Cohen paid to have polls rigged to favor Trump

[Barnacle]

Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Forcefield]

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

Wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I can see you asking this question in response to a similar headline:

Headline

Trump visits skid row, pisses on a bunch of homeless people.


Jack Fabulous: "Was it an actual crime?".



See, you don't care if he is a low life scum bag, as long as he isn't breaking the law.

Well, he's a low life scum bag, and I'll bet Mueller will have evidence of crimes, maybe not that one, but others, for certain.

All of that and you didn't even attempt to answer the question.

Let's try again... what was the actual crime?

 

[OscarLevant]

All of that and you didn't even attempt to answer the question.

Let's try again... what was the actual crime?

You're not fooling anyone, you know the answer that question so the question remains is why would you ask it?

You're asking it because you think that if it's not a crime it's of no consequence.

It's of tremendous consequence, because it's one more addition to the Litany of things that proves Trump is a scumbag and guys like you don't seem to care, unless of course, that person is Hillary.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You're not fooling anyone, you know the answer that question so the question remains is why would you ask it?

You're asking it because you think that if it's not a crime it's of no consequence.

It's of tremendous consequence, because it's one more addition to the Litany of things that proves Trump is a scumbag and guys like you don't seem to care, unless of course, that person is Hillary.

Manipulating internet polls is of tremendous consequence? Since when? Internet polls are manipulated every day and by people and causes all across the spectrum. They are the most unreliable form of polling there is.

Did you really not know this?

 

[Xelor]

It's so hilarious to watch the Anti-Trumpers of DP invest their emotions in something so inconsequential such as this.

Off-Topic:
DP's Trumpkins and "anti-Trumpers" far too often, IMO, eagerly engage on normative matters of politics and "palace intrigue, and do so in a "TMZ-esque" fashion;" however, they're overwhelmingly quiescent when entreated to engage on normative policy (rather than politics), sociological, historical or legal matters for which one must have portfolio to debate them. That predilection contrasts starkly with the discursive behavior I typically observe in partisan "halls and parlors." Frankly, find it rather bizarre that people who willfully participate in a debate forum focused mainly on public policy and politics are so given to the political repartee and far less so to rigorous policy analysis and debate.

To illustrate:

• The wall --> About a week ago, I got into a discussion about the wall with some folks in DC. I posed exactly the same theme I later proffered in a thread here on DP: how does one reconcile spending $25B on a border wall given the economic/financial facts associated with doing so and with illegal immigration?
  • DC "halls and parlors" --> GOP-ers, Trumpkins and Dems alike concur that there is no economic/fiscal case for the wall. In other words, both groups know the wall policy is a purely politically, emotionally driven initiative for which the only "case" for it is that it makes some people feel good and that wanting it accrues from fealty to Trump and his having proposed it.
  • DP --> Peruse the thread. You won't find one Trumpkin who exhibited the discursive and existential integrity of simply acknowledging that there's no sound "business case" for the wall. Indeed, what you'll find is Trumpkins actually attempting to refute the quantitative research and analysis of the nation's foremost immigration economist, a guy who will himself admit there's no economic case for building the wall, even as he's overwhelmingly anti-immigration.
  • The point --> The parties to the conversation agree on the economics of the matter because, well, the information/research into it is irrefutable. Acknowledging that there's no "empirical" case for the wall, the conversation shifted to other lines of preference for or opposition to the wall, but nobody attempted, in contravention of all reason, to say "there's something amiss in the scientific, quantitative research and analysis of the economics of immigration." (One person noted an aspect of "quasi-bias" in George's modeling equations, but even she acceded that didn't alter the legitimacy of his top-level conclusions.)
• Reviving the coal industry and its implications re: Trump's assertions about helping the middle class --> That was a topic of the chit chat at a get together I attended last night. I created this as a thread topic prior to the event.
  • DC "halls and parlors" --> Unanimously, the group, again one comprised of folks from across the political spectrum, agreed someone dropped the ball on that and that it doesn't bode well for Trump given his proclamation to boost the middle class' fortunes, and specifically those of coal industry employees.
  • DP --> It's not a topic capturing the political gossip on the news, so I suppose it doesn't capture DP-ers' interest.
• Social welfare/Income inequality --> Seeing many income equality threads, I posed a question to efficiently obtain an understanding of to what social welfare models DP's frequent discussants of income inequality ascribe -- the model one favors identifies a host of economic policy ideas, one of which happens to be income inequality.
  • DC "halls and parlor" --> Frankly, I don't have to ask the people with whom I discuss politics/policy -- folks I've known well for decades -- because I know them well enough to know the answer. Were I to have just met them, I'd ask the question I posed in the thread, they'd answer and the foundational framework from which we both come would be known, and the conversation would move forward with each of us understanding the other's "ground rules," so to speak.
  • DP --> One member answered the question. Another attempted to say the question was confusing, despite the fact that folks who, given their frequent remarking on income inequality, have portfolio on the matter, few questions, and the direct answers to them, could be more simultaneously succinct and expositive.

 

[Xelor]

Trump's attempts at manipulating online polls so that he would be taken somewhat seriously as a POTUS candidate is clearly seen for what it is: the application of basic marketing theory. Marketers, when they must establish some measure of bona fides re: an upcoming product that's perceived as unrelated to their extant renown, issue brand level messages to create a positive, or at least receptive attitude toward the brand itself, toward the makers of a product. Then they introduce the product.

Doing so is fine when XYZ firm does so to promote itself because they're doing it in the open. The publish the ad, the ad has their name on it. What Trump attempted to do was to use surreptitious tactics to achieve what would have been fine to do had he used above ground tactics to achieve the end of establishing himself as a serious POTUS candidate.

Attempting to "manipulate" attitudes toward Trump isn't the problem. That's what advertising and promotion does. The problem is that he tried to do so on the sly.

 

[OscarLevant]

Manipulating internet polls is of tremendous consequence? Since when? Internet polls are manipulated every day and by people and causes all across the spectrum. They are the most unreliable form of polling there is.

Did you really not know this?

That wasn't the point.

I wrote:

It's of tremendous consequence, because it's one more addition to the Litany of things that proves Trump is a scumbag and guys like you don't seem to care, unless of course, that person is Hillary.

The sentence (the bold part ) explains what "tremendous consequence" is referring to. You really need to start reading entire sentences before you the submit button.