IMO, the Fix is in

nashhorn said:
Unless you’re Trump. Dems would find fault, just by saying he should have followed his gut or something. I guarantee it would be blamed on him.
Click to expand...

Of course Democrats would still blame him. This is politics. Politicians always blame their opponents. The key factor is how well the blaming will resonate with the public. If you act in ways that reinforce the blaming and give it credibility, it'll be more effective than if you don't.
 
Monahorns said:
In general it is cool to hate Trump, even in Conservative Inc. audiences.
Click to expand...

It is cool to hate Trump in big cities and on the big social media platforms. This is neither of those. On West Mall, opposing Trump is very "uncool." Husker will agree with you. Switzer will agree with you, and that's more of a liability than an asset. Almost everybody else will rip you a new one.

Monahorns said:
If only the only information pointing to fraud was offered to courts. What about all the studies showing something fishy?
Click to expand...

Evidence of fishiness can be shown in court. It doesn't have to just be fraud.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It is cool to hate Trump in big cities and on the big social media platforms. This is neither of those. On West Mall, opposing Trump is very "uncool." Husker will agree with you. Switzer will agree with you, and that's more of a liability than an asset. Almost everybody else will rip you a new one.
Click to expand...
I'd say that fact checks out as "true". :)
 
It is cool to hate Trump in big cities and on the big social media platforms. This is neither of those. On West Mall, opposing Trump is very "uncool." Husker will agree with you. Switzer will agree with you, and that's more of a liability than an asset. Almost everybody else will rip you a new one.
Click to expand...

I don't think you care about what people in the West Mall think about you or base your views based its general opinion. That was my point.

Evidence of fishiness can be shown in court. It doesn't have to just be fraud.
Click to expand...

OMG. I think you are trying to miss the point. I hope so at least. Nevermind.
 
I don't think Deez is a RINO, but I think he Trump's demeanor bugs him more than most here.

I see similar attitudes in some who are true conservatives but really want to remove Trumpism from the Republican Party and conservative inc. I think Trump's trade protectionism and monetary policy are very bad. I was never that interested in the wall. If the welfare state was greatly reduced and withheld from non-citizens I wouldn't care as much about immigration.
 
Deez is not a RINO. I think he is a right leaning independent who probably votes conservative most times. No doubt, he is quick to point out warts on Trump, but most of the time I think they are very close to the truth. I do not recall a time where he espoused a liberal view and that is hard for an attorney.
 
theiioftx said:
Deez is not a RINO. I think he is a right leaning independent who probably votes conservative most times. No doubt, he is quick to point out warts on Trump, but most of the time I think they are very close to the truth. I do not recall a time where he espoused a liberal view and that is hard for an attorney.
Click to expand...
Are you still going tomorrow? I'll explain it all to you then.

:fiestanana:
 
Monahorns said:
I don't think you care about what people in the West Mall think about you or base your views based its general opinion. That was my point.
Click to expand...

If that was your point, then I'm not sure why you even commented.

Monahorns said:
OMG. I think you are trying to miss the point. I hope so at least. Nevermind.
Click to expand...

If I missed your point, then your point was terribly stated. You brought up studies that suggested fishiness. I said that evidence of fishiness (including but not limited to fraud) should be brought up in court. What big point are you making that I missed?
 
Mr. Deez said:
If I missed your point, then your point was terribly stated. You brought up studies that suggested fishiness. I said that evidence of fishiness (including but not limited to fraud) should be brought up in court. What big point are you making that I missed?
Click to expand...

@Monahorns has pointed to a few blogs that claim "statistical fishiness". One even claimed they shared their insight with Powell yet I can't find any evidence that they were part of any affidavit submitted by her or Lin Wood.

We do know that the evidence of "statistical fishiness" that were submitted in affidavits were quickly and easily shown to be seriously flawed by amateur sleuths. Extremely questionable data integrity (see Russell Ramsland) or absurd logic leaps in mathematical models from statisticians whose sole occupation is testifying on behalf of plaintiffs allowed any rational onlooker to discount the claims. Still they persevere, whether someone's intention is to sell books, get 15 minutes of fame or maybe they are a true believer oblivious to their own biases.

Either way, the arguments submitted to the courts clearly lacked any semblance of persuasion and when held up to scrutiny of the Internet or a Defendants response, didn't merit moving forward when reviewed by over 100 judges of all political stripes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top