Cohen paid to have polls rigged to favor Trump

[Mycroft]

Wrong again.

Cohen didn't pay for bogus information. He paid to create fake voters in online polls. This is intentional fraud.

Your attempts to defend this are pathetic.

Fake voters is not bogus information?

Okay. If you say so. :roll:

btw, when a pollster skews their sampling data, that's intentional as well.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Mere criminality, that s/he merely hasn't broken a law, isn't the bar to which I hold POTUSes; thus there needn't be a crime.

Well... in the case of impeachment, which seems what the left is bent on, there actually does.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It's the only reason we have TRump.

Only?

Don't kid yourself. There are many reasons why we have Trump. Both sides need to start being honest about this or we're going to continue to get him and worse.(yes, it can always get worse)

 

[markjs]

Only?

Don't kid yourself. There are many reasons why we have Trump. Both sides need to start being honest about this or we're going to continue to get him and worse.(yes, it can always get worse)

#1 reason, as Bernie would have beaten TRump.

Really for that matter had Hilary even made a bit of effort to pretend to care about the fly over states she might have edged him still, but she didn't.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Fake voters is not bogus information?

Okay. If you say so. :roll:

btw, when a pollster skews their sampling data, that's intentional as well.

A poll is supposed to be representative of a larger group.

If I poll 1,000 Americans about their choice for president I have to choose the right mix of people for it to be representative of the entire USA. If I just poll 1,000 random New Yorkers my poll will be wrong. It's almost impossible to get a poll sample perfectly right. But all the people in the poll are real people. It's up to you to question the methodology. It's only if they lie about their methodology that you can say it's fraud.

With Cohen and Trump the people taking the poll are not real people. It's an act intentionally done to deceive. No one is aware that the voters are fake.

Please give this up. It makes you seem irrational.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Time for........

DEFLECT-O-RAMA!

Today's winning category : so what?

Honorable mention : But Hillary something

you see the one above you? "the bias media has been rigging polls"

These people are so predictable, and so dumb and/or dishonest

Wrong again.

Cohen didn't pay for bogus information. He paid to create fake voters in online polls. This is intentional fraud.

Your attempts to defend this are pathetic.

Just another example of Trump and Trump supporters projection. Whining about any poll negative on Trump being rigged or fake, while rigging polls and citing right wing rag polls known for their bias. Like "lock her up" while its Trump and his cronies that are and will be locked up. Or that "Soros paid for those protestors" while its right wing groups paying protestors to show up.

 

[Grand Mal]

You got any proof that she didn't do it? :lamo

Oh cut it out.

 

[Helix]

you see the one above you? "the bias media has been rigging polls"

These people are so predictable, and so dumb and/or dishonest

Constantly carrying water for this fool must be a grating task sometimes.

 

[Mycroft]

A poll is supposed to be representative of a larger group.

If I poll 1,000 Americans about their choice for president I have to choose the right mix of people for it to be representative of the entire USA. If I just poll 1,000 random New Yorkers my poll will be wrong. It's almost impossible to get a poll sample perfectly right. But all the people in the poll are real people. It's up to you to question the methodology. It's only if they lie about their methodology that you can say it's fraud.

With Cohen and Trump the people taking the poll are not real people. It's an act intentionally done to deceive. No one is aware that the voters are fake.

Please give this up. It makes you seem irrational.

If you deliberately alter the mix of the people you sample to obtain your desired poll results, that is intentional...and it should be considered fraud.

Please give this up. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

#1 reason, as Bernie would have beaten TRump.

Really for that matter had Hilary even made a bit of effort to pretend to care about the fly over states she might have edged him still, but she didn't.

You're missing the part that happened long before 2016. The conditions had to be right for a guy like Trump to ever be in a position to mount a credible campaign in the first place. Those conditions were not created because John Podesta got his emails hacked. It took years and years of people being misled, manipulated, lied to, and ignored.

People turn to a guy like Trump when they feel like they have nowhere else to turn.

 

[Lutherf]

So Trump paid people to rig polls. How do Trump supporters defend this? Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary had done this?

Some of us actually ASSUME that all polls, online or not, are rigged in one way or another.

 

[Rogue Valley]

So Trump paid people to rig polls. How do Trump supporters defend this? Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary had done this?

Plz don't mention Hillary in Trump threads. It just encourages thread-hijacking by the usual suspects.

 

[CaughtInThe]

My favorite thing about this era of Trump is watching the "Law and Order" folks and the Christian folks.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Some of us actually ASSUME that all polls, online or not, are rigged in one way or another.

Nice dodge attempt. Are you saying you're OK with Trump paying to create fake poll voters? Is that not crooked?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

My favorite thing about this era of Trump is watching the "Law and Order" folks and the Christian folks.

Yeah, they're being exposed as frauds.

 

[Lutherf]

Nice dodge attempt. Are you saying you're OK with Trump paying to create fake poll voters? Is that not crooked?

Y'know, when you have firms that specialize in Democrat or Republican polling you're pretty much burying your head in the sand if you don't figure those polls are rigged at least to some extent. Furthermore, the media tends to promote polls they like and encourage people to believe certain polls more than others. Every single poll you view should be taken with a one pound box of salt, some more than that.

 

[vesper]

Some of us actually ASSUME that all polls, online or not, are rigged in one way or another.

In the WSJ article it stated despite the reported efforts of Cohen in 2014 and 2015, Trump did not do well in either poll. Trump did not make it into the top 100 candidates of top business leaders, and Trump ranked in fifth place, or 5 percent, of the Drudge Report poll of Republicans running in the primary. If you were supposedly paying big money to skew an online poll in a candidate's favor wouldn't you expect to see better results?

 

[Lutherf]

In the WSJ article it stated despite the reported efforts of Cohen in 2014 and 2015, Trump did not do well in either poll. Trump did not make it into the top 100 candidates of top business leaders, and Trump ranked in fifth place, or 5 percent, of the Drudge Report poll of Republicans running in the primary. If you were supposedly paying big money to skew an online poll in a candidate's favor wouldn't you expect to see better results?

So this actually happened BEFORE Trump declared his candidacy. If that's the case then it's even less of a story because if there's no campaign then there can't even be a campaign finance violation. The 2014 incident didn't even involve the presidency and, if true, establishes a practice of doing this kind of thing for personal reasons.

Of all the "nothing" stories to come out so far this one may actually be less of a story than the extra scoop of ice cream thing.

 

[Xelor]

Well... in the case of impeachment, which seems what the left is bent on, there actually does.

You perhaps haven't noticed, but impeachment is a political, not criminal, process. A "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever Congress deems it to be.


Oh, btw, do not mistake me for "the left." I'm not "the right" either. I am myself. While others may have views similar to mine, my views are my own, period....not "the left's" and not "the right's." I don't care what either of those groups have to say. I have to say what I have to say, and they agree with me or they don't.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You perhaps haven't noticed, but impeachment is a political, not criminal, process. A "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever Congress deems it to be.

I don't suppose you have a source for that claim?

 

[Xelor]

I don't suppose you have a source for that claim?

Seriously? You'd deign to participate in a discussion of this nature and need to ask me a question about such a basic aspect of the law and congress.
1 -- Click here for your answer.
2 -- Please do not respond to me further on this or any other legal matter. I don't engage here with people who lack portfolio on the discipline/topic being discussed.

 

[Mr Person]

I don't suppose you have a source for that claim?

Before playing the "show me a link" game, you should probably do some basic research. He doesn't need a "source" since it is apparent to anyone who knows anything about the process.


Impeachment is a purely political process. There is no judicial review of impeachment on articles of conviction, and indeed, the constitution doesn't even bother to spell out "high crimes and misdemeanors". It's a catch-all.

But really, all you need to know is that there is no judicial review. Because there is no judicial review, a president can be impeached for having an ugly face, if congress really was willing to vote to convict on ugly face impeachment articles. You could jump up and down screaming about it, but it wouldn't make a difference.

:shrug:

Now if you really do want to dig further and if you look in the right places, you will find a number of pretty strong arguments about how the founders appeared to intend it to relate to crimes of corruption related to the office. ie, in obtaining the office or committed via use of office. But again, they didn't bother to define it in the constitution and they didn't grant judicial review, so it can be anything congress wants it to be.


And don't bother demanding a link from me. I don't play that game. People pretty much never actually read then honestly discuss a demanded link. It's just another boring debate board move.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Y'know, when you have firms that specialize in Democrat or Republican polling you're pretty much burying your head in the sand if you don't figure those polls are rigged at least to some extent. Furthermore, the media tends to promote polls they like and encourage people to believe certain polls more than others. Every single poll you view should be taken with a one pound box of salt, some more than that.

You're conflating two separate things in an attempt at false equivalence.

If there's a school election and I publish a poll of students where the sample doesn't reflect the school population that's just a bad poll. But all the votes are real. It's up to everyone to ask about the methodology and draw their own conclusions about the reliability of that poll.

If I write a script that creates fake students to vote in school online polls, that's not in any way related to creating a poll. Here you're creating fake voters and engaging in intentional fraud.

It must be exhausting making excuses for Trump's lies and deceptions.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Before playing the "show me a link" game, you should probably do some basic research. He doesn't need a "source" since it is apparent to anyone who knows anything about the process.


Impeachment is a purely political process. There is no judicial review of impeachment on articles of conviction, and indeed, the constitution doesn't even bother to spell out "high crimes and misdemeanors". It's a catch-all.

But really, all you need to know is that there is no judicial review. Because there is no judicial review, a president can be impeached for having an ugly face, if congress really was willing to vote to convict on ugly face impeachment articles. You could jump up and down screaming about it, but it wouldn't make a difference.

:shrug:

Now if you really do want to dig further and if you look in the right places, you will find a number of pretty strong arguments about how the founders appeared to intend it to relate to crimes of corruption related to the office. ie, in obtaining the office or committed via use of office. But again, they didn't bother to define it in the constitution and they didn't grant judicial review, so it can be anything congress wants it to be.


And don't bother demanding a link from me. I don't play that game. People pretty much never actually read then honestly discuss a demanded link. It's just another boring debate board move.

I am perfectly aware that impeachment is a political process. I was more interested in his comment that "a high crime and misdemeanor is whatever congress deems it to be".

 

[Xelor]

I don't suppose you have a source for that claim?

Reposted with the correct link. Apologies for inserting the wrong hyperlink.

Seriously? You'd deign to participate in a discussion of this nature and need to ask me a question about such a basic aspect of the law and congress.
1 -- Click here for your answer.
2 -- Please do not respond to me further on this or any other legal matter. I don't engage here with people who lack portfolio on the discipline/topic being discussed.