself.
Without that data this poll is completely useless. We'll wait for that data to be supplied before giving it any weight at all.
But yeah, they defo polled their readers. It just looks like they put it up on their website.
Wrong again Gorgo. (yet another L to add to the collection lol)
"The survey data was collected by Rasmussen Reports. From November 30 to December 6, Rasmussen Reports conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters authored by analysts at The Heartland Institute."
Also, if you read the study you will find the results are consistent with data on mail ballot fraud from other sources which are referred to in the study.
You are exactly right. That fact that they did not extensively describe how the sample was selected is conclusive itself.
Without that data this poll is completely useless. We'll wait for that data to be supplied before giving it any weight at all.
But yeah, they defo polled their readers. It just looks like they put it up on their website.
These are literally the same people putting out studies that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and second hand smoking is not harmful. Hardly worth wasting time looking into their methods. BJ posting this study is dead on form though, for sure.
These are literally the same people putting out studies that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and second hand smoking is not harmful. Hardly worth wasting time looking into their methods. BJ posting this study is dead on form though, for sure.
Second hand smoking is exceptionally less harmful than people have being conditioned to think which is why papers on the topic stopped quantifying it's damage a long ago.
Can you provide me a paper from the last 25 years that quantifies how much life expectancy you lose if you are a kid living in a house with one of the parents smoking a pack per day?
Would you believe if that was in the "weeks" of life expectancy at most?
BJ found 1 dubious study to say trump won the 2020 election props to him.
But when u look at the trend, what election trump did win since 2016 ?
ah yes they were all rigged except the 2016 where trump lost the popular votes by 3 millions....
It all adds up!
These are literally the same people putting out studies that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and second hand smoking is not harmful. Hardly worth wasting time looking into their methods. BJ posting this study is dead on form though, for sure.
Second hand smoking is exceptionally less harmful than people have being conditioned to think which is why papers on the topic stopped quantifying it's damage a long ago.
Can you provide me a paper from the last 25 years that quantifies how much life expectancy you lose if you are a kid living in a house with one of the parents smoking a pack per day?
Would you believe if that was in the "weeks" of life expectancy at most?
So u dont deny its harmful ?
moving on....
Second hand smoking is exceptionally less harmful than people have being conditioned to think which is why papers on the topic stopped quantifying it's damage a long ago.
Can you provide me a paper from the last 25 years that quantifies how much life expectancy you lose if you are a kid living in a house with one of the parents smoking a pack per day?
Would you believe if that was in the "weeks" of life expectancy at most?
I am saying that from the wikipedia page it's abundantly clear they are one of those "think tanks" that are paid by certain interests to produce studies that arrive at pre-determined, unscientific, unfounded conclusions - i.e. a bunch of grifters, so it's not worth wasting time looking into their methods, other than for the lols I suppose.
BJ has to be a troll, there is no way someone can be compos mentis enough to get on the internet, navigate to this forum, and post at least semi-coherently, while simultaneously being gullible enough to believe that is a real and meaningful study. In fact, I find it unlikely that anyone with enough brain cells to remember to continue to breathe actually believes that is a real study.
I am saying that from the wikipedia page it's abundantly clear they are one of those "think tanks" that are paid by certain interests to produce studies that arrive at pre-determined, unscientific, unfounded conclusions - i.e. a bunch of grifters, so it's not worth wasting time looking into their methods, other than for the lols I suppose.
Fact is even grifters might have a point at times.
For voting for ex Scandinavian countries tried electronic voting and decided paper and pencil were far preferable for a series of rational reasons.
So if a grifter who claims election fraud happened in the USA without any justification cites among other things the fact that electronic voting machines are a "bad thing", he can still be right about that even if he is a bad faith grifter.
Many such cases tbh
