Donald & Hilary joke

[raykeller]

Donald and Hillary go into a bakery, while on the campaign trail. As soon as
they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her
pocket. She whispers to Donald, "See how clever I am?" The owner didn't see
anything and I don't even need to lie." Then she says "I will definitely win
the election."

The Donald says to Hillary, "That's the typical dishonesty you have
displayed throughout your entire life, theft, trickery and deceit. I am
going to show you an honest way to get the same result."

Donald goes to the owner of the bakery and says, "Give me a pastry and I
will show you a magic trick." Intrigued, the owner accepts and gives him a
pastry. Trump swallows it and asks for another one. The owner gives him
another one. Then Donald asks for a third pastry and eats that, too. The
owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, "What did you
do with the pastries?" Trump replies, "Look in Hillary's pocket."

[Red Prepper]

Trump walks into a bar and notices Hillary sitting at the end of the
bar. He tells the bartender, "Buy that douchebag at the end of the
bar a drink."

The bartender responds "Hey, this is a respectable joint and we won't
have any talk like that here."

"OK" responds Trump. "Just get that old lady a drink on me."

The bartender smiles and goes to serve Hillary her drink. He returns
to Trump and asks him to settle up the bill.

Trump asks, "What is she drinking anyway?"

The bartender responds " Vinegar and Water."

[Frank]

I'd buy her a piss and vinegar myself.

[Governor Swill]

She's already full of piss and vinegar. That's why the flaming
dumpster that is the Trump campaign is losing the election.

Swill
--
#imwithher #strongertogether
Donald J. Trump: The asteroid destined to destroy
a party of dinosaurs. - Samantha Bee

Trump has written a lot of books about business, but they all
seem to end in Chapter 11. - Hillary Clinton

S. E. Cupp has characterized Trump as wearing the Republican party
like a rented tuxedo. When the prom is over, it's going to end up on
the floor with the liquor stains and cigarette butts.

So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump,
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf:
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president,
or is the spell now somewhat broken? - John Oliver

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 19 Aug Winston_Smith wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Aug "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>>Donald and Hillary go into a bakery, while on the campaign trail. As soon as
>>they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her
>>pocket.

>I'm waiting for someone to do a little photoshopping. Hillary with two
>fingers of both hands in a "V" held high over her head. She has a 5
>o'clock shadow and the caption reads "I am not a crook".

I'm waiting for some photoshopping too. Trump standing in front of an
electoral board showing more than 11 votes, captioned, "THEY CHEATED!"

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/19/2016 8:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>
> Swill

Swine..Do try an clean yourself up and mind your manners when saluting
President Trump.



--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/19/2016 8:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:14:04 "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>
>> Donald and Hillary go into a bakery, while on the campaign trail. As soon as
>> they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her
>> pocket.
>

> I'm waiting for someone to do a little photoshopping. Hillary with two
> fingers of both hands in a "V" held high over her head. She has a 5
> o'clock shadow and the caption reads "I am not a crook".

And in the other hand still holding the smoking gun that killed Vince
Foster.

She is one reason Democrats want handguns banned!

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/19/2016 9:30 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>>> Donald and Hillary go into a bakery, while on the campaign trail. As soon as
>>> they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her
>>> pocket.
>> I'm waiting for someone to do a little photoshopping. Hillary with two
>> fingers of both hands in a "V" held high over her head. She has a 5
>> o'clock shadow and the caption reads "I am not a crook".
>
> I'm waiting for some photoshopping too.

> Swill

One where President Donald Trump doesn't have you sent to your Muslim
buddies home.

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:30:03 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Aug Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>I'm waiting for someone to do a little photoshopping. Hillary with two
>>>fingers of both hands in a "V" held high over her head. She has a 5
>>>o'clock shadow and the caption reads "I am not a crook".
>>
>>I'm waiting for some photoshopping too. Trump standing in front of an
>>electoral board showing more than 11 votes, captioned, "THEY CHEATED!"
>

>NPR started redeeming themselves today after weeks of doing nothing
>but ignoring or trashing Trump.
>
>First, they spent quite a bit of time on the many problems of the
>Clinton Foundation.
>
>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
>be investigated or resolved.

I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
viewers. Fox isn't going to send anybody to NPR for rightist views.
hehe

That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
networks, CNN and the major dailies.

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> fired this volley in
news:mjuhrb55prg8bed67...@4ax.com:

> That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
> found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
> networks, CNN and the major dailies.
>

But even then, pretty far left! I'm a GREAT fan of NPR, because of its
wonderful programming. But when they start to espouse political views
(whether by commentary or 'panel discussions') WATCH OUT... they're
_almost_ as far-left as you can get.

But that said, they're a whole-lot more fair in their reporting than the
national commercial networks, who lie through their teeth to get their
dishonest messages across!

LLoyd

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>NPR started redeeming themselves

>
>>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
>>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
>>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
>>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
>>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
>>>be investigated or resolved.
>>
>>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
>>viewers.
>

>The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it. But
>the real point is that even left leaning outlets are starting to
>question Hillary's honesty and whether we can expect an honest vote.

>
>>Fox isn't going to send anybody to NPR for rightist views.
>>hehe
>

>I'd prefer the various outlets report independently rather than get
>together to work out the official story line.

>
>>That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
>>found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
>>networks, CNN and the major dailies.
>

>There may have been a survey but the result is BS.
>
>UCLA? Not one of your most right or even centrist places.
>
>Survey = opinion, not fact.

No. They are statistical surveys, not opinions.

>At UCLA it may very well have been the
>prevailing opinion. Besides not fact, I doubt it was representative of
>the wider population's opinion.
>
>Which is why it's BS.

The "wider population" doesn't have an opinion. It has prejudices. To
have an opinion, you first have to exhaust the facts. The wider
population has little idea about what they are in a case like this.

I haven't seen that study, but I'd bet the farm that they have a
reasonable and objective basis for measuring their conclusions. If you
know what they are, you can have an opinion about whether it's a valid
survey. Until you do, you have nothing but prejudice.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 08/20/2016 06:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
> found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
> networks, CNN and the major dailies.

Speaking of UCLA, shall we discuss Dr. Groseclose's book, 'Left Turn'?
It's a little fresher than a decade ago. Of course after publishing
UCLA denied him a promotion and he left for the greener pastures of
George Mason.

There may be something to his idea that liberals self-select as
journalists; the STEM curricula tend to require hard work while the
journalism schools thrive on bullshit.

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 19:55:33 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> fired this volley in
>news:mjuhrb55prg8bed67...@4ax.com:
>
>> That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
>> found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
>> networks, CNN and the major dailies.
>>
>
>But even then, pretty far left! I'm a GREAT fan of NPR, because of its
>wonderful programming. But when they start to espouse political views
>(whether by commentary or 'panel discussions') WATCH OUT... they're
>_almost_ as far-left as you can get.

That's how I think of them. You can imagine my surprise to find a
study which claimed they were more to the right than any mainstream
outlet considered centrist. Fwiw, that ranking pretty much convinced
me that study was full of it and could safely be disregarded.

>But that said, they're a whole-lot more fair in their reporting than the
>national commercial networks, who lie through their teeth to get their
>dishonest messages across!

The best part about NPR is they both go into greater depth in their
reporting *and* report a wider variety of stories. CNN has gotten
terrible about spending the entire day and night dwelling on the same
3-4 stories over and over.

For example, Fox was reporting on the Louisiana flooding two days
before CNN found out it had rained down there. ;)

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:20:00 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:44:24 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Survey = opinion, not fact.
>>
>>No. They are statistical surveys, not opinions.
>

>What do you think about ...? Is NRP this or that?

Well, this is an uninformed "opinion," <g> because I've never made an
attempt to count stories or angles on them. Off the top of my head,
I'm surprised that it was right of center, although I would have said
it was very close to center.

>
>That's a survey. Sure you can do statistics on the tendered opinions.

Well, yeah, you can suvey "opinions," or "prejudices." But that's not
what this survey is. They set up an objective scale, which people may
or may not agree with, and counted incidences of "left" or "right" in
the actual news coverage.

Here's an article about it:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

Again, this wasn't an opinion survey.

>
>And sure you can design an unbiased search for information, but "how
>do you feel about...?" ain't it.

But that isn't what they surveyed.

>
>>I haven't seen that study, but I'd bet the farm that they have a
>>reasonable and objective basis for measuring their conclusions.
>

>It's always refreshing to see a man of faith.

Look at the link. It's certainly objective. How "reasonable" it is, is
a matter of conjecture. I don't recognize that political-science scale
they used.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:68eirb1fv9fnrlmjt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:44:24 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Survey = opinion, not fact.
>>
>>No. They are statistical surveys, not opinions.
>

> What do you think about ...? Is NRP this or that?
>

> That's a survey. Sure you can do statistics on the tendered
> opinions.
>

> And sure you can design an unbiased search for information, but "how
> do you feel about...?" ain't it.
>

>>I haven't seen that study, but I'd bet the farm that they have a
>>reasonable and objective basis for measuring their conclusions.
>

> It's always refreshing to see a man of faith.

It's amusing to watch the social sciences struggle so desperately for
validation and respect.

[Ed Huntress]

But with whom are they "struggling"? Clueless numbnuts, rightards, and
geek engineers?

Yes, mostly. Those of us who have studied and worked with surveys of
various kinds recognize that the biggest problem is that very few
people actually understand statistics or high-level survey
methodology. They have little sense of what these surveys are
measuring. They seem to think that human beings are static things,
that you can measure them today and they'll do the same thing next
year, as if they're inanimate pieces of drainpipe.

And then we watch those "engineered" yachts roll over and capsize,
like the one we saw here yesterday <g>, or the highly-touted engineers
from Mercedes-Benz build a race car that thinks it's an inverted power
glider:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoApotGrB8

The problem with engineers who scoff at social science is that the
engineers deal mostly with things that are dead or never were living,
and they think that's the entire realm of science.

--
Ed Huntress

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>NPR started redeeming themselves

>>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
>>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
>>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
>>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
>>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
>>>be investigated or resolved.
>>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
>>viewers.

>The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it.

"Now"? You say that "now" the left is learning about this? You can't
watch a story on CNN or MSNBC about the election without running into
a comparison of their unfavorables. Time and again they've run
stories on Clinton's emails, Benghazi and now CNN has latched onto the
Clinton Foundation noting the Clinton's are late addressing the issue.
After noting their announcement that Bill would step down and other
changes would be made if Hillary won the election, Dana Bash asked a
Clinton surrogate on State of the Union this morning: "If they see
the need to do this if she becomes President, why didn't they do it
when she became Secretary of State?" A waffling non response
followed.

Trouble is, every time the left or center seize on her downsides,
Trump does or says something stupid that sucks all the oxygen out of
the room and makes him the center of attention again. If he'd just go
on vacation for a week, Clinton's numbers would tank. Trump is his
own worst enemy.

>But the real point is that even left leaning outlets are starting to
>question Hillary's honesty and whether we can expect an honest vote.

What a hoot! "Starting" to question Hillary's honesty? What planet
are you living on? Seriously. The center and left media have
rehashed her many faults many times but invariably Trump does
something outrageous that takes all the attention off her and puts it
on him.

Consider his "outreach" to African Americans. Delivered before an all
white audience in an almost all white community, and his best pitch
was, after telling them how badly they've been duped all these years,
that they should vote for him because, "What do you have to lose?"

The African American community is offended and outraged by his
comments. An attitude Trump and his white supporters are simply
incapable of comprehending because they don't understand the black
experience in America.

So answer this: If Trump is so concerned about black Americans, why
doesn't he have any on his staff? If he really wants to reach out to
African American voters, why hasn't he responded to attempts by the
NAACP to speak at one of their events? Why does he continue to fill
his rallies with white people and hold them in white neighborhoods?

Answer: Because Trump isn't reaching out to them, he's reaching out
to his voter base in an attempt to neutralize the charges of racism he
and they have to deal with. When he did his outreach, there was not
one single POC behind him on camera. Oops! I did see an Asian woman
behind him! WOOHOO!!

>>Fox isn't going to send anybody to NPR for rightist views.
>>hehe
>

>I'd prefer the various outlets report independently rather than get
>together to work out the official story line.

And you missed my point. Right biased news outlets aren't going to
tell their viewers and readers about negative Clinton stories in left
and center media. It doesn't match up with their agenda of painting
them with unabashed bias.

By not acknowledging the beating Hillary has taken from the left and
center, you show that you get very little information from them
yourself. So, how would you know what they're actually reporting?

>>That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
>>found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
>>networks, CNN and the major dailies.
>

>There may have been a survey but the result is BS.

On that we can agree.

>UCLA? Not one of your most right or even centrist places.

Yet the southern California media and elites are far more supportive
of Trump than you might think. Hillary's worst polling results
consistently come not from Rasmussen or Fox as you might expect, but
from the LA Times, and some of the most damaging editorials as well.

>Survey = opinion, not fact. At UCLA it may very well have been the

>prevailing opinion. Besides not fact, I doubt it was representative of
>the wider population's opinion.
>
>Which is why it's BS.

In my response to another poster in this thread:

"You can imagine my surprise to find a study which claimed they [NPR]

were more to the right than any mainstream outlet considered centrist.
Fwiw, that ranking pretty much convinced me that study was full of it
and could safely be disregarded."

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:11cjrbtcdbel4gbsn...@4ax.com...

Come on, Ed, I've told you I worked on airline cockpit automation and
medical equipment , both with very significant human factors concerns,
e.g. the crash of Air France AF447. While I didn't make decisions in
either I was aware of the issues. The people involved in those are
highly trained but also may become highly distracted, so they learn
the basic rules of #1 Aviate, #2 Navigate, #3 Communicate, and Primum
non nocere.

I'm also an "undeclared" NH voter and prime target for opinion polls.
I still see the sampling problems and slanted or poorly worded
questions I learned about in the college liberal-arts Statistics
course.

There were two courses offered, with identical descriptions, and I
chose the one that didn't conflict with another class. It barely
touched the math but the sociological aspect was interesting. The
homework was light and like the few other liberal arts courses I took
required only memorizing and repeating accepted "facts", while the
engineering courses taught us to think for ourselves, to analyze and
solve problems.
https://mathmaine.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/studying-to-understand-vs-studying-to-memorize/
"If you find yourself seeking to memorize all possible problem types
and their solution patterns, you are not trying to understand the
concepts."

http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/
"At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was
36% in 1997 and is just 9% today."
They lose me when they demand personal data such as my age group. Some
become extremely indignant and hang up when I ask them theirs, or to
wait a moment while I Google their organization.

Notice that Pew claims statistical proof that their statistical data
is correct, an internally consistent but circular argument based on
unproveable assumptions. Naturally they have to defend the validity of
their results to stay in business.

--jsw

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 11:27:13 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Just three points here, Jim. First, you represent a behavioral
subgroup that's so small that it disappears in the stats. Your
response to surveys is meaningless in terms of results. So is mine,
because I've been so involved with surveys that I'm "suspect" as a
representative of anything -- except other pollsters, and we aren't
even a bump on the body politic.

Second, you had some beginning courses. When you get into advanced
weighting of poll data, you'll quickly realize they didn't really
teach you much of anything. Among the top professional pollsters, the
methodology, particularly for weighting, is very sophisticated and
accurate. They have a variety of ways to pre-test subsamples for
validity, and most of them do it for big-deal polls like presidential
elections.

And third, and really the bottom line: Polls prove to be incredibly
accurate. Just looking at Gallup's results on presidential polls, over
the past 24 years they've never been wrong by more than 3%.

If you look at the RCP averages for a variety of polls, they called
the 2012 election correctly and had the spread within 3.2% of the
actual result. The pundits and other "experts" were all over the map.
The pollsters got it right.

I assume you know statistics well enough to recognize that polling
presidential races is made extremely difficult by the closeness of
results to 50% of the sample (and of the universe, for that matter).
The fact that they can generally keep it within 3% of the final result
is remarkable.

Most of the stats we've been talking about here are nowhere close to
50%, and therefore are much more reliable. Still, being able to call
presidential races so closely is proof of how well they can do it
these days. Gallup was off by 2% on Obama and 3% on Romney in 2012,
which produced the wrong result. But the actual numbers were *within*
the confidence interval at a confidence level of 95%! Jesus, that's
close.

They know what they're doing. None of us who comment on the subject
here is even close.

--
Ed Huntress

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Well, you said you were first for Bushy Boy, then Trump. Speaking of the latter, I heard his faked doctor's note accidentally wrote that he "tested positive" for everything (thinking it meant that he was spotless, health wise).

Technically, he's described as HIV+ positive:

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my3qQ9d0cT8 (seconds 2:37 to 4:40)

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:20:00 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:44:24 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Survey = opinion, not fact.
>>
>>No. They are statistical surveys, not opinions.
>

>What do you think about ...? Is NRP this or that?
>
>That's a survey. Sure you can do statistics on the tendered opinions.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

This is not a survey, it's a study. The methodology is explained.
Teams were assigned to examine coverage by specific criteria.

>And sure you can design an unbiased search for information, but "how
>do you feel about...?" ain't it.

"Bias" is relative and indeed, the study could be biased if the
criteria were designed either deliberately or inadvertently to make it
so.

>>I haven't seen that study, but I'd bet the farm that they have a
>>reasonable and objective basis for measuring their conclusions.
>

>It's always refreshing to see a man of faith.

"In recent days, news outlets including CNN cited a study of several
major media outlets, "A Measure of Media Bias" (pdf) by political
scientist Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo
of the University of Missouri-Columbia, purporting to demonstrate that
America's news content has "a strong liberal bias." But the UCLA-led
study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings
are next to useless. In addition, the authors -- apparently new to
media content analysis -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly
work that exists on the topic, yet they do cite a number of right-wing
sources to provide support for their claims."

"None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the
authors have previously received funding from the three premier
conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation,
and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace."
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/12/21/former-fellows-at-conservative-think-tanks-issu/134514>

It seems we can't even get an unbiased study of bias.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:17:40 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:54:40 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:

>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:20:00 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:44:24 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Survey = opinion, not fact.
>>>>
>>>>No. They are statistical surveys, not opinions.
>>>
>>>What do you think about ...? Is NRP this or that?
>>>That's a survey. Sure you can do statistics on the tendered opinions.
>>
>>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664
>>This is not a survey, it's a study. The methodology is explained.
>>Teams were assigned to examine coverage by specific criteria.
>

>Beautiful. Just beautiful. Morphing after the horse has left the barn.
>
>You wrote:
>||-That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago
>||-found NPR to be generally ...
>
>That's it. No reference. No hard date. No clue of any kind.
>
>Ed comes along and writes:
>||-I haven't seen that study, but I'd bet the farm that they ...
>
>He says he doesn't know what we are talking about but he has faith.

I have faith in two things: First, it is not an opinion survey. That
is now confirmed. Second, they used a specific set of criteria to make
their evaluation. That is also confirmed.

As for the validity of it, I said I don't know.

>
>After I comment, THEN you pick out which "survey" you want it to be
>about and pop up some links.

That was the study he was talking about. It's the same one that I
linked to.

>
>Pure BS from the left. Again.

You aren't reading, Winston. And you're hearing something that isn't
being said.

--
Ed Huntress

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 08:55:25 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Though they (college and university researchers and their outlets) don't struggle to comply with their given mission statements any more or any less than those who choose to work elsewhere, AFAICS. Or do they?

[Jim Wilkins]

<bruce2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4613c0e2-ac27-4d2e...@googlegroups.com...

http://blousteinreview.rutgers.edu/is-there-a-way-to-handle-uncertainty-in-social-science/
"As discussed in the previous section, the very nature of knowledge in
social science is founded on a set of human beliefs and opinions.
Opinions transform into facts when there is a high degree of consensus
(Leamer, 1983). Thus, uncertainty plagues not just the future outcomes
but also the present schema of knowledge and understanding of the
social reality."

The physical sciences have always been aware of the social
implications of their products, thus Nobel's Peace Prize funded by the
profits from his dynamite.

[John B.]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:00:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Actually there have been 322 Nobel prizes awarded in the sciences, 108
in Literature, 96 in Peace and 42 in Economics. which, perhaps says
something about the value attributed to peace and economics in the
awards committee.



--
cheers,

John B.

[amdx]

On 8/19/2016 8:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:14:04 "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>

>> Donald and Hillary go into a bakery, while on the campaign trail. As soon as
>> they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her
>> pocket.
>

> I'm waiting for someone to do a little photoshopping. Hillary with two
> fingers of both hands in a "V" held high over her head. She has a 5
> o'clock shadow and the caption reads "I am not a crook".
>

> https://imgflip.com/i/16yciu

[Governor Swill]

It's the meth.

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:01:04 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:46:16 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>>>NPR started redeeming themselves
>>>>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
>>>>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
>>>>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
>>>>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
>>>>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
>>>>>be investigated or resolved.
>
>>>>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
>>>>viewers.
>>
>>>The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it.
>>
>>"Now"? You say that "now" the left is learning about this? You can't
>>watch a story on CNN or MSNBC about the election without running into
>>a comparison of their unfavorables.
>

>Oooh, nice change of subject and spin.
>
>What the left is just learning about is the potential for election
>fraud. THAT is what I wrote about. Which orifice did you just suck
>Hillary's negatives out of to try and change the thread?
>
>Rigged voting is as much about Congress as the President. Not to
>mention everything state, county, and local.
>

What election fraud?

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 21 Aug Winston_Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:46:16 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>NPR started redeeming themselves
>>>>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
>>>>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
>>>>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
>>>>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
>>>>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
>>>>>be investigated or resolved.
>>>>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
>>>>viewers.
>>>The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it.
>>"Now"? You say that "now" the left is learning about this? You can't
>>watch a story on CNN or MSNBC about the election without running into
>>a comparison of their unfavorables.
>

>Oooh, nice change of subject and spin.

Like Hillary's faults, the left and center are well aware of right
wing crybabies going on endlessly about vote fraud.

Vote rigging is the last refuge of failure. Is it "possible" the vote
could be hacked? Sure. It's also possible frogs will sprout wings
and fly.

>What the left is just learning about is the potential for election
>fraud. THAT is what I wrote about. Which orifice did you just suck
>Hillary's negatives out of to try and change the thread?

I don't need to suck any of her orifices to know that only losers
complain about rigged voting.

>Rigged voting is as much about Congress as the President. Not to
>mention everything state, county, and local.

Trump has been complaining about rigged voting since before the last
frost. Does this mean the system was rigged in his favor to make him
the nominee?

The far right has been reduced to whining about voter fraud because
their ideologies are being rejected by the nation at large.

Right wing conservatism is dying. It's adherents are aging and
because their generation chose to have fewer babies, there aren't as
many new ones being raised. The white population is shrinking while
the brown population is expanding. The demographics are changing and
conservatives and Republicans are way behind the curve.

The millennials of today, like the hipsters of yesteryear, aren't
buying the older generations' values. They live in a different world.
A world where no politician is untainted by scandal. A world where
party affiliations are less important than the candidates themselves.
A world where individual worth is more valued than skin color,
religion or other signs of outward conformity.

Only 55% Americans self identify as Republican or Democrat and that
number is shrinking. Most of the rest are independent and vote for
the candidate of their choice.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

Bottom line? Conservatives are whining about voter fraud because
they're in denial. They aren't the majority they fancy they are.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:59:34 AM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug Winston_Smith wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:46:16 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>>>>NPR started redeeming themselves
> >>>>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
> >>>>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
> >>>>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
> >>>>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
> >>>>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
> >>>>>be investigated or resolved.
> >>>>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
> >>>>viewers.
> >>>The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it.
> >>"Now"? You say that "now" the left is learning about this? You can't
> >>watch a story on CNN or MSNBC about the election without running into
> >>a comparison of their unfavorables.
> >
> >Oooh, nice change of subject and spin.
>
> Like Hillary's faults, the left and center are well aware of right
> wing crybabies going on endlessly about vote fraud.

That's because it won't work (as practiced by poll personnel), like in North Carolina, Ohio, etc..

> Vote rigging is the last refuge of failure.

Well, after that, name-calling, sabotage, dog-whistling, whispering campaigns, come.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>What election fraud?
>You did notice where I said electronic vote rigging is invisible?
>The battleground states have gone so far as to eliminate the entire
>paper trail so a physical audit will be impossible. You buy the
>announced result or you don't. That's the end of it.

>>What election fraud?
>This one.
>The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast
>Quick Ed, we need one of your many always ready studies to prove that
>books is all BS.

You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
and Bush should have lost both of them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

"Donald Trump announced the formation of his Economic Advisory
Council. Aside from a token academic that he’d never actually bothered
to meet prior to the announcement, the all-male panel read like a
rogues list ripped straight from the pages of Billionaires & Ballot
Bandits by investigative reporter Greg Palast. Trump’s inner circle,
which after an outcry over the glaring sex bias was supplemented by
eight women, features some of the worst offenders when it comes to
political powerbrokering for personal gain. But that’s just
pay-to-play politics, and is therefore not so surprising. What did
raise some eyebrows was Trump’s decision to embrace a group of guys
he’d previously lambasted for “getting away with murder” due to their
super-sized tax breaks: hedge fund managers, whom he’d also said half
the time had “luck more than talent.” But The Donald can no longer
afford to be picky, since the billionaire on “reality” TV only needs
some actual real cash to fund his floundering campaign. In this week’s
Best Democracy Money Can Buy: Election Crimes Bulletin, Flashpoints’
Dennis J. Bernstein gets the lowdown from Palast on Trump’s new hedge
fund BFFs and the hidden payoff that’s facilitating their cosy
relationship."

"TRANSCRIPT (Originally broadcast on Aug 10, 2016)

"Dennis J. Bernstein: Welcome back to the Elections Crimes Bulletin
with bestselling author and noted BBC investigative reporter, Greg
Palast, now reporting for Rolling Stone on these crazy elections as we
try and figure out if your vote will count, or if it doesn’t really
matter because the NRA might put a bullet behind Hillary’s ear — as
per Donald Trump’s strong, strong suggestion. Greg, welcome!

"Greg Palast: You don’t have much of a sense of humor, Dennis. Don’t
you ever tell assassination jokes?

"DB: Am I not subtle enough?

"Palast: Well, you know, I figured that was a loaded question — bang!

"DB: So Trump manages to keep the headlines, but maybe that’s better
for him because if people really start delving behind the scenes, look
into who supports him, what he’s been up to, this is where his real
trouble is.

"Palast: I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that instead of
parsing his seventh grade sense of humor that we would be looking at
the billionaires behind him. It’s fascinating because it was Donald
Trump who told us, when billionaires like me write checks, we expect
something back from the politicians, and a lot more than we put in.
Now that he’s been exposed as not a billionaire — he just plays one on
TV — he’s gone to the very guys that he’s attacked."
http://www.gregpalast.com/

Swill
--
"If Donald Trump is our standard bearer,
what's happened to our standards?

[Ed Huntress]

If you buy the book through
http://www.palastinvestigativefund.org/?id=12

..."All items are signed. Donations are tax-deductible"

"The Palast Investigative Fund is a project of the Sustainable Markets
Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization."

Hey, make your money where you can, especially if you make your living
bashing billionaires. You'll soon find yourself to be a "charitable
organization." I wonder if he gets food stamps? <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/22/2016 8:49 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:00 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:

>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:58:49 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>> You aren't reading, Winston. And you're hearing something that isn't
>>> being said.
>>
>> It's the meth.
>

> I hadn't been told you guys were back on it. That explains you
> extrasensory abilities.

You misspelled "Instabilities"!

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:20:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:10:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:

>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>
>>>>What election fraud?
>

>>>This one.
>>>The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast

>
>>You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
>>and Bush should have lost both of them?
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
>

>Exactly. And he did it the old fashioned way by maniplating
>registration. So you are now happy to recognize election fraud can
>exist. You implied it was impossible before.

That's registration fraud which is usually caught before voting day.
Additionally, I'm not buying it. The vote was close and in the end,
Bush did get the most votes. The problem I had was bypassing the law
to get him into office.

>Since you are happy to admit the Rs did it, please tell us why the Ds
>can't do it. Especially since electronic voting can't be verified but
>can be hacked.

Georgia has a paper trail for voting. Dunno about any other states.

I posted some excerpts about Palast. Doesn't mean I believe them
hook, line and sinker.

When the two parties take opposite views on any issue, you can bet
they're both wrong. I have no problem with voters being required to
positively identify themselves on election day. While it may be
unpopular with some, I figure if you aren't responsible enough to keep
up with your ID in this modern world, you probably aren't responsible
enough to vote anyway.

For the other side of it, laws that target demographics to reduce
voter participation of those demographics are morally wrong.

I support early and absentee voting which is all the more reason to
require positive ID at the polls. Makes it easier catch multiple
voting and those who might slip by. I'd also support computerized
rolls at the polls. Watching poll workers wade through stacks of
lists looking for voters seems awfully archaic.

[Governor Swill]

My thoughts exactly. Make your company a non profit, take as much
salary as you like and let the company pay for what you can get away
with.

The same games being played by the big boys he would criticize.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Governor Swill wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:20:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:10:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>
> >>>>What election fraud?
>>
>>>>This one.
>>>>The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast
>>
>>>You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
>>>and Bush should have lost both of them?
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
>>
>>Exactly. And he did it the old fashioned way by maniplating
>>registration. So you are now happy to recognize election fraud can
>>exist. You implied it was impossible before.
>
> That's registration fraud which is usually caught before voting day.
> Additionally, I'm not buying it. The vote was close and in the end,
> Bush did get the most votes. The problem I had was bypassing the law
> to get him into office.
>
>> Since you are happy to admit the Rs did it, please tell us why the Ds
>>can't do it. Especially since electronic voting can't be verified but
>>can be hacked.
>
> Georgia has a paper trail for voting. Dunno about any other states.

Though, you clearly address beyond such limits.

[RD Sandman]

On 8/23/2016 6:56 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:20:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:10:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What election fraud?
>>
>>>> This one.
>>>> The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast
>>
>>> You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
>>> and Bush should have lost both of them?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
>>
>> Exactly. And he did it the old fashioned way by maniplating
>> registration. So you are now happy to recognize election fraud can
>> exist. You implied it was impossible before.
>
> That's registration fraud which is usually caught before voting day.
> Additionally, I'm not buying it. The vote was close and in the end,
> Bush did get the most votes. The problem I had was bypassing the law
> to get him into office.

Hmmmm, which law was that?

>> Since you are happy to admit the Rs did it, please tell us why the Ds
>> can't do it. Especially since electronic voting can't be verified but
>> can be hacked.
>
> Georgia has a paper trail for voting. Dunno about any other states.
>
> I posted some excerpts about Palast. Doesn't mean I believe them
> hook, line and sinker.
>
> When the two parties take opposite views on any issue, you can bet
> they're both wrong. I have no problem with voters being required to
> positively identify themselves on election day. While it may be
> unpopular with some, I figure if you aren't responsible enough to keep
> up with your ID in this modern world, you probably aren't responsible
> enough to vote anyway.
>
> For the other side of it, laws that target demographics to reduce
> voter participation of those demographics are morally wrong.
>
> I support early and absentee voting which is all the more reason to
> require positive ID at the polls. Makes it easier catch multiple
> voting and those who might slip by. I'd also support computerized
> rolls at the polls. Watching poll workers wade through stacks of
> lists looking for voters seems awfully archaic.
>
> Swill
>


--

Sleep well tonight.

RD The Sandman

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....

Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough!!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Governor Swill]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:36:38 -0700, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 8/23/2016 6:56 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:20:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:10:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What election fraud?
>>>
>>>>> This one.
>>>>> The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast
>>>
>>>> You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
>>>> and Bush should have lost both of them?
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
>>>
>>> Exactly. And he did it the old fashioned way by maniplating
>>> registration. So you are now happy to recognize election fraud can
>>> exist. You implied it was impossible before.
>>
>> That's registration fraud which is usually caught before voting day.
>> Additionally, I'm not buying it. The vote was close and in the end,
>> Bush did get the most votes. The problem I had was bypassing the law
>> to get him into office.
>
>Hmmmm, which law was that?

The selection would have fallen to the House. Obviously the Gore
campaign couldn't allow that so the courts were tried.

And all because everybody was too impatient to let the recount process
play out.

>>> Since you are happy to admit the Rs did it, please tell us why the Ds
>>> can't do it. Especially since electronic voting can't be verified but
>>> can be hacked.
>>
>> Georgia has a paper trail for voting. Dunno about any other states.
>>
>> I posted some excerpts about Palast. Doesn't mean I believe them
>> hook, line and sinker.
>>
>> When the two parties take opposite views on any issue, you can bet
>> they're both wrong. I have no problem with voters being required to
>> positively identify themselves on election day. While it may be
>> unpopular with some, I figure if you aren't responsible enough to keep
>> up with your ID in this modern world, you probably aren't responsible
>> enough to vote anyway.
>>
>> For the other side of it, laws that target demographics to reduce
>> voter participation of those demographics are morally wrong.
>>
> I support early and absentee voting which is all the more reason to
>> require positive ID at the polls. Makes it easier catch multiple
>> voting and those who might slip by. I'd also support computerized
>> rolls at the polls. Watching poll workers wade through stacks of
>> lists looking for voters seems awfully archaic.

Swill
--

#imwithher #stronger together
"It's shameful how Hillary is selling access to government
through the Clinton Foundation! She should do it like everybody
else - through campaign contributions!

[RD Sandman]

On 8/24/2016 4:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:36:38 -0700, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2016 6:56 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:20:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
>>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:10:17 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:02:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What election fraud?
>>>>
>>>>>> This one.
>>>>>> The.Best.Democracy.Money.Can.Buy.-.By.Greg.Palast
>>>>
>>>>> You mean the guy who proved the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged
>>>>> and Bush should have lost both of them?
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. And he did it the old fashioned way by maniplating
>>>> registration. So you are now happy to recognize election fraud can
>>>> exist. You implied it was impossible before.
>>>
>>> That's registration fraud which is usually caught before voting day.
>>> Additionally, I'm not buying it. The vote was close and in the end,
>>> Bush did get the most votes. The problem I had was bypassing the law
>>> to get him into office.
>>
>> Hmmmm, which law was that?
>
> The selection would have fallen to the House.

That's true. The problem was that the Democrats were overly concerned
that there was hanky panky going on. If they wanted to challenge a
result, they should have gone after Tennessee, Gore's home state where
the people knew him and family the best and he lost.

A side note I found interesting is all the bitching about the butterfly
ballot. It was designed by a democrat precinct committe and, vary
possibly, many, many votes for Gore in Palm Beach County went, instead,
to Buchanan.

There lots of errors in that election in just Florida.....mainstream
media announcing winners while the polls were still open in the
panhandle, several bags of absentee ballots from the military not
counted, the aforementioned butterfly ballot, etc.. It was a disaster.

Obviously the Gore
> campaign couldn't allow that so the courts were tried.
>
> And all because everybody was too impatient to let the recount process
> play out.
>

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:04:15 -0700, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-79.htm



A side note...a perfect example of why Media Matters is a cancerous
growth on the Democrat Machine

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/10/31/john-funds-book-on-voter-fraud-is-a-fraud/132213

The Left tries hard..very hard to cover it up...
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Voter-Fraud-Lorraine-Minnite/dp/0801448484

But the tables are turning on them....finally.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/22/ydont-believe-voter-fraud-happens-heres-some-examples/

This one is fascinating..considering the source...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message

news:953asbp8h9218rq5t...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>
>>What election fraud?
>

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-is-investigating-foreign-hacks-of-state-election-systems/2016/08/29/6e758ff4-6e00-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html
>
> Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system
> FBI: Some voter databases may have been hacked
> By Ellen Nakashima August 29 at 10:00 PM
>

Take a look at the log of pings your firewall has rejected.

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 30 Aug "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>"Winston_Smith" wrote

>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:57:43 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>What election fraud?
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-is-investigating-foreign-hacks-of-state-election-systems/2016/08/29/6e758ff4-6e00-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html
>> Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system
>> FBI: Some voter databases may have been hacked
>> By Ellen Nakashima August 29 at 10:00 PM
>Take a look at the log of pings your firewall has rejected.

I did that once. I was horrified.

Swill
--
#imwithher #stronger together

And then the elephant said . . ,
"It's outrageous how donors to the Clinton Foundation got access
to government! We prefer they get access the old fashioned way.
Through campaign contributions."

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:46:19 AM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:13:19 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:50:27 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:23:21 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>>NPR started redeeming themselves
> >>>Second, they are preparing a report on hacking the vote. Promo starts
> >>>by saying there is almost no in-person voter fraud but what about
> >>>hacking the electronic results. Seems it's quite possible. Seems the
> >>>key battle ground states have absolutely no paper trail that can be
> >>>used to audit suspicions. You accept the vote or you don't; can't ever
> >>>be investigated or resolved.
> >>I expect little of this will come to the notice of many rightist
> >>viewers.
>
> >The right already knows this. Now the left is learning about it.
>
> "Now"? You say that "now" the left is learning about this? You can't
> watch a story on CNN or MSNBC about the election without running into

> a comparison of their unfavorables. Time and again they've run
> stories on Clinton's emails, Benghazi and now CNN has latched onto the
> Clinton Foundation noting the Clinton's are late addressing the issue.
> After noting their announcement that Bill would step down and other
> changes would be made if Hillary won the election, Dana Bash asked a
> Clinton surrogate on State of the Union this morning: "If they see
> the need to do this if she becomes President, why didn't they do it
> when she became Secretary of State?" A waffling non response
> followed.
>
> Trouble is, every time the left or center seize on her downsides,
> Trump does or says something stupid that sucks all the oxygen out of
> the room and makes him the center of attention again. If he'd just go
> on vacation for a week, Clinton's numbers would tank. Trump is his
> own worst enemy.
>
> >But the real point is that even left leaning outlets are starting to
> >question Hillary's honesty and whether we can expect an honest vote.
>
> What a hoot! "Starting" to question Hillary's honesty? What planet
> are you living on? Seriously. The center and left media have
> rehashed her many faults many times but invariably Trump does
> something outrageous that takes all the attention off her and puts it
> on him.
>
> Consider his "outreach" to African Americans. Delivered before an all
> white audience in an almost all white community, and his best pitch
> was, after telling them how badly they've been duped all these years,
> that they should vote for him because, "What do you have to lose?"
>
> The African American community is offended and outraged by his
> comments. An attitude Trump and his white supporters are simply
> incapable of comprehending because they don't understand the black
> experience in America.
>
> So answer this: If Trump is so concerned about black Americans, why
> doesn't he have any on his staff? If he really wants to reach out to
> African American voters, why hasn't he responded to attempts by the
> NAACP to speak at one of their events? Why does he continue to fill
> his rallies with white people and hold them in white neighborhoods?
>
> Answer: Because Trump isn't reaching out to them, he's reaching out
> to his voter base in an attempt to neutralize the charges of racism he
> and they have to deal with. When he did his outreach, there was not
> one single POC behind him on camera. Oops! I did see an Asian woman
> behind him! WOOHOO!!
>
> >>Fox isn't going to send anybody to NPR for rightist views.
> >>hehe
> >
> >I'd prefer the various outlets report independently rather than get
> >together to work out the official story line.
>
> And you missed my point. Right biased news outlets aren't going to
> tell their viewers and readers about negative Clinton stories in left
> and center media. It doesn't match up with their agenda of painting
> them with unabashed bias.
>
> By not acknowledging the beating Hillary has taken from the left and
> center, you show that you get very little information from them
> yourself. So, how would you know what they're actually reporting?

>
> >>That said, a media partisanship survey published by UCLA a decade ago

> >>found NPR to be generally to the right of the major broadcast
> >>networks, CNN and the major dailies.
> >
> >There may have been a survey but the result is BS.
>
> On that we can agree.
>
> >UCLA? Not one of your most right or even centrist places.
>
> Yet the southern California media and elites are far more supportive
> of Trump than you might think. Hillary's worst polling results
> consistently come not from Rasmussen or Fox as you might expect, but
> from the LA Times, and some of the most damaging editorials as well.
>
> >Survey = opinion, not fact. At UCLA it may very well have been the
> >prevailing opinion. Besides not fact, I doubt it was representative of
> >the wider population's opinion.
> >
> >Which is why it's BS.
>
> In my response to another poster in this thread:
>
> "You can imagine my surprise to find a study which claimed they [NPR]
> were more to the right than any mainstream outlet considered centrist.

I've noticed that NPR and PBS seem to focus mainly on issues of victimhood and whose the poorest far, far more than the other alphabet news organizations. The more you do that, the less to the right you are.