Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:01 am

freeman3 wrote:Take this CNN exit poll. Voters who decided before September voted for Hillary 52 to 45%. 60% of voters indicated that they decided before September. So it's reasonable to assume that Clinton was going to win a crushing victory at that time. 12 percent decided in October and they went overwhelmingly for Trump 51 to 37; and voters who decided in the last week were 5% of the voters and Trump won those voters 49 to 41%.

Wikileaks' release of emails started in late July and continued through the summer. The Podesta emails came out in October. Just a coincidence that Trump dominated the 25% of voters who decided in October and November (except for the 8% who voted in the last days which was even; the other 17% he dominated)? And...Trump's domination late was not in any way affected by Wikileaks?

We had a foreign power decide our election. That doesn't bother you?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls


Your logical fallacy is: correlation equals causation.

Have a nice day.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:07 am

The way you get beyond correlation to show causation..is isolating for other factors. What other factors could explain this change in the race? I can't think of any. Remember, too, that Wikikeaks dumped the Podesta emails right after the Access Hollywood tape, mitigating the damage there...

You, too, Have A Nice Day!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:12 am

freeman3 wrote:And that doesn't count Democratic voters who stayed home because they didn't like Hillary. I recall Wisconsin at the very least being lost simply due to low turn-out among Democratic voters.That low turnout was not affected at all by Wikileaks?

And the Five Thirty Article shows that there was intense interest on Google in the Wikileaks leak of DNC and Podesta emails.

I guess you can't prove 100% that Russia won the election for Trump...but they almost certainly did.


Or, she lost it.

Her turnout was low.

She didn’t campaign in states she thought were “safe” yet went for Trump.

She also seemed physically weak, as when she collapsed on Labor Day. That didn’t help.

Her entire campaign seemed to be: “Vote for me because I’m a woman and he’s a pig.” It didn’t work.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:13 am

freeman3 wrote:The way you get beyond correlation to show causation..is isolating for other factors. What other factors could explain this change in the race? I can't think of any. Remember, too, that Wikikeaks dumped the Podesta emails right after the Access Hollywood tape, mitigating the damage there...

You, too, Have A Nice Day!


There were plenty of other factors. You want to blame Russia. Go ahead. Again, if innuendo and theory get you through this, good on you!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 12:06 pm

Maybe there other factors...but from June through election 72 percent of google searches on Wikikeaks came in October and first week of November (the expected searches during that time if interest was constant would be 23.75% so searches were three times greater than average and the average was raised by the higher number of searches in October) 40 percent of searches for Clinton and Trump happened then. You are never going to prove it to a scientific certainty...but given a razor-thin margin of victory, it's hard to believe it did not turn the election.
Last edited by freeman3 on 06 Dec 2017, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 12:27 pm

freeman3 wrote:Maybe there other factors...but from June through election 72 percent of google searches on Wikikeaks came in October and first week of November.Only 40 percent of searches for Clinton and Trump happened then. You are never going to prove it to a scientific certainty...but given a razor-thin margin of victory, it's hard to believe it did not turn the election.


Theories.

How many votes were changed because of the truth about the Clinton Foundation, questions about Benghazi, her private email server, her entitled behavior, etc?

Again, if the Russians can swing an election with $100K spent, they should teach classes. Apparently, Hillary with nigh-on $2B never figured it out.

You can argue all you want how Trump has tried to help Russia. I see something completely different.

And, in fact, I know Trump thought he was going to lose election night. Hillary couldn't conceive she could lose. So, tell me, who thought the fix was in?

I submit it was the same woman who fixed the primary.

We haven't even talked about how she (literally) bought the DNC prior to getting the nomination.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 12:53 pm

"Vote for me because I am a woman and he's a pig." That should have been enough...

His slogan for 2020 (if he gets there): "Vote for me: You're still here, aren't you?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 1:14 pm

freeman3 wrote:"Vote for me because I am a woman and he's a pig." That should have been enough...

His slogan for 2020 (if he gets there): "Vote for me: You're still here, aren't you?"


I am dubious that he runs again. I think there's a better chance SHE runs again. She wants to. I think the clear corruption of her campaign will stop her.

Yes, corruption. What Donna Brazile has revealed is shocking.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10969
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 2:04 pm

Fate
Is there any evidence he's rolling on Trump, or that he has actual "evidence?


Read his plea agreement... Especially point 8.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download

Rickyp
The Flynn thing won't resolve itself until he testifies in other cases. And he has to have enough to say that a deal was worth making.


Fate
You don't know that. Sometimes prosecutors accept plea deals because . . . there's no reason not to

Sure.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10969
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 2:15 pm

Fate
More crap. Has Trump EVER declared personal bankruptcy? That would be the meaning of "oft-bankrupt magnate.


The Deuthche Bank loans were with a Trump company. Not Trump personally.
Trump's businesses have declared bankruptcy 6 times. That makes him oft-bankrupted.

Someone underwrote a $300 million dollar loan through DB in order for Trump to be able to meet his obligations with the original DB loan. (Probably a Russian oligarch. Perhaps even Putin's Brother in law.)
Mueller will soon find out about those arrangements.
Those are the facts that matter.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 3:06 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Is there any evidence he's rolling on Trump, or that he has actual "evidence?


Read his plea agreement... Especially point 8.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download


So what? A bunch of boilerplate lingo. Did you see Trump's name there?

Rickyp
The Flynn thing won't resolve itself until he testifies in other cases. And he has to have enough to say that a deal was worth making.


Fate
You don't know that. Sometimes prosecutors accept plea deals because . . . there's no reason not to

Sure.


How much do you know about American jurisprudence? Really. What's your expertise?

Plea deals are more common than trials. http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentag ... bargaining

Put that in your bong and smoke it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 3:10 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
More crap. Has Trump EVER declared personal bankruptcy? That would be the meaning of "oft-bankrupt magnate.


The Deuthche Bank loans were with a Trump company. Not Trump personally.
Trump's businesses have declared bankruptcy 6 times. That makes him oft-bankrupted.


No, it doesn't. It makes his businesses oft-bankrupted. Trump himself has never been. Get it right.

Someone underwrote a $300 million dollar loan through DB in order for Trump to be able to meet his obligations with the original DB loan. (Probably a Russian oligarch. Perhaps even Putin's Brother in law.)
Mueller will soon find out about those arrangements.
Those are the facts that matter.


If you say so.

In the meantime, why not have another one of those Illuminati beers?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 4:16 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
More crap. Has Trump EVER declared personal bankruptcy? That would be the meaning of "oft-bankrupt magnate.


The Deuthche Bank loans were with a Trump company. Not Trump personally.
Trump's businesses have declared bankruptcy 6 times. That makes him oft-bankrupted.

Someone underwrote a $300 million dollar loan through DB in order for Trump to be able to meet his obligations with the original DB loan. (Probably a Russian oligarch. Perhaps even Putin's Brother in law.)
Mueller will soon find out about those arrangements.
Those are the facts that matter.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Is there a tear in your beer?

It turns out the subpoenas were for records regarding Manafort, not Trump!

So funny.

Those records pertain to people affiliated with President Donald Trump, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the action hasn’t been announced. Several news outlets — including Bloomberg — reported yesterday that the subpoena targeted Trump and his family’s bank records, which was disputed by Trump’s personal lawyer and the White House.

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources,” Trump’s lawyer John Dowd wrote in an email Dec. 5.

AFP reported late Dec. 5 that the subpoena was issued in connection with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who was indicted in October. Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni declined to comment.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... by-mueller
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10969
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Dec 2017, 7:25 am

Mueller’s investigation is examining a broad range of transactions involving the president’s businesses, those of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and deals by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
,
Bloomberg.

Its just a matter of time Fate. .
Someone ponied up $300 million to keep Trump afloat ..... and Deutsche Bank cooperative.
They'll find a connection to VTB.... and then follow it to Trump. It could have been Jared or Wilbur or even his daughter or Jared's mother. ...
Interestingly Trump moved to do business with Deutches personal banking at the same time the loan arrived.
Around the same time Deutsche Bank's private wealth division was granting these extraordinary loans to Trump, business in the bank's new Moscow branch was booming, thanks to the fact that it owned basically all of the business of Vneshtorgbank, or VTB – the Kremlin bank. (The then CEO of Goldman Sachs Moscow told Harding, "the nature and concentration of their business with VTB [was] quite galling. Nobody else could touch VTB.") It would later emerge that during this time, Deutsche Bank Moscow was laundering billions of dollars for friends of the Kremlin, money that ultimately flowed through the bank's New York and London branches.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... ds-w513399


fate
No, it doesn't. It makes his businesses oft-bankrupted. Trump himself has never been. Get it right.

Sure. Because this is a distinction banks evaluating business loans make all the time.
"You know he's bankrupt 6 businesses...." "Yeah, sure. But he's never gone under personally so he must be a good credit risk.".
Trump runs the businesses that he bankrupt. Banks see those bankruptcies as his personal responsibility...
That's why no one but DB and the Russians would do business with him. And DB only because they were certain someone else would make it worth their while to take the risk of Trump on...
So maybe the subpoena isn't for Trumps business records, yet. Because they don't believe he will be so stupid as to directly connect to VTB .... But maybe Jared is?
They are following the money.... they'll find the connection.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Dec 2017, 1:14 pm

rickyp wrote:
Mueller’s investigation is examining a broad range of transactions involving the president’s businesses, those of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and deals by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
,
Bloomberg.

Its just a matter of time Fate. .
Someone ponied up $300 million to keep Trump afloat ..... and Deutsche Bank cooperative.
They'll find a connection to VTB.... and then follow it to Trump. It could have been Jared or Wilbur or even his daughter or Jared's mother. ...
Interestingly Trump moved to do business with Deutches personal banking at the same time the loan arrived.
Around the same time Deutsche Bank's private wealth division was granting these extraordinary loans to Trump, business in the bank's new Moscow branch was booming, thanks to the fact that it owned basically all of the business of Vneshtorgbank, or VTB – the Kremlin bank. (The then CEO of Goldman Sachs Moscow told Harding, "the nature and concentration of their business with VTB [was] quite galling. Nobody else could touch VTB.") It would later emerge that during this time, Deutsche Bank Moscow was laundering billions of dollars for friends of the Kremlin, money that ultimately flowed through the bank's New York and London branches.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... ds-w513399


Three words: increase your medication.

:crazy:

Could, maybe, might and other words of potential mean nothing without evidence. Yes, yes, you believe Mueller will find some. Like the Mets, I guess, ya gotta believe.


fate
No, it doesn't. It makes his businesses oft-bankrupted. Trump himself has never been. Get it right.

Sure. Because this is a distinction banks evaluating business loans make all the time.


Actually, they don't conflate business with personal finances. But, what would you know?

"You know he's bankrupt 6 businesses...." "Yeah, sure. But he's never gone under personally so he must be a good credit risk.".
Trump runs the businesses that he bankrupt. Banks see those bankruptcies as his personal responsibility...


Um, no, they don't. The law prohibits that. Here's a primer for you so you won't be quite so ignorant. https://www.thebankruptcysite.org/resou ... corporate-

When you have something factual to post, feel free. Otherwise, why not do the world a favor and shut up?