|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2018 4:14:22 GMT
"As the Obama wall of silence begins to crumble, the FBI’s reputation is befouled by its own rash actions, a politicized Justice Department stands revealed as, well, politicized, and the Democrats furiously spin the facts outlined in the Nunes Memo and subsequent revelations, there’s only one overarching question left to ask: what made them think they could get away with it?"amgreatness.com/2018/02/08/tear-wall-silence/ They thought they were going to win! This was just the insurance policy.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2018 9:40:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 14, 2018 16:15:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 14, 2018 17:36:25 GMT
"Many have been sceptical of what he says" So many deniers!
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 15, 2018 13:31:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2018 14:53:32 GMT
It is extremely interesting - remember the noise this time last year about Obama hanging around as a 'shadow government'? Was he actually hoping that the FBI/CIA would manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat and destabilize the administration so he had an excuse to return.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 16, 2018 9:12:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2018 20:21:31 GMT
Rice didn't want to be tarnished by the Obama White House. She clearly wrote the e-mail to clear the air, in regards to any nefarious involvement that may be thrown her way. We now know there was at least ONE honorable person in that Administration. Might be the ONLY one.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 17, 2018 2:06:01 GMT
Rice didn't want to be tarnished by the Obama White House. She clearly wrote the e-mail to clear the air, in regards to any nefarious involvement that may be thrown her way. We now know there was at least ONE honorable person in that Administration. Might be the ONLY one. You’re a lot less jaded than me Sig. I think it’s an attempt to obfuscate. This is the person who serially lied on 5 broadcasts in one day to the American people. She and Owreckingball are joined at the hip...IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 17, 2018 7:54:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 20, 2018 14:06:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 23, 2018 15:10:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 24, 2018 4:38:43 GMT
Nate Silver was applauded as the statistical whiz in the two Obama winning campaigns. As a statistician he knows his "stuff". Having done some specialized polling myself for a number of years, I can testify to how sensitive poll statistics (particularly small ones of a few hundred) can be to outliers ... particularly those that cannot be identified as outliers. In a presidential candidate preference survey, there are usually only 3 (or 4) possible responses, which cannot be gauged as to accuracy of response. Given that elections are often won or lost by one, two or three percentage points, how many deliberate false answers does it require to make a poll "worthless"? When asked for whom I intend to vote (unless it comes directly from the campaign of my preferred candidate), my preferred response is TO LIE as convincingly and brazenly as possible. Political polsters are NOT your friends. That's how Trump shows up in polls as losing convincingly ... and then wins. Hit em where they ain't. Make their expensive statistical measurements worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 24, 2018 4:58:12 GMT
Nate Silver was applauded as the statistical whiz in the two Obama winning campaigns. As a statistician he knows his "stuff". Having done some specialized polling myself for a number of years, I can testify to how sensitive poll statistics (particularly small ones of a few hundred) can be to outliers ... particularly those that cannot be identified as outliers. In a presidential candidate preference survey, there are usually only 3 (or 4) possible responses, which cannot be gauged as to accuracy of response. Given that elections are often won or lost by one, two or three percentage points, how many deliberate false answers does it require to make a poll "worthless"? When asked for whom I intend to vote (unless it comes directly from the campaign of my preferred candidate), my preferred response is TO LIE as convincingly and brazenly as possible. Political polsters are NOT your friends. That's how Trump shows up in polls as losing convincingly ... and then wins. Hit em where they ain't. Make their expensive statistical measurements worthless. Great minds?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 24, 2018 11:34:53 GMT
|
|