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?
Not sure what you mean especially for France given what everyone (including her supporters) said of Marine Le Pen. Or Wilders in the NL for that matter.
Btw Berlusconi did claim voter fraud stole him the election in 2006 (he lost with a very small margin) [turnout 84%]. He then won in 2008 when an early election was called because the gvmnt had a very thin majority which it lost because of problems within the alliance [turnout 81%].
Yes, I guess in the last 10-15 yearsor so, politics has become more polarised. Did voter turnout rates rise since, say 2008 by any chance? If not, I guess my theory is pretty dead in the water.
In any case, I'm unconvinced that voter turnout rates are a good proxy for general trust in the democratic process. I think there are too many confounding variables.
No, there is no notion that "fight like hell" means violence, in isolation. Anyone who has been suggesting he meant that is doing so in the context of Trump's other actions. I wouldn't normally speak so definitively about what's in the minds of others, but in this case it seems pretty much impossible to be aware of his speech without being aware of the many, many other things Trump has done and said, and having that influence one's views of
I think you are wrong. In particualr about 'fight' and in general about the interpretations of what people say.
Very wrong if you think what is happening to trump - overwhelmingly entirely correctly - isn't going to lead to other bad consequences. That is part of the problem of trump - for example every candidate who ever becomes prominent can now expect to spend a lot of time dealing with potential and real lawsuits against them and/or their family. Not just candidates but also lawyers, judges etc etc Especially given but not limited to, the lol usa justice system - this is an epic disaster. Maybe I just care a lot more more when it hurts the left but I do think it hurts the left far more because they are taking on authorities / status quo.
I think you are wrong. In particualr about 'fight' and in general about the interpretations of what people say.
Very wrong if you think what is happening to trump - overwhelmingly entirely correctly - isn't going to lead to other bad consequences. That is part of the problem of trump - for example every candidate who ever becomes prominent can now expect to spend a lot of time dealing with potential and real lawsuits against them and/or thei
The things that happened to Trump happened to him because he is a terrible human being and because he breaks laws. Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for those things, because it would set a precedent that the same things might happen in future to someone who is not a terrible human being and doesn't break laws? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I think that allowing someone to do the things he has done with impunity sets a much worse precendent than the one you are trying to avoid.
In any case, I'm unconvinced that voter turnout rates are a good proxy for general trust in the democratic process. I think there are too many confounding variables.
Could be.
This is plausibly a better indicator, only problem is that afaik we don't have anything equivalent (same exact polling question for decades by serious pollsters) for other countries
But this is quite insane anyway
So let me get this straight. Rasmussen "conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters". I notice they failed to mention whether this was a random sample, or anything about how they were chosen. 311 of those surveyed said they had voted by mail-in ballot. The fraud questions were asked of those 311 people.
21% said they voted in a state where they are no longer a permanent resident. How does this affect each state? IE did a few particular states see substantially more votes because of this, or does it all tend to cancel itself out? Unknown.
21% admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member, 17% said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission.”, 19% said that a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Did these actions change how their votes would have been cast? Unknown.
Heartland then took these numbers, and assumed that, based on 311 people, that this would have broken the same way across all states, and across both parties, and extrapolated results based on that. From those results, based on a shitton of assumptions and extrapolations of 311 people (which would factor to 47 people in the 6 states where they are extrapolating results), people are concluding Trump won.
Do I have that right?
I think you are wrong. In particualr about 'fight' and in general about the interpretations of what people say.
Very wrong if you think what is happening to trump - overwhelmingly entirely correctly - isn't going to lead to other bad consequences. That is part of the problem of trump - for example every candidate who ever becomes prominent can now expect to spend a lot of time dealing with potential and real lawsuits against them and/or thei
I'm not saying what's happening to Trump couldn't have other consequences, I'm saying it's silly to admonish people for what they conclude about individual things Trump has said, when the conclusions are obviously being made in the context of his body of work. Yes, we're in a place where there seems to be a lot of desire for "tit for tat" prosecution. Does that mean Trump should face no consequences, or do you have another solution?
So let me get this straight. Rasmussen "conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters". I notice they failed to mention whether this was a random sample, or anything about how they were chosen. 311 of those surveyed said they had voted by mail-in ballot. The fraud questions were asked of those 311 people.
21% said they voted in a state where they are no longer a permanent resident. How does this affect each state? IE did a few particul
They also presumed all fraudolent behaviour favoured democrats lol
The things that happened to Trump happened to him because he is a terrible human being and because he breaks laws. Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for those things, because it would set a precedent that the same things might happen in future to someone who is not a terrible human being and doesn't break laws? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I think that allowing someone to do the things he has done with impuni
No I'm not.
Actually, it doesn't appear they did. I believe they took the percentages, then removed that % of mail-in ballots from each candidate. Since more mail-in ballots were for Biden, he loses more votes.
That doesn't mean I think this was good methodology, to be clear.
There are thousands of smart people around the world, of all different political persuasions, who study and monitor elections as a full time career.
If there was any real reason to believe the election was stolen, at least some of them would be saying so. You wouldn't have to rely on some fringe group of crackpots who ran their "study" like 7th graders doing a school project.
You mean like this guy.
So let me get this straight. Rasmussen "conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters". I notice they failed to mention whether this was a random sample, or anything about how they were chosen. 311 of those surveyed said they had voted by mail-in ballot. The fraud questions were asked of those 311 people.
21% said they voted in a state where they are no longer a permanent resident. How does this affect each state? IE did a few particul
This is, of course, all assuming that this particular poll wasn't cherry picked from other polls which would not have led to this conclusion even with the tenuous, nay, ridiculous reasoning you have elucidated above.
You mean like this guy.
What are his credentials? A cursory google search doesn't seem to turn up much.
I'm not saying what's happening to Trump couldn't have other consequences, I'm saying it's silly to admonish people for what they conclude about individual things Trump has said, when the conclusions are obviously being made in the context of his body of work. Yes, we're in a place where there seems to be a lot of desire for "tit for tat" prosecution. Does that mean Trump should face no consequences, or do you have another solution?
As I said a few times, with trump there is no shortage of substantial evidence. That's putting it very mildly.
Then as always I argue that we need to focus far more on how we avoid getting into such a dangerous (an in the case opf trump ridiculous) messes in the first place. We can't ignoring that there are verys erious structural problems and then trying to deal with the inevitable problems aftwerwards. We're just dodging bullets and their frequency isn't decreasing.
brian do you enjoy making yourself look dumb day after day?
I'll put my IQ up against yours any day.
person
woman
man
camera
tv
You mean like this guy.
No.
That is a random guy who worked in other fields and can't write his own bio without rambling like a crackpot.
This is like some high school chemistry teacher who "debunks" evolution on his blog.
I mean, for example, college professors who study elections, people who monitor elections for NGOs. Maybe people who work with polls. Credible experts who do this full time.
I really can't believe that anyone would believe such a stupid survey published by a clearly biased political operative. It's a new race to the bottom: Brian James, Losern, Washoe, Playbig and now chez.
dont count yourself out of the fight
So let me get this straight. Rasmussen "conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters". I notice they failed to mention whether this was a random sample, or anything about how they were chosen. 311 of those surveyed said they had voted by mail-in ballot. The fraud questions were asked of those 311 people.
21% said they voted in a state where they are no longer a permanent resident. How does this affect each state? IE did a few particul
There is also a huge problem with asking people whether they are Republicans or Democrats, asking them about their behavior w/r/t mail-in voting, and then stating that you assume behavior was the same among Democrats and Republicans. Is that what the results of your survey actually showed? I ask this question in part because I think MAGA types would be sorely tempted to report dubious mail-in voting behavior, especially by others, because they already believe the election was rigged.
Lozen wouldn’t buy these shoes if not for the fact that the only alternative was biden
