Trump Says FBI is Searching Mar-a-Lago!

29,190 Views | 631 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by DiabloWags
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:



not in the places that mattered

Trump appointed the CEO of Exxon Mobil to be his Secretary of State, a Banker from Goldman Sachs to be his Treasury Secretary, a Billionaire to be his Commerce Secretary, and an Executive from Boeing to be his Defense Secretary who never served a day in our military.

Question: Do you believe that Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and Boeing arent part of The Swamp?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

[I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.

The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.

I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.

Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there.





Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.

As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.


I'm not sure what the Biden administration can do on the PR front. They shouldn't comment on active law enforcement investigations. Trump decided to publicize this for political reasons.

Seems like Biden's hands are tied on this.
By this administration, I included the DOJ. I understand that there has to be at least some separation between the white house and the DOJ, but the DOJ is still under the oversight of the president, with the attorney general appointed by the president. As such, this lack of competent PR professionals who should have messaging and Q&A all lined up on something like this, including PR professionals at DOJ, is just consistent with prior poor messaging from the West Wing, East Wing, and pentagon, etc. As you know, crisis management and public credibility are keys to thriving in a disruptive event. This administration as a whole looks incompetent because their messaging is so horrible. Messaging to the public is like an elevator speech to an investor. You don't get a lot of chance to dictate the story and gain credibility before the story takes off, your competitors dictate the story, and the public has turned against you. So, why does it seem like they had no messaging planned?


If the DOJ or FBI comments on this investigation, they will get even more criticism from conservatives. We are close to an election and any public comment will be accused by BesrGoggles and the like of grandstanding and politicizing law enforcement. You can imagine how it would go. This is a no win situation because the decks are stacked against our institutions by people who seek to undermine them. The administration must fight a conventional war against guerilla fighters. I think it's important for them to continue to play by the rules even if it means the guerillas get some PR wins.

The more people allow the focus to be where Trump wants it, the further we are from remaining a nation of laws.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.

I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.

From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.

We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.

We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.

Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.

Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).

We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.

I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.

This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.

The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.

I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.

Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there.





Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.

As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.
Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.

We were getting to the root cause of the shift in the last few days from Hillary being up by a large margin to being almost even, with the only intervening event being the Comey sideshow. Of course, the press had a lot to do with this by blowing up the Comey sideshow as the press will do for clicks and revenues. The press couldn't stop covering Trump during the primary because he was a clown entertainer, and the press took its role seriously as the sacred source for junk entertainment and public ignorance.

But your post is like responding to an analysis of why the game was lost in the last three minutes, including discussion on turnovers and poor play calling, with a "um, no - they lost because the other team scored more points." Well, duh. Not a counterpoint. But the unorthodox acts by Comey turned sentiment at the last moment. It isn't as if Benghazi was discussed for the first time during the last few days before the election.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.

I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.

From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.

We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.

We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.

Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.

Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).

We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.

I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.

This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.

The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.

I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.

Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there.





Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.

As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.
Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.

We were getting to the root cause of the shift in the last few days from Hillary being up by a large margin to being almost even, with the only intervening event being the Comey sideshow. Of course, the press had a lot to do with this by blowing up the Comey sideshow as the press will do for clicks and revenues. The press couldn't stop covering Trump during the primary because he was a clown entertainer, and the press took it's role seriously as source of junk entertainment.

But your post is like responding to an analysis of why the game was lost in the last three minutes, including discussion on turnovers and poor play calling, with a "um, no - they lost because the other team scored more points." Well, duh. Not a counterpoint. But the unorthodox acts by Comey turned sentiment at the last moment. It isn't as if Benghazi was discussed for the first time during the last few days before the election.
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.

I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.

From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.

We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.

We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.

Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.

Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).

We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.

I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.

This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.

The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.

I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.

Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there.





Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.

As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.
Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.

We were getting to the root cause of the shift in the last few days from Hillary being up by a large margin to being almost even, with the only intervening event being the Comey sideshow. Of course, the press had a lot to do with this by blowing up the Comey sideshow as the press will do for clicks and revenues. The press couldn't stop covering Trump during the primary because he was a clown entertainer, and the press took it's role seriously as source of junk entertainment.

But your post is like responding to an analysis of why the game was lost in the last three minutes, including discussion on turnovers and poor play calling, with a "um, no - they lost because the other team scored more points." Well, duh. Not a counterpoint. But the unorthodox acts by Comey turned sentiment at the last moment. It isn't as if Benghazi was discussed for the first time during the last few days before the election.
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:



The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?

There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.

Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.

Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like Minot State is now 0 for 3 when it comes to answering whether he thinks Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and Boeing arent part of The Swamp.

I think we know why he isnt answering.


calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:



The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?

There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.

Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.

Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.

What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

DiabloWags said:

calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:



The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?

There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.

Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.

Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.

What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

DiabloWags said:

calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:



The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?

There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.

Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.

Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.

What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.
I just did a quick search and found another article from the same source. Did not read the whole thing but it seems to support that the polls (not the underperformance from the last poll to actual results) themselves sank from before the Comey letter to right after the Comey letter. Of course, the results were even worse than the last poll for the reasons you and Wags stated but the polls themselves sank following the letter.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Looks like Minot State is now 0 for 3 when it comes to answering whether he thinks Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and Boeing arent part of The Swamp.

I think we know why he isnt answering.



Trump was only referring to draining the swamps in the Everglades.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

DiabloWags said:

calbear93 said:

MinotStateBeav said:



The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?

There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.

Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.

Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.

What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.
I just did a quick search and found another article from the same source. Did not read the whole thing but it seems to support that the polls (not the underperformance from the last poll to actual results) themselves sank from before the Comey letter to right after the Comey letter. Of course, the results were even worse than the last poll for the reasons you and Wags stated but the polls themselves sank following the letter.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
I have no doubt that the Comey BS in and of itself was enough to cost Clinton the election. She had a big advantage over Trump and squandered much of it through unforced errors - like not spending enough energy on the upper midwest - but there were a number of things that "cost" her the election. The election ultimately turned on ~100k voters in three competitive states.

Trump's use of Cambridge Analytica specifically and social media more generally helped him win the election. Some of that was dirty tricks - voter suppression using the unlawfully obtained data collected by CA - but some of it was just being savvier and scrappier. Trump's team certainly deserves credit for their use of social media (including advertising) as that put Trump within striking distance. Had Clinton run a slightly better campaign, or Trump a worse won, Comey's letter would be a footnote. As it turned out, it was decisive but there were a number of other "decisive" points that had they resolved in Hillary's favor would have resulted in a different outcome.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


A weeklong vacation at this time seems too perfect. Hunter will be bored for sure but at least he seems very close with his dad.
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like the idiot brigade's new defense is that Trump declassified the documents he illegally took from the WH. It's possible that they are dumb enough to think that he can still declassify documents after he's no longer in office (like a 52nd week abortion?) but that hasn't been widely speculated.

What's clear is that they are scrambling because they know Trump was caught red-handed. We are seeing them a/b test a large number of idiotic claims to see which work best with their base of morons. If I had to guess it will be harder for them to claim with a straight face that the FBI planted evidence than it will for them to claim that Trump declassified a bunch of stuff without going through the proper channels. The other problem with claiming the evidence was planted was that it will make it harder for Trump to politicize the underlying documents - which was probably the original motivation from stealing them from the WH to begin with.

Regardless, it's clear that Trump and his team are completely incompetent. Even if you genuinely like the guy's policies and believe all the BS he spews, how can you fail to see how he and his cronies time and time again fail to meet even the lowest bar for competence?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.

Quote:

We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.

A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.

Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?

It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.

Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.

As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.

We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?

As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.

Quote:

We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.

A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.

Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?

It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.

Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.

As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.

We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?

As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?


I sure love this forum.

Trumpers reading this are nodding their head saying "Yea, see, see? I totally agree! MAGA!!"
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.

Quote:

We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.

A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.

Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?

It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.

Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.

As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.

We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?

As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?


That was a silly article.

What is the author claiming? That punishment for crimes overrides all other societal considerations? Is that what the progressives like him think now?

If that is the case, we should have no diplomatic immunity. We should impose maximum punishment on every single crime. We should prosecute every single crime, including new laws criminalizing abortion. We should have no plea bargain, etc. Just full and uncompromising arrest, prosecution and punishment for everyone whom we assume is guilty, irrespective of impact on society. We should never allow pardons, probation, etc. We should prioritize maximum prosecution of all crimes, emphasizing punishment of guilty above everything.

But we don't. We do a balancing act between punishment and overall benefit to society.

Yes, we may give deference to the former president if we do not want appearance of the next administration prosecuting its political foes. Why is that nuance so difficult for people like that author to understand? Is this really not a political take and is this what he would think about anyone committing any crime, including anti-abortion laws, shoplifting, loitering, looting, and speeding or is this based on his desire to dictate like an authoritarian which laws should and should not be imposed based on his politics and his personal morals?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.

In midterms they've been quite accurate.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.

In midterms they've been quite accurate.

Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.
I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.

Quote:

We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.

A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.

Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?

It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.

Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.

As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.

We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?

As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?


That was a silly article.

What is the author claiming? That punishment for crimes overrides all other societal considerations? Is that what the progressives like him think now?

If that is the case, we should have no diplomatic immunity. We should impose maximum punishment on every single crime. We should prosecute every single crime, including new laws criminalizing abortion. We should have no plea bargain, etc. Just full and uncompromising arrest, prosecution and punishment for everyone whom we assume is guilty, irrespective of impact on society. We should never allow pardons, probation, etc. We should prioritize maximum prosecution of all crimes, emphasizing punishment of guilty above everything.

But we don't. We do a balancing act between punishment and overall benefit to society.

Yes, we may give deference to the former president if we do not want appearance of the next administration prosecuting its political foes. Why is that nuance so difficult for people like that author to understand? Is this really not a political take and is this what he would think about anyone committing any crime, including anti-abortion laws, shoplifting, loitering, looting, and speeding or is this based on his desire to dictate like an authoritarian which laws should and should not be imposed based on his politics and his personal morals?
The point is that Trump's crimes are a bit beyond jaywalking. When it happened to Clinton, the GOP changed "lock her up." When it happens to Trump, the media falls all over itself to ask how this is bad for Biden. At some point you have to draw the line and accept that Trump needs to be accountable to the law. Apparently the FBI felt that 20 months of Trump holding classified information was enough. I assume one day we'll find out what was taken and let the criminal justice system decide. Until then, I'm not going to be quick to assume that this was a mistake or that Trump wasn't given enough rope.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:



The point is that Trump's crimes are a bit beyond jaywalking. When it happened to Clinton, the GOP changed "lock her up." When it happens to Trump, the media falls all over itself to ask how this is bad for Biden. At some point you have to draw the line and accept that Trump needs to be accountable to the law. Apparently the FBI felt that 20 months of Trump holding classified information was enough. I assume one day we'll find out what was taken and let the criminal justice system decide. Until then, I'm not going to be quick to assume that this was a mistake or that Trump wasn't given enough rope.

This ^^^
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.

In midterms they've been quite accurate.

Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.


That happens when the charismatic candidate is an unhinged sociopath.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.

In midterms they've been quite accurate.

Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.


That happens when the charismatic candidate is an unhinged sociopath.


I'm so thankful for Arizona, now the whole world knows they cheated. Democrats are election fraud deniers. Even little kids know they steal elections.

Democrats confess their sins through projection. They are everything they accuse others of being.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.

In midterms they've been quite accurate.

Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.
Sometimes a candidate is extremely charismatic with his own base voters but also turns off too many swing voters. That's Trump.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who wants to make a wager about whether Fox News will make a motion for the production of the affidavit supporting the search warrant?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?


BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some fantastic takes in this thread.

Calling all trump voters dumb is the exact elitist beltway attitude that caused those people to vote for Trump. Many of the key swing voters - the people living in the rust belt - voted for Obama and then Trump. Were they stupid both times? Or did they not like HRC and everything she represented (incidentally, the same reason they hated Jeb Bush)? Calling these people dumb is just a way to avoid accountability for why those people are angry and drawn to a guy like Trump. Before 2016 I would have been equally dismissive - it was inconceivable to me that Trump could win (or even get the nomination). But roughly half the country is not "dumb" - unless you define dumb as voting differently than you do. Maybe we should be more humble and look for real answers as to why people are attracted to Trump?

Comey's late announcement had some effect. People are forgetting that the announcement was necessary because Comey and his cohorts sat on the investigation (and the Huma laptop) for months, trying to kill it, and the NY office of the FBI was starting to leak. But far more important was that HRC did not campaign in the swing states that surprisingly went for trump. She was over confident, unlikable and had a long history of dodgy lying (not just the email server). That was at least as big a factor as anything Comey did. The fact that a feeble Biden beat Trump shows just how bad a candidate HRC was.

In terms of polling, when the the polls have been wrong it most often has been due to oversampling/incorrect projections of "likely" voters. The pollsters miss on that more than anything. There's also a Bradley effect where people lie to pollsters. One notable point - very seldom have the polls been wrong in favor of republican candidates. Draw whatever conclusion you might.

And in terms of whether fox news will request the warrant docs, Judicial Watch (conservative "watchdog" group) has already filed suit for those, joined by the Albany Times Union which I believe is a liberal paper. Hopefully all the details are quickly disclosed.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry, but people who voted for a guy who started a TRADE WAR that sent family farms into the highest rates of bankruptcy in a DECADE and who sent the Manufacturing sector in the Rust Belt into a Recession...... are DUMB.

They voted for a guy that hurt them badly.
That's a FACT.




sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

One notable point - very seldom have the polls been wrong in favor of republican candidates.
2012:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

The "error" here is similar to the error in 2016, by the way. It's just that in 2016 it was enough to narrowly flip the result away from what most analysts had been predicting. In 2012 most of them expected Obama to win anyway, but his margin was greater than expected. People don't notice that as much.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Sorry, but people who voted for a guy who started a TRADE WAR that sent family farms into the highest rates of bankruptcy in a DECADE and who sent the Manufacturing sector in the Rust Belt into a Recession...... are DUMB.

They voted for a guy that hurt them badly.
That's a FACT.





Cool story. Now tell us about the "dumb" people who voted for the guy whose policies led to rampant 2022 inflation, record high energy costs, supply and labor shortages, multiple foreign policy fiascos (e.g., Afghanistan), poor response to monkeypox, and an overall drop in real earnings/wealth. That's the same guy who is presiding over a nationwide recession not limited to manufacturing in the rust belt.

Biden voters voted for a guy that has hurt them (all of us) very badly with his stated and intentional polices that were misrepresented (particularly energy and fiscal). Those people were told we could have a green economy without paying for it and that massive spending was not inflationary. They were lied to. By your logic, they're all dumb too.

People vote for a multitude of reasons. Quite often, they vote against a politician as much as for one. Sometimes they vote in protest. Your assumption that they are dumb (stated as a fact, not opinion) says much more about your intellect than theirs.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Your assumption that they are dumb (stated as a fact, not opinion) says much more about your intellect than theirs.



Nonsense.

These people voted for a guy that campaigned on starting a TRADE WAR, not having the slightest clue how tariffs would punish them.

That's being DUMB.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

BearGoggles said:

Your assumption that they are dumb (stated as a fact, not opinion) says much more about your intellect than theirs.



Nonsense.

These people voted for a guy that campaigned on starting a TRADE WAR, not having the slightest clue how tariffs would punish them.

That's being DUMB.



When your presidential candidate has repeatedly been endorsed by white supremacist groups and other far-right extremists you should be asking yourself why they are supporting him.

When your candidate refuses to disavow the support of those groups then you should be asking yourself why he isn't.

If after determining the answer to those questions, you still support tRump, then as a human being…



*And my discussion omits in whole the fact tRump is a career fraud, criminal, pathological liar, traitor, serial sex assaulter, and, in a very generous best case scenario, a simpleton.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?


BearGoggles said:

Cool story. Now tell us about the "dumb" people who voted for the guy whose policies led to rampant 2022 inflation, record high energy costs, supply and labor shortages, multiple foreign policy fiascos (e.g., Afghanistan), poor response to monkeypox, and an overall drop in real earnings/wealth. That's the same guy who is presiding over a nationwide recession not limited to manufacturing in the rust belt.




More deflection.
More whataboutism.
More economic ignorance.

And yet another post by someone who has zero understanding of who the Federal Reserve is, how they increased the M2 money supply by an unprecedented 40%, how they've been terribly late to reversing their monetary policy, let alone the recession that they are now currently engineering in order to get inflation under control. Never mind that the U.S. is still pumping the same 11.6 million barrels per day of crude oil as under Trump.

Youre so terribly misinformed it isnt funny.

It's laughable that you think Biden has anything to do with the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

Its obvious you dont even read the WSJ.

You really should educate yourself.
Youre extremely ignorant on how
the economy works.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.