Michael Cohen Says He Tried To Rig Online Polls 'at the Direction' of Donald Trump (cnbc.com)

Dan Mangan, writing for CNBC: President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer and longtime fixer Michael Cohen on Thursday said he tried to rig online polls -- including one conducted by CNBC -- "at the direction and for the sole benefit of" Trump when he was thinking about making a run for the White House. "I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn't deserve it," Cohen said in a tweet copping to the electronic chicanery to have Trump's name rank higher in online polls than it otherwise would have.

Cohen's admission came shortly after The Wall Street Journal published a story detailing how he retained an information technology company to manipulate a 2014 CNBC online poll identifying the nation's top 100 business leaders to bolster Trump's chances of making that list. That effort failed. And Trump himself fumed in 2014 on Twitter about his absence from CNBC's poll results.

Comments

Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show how manipulation of tech can potentially have a huge impact on real lives and influence the view of a society.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason tech of any kind needs some sort of regulation.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all think we're immune to manipulation. That's what makes it so effective.

Re:Growing tension

[jonsmirl]

You are an idiot if you think on-line polls are accurate. Most on-line polls simply record the actions of spam bots.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show how manipulation of tech can potentially have a huge impact on real lives and influence the view of a society.

FIFY: Just goes to show how manipulation by the media can potentially have a huge impact on real lives and influence the view of a society.

None of Cohens supposed "manipulations" resulted in Trump winning any polls. On the other hand, Trump won the presidency while scoring terribly in all traditional mainstream media polling.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul 2020!

Re:Growing tension

[mysidia]

True true true... on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean the actions of the spam bots aren't technically illegal.

Finally, they find an admission that could technically become the subject for an article of impeachment... do you think the
  dems in congress have the guts to actually formalize that, however? Especially after they failed so far to get the president's wall excluded --- they try to pass a budget without it, and so far the whole budget has languished in both houses without the support to override a veto.

Re:Growing tension

[Narcocide]

That's not common knowledge though. Roughly 80% of the populace is under the mistaken assumption that law enforcement would both care and be competent.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

Finally, they find an admission that could technically become the subject for an article of impeachment...

Someone said that someone else told them to give fake data to an online poll ... you seriously think that rises to the level of a "high crime" that justifies impeachment? Cohen's lied before and you think NOW he's telling the gospel truth?

Wow.

Re:Growing tension

[amicusNYCL]

Another reason tech of any kind needs some sort of regulation

Well that's dumb as hell. What are you suggesting, government oversight of Slashdot polls? Do you suspect Cowboy Neal might be rigging things?

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Hillary, Bush, Obama, Bush, or any other elite didn't have anything to do with their own rigging of polls?

Triple Wow.

Re:Growing tension

[Narcocide]

Are there still Slashdot polls?

Re:Growing tension

[ShanghaiBill]

Cohen's lied before and you think NOW he's telling the gospel truth?

Well, he does have a motive to say whatever he thinks will keep himself out of prison. But he is a lawyer, and they have mandatory classes on ethics, so I think we can trust him.

Re:Growing tension

[sinij]

No, there just aren't enough idiots in US to elect Trump, so significant number of non-idiots voted for him. You need to understand why non-idiots voted for him instead of just calling them idiots or this will happen again.

Re:Growing tension

[amicusNYCL]

I have no idea, I don't visit regularly enough any more to notice.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty simple. They were (and are) idiots. Make no excuses for them. If they couldn't see that he was a sociopathic, lying, xenophobic, pussy-grabbing demagogue - well they were idiots.

Re:Growing tension

[rickb928]

FTFA:

"Cohen's admission came shortly after The Wall Street Journal published a story detailing how he retained an information technology company to manipulate a 2014 CNBC online poll identifying the nation's top 100 business leaders to bolster Trump's chances of making that list.

That effort failed. And Trump himself fumed in 2014 on Twitter about his absence from CNBC's poll results."

And then;

"A second similar effort related to rig a Drudge Report poll of potential Republican candidates worked, according to the Journal. Trump placed fifth in that poll, conducted in February 2015, before he announced his candidacy for the White House."

Oh, it got him placed fifth. Wow, big impact. I remember that time. He was higher than fifth in my estimation, but only because there were only two other candidates I was considering as viable and worth my consideration at the time. And one of those got weeded out pretty early. The rest were so milquetoast as to draw my scorn and humor.

And do we doubt every single candidate was also trying this tactic, to scam the polls any way possible, preferably without getting caught? Really? You think that?

I hope not. the only possible exception, AFAIAC, didn't need to, because they fixed their nomination. Done deal.

I'm not sure this is momentous, but it's another reason for those who loathe our President to expand on that. Mind you, his former lawyer, Cohen, is in the vise of a prosecutorial death march, and is paying for that.

Re:Growing tension

[Ryanrule]

Idiots vote reliably

Re:Growing tension

[sinij]

Voting for someone is a value judgment. It is very likely that most Trump voters could see all the things you listed yet chose to vote for him despite that. This means some other value was a higher priority. If you can understand what that other value is, you can understand why Trump was elected. Outright dismissing that there could be such value would just lead to a second term.

Re:Growing tension

[Sique]

As a matter of fact, no one who voted for whomever, is an idiot (idiotes) in the literal meaning of the word. Everyone who votes is a citizen, not an idiotes. Idiotes are those who just accept whatever others vote for by not going to vote themselves.

Re:Growing tension

[dirk]

Cohen's lied before and you think NOW he's telling the gospel truth?

I agree, we shouldn't just trust Michael Cohen at his word. We should look at the evidence and base it on that. The evidence says he hired the firm he is claiming he hired. In fact the firm is saying he didn't pay them the full amount, which means they admit they did the work as well. Of course to know that you would have to go beyond the headline and care enough to reads the story.

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.

Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.

Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?

We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.

Re:Growing tension

[lgw]

While we are at it, the government can also decide what gets printed in the newspapers!

Shocking how many people on Slashdot advocate that.

"Corporations should not be able to run political ads."
"What about the NYT?"
"They're the press, that's different"
"Who decides?"
"The government will regulate that"

I can see no flaw in letting the president shut down "fake news", nope, that would never be abused by some egocentric asshole.

Re:Growing tension

[nehumanuscrede]

"You are an idiot if you think on-line polls are accurate. Most on-line polls simply record the actions of spam bots."

Not even limited to online polls.

If CNN goes out and takes a " random " poll anything Trump related, can you predict what the overwhelming outcome of that poll will be ?

If Fox goes out and takes a " random " poll anything Trump related, can you predict what the overwhelming outcome of that poll will be ?

Not only can you guess the predictable outcomes in both cases, but they will be in stark opposition to one another.

The bottom line is, you can't trust a poll of any kind because someone, somewhere with an agenda is manipulating the outcome in some way.

Re:Growing tension

[dryeo]

The weird thing about America is having the number in Congress frozen since 1911, as if the population hasn't grown, which gives more power to small States on top of their Constitutional power of the Senate.
Originally 30,000 odd people to a Representative, now over 600,000 and this is reflected in the Electoral collage and puts the larger populated States at a disadvantage.
Canada, for example, has over 300 representatives with 1/10th the population.

Re:Growing tension

[MasseKid]

While I'm not going to suggest geographical state boundaries being gerrymandered, It absolutely IS possible to gerrymandered the electoral college. All you need to do is affect the census which assigns electoral college votes based on census results. Suppressing your opponents response to the census will suppress the electoral college allocation to your opponents.

Re:Growing tension

[dryeo]

Would a regulation making the Slashdot poll say it is not scientific or similar be that bad?
While hopefully, we're all aware of the shortcomings of a Slashdot poll and just use it for conservation, for other polls, things may not be so clear and people don't have time to research every poll.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

It seems you missed the critical points in your rush to condemn. You do realize that "impeach Cohen" is not the goal, it's "impeach Trump". This requires Trump to have actually done this (which you have only Cohen's claim for) AND that it actually is something illegal to begin with, much less a "high crime" as required as a grounds for impeachment.

Re:Growing tension

[Local ID10T]

Just to clarify:

You think we need more politicians?

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, he hasn't weakened the country.

Except by alienating our allies, randomly engaging in mindless economic and military stratagem, and destroying a lot of moral credibility.

We have a stronger economy, we are checking NoKo, China, and Iran.

Except for the need to bailout agriculture, fake numbers and how neither North Korea or Iran were actual threats and how China is blowing us off.

Oh, and illegals, he is struggling to fend them off, but no one disagrees that they drain our entitlement coffers. Every administration since Reagan has said so.

Actually for the Social Security coffers, they have contributed a surplus and the most expensive drain is on wasteful bailouts for corporations.

Re:Growing tension

[GameboyRMH]

The "other value" was "pwning the libs" over stupid-ass culture war bullshit. Which is why all Trump voters are idiots or evil. Or perhaps evil idiots.

There was no good or reasonably intelligent reason to vote for Trump. If you voted for Romney or McCain then I can still have respect for you and we can agree to disagree. Even if you voted for Bush Jr, or even one of the racebaiter presidents who impoverished Gen. Y, Bush Sr. or Reagan, I can give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you voted for that dimwitted clearly-racist pussygrabbing shitstain Trump, you are by definition at least as stupid and/or awful as he is, and you are worthy of nothing but scorn.

Re:Growing tension

[bob4u2c]

I remember when TechTv started and they ran real time polls. Within minutes it was clear a few people were stacking the poll in absurd ways, often 99% to 1%. After a while the hosts would sarcastically say "lets see what the polls show today!". Then they dropped the polls.

Hacking the polls can also be done by the pollsters as well. For example: Would you be willing to pay a small amount for greater fire protection? Or: Would you be in favor or raising property taxes to hire 5 more fire fighters?

Whenever I see a vaguely worded poll, or one that is clearly slanted, then the results don't matter. The sad part is most polls I see the media run are of these two types which are worthless. Skew away!

Re:Growing tension

[dryeo]

I think you need more balance in the number of Representatives. It's hard to represent 600,000+ people and as the sibling AC points out, less politicians means easier to influence, as well as making money more important in an election campaign.
If you are going to stick with a system of one representative per 600,000 (and climbing), perhaps other parts of the system need changing so the districts are more balanced. That would take updating the Constitution and it would be easier to just ratify Article the 1st as it would only take 27 more States to ratify. Hey, Article the 2nd did finally pass.

Re:Growing tension

[dryeo]

Perhaps then this should be highlighted, there are a lot of stupid people and they get a say.

You want to know what scientific conclusion you can draw from an opinion poll? You can conclude that you know what that polled group of people think about the questions you asked, and even then your accuracy is probably still no greater than 80%. Cause they're lying. You can't even conclude with any reasonable certainty that you can extrapolate their answers to a larger population. Because, again, people will lie, or maybe your sample just sucks.

Re:Growing tension

[ath1901]

That's easy: Tribalism. I remember someone saying that the extraordinary thing about the election was that the result was so ordinary. People voted along party lines like they always had.

When a belief becomes a part of your identity, facts no longer matter. Information does change your factual beliefs but not your attitude/position in general. The brain also does motivated reasoning and will find counterarguments for any inconvenient facts. If Trump is caught lying he's not an immoral liar, he's a strategic smart guy playing the opposition etc.

It is important to note this is a universal feature of all humans. We all do top down motivated reasoning. Republicans are not idiots, they just happened to be republicans when an idiot was elected president. It can, and does happen to all of us.

This program explains some of the psychology behind it:

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2...

Re:Growing tension

[AmiMoJo]

Doesn't matter how effective it was. It was illegal campaign spending. TFA says he did it during the campaign and then in early 2017 the Trump org paid him back.

It's the same thing as the Stormy Daniels payment. Not illegal to cheat on your wife, but illegal to spend money covering it up during an election campaign and not declare it.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even slightly true. The gap between CNN and Fox polling is really very narrow. That's because they're both making a good-faith effort to be at least slightly scientific.

For instance, on December 9-11, Fox polled Trump's approval ratings at 46%. That same week, NBC/WSJ polled it at 43%. The next poll with CNN's name on it was Jan 10-11 - 3 weeks into the shutdown - when CNN put it at 37%. Allowing for margins of error and base drift (which has gone against Trump during the shutdown), those are pretty damn' close.

See here for a comprehensive list.

Re: Growing tension

[rickb928]

And there you have one of the abuses of campaign finance law. But it's usually just a fine, unless you succeed in pissing off someone powerful, then they slap you in jail. To prove you are right...

Re:Growing tension

[columbus]

Not to dispute your main point about gerrymandering, but state boundaries have been re-drawn after states have joined the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(separation from Massachusetts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(ceded territory in exchange for assumption of debt)

Hasn't happened for a while though, that I'm aware of.

Re:Growing tension

[Cyberax]

Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.

West Virginia split from Virginia in 1861.

Re:Growing tension

[Linux Torvalds]

Let me see if I've got this straight. Being a retard, it sometimes takes me a little longer than most of my peers to achieve a working understanding of such matters. You voted to elect the Joker to the office of President of the United States, but I'm the "retard."

Is that basically the size of it?

Re:Growing tension

[kqs]

Huh... I thought the goal was to detect and stop foreign interference in our elections. The fact that you seem to think that "impeach Trump" is the goal probably explains why you cheered for a 4+ year investigation into the Benghazi attack which produced no proof of any wrongdoing, but whine like a president when the Mueller investigation (and offshoots) convict multiple people.

Patriots cheer for the country, partisans cheer for their team. Good to see which you are.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

Huh... I thought the goal was to detect and stop foreign interference in our elections.

Heh heh. Nice way to ignore context. The statement which shows a goal of "impeach" was this: "Finally, they find an admission that could technically become the subject for an article of impeachment... ". That impeachment is clearly not for Cohen, but for ... maybe you can figure it out.

explains why you cheered for a 4+ year investigation into the Benghazi attack

Make stuff up, much?

Patriots cheer for the country, partisans cheer for their team.

And patriots pay attention to the Constitution and the rule of law, one of which requires "high crimes" for an impeachment, the other is based on "innocent until proven guilty". We've not even been shown a crime, much less a "high crime", and no proof that Trump committed it. And yet "patriots" are clamoring for impeachment. Good to see which kind of patriot you are.

Re:Growing tension

[sjames]

The term is "high crimes and misdemeanors". During the Clinton administration, the GOP set the bar at fibbing about an extramarital BJ.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

So the libs/progs start a stupid culture war with the majority of the population and anyone who votes for someone to stop that divisive bullshit is the "idiot" or "evil one"?

You might want to look in the mirror sometime when accusing someone of being evil or stupid.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

During the Clinton administration, the GOP set the bar at fibbing about an extramarital BJ.

When you lie about simple facts, you look biased and partisan. The impeachment was for perjury in front of a grand jury, which is not "fibbing". What the perjury was about is irrelevant.

By the way, if abusing one's office and thus committing sexual harassment is such a trivial matter, as you seem to trying to make it out to be, why did Clinton lie about it to a grand jury, and why are so many people being tried and convicted (and losing their jobs) over it?

But no, that's falling into your trap of trying to redefine what the Constitution actually requires. What Cohen did isn't grounds for impeachment of the President.

Re:Growing tension

[kevmeister]

Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.

Not really strong on history, I guess.

Two states, Maine and West Virginia were created in the run-up to the Civil War. Maine was previously part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was chopped off from Virginia.

Re:Growing tension

[crgrace]

Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.

Except of course for Virginia.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

It was illegal campaign spending. TFA says he did it during the campaign

A 2014 CNBC poll was "during the campaign"? And the Drudge poll that TFA reports as being before Trump announced his candidacy was "before the campaign"?

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of any state equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats).
While
Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[details about how exactly population is counted, changed by the 14th Amendment].

Now yes, the total number of Representatives could be changed comparatively easily, which would alter the significance of the two Senators per state when it comes to electoral votes, but that would be a rather dramatic change with far reaching effects - not a simple changing of the electoral college alone.

Heck, we could increase the number of Representatives to the constitutional maximum of 1 per 30,000 citizens, for a current total of 1004 Representatives, reducing the influence of the number of Senators from 18.7% of the electoral vote to 9.1%, along with the influence of the 1-Representative minimum, which wouldn't actually change much other than further reducing the electoral influence of a few states with an already-tiny influence. But it would come at the price of a much larger and more ungainly House - which might be a good thing for reducing corruption (or not), but would almost certainly make the consensus-building process substantially more difficult than it is now.

States could also choose to divide their electors proportionally, or by district (you want Gerrymandering to actually sway the presidential election?), or any other scheme - that's up to them. But most seem fairly firmly committed to winner-takes-all, as any finer allocation splits the vote and reduces the influence of that state in the presidential election.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

before Trump announced his candidacy was "before the campaign"?

Correction: was "during the campaign?"

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

I stand corrected

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

Oh, wait, dropped a zero - that should be a maximum of 10,043 Representatives, not 1,004. Which would make a much bigger difference, both positive and negative.

Re:Growing tension

[ShanghaiBill]

yes, and if they fail ethics class, they have to become GOP candidates.

A lawyer is in his office late at night, working on his billing statements, when there is a puff of smoke. Mephistopheles appears before him, and says "Sell me your soul, and I will make you a senator!" The lawyer thinks for a minute, and then replies "Sure, but what's the catch?"

Re:Growing tension

[Q-Hack!]

The idiots were the leaders of the DNC who decided to run the most corrupt candidate possible.

Re:Growing tension

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, here they're calling for the Government to regulate on-line polls about popularity of private citizens before they're ever in politics. This poll was in 2014 - well before President Trump announced. Next we'll find out that Tim Cook asked Apple employees to "vote in online polls" for which company is the best to work for. The horror - the horror!

Re:Growing tension

[subie]

All polls are useless if you don't get an equal sampling of the target audience. For example a recent NPR/PBS Poll on President Trump's Immigration policy: Approve: 46% Disapprove: 52% Which looks bad for the President until you look at the sampling numbers: Democrats: 33% Republicans: 27% Independents: 39% Clearly, the poll results will go against the President which makes it useless.

Re:Growing tension

[subie]

Obviously, someone can't handle a difference of opinion and has to mark this comment as Troll. Sadly you see this a lot more from my party than you do from the right. People need to stop calling others racists, trolls, whatever simple because you don't like the opinion. You don't have to like someone's view but you shouldn't shutdown the ability to speak it.

Re:Growing tension

[dirk]

Well, there certainly is some evidence Trump ordered it. First, Cohen worked for Trump. Second, Trump paid him for this. Now, you can pretend Trump just gave him money to do anything he wanted, but that is a pretty thin thread to dangle from. There may be more than that we haven't seen yet. As for it being illegal, I can't say whether rigging the polls would be illegal, but doing it for an election advantage and not declaring the money spent for the campaign would be.

Re:Growing tension

[Freischutz]

That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.

Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.

Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?

We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.

So basically there is no justice in distributing electoral college delegates in proportion to population so that the results of elections actually reflect the way most people voted or even dump that antiquated 'Electoral College' that makes the USA the laughingstocks of the entire democratic world. However, there is oodles and oodles of justice in the inhabitants of a few underpopulated tiny states shoving their ultra conservative values, homophobia, racism and christian fundamentalist fanaticism down the throats of much larger populations who have no interest in being being bible thumped in a christian conservative utopia? The whole idea behind democracy in all of its forms tends to be that the majority rules. Only in the US is there an abstraction layer that ensures that a small rural elite gets to override the votes of the majority of the population. Sooner or later the constitution will be changed an these red states will become 'political bitches' as you put it because, with the Republicans cuddling up to the ultra right wing fringe and pinning it's hopes on white pensioners and angry white racists, demographics are not working in their favour and sooner or later they won't even be able to gerrymander, voter intimidate, voter disenfranchise and cheat their way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.

Re:Growing tension

[subie]

You can only be manipulated if you believe in polling to begin with. Polls have always been useless when the methodology favors one group of people over another. Find me an honest poll where the number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are equally questioned and then I might consider it.

Re:Growing tension

[GameboyRMH]

Aaaand that's why he's so seriously considered invading Iran, North Korea, and fucking Venezuela that he's had the military put together plans for him?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Trump would stumble into more wars than Hillary would enter on purpose, and I think it's been only luck and less-hot heads surrounding him that have prevented it. Now the less-hot heads are gone, and who knows when the luck will run out...

Re:Growing tension

[phantomfive]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Trump would stumble into more wars than Hillary would enter on purpose,

Maybe. Hillary already led into more wars than Trump has. He has two more years to go, though, hopefully.

Re:Growing tension

[0100010001010011]

Yes.

You get hyper local representatives, you get 1 person summarizing the opinion of 30k people instead of 600k.

There's zero reason for them to be in the exact same area all the time with modern technology.

Divide lobbying dollars by 20 and it suddenly becomes a lot harder to buy a politician.

Re:Growing tension

[rtb61]

The reality, Cohen hired a crappy poll rigger, clearly much worse at it than the other poll riggers. The psychopathically insanely greedy and driven by their ego and lusts, all of them in the top 1000 probably scammed one way or another to rise up those polls. The losers the ones who hired the worst tech ex-spurts drips under pressure.

Cohen response, what no fucking pardon, fuck you Trump. Not that Don Don the orange orangutan is any great anything, far from it but when you wallow in the swamp, the bog of bullshit, well, they all fucking lie. Most corporate main stream media polls were entirely bullshit, with the biggest advertiser getting the best results, directly, results simply typed in, scamming those scammed polls impossible, in fact stories about polls jumping up and dropping down all over the place were the norm from corporate main stream media. The did allow a few to run honestly accidentally and numbers of course destroyed their lies, so the deleted the polls.

Corporate main stream media polls are entirely BULLSHIT and have been for years and will continue to be entirely made up.

Re:Growing tension

[0100010001010011]

Fox takes out a Poll during the primaries on Republicans, people want to join the 'winning team', so they take those results into consideration.

Re:Growing tension

[junglee_iitk]

The reason was to vote against Hillary and you are the idiot who can't find a reason why someone would be against her. "pwning the libs" is not a value, and your caricature of emotional people who vote without reason is very much visible on the side Hillary was representing.

Seriously, get out of the hole.

Re:Growing tension

[KeensMustard]

Surrender is one way of avoiding war, that's true.

Re:Growing tension

[sjames]

You mean the perjury that a judge ruled to be immaterial. He was NOT impeached for abuse of his office (The GOP brought that up for consideration, but it failed). I'm not saying that Clinton did no wrong. I'm not saying his moral compass isn't broken. Personally, I don't think much of a married man who can't keep it in his pants, but I can think of a BIG reason such a man might later lie about it that has nothing to do with his office (hint, he was married to it).

It was a bit amusing how many Republican congressmen who voted to impeach got ratted out for their own infidelities.

No question, the whole "affair" was sleazy, but it was not a High crime. It was certainly misdemeanors.

Kinda like Trump complaining bitterly that the media was against him and the election was rigged while he was instructing his people to give strippers hush money and rigging public polls.

Re:Growing tension

[fatwilbur]

I call BS on your post and your attitude. You're demonstrating exactly why people refuse to associate with Democrats even if it means siding with Trump.

No reasonably intelligent reason eh? This is because you refuse to look and/or understand. Try reading an intelligent author for a change and not WaPo or CNN clickbait: America's resurgence is reshaping the world.. As a Canadian, I've seen our competitiveness erode massively since Trump and Trudeau came into office around the same time. Foreign investment has plunged, mostly due to Trump's support of business and ease of regulation, and Trudeau doing the opposite. The result isn't going to be a destroyed environment (you won't notice the difference from old policy in either country), it's simply going to be a more wealthy America. He's (rightfully) using his leverage to unilaterally renegotiate agreements, and if my leader had that power, I'd damn well expect him to use it. And for all those foaming mouth Americans who fawn over having a TRUE dumbass like Trudeau running the ship, you'll be interested to know his approval rating is far below Trump's.

Re:Growing tension

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that how it works in the US? Wow, why do you even call them polls?

Elsewhere organisations pay professional polling companies, and whilst they do still get manipulated (i.e. polls that are paid for but don't tell the story the purchaser wants get buried) those organisations trade on their reputation for accuracy.

In some places it's even outright illegal to completely fabricate data and call it a poll. Typically the raw data and methodology legally has to be available, at least to investigators in those jurisdictions.

Re:Growing tension

[AmiMoJo]

Read TFA properly. The last one was during the 2016 campaign.

Re:Growing tension

[f3rret]

Elaborate plz

Re:Growing tension

[thegarbz]

The weird thing about America is having the number in Congress frozen since 1911

No the really odd thing about America is the amount of power given to a single person representing 326million people while at the same time complaining about the details or congressional representation. It's like complaining in the winter that the roof insulation isn't perfect while having a front door which doesn't close.

Re: Growing tension

[c6gunner]

You can stop poisoning the water with fluoride for starters. Historically, people weren't as dumb as they are today.

This is always so funny to me. Idiots giving advice on how to make people less stupid. Does that actually count as speaking from experience?

Re:Growing tension

[AmiMoJo]

The Dems probably won't try to impeach Trump. It takes too long and can backfire, like it did with Clinton. Better to just keep digging up dirt, subpoena his tax returns, that kind of thing, and wait for the 2020 race.

Re:Growing tension

[GameboyRMH]

Ah, the old "He's not a moron, he's just doing a really good job of pretending to be one for strategic reasons" argument. Well if he's pretending, he's really doing an amazing job:

https://www.apnews.com/a3309c4...

Although I don't see any positive results from doing so. He may have come close to bringing NK to the table but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory:

https://nationalpost.com/opini...

If you think that North Korea has changed course at all since Trump took power, then they've pulled the wool over your eyes just like Trump's:

https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Also while pulling out of Syria was not a bad idea, the way he chose to announce it, as a surprise to everyone except himself, was idiotic:

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

You're right, I should have stuck with the basic problem of small (population) versus large states - the small states had little incentive to join a union where they would have virtually no representation - especially not having just thrown off the yoke of external British control for giving them no representation.

Same thing remains now though - the small states have no incentive to give up their representation, and Congress has no way to alter the electoral process themselves other than dramatically increasing the size of the House - and thus dramatically decrease the personal power of all the Representatives that would have to approve it.

Please expand on this supposed Pennsylvania gerrymandering attempt. Are you talking about the initial solidification of the borders? Or an attempt to change how electors were allocated? Because as far as I can tell Pennsylvania does the usual popular-vote winner-takes-all allocation of electors, which makes gerrymandering impossible.

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

>Divide lobbying dollars by 20 and it suddenly becomes a lot harder to buy a politician.

I'm unconvinced - the worst lobbying is usually done by people with extremely deep pockets, and has a payoff a LOT better than 20:1 - having to lobby 20x as many Representatives might cost 20x as much (or it might not - less powerful politicians can usually be bought more cheaply, especially if their salaries were reduced so that it didn't cost us 20x as much), but that just reduces the profit margins a bit, it doesn't actually make it substantially less appealing to engage in except on the minor issues.

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

Except, most of the power *wasn't* given to that one individual - it was taken by them (and their predecessors in office), while Congress and the Supreme Court consistently abdicated their responsibility as checks and balances on that power.

Re:Growing tension

[Oswald McWeany]

The Dems probably won't try to impeach Trump. It takes too long and can backfire, like it did with Clinton. Better to just keep digging up dirt, subpoena his tax returns, that kind of thing, and wait for the 2020 race.

The Democrats (as a whole) probably don't want Trump to be impeached. It would be hard to re-elect Trump with all the allegations against him, and all the mounting evidence that the allegations are probably true.

If Trump gets impeached; Pence has a clean slate. 2020 election is a clean fight based on Pence vs Whoever. If Trump stays on then it is Trump and all his Baggage Vs Whoever.

It's probably politically beneficial to the Democrats to leave Trump in place. Just like Trump was shown to be the Republican candidate with the least chance of winning the election in 2016 (any of the other candidates and it probably would have been a landslide against Hillary); Trump is theoretically the easiest candidate the Democrats could face in 2020. From their standpoint: Why impeach Trump and put a President in place who might get re-elected rather than leave him in place and go with an almost certain victory in 2020?

Re:Growing tension

[Oswald McWeany]

It was a bit amusing how many Republican congressmen who voted to impeach got ratted out for their own infidelities.

Amusing but not isolated. Think of how often those people who are most vocally against homosexuality are repressed homosexuals themselves. There have been many anti-Semite Jewish people; Hitler himself had Jewish links. You have vocal racists like Strom Thurmond who ended up having his own mixed race daughter.

It's not surprising that some people who had infidelities of their own spoke out strongly against others that did that. They're trying to vocally distance themselves from their own internal guilt.

The phrase "The Lady Doth Protest Too Much" comes to mind.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

Read TFA properly. The last one was during the 2016 campaign.

Oh, I have to read it "properly" to find the transgression. I'm sorry, but I read this, quoted from the article:

"The Journal reported that a man named John Gauger, owner of RedFinch Solutions and chief information officer of Liberty University in Virginia, was given more than $12,000 by Cohen in 2015 ..."

And can't figure out a way of converting "2015" into "2016" no matter how much I might hate Trump. The payment for the services may have taken place after the services were provided, but the alleged rigging attempt allegedly ordered by Trump, based solely on the word of a proven liar, was in 2015.

Re:Growing tension

[Obfuscant]

You mean the perjury that a judge ruled to be immaterial.

He was impeached for perjury. Perjury is not just "fibbing". It can only happen after someone has sworn to tell the truth to a court, and then LIED to the court about something. "It's immaterial" doesn't mean "didn't happen". In fact, it is a clear statement that the perjury did happen. Whether the judge considered the lie in forming a verdict is irrelevant.

He was NOT impeached for abuse of his office

I didn't say he was. You tacitly admitted that you know it is a fact he did it because you know he lied when he denied it. You try to wave it off as "fibbing", which means you consider the fact to be trivial -- on the order of saying "no" when your wife asks if this dress makes her look fat.

The truth is, sexual harassment and sexual abuse is a serious issue. People are going to jail for doing it. People are losing their jobs based solely on accusations. But it's not a serious thing when the President of the US does it. Why do you feel that way?

Now, you can whine about how it isn't a "high crime", but the law might differ with you today. And it's irrelevant whether it rises to the level of an impeachable offense because nobody here claimed it was. It is a lot more serious than you're trying to make it out to be, however.

but I can think of a BIG reason such a man might later lie about it that has nothing to do with his office (hint, he was married to it).

You've just proven yet again why it is a much more serious offense than a word "fibbing" would justify.

Re:Growing tension

[sjames]

Note that Lewinsky has gone on record that she was not coerced into her relationship with Clinton. Not saying Clinton didn't answer questions very carefully and sometimes with excessive specificity, but he was not convicted of perjury.

It was a sleazy matter. So is the Trump administration. If Clinton's impeachment was justified (it was), Trump's is now.

The phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors". It is and was intended to include the sort of slimy matters that may not rise to the level of a crime but nevertheless bring shame to the office of President.

Re:Growing tension

[mysidia]

"other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Yes, it does have to be a high crime, which is why the word "other" appears.

No it does not, and in fact, Congress has impeached, convicted, and removed from office judges for Chronic Intoxication, a misdemeanor - judges have also been impeached for making false statements, conspiracy, and tax evasion, which do not fit the definition of a high crime.
A High crime does NOT refer to a "More Severe", "Major", or "More Egregious" than normal crime --- quite the opposite -
a High crime can be any offense or abuse committed by an official, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very deliberately vague, open, and subjective criteria - allowing the congress complete discretion regarding what charges they believe warrant an impeachment.

The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they were adopted. The phrase 'high crime' is a more vague and open term than Misdemeanor - almost anything done by an official can be a high crime - high crime refers to actions done by those in special authority that is political in character - activity by or against those who have special duties attained by taking an oath of office which are not shared with common persons; "high crimes" traditionally include offenses such as misappropriating government funds, maladministration, etc.

Re:Growing tension

[Immerman]

No, it's just a much more complicated problem than you present it as. The US was explicitly established as a federation of States, rather than a single unified nation - it's properly compared not to any other single democratic nation, but to the EU as a whole. And from what I've heard of European's approval of the much younger EU, we're actually doing really well here in the US.

To put things in proper perspective - The entire E.U. population is only about 56% larger than the U.S. Meanwhile, the US has 4x the population of the largest EU nation, Germany, which in turn has 2x the population of California, the largest US state.

Now, there's certainly an argument to be made that we should update the federal rules to better reflect the realities of a federal government that has grossly outgrown its constitutional foundation, but I think it should be done in context of why things were set up the way they are, rather than in unsupported accusations of interstate gerrymandering.

Re: Growing tension

[sjames]

Your resorting to name calling suggests that yours is the weaker position. Just something for you to think about.

Re:Growing tension

[junglee_iitk]

Hahaha. It wasn't a vote against Hillary, it was a vote against people like you. That makes your fellow citizens a fucking genius.

It's time to MPGA

[TomR teh Pirate]

Let's Make Polling Great Again!

Talk about a guy obsessed with image. I can't ever remember another story quite like this one.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't ever remember another story quite like this one.

You're joking right? There's an anti-Trump article posted almost every day it seems like to me. At some point, it just becomes a dull buzz when it's so frequent...

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because it's bullshit. All of this is bullshit. It's 2019 the peak of bullshit. Orange man bad. Our tribe good, their tribe bad. Look at this advertisement. Hate that man! Hate him! Don't you hate him? Wow, I really hate him! Oooo a sale on tampons! That guy won't give us tampons for free! Booooooo!!! Oh look the new Iphone is coming out soon!! I just have to have one! Orange man bad. 20 goto 10

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because it's all bullshit? Cohen turned state's evidence and has been trying to invent stories about Trump in order to win leniency after he got upset that Trump didn't immediately pardon him or something. (Ignoring that you have to be convicted of something to be pardoned of something, and Trump can't control the deep state.) Cohen's a dishonest man and you can't believe a word he says.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

At some point, it just becomes a dull buzz when it's so frequent...

That's no joke. We know that the FBI opened an investigation into a sitting US president to determine if he is acting as an agent of a major foreign adversary, and I haven't even discussed that with anyone. Literally. People say they're worried about Trump normalizing hate speech, what's even more concerning is normalizing egregious behavior to the point that people hardly even discuss it.

What's going to happen when Trump is gone? Things are going to seem so boring.

Re: It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

That in a hectic campaign where you're constantly being hounded by the fake news media, it's hard to fully vet everyone who ends up involved with the campaign? Besides, it's not like he did something like rig the primaries for his party, he's just spinning yarns about what happened to try and lessen his sentence. Sure, it's dishonest, but it's not "rig elections" dishonest.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[divide overflow]

Lying to the court is still a felony. Cohen has nothing to gain by lying.

As for Cohen being dishonest...that is Trump's top hiring criteria. All of his hires are chosen for the ability to look photogenic while they brazenly lie to the public. With perhaps the exception of Sarah Huckabee Saunders. She's extra special.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Nidi62]

Talk about a guy obsessed with image. I can't ever remember another story quite like this one.

How about back in June 2017 when they reported framed fake Trump Time covers hanging on the walls at Mar-a-Lago?

Re: It's time to MPGA

[Nidi62]

That in a hectic campaign where you're constantly being hounded by the fake news media, it's hard to fully vet everyone who ends up involved with the campaign?

Cohen starting working for Trump in 2006.....when Trump was still a registered Democrat.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Shotgun]

There's two takes on that.

The first is the spin that the Times put on it in the first few paragraphs of their article. Competent investigators found evidence then started an investigation.

The second is the reality pointed out in about the ninth or so paragraph of their article. The FBI wanted to correct what they felt was a mistake by the American people, and began to work on a soft coupe, by launching an investigation of a duly elected President on the most flimsy and spurious of evidence combined with already debunked and provably false data.

But, don't let the truth get in your way. BTW, Elizabeth Warren proved her case Native ancestry with that DNA test. I'm old enough to remember when they tried putting that spin on it.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

>The FBI wanted to correct what they felt was a mistake by the American people, and began to work on a soft coupe

That's not a take, that's Trumpist propaganda. That's the kind of thing that liars like Hannity feed to the rubes. It may even be projection about a coup enabled by foreign actors, installing a failed businessman as President.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people characterize reporting on old-man Trump as "Orange man bad".

People don't pretend that Trump is a bad guy because they don't like Orange-Americans. It's not bias. He's just a bad guy, and we can all see it. Painting himself orange is the least of Trump's obvious issues.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

The second is the reality pointed out in about the ninth or so paragraph of their article. The FBI wanted to correct what they felt was a mistake by the American people, and began to work on a soft coupe, by launching an investigation of a duly elected President on the most flimsy and spurious of evidence combined with already debunked and provably false data.

I know that's you, Giuliani. Pull the other one.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

They'll make up anything to do that.

Well then it's a good thing we follow the rule of law and have things like trials. But, go on, tell me again how the entire FBI functions as a single entity with one hive-mind.

get the Russians to leak it to the press.

Why would the Russians want to damage their guy? Do you understand how little the Russians like the Clintons? You understand that they were actively working against Hillary, right? But, they're going to do something to damage Trump? And you believe that? Is that the current state of cognitive dissonance in the Trump camp regarding the investigations? Is the current line that Russia was now working AGAINST Trump instead of for him? Do you guys do any actual training for those kinds of mental gymnastics or do you just kind of wing it?

They took down Nixon, and apparently think they can get rid of any democratically elected president they don't like.

Holy shit, I think this is the first time I've seen the "Nixon was innocent" argument. If nothing else, you guys are at least amusing.

I've heard of revisionist history, but holy fuck. Russia was working against Trump? Nixon was innocent? Look at how far you have to go to get to a place where all of these pieces of evidence that you don't like start to line up with your chosen narrative. This is absurd. You're jumping through more hoops than Giuliani trying to explain the campaign's involvement with Russia.

There was NO CONTACT!
OK, there was contact, but it wasn't planned!
OK, it was planned, but not about the campaign!
OK, it was about the campaign, but it wasn't meaningful! And there was another meeting.
Collusion isn't even a crime!
You can't collude with someone you don't personally know!
OK, maybe SOMEONE colluded, but it wasn't Trump!

Oh, but yeah, sure, the ENTIRE FBI is corrupt. OK, yeah, sure buddy. It's not your guy who is an amazingly incompetent dickhead, no it's the entire federal law enforcement agency which is breaking the law and being unconstitutional. You know, literally the two things that they're there to specifically not do.

Time to defund the FBI and bar all members from any future government job.

With all due respect, it's time for you to stop talking like you've got the pulse of "real Americans." The FBI does a fine job. The FBI is staffed with many, many people who love and care about the country and have made it their life's work to help the country. I believe that anyone who goes out of their way to make it seem like the majority of government workers have some hidden, secret agenda is probably full to the tipping point with bullshit. Sorry pal, that argument doesn't pass the smell test. You may believe the turds that fall out of the president's mouth, but let me assure you that you are in a very small majority with regard to that. The majority of the country still believes that the people working in the government - REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS - are there because they love the country and want to help it, not damage it. Trying to act like the literal federal law enforcement agency would go against the Constitution and break the law is laughably absurd, and it says very bad things about your though process and where you get your information from.

You know what? Don't take my word for it. How strong are your convictions? Are you just a big talker or do you back it up? Because I would encourage you, whole-heartedly, to find the bars around your local FBI office and go in and start telling everyone how all FBI agents are corrupt and hate the country. Go ahead, let me know how that works out for you.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[lgw]

Sound like you were surprised when Trump won. Sounds like you'll be surprised when he wins again. You know nothing of the history of the FBI if you don't think they meddle in politics: from the beginning they've been used for getting compromat on politicians.

The majority of the country still believes that the people working in the government - REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS - are there because they love the country

Hahahhahhaha. Funniest thing I've read all week. You can spot the conservatives working for the government easily enough, though, they wear uniforms.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

Sound like you were surprised when Trump won.

That was an interesting night. No matter what the outcome I was going to be a little sad for the future of the country, but a little happy that a monumental ego got knocked down. I was prepared, I knew the person that I voted for wasn't going to win, even if it was mathematically possible.

Sounds like you'll be surprised when he wins again.

I try to never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, I won't be surprised at all if he convinces large numbers of stupid people to again vote against their own self-interest. Trump said it best himself, "I love the poorly educated," and they love him too. It's really an interesting dynamic, he requires large numbers of stupid people to get elected, and they want him to lead them. It's perfect. But it's just a tad bit premature to start taking bets. For example, I think it's highly unlikely that someone who got impeached would get elected again. I know that a felon isn't able to vote, but are felons allowed to run for office? I don't know the answer to that question. Let's wait to hear from Mr. Mueller before we start sucking Trump's dick, OK?

You know nothing of the history of the FBI if you don't think they meddle in politics

I never said I don't think the FBI has ever meddled in politics. I DO think Nixon was guilty. I mean, he fucking resigned. I ALSO realize that Russia wanted Trump to win way, way, way more than they wanted Clinton to win. It's obviously the case. So excuse me if I see you suggesting that Russia was backing Clinton and that Nixon was innocent and think that you're full of shit. The only reason I think that is because it's true.

Hahahhahhaha. Funniest thing I've read all week.

You must live in a sad and lonely world if you think that a substantial portion of government workers and US citizens hate the country. A sad, delusional world. We can disagree with each other without suggesting the other side doesn't love the country. Don't be the poster child for the idiots that the founding fathers were protecting the country from when they decided that treason was going to be the only crime they defined. Their justification for doing so still holds true today. Don't be that person, Americans are better than that. Trump voters might be easily duped into voting against their own interests, but I'm not going to suggest they don't love the country, or at least love what they think America means, even if it's not correct.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

Oh, fuck off. I've never voted for a Clinton. And you're talking about Russia dealing with a sitting Secretary Of State, which is much different than dealing with her as a presidential candidate.

As for the uranium scare tactics, you realize that the US and Russia regularly sell uranium to each other, right? There is a world uranium market, and the US and Russia participate.

Guess who the largest supplier of US enriched uranium imports in 2017 was. Go ahead, take a wild guess. Was it Russia? Oh shit, it was fucking Russia! We bought 45.5% of our enriched uranium imports from Russia, but hey since someone with the last name Clinton was SecState during a year, like every year, when we also sold uranium to Russia, well shit that just gives you a rash on your asshole, doesn't it?

Maybe YOU should do some fucking research.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[zilym]

None of what you said provides any explanation for why Bill Clinton received half a million dollars from Russia for "giving a speech" or why Russia donated $2.35 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

Nice hand waving though (these are not the droids you are looking for).

Re:It's time to MPGA

[LynnwoodRooster]

Messenger matters, not the message. Got it! So very "tolerant" of you.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[amicusNYCL]

What confuses you about speaking fees? Let me know what questions you have about people getting paid fees for appearing or speaking and I'll try to clear up your confusion.

why Russia donated $2.35 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The most simple answer would probably be trying to influence a sitting SecState. That's just off the top of my head though, maybe I'm wrong.

If you're expecting me to defend the Clintons or their behavior, don't do that. I don't like them. If you're suspecting that either of them did something illegal, great, let's bring charges. If you're just using that to excuse any kind of behavior by Trump, you're going to need to spell out how the behavior of the Clintons excuses the behavior of Trump, because I'm missing that connection.

If you're trying to suggest that Russia was backing Clinton and not Trump in the 2016 election, then you're just delusional. I can't help you with that, seek medical care.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Mashiki]

So now that Buzzfeed - the source of this story, and MSNBC's source for the story have said "they haven't seen any documents, or even proof" of what that story said. I guess that means it's all bullshit now.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[divide overflow]

So now that Buzzfeed - the source of this story, and MSNBC's source for the story have said "they haven't seen any documents, or even proof" of what that story said. I guess that means it's all bullshit now.

Got a link to the place on Buzzfeed & MSNBC where they say that?

Re:It's time to MPGA

[RhettLivingston]

He's not obsessed with image. He's obsessed with fake news.

Basically, Trump knows the truth. He's like the dictionary - a master reference. And the biggest truth he knows is that he is the greatest and should top any poll. If he doesn't top the poll, then the poll is obviously wrong.

In addition, he is perfection personified. There is no reason for him to be obsessed with image because his image is the standard of perfection by which image is judged. Any concerns about his image are simply concerns about the correct reporting of it - fighting the fake news media.

So, when he asked Cohen to "fix" the poll, he truly meant "fix" as in "make correct". It was a public service - a simple correction offsetting the obvious cheating of others.

/s

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Mashiki]

Buzzfeed is the source downstream of all the other press agencies pushing this. The news came out that the author of the article said he didn't see them, even though he claimed he did.> have another source if you want.

This same reporter has a long line of making up bullshit.

Real questions you should be asking, what are they trying to distract from.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[divide overflow]

1. There were two reporters on that article, not one.
2. There haven't been any retractions to the original article...I just checked.
3. I believe you meant that Buzzfeed is the source upstream...all the other agencies are downstream.


I'm in no rush to judge. Time will sort this out. From the reactions it is generating it appears this is really getting under the skin of POTUS and a lot of his minions.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[_Sharp'r_]

It's also a bit telling that the special counsel's office went so far as to issue a statement that Buzzfeed's story about Cohen's congressional testimony isn't accurate.

Pretty sure that story's not going to pan out.....

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Mashiki]

I'm in no rush to judge. Time will sort this out. From the reactions it is generating it appears this is really getting under the skin of POTUS and a lot of his minions.

Yeah, when was the last time buzzfeed ever retraced something? There was only one reporter claiming it to be true. Buzzfeed is the downstream source, the original upstream source is the author of the article itself. And...the special council has said it's BS.

The only thing that it's actually generating is people getting PO'd with buzzfeed and the media printing BS like usual with no facts. And progressives and nevartrumpars! eating it up like a fly on a cow patty.

Re:It's time to MPGA

[divide overflow]

There was only one reporter claiming it to be true.

Two reporters wrote that story.

Buzzfeed is the downstream source, the original upstream source is the author of the article itself.

The reporters wrote the story for Buzzfeed, Buzzfeed published it, Buzzfeed *is the source.*

And...the special council has said it's BS.

Special counsel spokesperson Peter Carr said:

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."

Inaccuracies in descriptions of specific statements and characterizations of documents and testimony doesn't equate to "BS."

Re:It's time to MPGA

[Mashiki]

Two reporters wrote that story.

Yes, and one of them was the same person that claimed that a senior Bush Jr., official was about to be indicted. I'll let you figure out which one, because then you'll walk into their long history of "making shit up." Not once, not twice, not thrice, but keep going. Then ask yourself, why buzzfeed allowed someone with a long history of lying out their face and ass to publish this.

The reporters wrote the story for Buzzfeed, Buzzfeed published it, Buzzfeed *is the source.*

The reporters are the first source, their source is a "according to law enforcement officials involved." That makes them the secondary source. Buzzfeed then becomes the primary source for *all* of the other media outlets publishing the same junk.

Inaccuracies in descriptions of specific statements and characterizations of documents and testimony doesn't equate to "BS."

Look, and read the first half of the sentence. It specifically states that the "segments that buzzfeed used and characterization of documents and testimony" are in and of itself "not accurate." In non-lawyer speak, they lied and they're pumping bullshit. If you spend zero time around lawyers or the courts, I can understand you thinking that this alludes to something different. Having spent way too much time around lawyers and courts, this the equivalent of someone on the street going "What the fuck is wrong with you? Why the fuck are you lying."

It's as bad as the "walls are closing in" "donald trump is done!" BS that the media has been using as a talking point for over a year. Hell watch the link, and enjoy the supercut of the media going on for over a year...saying the same shit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I strongly dislike Trump

[93 Escort Wagon]

But I'm not sure, on the face of it, how this substantially differs from the usual political practice of quoting poll numbers which possess only a tenuous relationship with reality.

Re:I strongly dislike Trump

[ichimunki]

1) Understand what polling is and how it works before saying "polls mean nothing". The actual election itself was a poll. The main difference between the election and the pre-election polls was that the election included the entire sample set of people whose votes were actually counted, whereas a pre-election poll, by necessity, cannot know whether any given voter will actually show up on election day, and even if they could predict that perfectly, they have a margin of error regarding whether or not their MUCH smaller sample size is adequately representative of the population of voters on election day.

2) In 2016, the election hinged on a few states where Trump won by very small margins. Margins much smaller than the margin of error in pre-election polls.

3) It is possible that a) late-breaking events or b) the polls themselves altered the behavior of voters when it came time to vote on election day. People can change their minds about who they will vote for or their likelihood of voting. Events that happen after a pre-election poll cannot be retroactively fitted into existing poll results. People deciding that the election is a foregone conclusion and staying home is also difficult to incorporate. People deciding that they simply cannot stand the projected result is the other side of that coin. Constant exposure to polling information is demotivating to the projected winner's supporters and motivating to the supporters of opponents.

4) If the election for president was strictly popular vote, Hillary would have won easily and the polls would have been correct. Instead, polling for who is going to win the office of president is complicated by the fact that you really need to model 50 individual elections and then combine the results. See #2.

5) For the efficacy of polls, you cannot cherry-pick your sample like that and say the 2016 prediction was wrong, therefore polls mean nothing. That is no more insightful than saying that the 2012 predictions were all accurate therefore polls never lie.

6) Different polls have different reliability levels. Online polls of the sort that the President apparently sought to cheat on have some of the worst reliability levels you can get. Online polls have the abysmal selection bias, among other problems. And since his target audience is filled with people who discount science when it comes to things like evolution and climate change, whose education in mathematics, social science, and statistics is almost certainly lacking... it might be useful for him to have polls he cheated on to point to as a counter-point to those produced by the "fake news" folks. Then the narrative becomes "fake news trying to prevent Trump win with fake polls, don't let that happen! The real polls show Trump can win!" Competing polls results can heighten the effects mentioned in #3, to emphasize an "us vs. them" narrative.

Re:I strongly dislike Trump

[rickb928]

NO, the third widest margin, but Adams was finally elected by the House, and Hayes won election despite a 3% popular vote deficit v Hillary's 2.09% advantage. 14 prior elections saw the President elected despite not winning a *majority* of the popular vote, only 4 where the winner did not win the popular vote outright.

Among the Presidents who won election despite not winning a *majority* of the popular vote? Bill Clinton. Twice. And Abraham Lincoln.

Re:I strongly dislike Trump

[jeff4747]

It helps to make people like you think scientific polls have the same tenuous relationship with reality as online polls.

For example, the 2016 election results were within all the big pollster's MOE.

Re: I strongly dislike Trump

[mapkinase]

> Hillary would have won easily

In what world winning by 3% margin is "easy" win?

The main problem of US is that 60M voted for Trump.

Re: I strongly dislike Trump

[rickb928]

Not my numbers, just data.

But in a discussion of polling you bring up results that aren't just suspicious, they're fabricated. The exact opposite of what you state is true. Trump's support isn't decreasing.

But you might want to cling to your statement. It does give many solace, and might prevent further violence.

Re:I'm struggling

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this falls under "Stuff That Matters". If you don't, feel free to visit Breitbart instead.

LOL...Next Up. Trump Removed Mattress Tags

[L_R_Shaw]

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Seek help now.

Re:LOL...Next Up. Trump Removed Mattress Tags

[Anonymous Coward]

Now call everybody NPC's and tell us about how Trump is the spearhead of a push to lock up Hillary and her cabal of Satanic child molesters who send secret messages using pizza emojis on Twitter.

Re:LOL...Next Up. Trump Removed Mattress Tags

[TimMD909]

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Seek help now.

Not to be pedantic, but where would one go to seek help? It's not like Fox News runs a 24/7 emergency mental health call center for people seeking treatment.

Re:LOL...Next Up. Trump Removed Mattress Tags

[cmdr_klarg]

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Seek help now.

The only ones with TDS are the non-wealthy GOPers that support that dishonest narcissistic asshole. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Online poll rigging? GTFO

[Spy Handler]

Online polls (and related things like reviews/Yelp ratings etc) have been rigged so often and so easily since the dawn of the internet, the only surprising news here is that Cohen/Trump actually FAILED AT IT.

Re:Online poll rigging? GTFO

[Narcocide]

Consider the possibility this means other entities were rigging the same poll.

Re:Online poll rigging? GTFO

[rickb928]

TRYING to rig the same polls... And also possibly failing. Or not.

This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the light now. Hillary was robbed. The only solution is to run her again.

Re:This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Narcocide]

Hyperbole and sarcasm won't save you when you're stuck in the middle of the desert with nothing but a paraplegic camel and your witty remarks.

Re:This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, we want Bernie 2020! When everyone can rely on the gov't to provide basic goods and services, nobody has to go to work. Universal Basic Income for all!!

Re:This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Cajun Hell]

Tell you what, let's make it fair. She can run again as the Democratic candidate, if the Republicans will nominate Jeb Bush. If we're gonna make the monarchy-haters stay home or vote third party, then let's really do it!

But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be much more interested to know who rigged the polls in favor of Hillary.

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[x0ra]

Careful, this path of thinking leads directly to a graveyard...

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[Solandri]

They weren't rigged. She had a 5 in 6 chance of winning and the die came up 1

That's not how sampling margin of error works. Each poll individually had about a 1 in 6 chance of being wrong about Clinton winning. (Some polls showed it more likely, some showed it less, but on average it was about 1 in 6). But nearly every single poll showed Clinton winning. For that to have happened, the dozens of polls would've had to have each rolled a die, and had it come up 1 every time. That's near-impossible given the number of polls which nearly unanimously showed Clinton winning.

If the bias had simply been due to sampling error, then you'd expect about half the polls to show Trump winning (a % close to the final election tally %). That didn't happen. There was a more systematic bias in all the polling against Trump.

One of the few polls which correctly predicted Trump's win came up with the reason. All the anti-Trump bias in the media's coverage, and the open hostility of Clinton supporters against anyone who dared to even hint that they supported Trump, led to Trump supporters being reluctant to tell pollsters that they were going to vote for Trump. When the L.A. Times/USC poll accounted for this, they correctly predicted a Trump win.

So if Cohen did try to bias online polls in Trump's favor, it was a snowflake in a hellstorm of pro-Clinton bias in the media and by Clinton supporters.

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[jeff4747]

The 2016 election result was within all the major polling group's margin of error.

Trump needed to run the board in the rust belt. It was unlikely, but possible. Polls showed it unlikely, but possible.

10k Clinton supporters show up in MI instead of staying home, and Trump loses. They stayed home.

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[x0ra]

damn, learn how to take a joke...

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[jrumney]

Hillary wasn't on the top 100 business leaders list either.

Re:But all the polls were biased against Trump...

[Oswald McWeany]

I'd be much more interested to know who rigged the polls in favor of Hillary.

Honestly, I think it is a case of most Trump supporters were embarrassed to vote for Trump. I live in one of the states that Trump won with one of his biggest margins. I saw Hillary stickers and signs everywhere... besides one Truck that was also, incidentally, flying a rebel flag, so obviously not someone who cares what people think about him, I didn't see a single Trump bumper sticker. Trump voters were obviously quiet and hiding themselves. Not surprising since to out yourself as a Trump supporter outed yourself as a racist/misanthrope in many eyes.

I don't personally know a single person who admits to voting for Trump (besides my own mother, who hates Trump now)- yet there must be some out there in this state- he won it pretty easily.

Women for Cohen

[PopeRatzo]

My favorite part of this story is that Cohen paid a guy who was recommended to him by Jerry Falwell Jr, to create a social media campaign called, "Women for Cohen", that promoted how sexy he was, like sexier than "Andy Garcia in The Godfather". It contained photos of Trump and Cohen together with the caption, "Two Handsome Men" and a photo of Cohen with Diamond & Silk (who are a pro-Trump minstrel show) captioned, "Look at that stud!"

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

You gotta admit, Trump only surrounds himself with the best people.

Oh, and since Jerry Falwell Jr's name is in this story, it's worth mentioning that Jerry Falwell Jr and his wife met an attractive pool boy while on vacation in Miami and ended up giving him $1.8 million for...something.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/...

Part of me is really gonna miss Trump when he's gone. You gotta admit, he's done the "circuses" part of "bread and circuses" better than any president since WWII. You got your porn stars, you got your Putin, you got your Rudy Giuliani (who fucked his cousin), you got your evangelical leaders w/ pool boys, you got your Women for Cohen. Haberders. I don't know how I'm gonna be entertained when Trump is gone.

Re:Women for Cohen

[fortythirteen]

...a pro-Trump minstrel show

So what you're saying is it's ok to sling racial epithets at minorities who don't agree with you politically. So progressive.

Re:Women for Cohen

[apoc.famine]

That's your favorite part? Come on. How about where Cohen tried to pay for manipulating online polls with a fucking grocery bag full of cash and some boxing gloves from a minor celebrity from his office at Trump tower. AND THAT DIDN'T COVER THE WHOLE BILL SO HE PAID THE REST WITH PERSONAL CHECKS!!!

What the everloving fuck is that shit? This is the dude Trump trusted to be his "fixer" and "lawyer"!?!?! Holy. Shit.

This is the sort of absurdist comedy sketch that wouldn't even make sense at 2am when you were high as shit.

Re:Women for Cohen

[PopeRatzo]

How about where Cohen tried to pay for manipulating online polls with a fucking grocery bag full of cash and some boxing gloves from a minor celebrity from his office at Trump tower. AND THAT DIDN'T COVER THE WHOLE BILL SO HE PAID THE REST WITH PERSONAL CHECKS!!!

Wow, you have a point. I have to admit sometimes I get into one of these articles and experience an overload of surreal insanity and miss some detail of Hunter S. Thompson weirdness like that. It's all so crazy it's hard to keep track of it all.

God, it's such a shame that we don't have Hunter S. Thompson and Ralph Steadmen documenting this important moment in the history of the American Experience.

Re:Women for Cohen

[Ryanrule]

There is always the uk

Re:Women for Cohen

[PopeRatzo]

There is always the uk

Also a good point. It was very entertaining last week when Lloyd Russell-Moyle (great name, btw) walked off with the Stick of Truth, or whatever it's called and there was much outrage and shouting. And I'm all for pig heads getting fucked by Prime Ministers and beloved TV stars being busted for diddling children. But that's more or less what we've come to expect from the UK. This kind of Trump/Caligula shit is new for us yanks, though. However, we're doing our best to go with the flow.

Re:Women for Cohen

[fortythirteen]

This is how I know that people of your ilk are in a state of mass delusion. I have seen left-wingers call minority conservatives every derivation of "race traitor" (which is what calling a black person a "minstrel show" is), and then, when caught in their racism, double down on some imagined "evilness" of anyone who should disagree with their behavior, as if their "progressiveness" makes them morally superior - no matter how abhorrent their actual behavior is.

Re:Women for Cohen

[jeff4747]

Uh...Cohen wasn't a candidate for anything. It appears he was trying to get a date or something.

Re:Women for Cohen

[fortythirteen]

Any evidence of this claim? What if calling a minstrel show is merely stating an observable fact?

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for "minstrel show" (emphasis mine):

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was an American form of entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music performances that mocked people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by white people in make-up or blackface for the purpose of playing the role of black people. There were also some African-American performers and all-black minstrel groups that formed and toured under the direction of white people. Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

You are likening Diamond and Silk to playing a derogatory stereotype of "blackness" for the sole purpose of pleasing white people. You are claiming they are going against what you would consider "acceptable blackness", because they are black people who don't ascribe to the political beliefs that you think black people should have. You are being racist.

Re:Women for Cohen

[PopeRatzo]

Trump was elected to take immigration and the economy out of the trash

Did you know that the amount of illegal border crossings have increased under Donald Trump? Did you know that illegal border crossings fell to an historic low under Obama? Did you know that the trajectory of the economy has been exactly the same in Trump's first year as in Obama's last two years? Unfortunately the economic growth in this last year of Trump's presidency has slowed.

If "immigration and the economy" are your metric for Trump success, you are admitting that he is a miserable failure.

Re:I'm struggling

[x0ra]

Really ? "Rigging" online poll is 4chan-101. Everybody does this...

Re:Online Polls?

[x0ra]

Rigging an online poll constitute a felony ? Everybody does that, right OR left...

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

I'm struggling to find the technical aspect of this. Because the polls he was trying to rig are online? Or is this nothing more than orange-tinged clickbait?

The technical aspects of this are basically what you think. Asking for some IT guy to create a way to click though online polls to skew them in the way that you want.

What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world. They basically are like the junk science of perpetual motion or energy from nothing of the polling world. Nobody but political punditry pay attention to their results and then only when they support their political ideas, otherwise nobody looks at the results or takes them seriously.

Re:fake populism

[x0ra]

there has been evidence emerging that the supposed Trump populist movement in the USA and the right-wing populist in Europe are actually just extremely loud and aggressive minorities and that the real reason Trump won was not that there is some "silent majority" but that republicans will just vote for whatever republican is running, that Brexit only passed because so many didn't understand what it was actually about and that's why the other "populist" movements elsewhere aren't doing as well as their British and American counterparts

The usual leftist mindset... "you either think like us in the path to Righteousness, or you're just a dumbfuck..." pathetic.

Re:Online Polls?

[Narcocide]

Paying for it with campaign donations is what constitutes the felony.

Re:Online Polls?

[Jahoda]

Those polls that are completely and utterly useless in pretty much every respect? Wake me up when something newsworthy happens.

Well, unfortunately for the "I can't hear you" fingers-in-ears crowd, the sad reality is that people are herd creatures and getting folks "On the bandwagon" basically dates to the beginning of civilization. It's just that you suffer from a bias that makes you not want it to be true. It's the same reason why, In spite of every single poll which exists showing otherwise, Moscow Don's supporters absolutely need to believe they are part of some greater social movement, when they most assuredly are not. The rest of the psychology involved, I will leave to people smarter than me. Cheers, buddy!

Re:Online Polls?

[Freischutz]

Those polls that are completely and utterly useless in pretty much every respect? Wake me up when something newsworthy happens.

Find solace in the fact that after these guys faked the polls for them Trump/Cohen cheated them out of their payment which is standard Trump Organisation practice. The lesson here is, never do business with anybody whose business practices you haven't thoroughly researched.

Re:Online Polls?

[DaHat]

Did it involve campaign funds?

The summary above references 2014. TFA mentions:

A second similar effort related to rig a Drudge Report poll of potential Republican candidates worked, according to the Journal. Trump placed fifth in that poll, conducted in February 2015, before he announced his candidacy for the White House.

Most don't notice, but few candidates jump in as an officially declared candidate, instead they 'form a committee to explore the option of running' (or some such similar nonsense.

Kirsten Gillibrand could engage in the exact same kind of poll rigging today, and use her exploratory committee funds to do it legally... because she's not an actual declared candidate.

Re:Online Polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll see what happens when Mueller's final report comes out.

No you won't. If it does become public (which is not required, hell, it's not even required to be shared with the Congress), at this point it can never live up to the hype.

Expect to be *very* disappointed.

Re:CONFIRMED

[bobbied]

Cohen now compromised by Obama's Deep State in an effort to defame the good name of our God-Emperor.

Let's face it, Cohen is compromised of his own doing, Obama had nothing to do with it. He's just a dirty lawyer who had wealthy friends and tastes who got caught stretching the law and lying about it.

Re:Online Polls?

[fluffernutter]

Any funds used to affect the result of the election much be claimed according to campaign finance laws. Especially if they are obtained under the guise of a home equity credit line.

Re:I'm struggling

[amicusNYCL]

What escapes me is the importance of this revelation.

Really the humor of it. We've got someone with very high name recognition, who tries to create an image as a savvy businessman, literally hiring a company for a sole purpose of getting him a place on the top 100 business leaders, and he failed. That's pretty funny.

Re:Online Polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think 40% of 330 million people isn't a "greater social movement", then I have no idea what would qualify.

Re:Your polls are stupid anyway

[bobbied]

The issue was the turn out models, not the polls.

The turnout models skewed towards Hillary and the pollsters under estimated the appeal of the outsider, inexperienced Trump. In generally the polls where pretty close though, if you consider their the margin of error which is usually around 3-4% for most polls. What happened was they where all off in their turn out models by 2-3% and that upped the chances for a Hillary win when you looked at the numbers.

Polling is more of an art form than an exact science. It's really hard to predict who's going to vote, and adjust your data collection techniques to match what the actual vote counts will be. It's always a guess. When huge unknowns (such as a candidate like Trump) are in play, it's even harder to get it right.

The purpose is to build a narrative

[rsilvergun]

that Trump was winning. That's a big part of what killed the heir apparent Jeb Bush (aside from him not really wanting to be president). From day 1 the narrative was that he was a loser and his staff couldn't change that.

Re:Online Polls?

[slinches]

What law was broken here? It isn't illegal to game online polls. As far as I can tell from the stories so far, the funds were legally reported as a campaign expense. No one seems to be claiming that it was an illegal donation like they were with the hush payments. So where's the issue?

I mean, sure it's "dishonest" to try to influence a poll, but that's about the least dishonest thing political campaigns are doing online as standard practice these days.

Do I think politicians should be better than that? Yes, of course. But news organizations impugning Trump for trying to influence polls that are only there to be gamed or produce a biased view of "public opinion" is hilariously hypocritical.

Trump, and derangement

[LordAba]

Isn't this the case of... most politicians? Or hell, most people who want to be famous? They hire PR firms to up their posts and put them first on search engines. Unless I'm missing something, this is even less than what Hillary did to promote herself.

Re:Oh NOES!

[amicusNYCL]

He wouldn't weep over the poll, he's probably weeping over the story about the poll though. Especially if Fox reports on it, if they report on it then we'll know he'll see it and, if he tweets about it then we'll know it got to him. Because that's the kind of thing your brave leader is concerned about. Never mind the minor things like the FBI investigating whether a sitting president is acting as an agent for a major foreign adversary.

No though, yeah Trump is really enjoying this, isn't he? Loves all the publicity when he treats some college football team to the most amazing display of fast food, believe me. Yeah, he generates amazing press for his amazing actions and, by all accounts, is a completely stable genius who loves the news talking about him, his amazing decisions, and his best people who keep quitting or being fired. All of this press coverage over the "great negotiator" being responsible for the longest government shutdown in history because he refuses to actually negotiate, I'm sure that really makes him smile. The only thing he's smiling about is that he successfully got everyone to talk about the wall and the shutdown instead of his legal problems with Mueller. That's starting to reverse though, and he'll be back to weeping.

Re:I'm struggling

[mykepredko]

Nobody but political punditry pay attention to their results and then only when they support their political ideas, otherwise nobody looks at the results or takes them seriously.

That's not quite their purpose. Polls like the ones Mr. Cohen paid to manipulate allows Mr. Trump to stand up in front of his audience and say "I have an 87% approval rate on the highly respected, scientific *whatever* poll. Not only that, the equally comprehensive poll by *clickbait* says that 94% of you are saying I've got the country on the right course!" and it allows Fox News to say that "The biased CNN/NBC/WashingtonPost/NewYorkTimes polls don't match what we're seeing in terms of Mr. Trump's popularity with our own polls."

It's faked references to support a lie.

Re:Online Polls?

[swillden]

Those polls that are completely and utterly useless in pretty much every respect? Wake me up when something newsworthy happens.

The fact that Trump is both sufficiently egotistical and sufficiently amoral to try to manipulate the poll results is newsworthy, or would be if we didn't already have a thousand other data points regarding the man's narcissism and lack of moral fiber. And ineffectiveness, since he obviously failed.

On second thought, you're right. Old news. Carry on.

Andy Garcia is sexy?

[mykepredko]

I'm more of a Tessio man myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Andy Garcia is sexy?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm more of a Tessio man myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

I mean, who would make a Godfather reference and then pick a character from Godfather 3?

Although Joey Zasa seems like someone who could have been in the Trump orbit.

Re:I'm struggling

[rickb928]

*whoosh*

Re:Online Polls?

[Freischutz]

I guess you missed the part about where the guys doing the faking failed in their attempt? If you can't do the job, why should you get paid?

That is the risk you take in business. These guys were still due money for the work they did. Or do you think that when Ford Motors designs a car that flops on the market that Ford Motors then doesn't have to pay the engineers that did the work or the workers who assembled the things or the contractors who supplied the parts?

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

Um.. Isn't that what I said? Political pundits are the only people who care about online poll results and only because it's bait for the unwary.

But the whole thing is irrelevant anyway. It's like the old saying "There are lies, damnable lies and Statistics" where online polls are the last thing on that list.

Re: fake populism

[x0ra]

I don't claim to represent any group, contrary to what the left bases it's all ethos on. I'm an individual.

Re:Online Polls?

[rickb928]

"Paying for it ... is what constitutes the felony."

Paying for it, and not declaring it as an expense or contribution.
Paying for it, with money, and not accounting for it as campaign expense.
Not paying for it, and not declaring it as an in-kind contrubution.

Using campaign finance laws like this only suppresses activity. If the activity is illegal, that is enough, but by using campaign finance laws you get to:

- Embarrass (sort of) the perps.
- Assess usually meaningless fines.
- avoid the unpleasantness of actual criminal proceedings, where the standard of proof is somewhat higher.

Or, more simply, campaign finance laws are becoming preferred tool of the opposition.

Re:Online Polls?

[sdinfoserv]

The money came from the "Trump Foundation" which was ordered disbanded by New York. Since the Foundation was used as a personal Trump check book for both private and election activities, there are likely a litany of laws broken.
There's several ongoing investigations so we're only beginning to scratch the surface of this shit storm
In other news today Giuliani now claims - contrary to 18 months of loudmouthing - "I never said there was no collusion".. And they called Kerry "flip-flop/flip-flop". Giuliani must be running for cover or he's just insane, I wouldn't rule out either.
The realty is the Mueller investigation alone has thus far resulted in 36+ indictments, guilty pleas (9) and people in Jail (4). Incoming House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff will be handing over tons of documents to Meuller (where and Nunes woundn't) and will likely implicate Don Trump Jr. in lying before the House Intelligence committee. I'm going to invest my money in popcorn for this one.
Trumpkins continually cry "What laws were broken?".... Campaign finance laws, fraud (Trump U), IRS rules (Tim Tebow helmit), election laws by emailing foreign officials to solicit political contributions, illegally using a superpac, trade laws to Cuba, copywrite infringement....and a long yet to be determined list... Sorry Trumpkins, the OompaLoompa king will ultimately go down painfully.

Re:Online Polls?

[x0ra]

Since when "rigging" an online poll is a felony ? Money has been exchange to influence an online private opinion poll, not different from paying a network to run an ad.

Re:Online Polls?

[rickb928]

Like a lot of IT work, they expected to get paid for doing the work, not the results.

You've seen expensive and long term software projects end in failure, right? Bet the bills got paid. Mostly. People other than Trump stiff their partners for work done, even the Government.

Re: Oh NOES!

[x0ra]

Petty attack on a physical trait... and they you come and whine about fat shaming, you dumbfuck...

Re:Online Polls?

[sdinfoserv]

The specific "poll" thing may not break the law, unless Cohen previously lied about it. Of which you have no information.
However - On Donald Trump’s orders, Cohen twice broke campaign finance laws by paying off women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.. that's laws broken sparkey.

No one on /. thinks online polls are accurate

[rsilvergun]

but it gives an echo chamber something to report on. This is how the sausage is made:

1. Commission an online poll.
2. Game said poll.
3. Have sites you own pick up the story of you "winning" the poll.
4. Sites you don't own but who are sympathetic with your cause pick up the news stories you wrote based on those faked polls.
5. Eventually if you get enough faked polls and matching stories mass media (Fox, CNN,etc) pick up on them and report them with an itty bitty * to say these numbers aren't scientific.

This works because Americans don't value news and so they don't pay much for it, so there's heavy pressure to keep costs down and overworked journalists and editors will run anything that gets eyeballs. If we paid more for news and had more journalists as a result they'd fact check and find the base polls were bullshit. But a deadline's a deadline and a story's a story as long as it gets those eyeballs on it.

This is how you manipulate the institution of media to do bad things.

Re:No one on /. thinks online polls are accurate

[lgw]

And it's not just online polls. Most polls are partisan efforts designed either to show their candidate in the lead, or to push misinformation to voters under the guise of polling.

Re:No one on /. thinks online polls are accurate

[Obfuscant]

1. Commission an online poll.

It was a CNBC poll. Trump didn't commission it.

3. Have sites you own pick up the story of you "winning" the poll.

He didn't "win" the poll. There was no winner in the poll. it was a list of 100 people he wasn't on. He didn't win the Drudge poll (which he also didn't commission), he came in fifth.

If we paid more for news and had more journalists as a result

If Americans had to pay more to get access to news, fewer Americans would access news and there would be fewer journalists. The only reason there are as many journalists getting paid today as there are is because advertisers pay money to ride along on the delivery of the news.

This is how you manipulate the institution of media to do bad things.

You just conveniently explained why journalists are so ready and willing to be manipulated, and then blame those who do it.

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

Yea, but you KNOW why this was even a story right? It's not for humor on "The Onion" or something.

This was reported, not because it is funny, but because it feeds the whole narrative being pushed about Trump by the punditry, because it serves to inflame the unthinking and keep the outrage alive in some about all the many ways he "cheated" is way into the Oval Office.

So I see why you find it funny, but I also see why it had enough traction to find it's way into Slashdot where "funny" isn't the point...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Online Polls?

[fluffernutter]

I was answering the question.

Astonishing

[sdinfoserv]

What I find both astonishing and scary is all the GOPers chirping "So, what LAWS were broken?".... Really, your bar for the leader of the "civilized" world is that low? Don't we deserve better?

Re:Astonishing

[nehumanuscrede]

" Don't we deserve better?"

Of course, though it is unlikely we'll ever get it. Certainly not with the Two-Party system we have today.

Show me how things have improved for the working class in the United States since the day you were born.
Take a look at how many Presidents since then have promised to " fix the world " if they get elected.
Make note of how many followed through on those promises.
Take a good look at where we are today.

We're basically worse off than we have ever been and you really can't pin that blame on just one guy.
This incompetence goes back decades. Many, many decades.

Re:Astonishing

[Obfuscant]

What I find both astonishing and scary is all the GOPers chirping "So, what LAWS were broken?".... Really, your bar for the leader of the "civilized" world is that low?

When it comes to talking about impeachment and the claims of criminal acts, the bar should be pretty high. Much higher than "someone said someone told him to do something that wasn't illegal... and then reimbursed him when he submitted his expense report." So, sure, express your dismay that some people still believe the rule of law requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Constitution requires a conviction prior to impeachment.

Re:Astonishing

[sdinfoserv]

How about "Presidential candidate X told me to lie to congress so he can make $500M off a real estate deal in Russian"... does that meet your bar?

Re:Astonishing

[sdinfoserv]

The GOP has not won a the popular vote for a 1st term POTUS since Bush 1 - 27 years ago. Given that incumbents hold the edge for reelection - had the "will of the people" been observed, in all likelihood the US would not have had a Republican in the White House for almost 30 years. .. No "we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud... ", no 15 year middle east quagmire, no " you're doing a hell of a job Brownie", no "mission accomplished", no "We beat ISIS!"... no evisceration of the clean air/clean water act, and maybe, just maybe we would have someone who believes in science over pseudo-science and superstition.

Re:Astonishing

[Obfuscant]

How about "Presidential candidate X told me to lie to congress so he can make $500M off a real estate deal in Russian"... does that meet your bar?

Sdinfoserv told me to lie to congress. Does that meet YOUR bar for you being prosecuted for anything?

Re:Astonishing

[Obfuscant]

The GOP has not won a the popular vote

Show me anyplace in the Constitution where it mentions a "popular vote" for the office of President of the US. Nobody campaigns for the fictional "popular vote", and the only time those words are ever used referring to the US Presidential elections is when someone is trying to claim their candidate actually won "the election", even though they lost the real election by a large margin.

The rest of your comment is, well, fascinating babble.

Re:Astonishing

[bussdriver]

WRONG. This is why America is doomed... over confident ignorant people like the parent OR gullible people falling for Russian trolls; possibly, the parent poster...

The constitution is something you should take a few minutes and look at; it's not that hard and you don't need to hand all the power over to lawyers to grasp it or how open ended much of it is. The parent is completely wrong.

Trump is also wrong when he keeps saying the economy is too good to impeach him; in fact, it's idiotic to keep saying that. Either he is an idiot or he thinks Americans are.

Re:I'm struggling

[jeff4747]

What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world.

The importance is online polls were repeatedly cited by the Trump campaign to show support for Trump. Yes, even though they are unscientific and frequently gamed.

With our media's philosophy of "we can't possibly point out just how stupid this is", stories were written as if Trump was as popular as the online polls indicated. Or at least there were stories about how online polls conflicted with real polls.

Which then builds a narrative about a candidate. Which then influences who people vote for.

Hardly Unprecedented

[Jarwulf]

I have a bridge to sell you if you think that manipulating online polls is not SOP for major political campaigns.

Re:Hardly Unprecedented

[Jarwulf]

Sure lets make this a crime, then you can go to prison along with Trump for all the online polls you crashed at the urging of activists.

Re:I'm struggling

[jittles]

Yea, but you KNOW why this was even a story right? It's not for humor on "The Onion" or something.

This was reported, not because it is funny, but because it feeds the whole narrative being pushed about Trump by the punditry, because it serves to inflame the unthinking and keep the outrage alive in some about all the many ways he "cheated" is way into the Oval Office.

So I see why you find it funny, but I also see why it had enough traction to find it's way into Slashdot where "funny" isn't the point...

If this actually did happen then I have to question what lows Trump would stoop to just to become president. We are literally talking about a worthless poll that nobody really cares about. If he is willing to cheat on this to become a president, then I am sure that he did many other unethical things to get where he is now. But anyone who thought Trump was an ethical person prior to his presidential run was not paying attention to anything Trump actually does. He has quite an unsavory reputation in the business world for trying to cheat contractors out of everything he possibly can.

No longer believe ANY polls

[AnalogDiehard]

I no longer believe ANY polls, regardless whether or not they align with my preferences. They have been manipulated way too many times.

First rule of thumb

[nehumanuscrede]

A man will say anything to shift the blame onto anyone but himself when facing potential prison time.

It's the same principle as to why a " confession " under torture is unreliable.
Folks will say anything you want to hear to make the pain stop.

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world.

The importance is online polls were repeatedly cited by the Trump campaign to show support for Trump. Yes, even though they are unscientific and frequently gamed.

With our media's philosophy of "we can't possibly point out just how stupid this is", stories were written as if Trump was as popular as the online polls indicated. Or at least there were stories about how online polls conflicted with real polls.

Which then builds a narrative about a candidate. Which then influences who people vote for.

And Trump's campaign is obviously the inventor of such tactics? (sarc off)

Come on, everybody plays this game. I'm great, I'm winning! It's called a political campaign. Trump didn't invent this and BOTH campaigns clearly made similar claims based on the same kinds of evidence.

Bzzztttt!!!!

[L_R_Shaw]

"Trump supporters"

Nope.

Re:I'm struggling

[amicusNYCL]

Similarly to how you failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote. Hint: not talking about the election.

Re:Selective Prosecution

[CronoCloud]

"alphas" and "betas" are single words in English, not hyphenated.

the Deep State's supreme warmonger, Clinton- the woman that promised to go to war with Russia in Syria

Nice try, Ivan. The ONLY people who think Secretary Clinton, of the State Department...you know, the diplomacy guys is a warmonger are Russians.

Our military is ran by the Defense Department, The State department has no authority over that.

Your Comrade Leader Putin was just butthurt because the Clintons gave one of his political opponents some advice on who they might hire to run a political campain in Russia. A campaign that the sabre-rattling nativist Putin lost. He's wanted revenge on the Clintons and the US since the 90's.

And now he's got it.

Re:I'm struggling

[amicusNYCL]

it serves to inflame the unthinking

I doubt they're just trying to inflame Trump supporters.

All joking aside though, it just speaks to Trump's character. He's willing to pay $50k to influence an online popularity contest. It speaks to his character and his ego. If you want to believe Cohen is up to you.

Re:Online Polls?

[GameboyRMH]

It's newsworthy because the US President has been credibly accused of doing it. But yeah, wealthy people pay to have online polls spammed all the time, usually for relatively mundane business reasons.

Re:Online Polls?

[GameboyRMH]

Perhaps, but it's certainlry a less great social movement than the one to elect a boring pantsuit lady.

Re: Still trying to polish that turd ?

[CronoCloud]

While I wouldn't use the word sociopaths, I think "revenge" for purported slights is fairly accurate. A black man was president, they were now expected to be nice to people they considered their "lessers" (glbt folks, racial/ethnic/religious minorities) and the changes in amercian society and economy were affecting them in various ways. No more factory jobs making TV's, adult children asking for help from parents to pay for things like school supplies, maybe their old white doctor retiring and getting replaced a 2nd generation immigrant or something.

So they threw in with Trump, he promised to return things to the way it was, he said the things they thought in their deepest hearts. And it didn't hurt that he was a famous businessman with gold apartments with a model wife.

They didn't read Newsweek, Time, US News & World report, Mother jones, what have you to know that Trump was a charlatan who'd been "faking it" since the 80's. I first heard of him via a lifestyles of the rich show, where he claimed to be a billionaire...... some time later one of the newsmagazines debunked it said he was deep in debt, had been bailed out by his dad before, and was maybe worth 400 million, tops.

They didn't know that he'd said the Central park 5 who had been exonerated of the crime they'd been jailed for, should stay in jail. He said their settlement for wrongful conviction was a disgrace.
The DNA evidence and their forced confessions mean nothing to him, they're just "thugs" like other black men are to him.

And to a lot of his followers, they have a similar opinion.

Re:I'm struggling

[jeff4747]

And Trump's campaign is obviously the inventor of such tactics?

Why is it Trump supporters are unable to discuss anything without inventing a new reality? Such as inserting a claim that this was only Trump into a post that is still sitting right there, with no such claim.

"Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Come on, everybody plays this game.

Then why'd you ask what the point of this story was? If you knew "everyone plays this game", then you'd be well aware of the point. It's almost like you're flailing about for excuses and justifications.

and BOTH campaigns clearly made similar claims based on the same kinds of evidence.

[Citation Required]

Since Clinton was leading in traditional polls, there was no need to game online polls to point to. They could just point to the "real" polls. Democrats aren't above using a similar tactic, but it was unnecessary in this particular case.

(And before you go off on those polls, the 2016 election result was within the MOE of those polls)

I'm not entirely sure I believe that

[rsilvergun]

do you have some sources? The independent polls I know of are meant for candidates trying to win. They're all probabilistic but that's just the nature of polls because folks change their bloody minds a lot.

Re:I'm not entirely sure I believe that

[lgw]

Most polling agencies are part of one campaign or the other, or are part of the media-propaganda complex like MSDNC. And surely you've hear of Karl Rove's infamous push poll during W's primary, where southern voters were asked what they thought about McCain's black bastard son? Par for the course, though that was pretty sad.

Why do you believe him?

[RogueWarrior65]

Ask yourself why you believe this guy?

Not necessarilly

[rsilvergun]

yes, people are making a value judgement, but they're doing it based on the information they have at hand. Trump ran as a left wing nationalistic populist. He promised healthcare for all, jobs for all, etc. All standard left wing talking points that regularly poll in the 60s and 70s. He got a fair amount of isle crossers because it was pretty obvious that Hilary wasn't going to do anything but maintain the status quo, which has been absolute crap for most Americans.

That said he's delivered on none of that. He tried to repeal the ACA without any alternative (promising one in the future, always promising, promising...). His tax cut benefit's the wealthy 83 to 1 (e.g. out of $100 bucks $83 of them go to the wealthy). He gave Carrier massive subsidies to keep jobs here and they moved the jobs to Mexico anyway and kept the subsidies and got no punishment/tariffs.

Based on the information voters had at the time (and if you took that information at face value without the context of Trump's career) he was the way to go. That's the value judgement. The problem is with the information. Trump lied, the last 2 years show he lied. His history as a business man made it pretty clear he was lying if you had that information, but a lot didn't.

And of course, what have you got to lose? Well, the shutdown is killing the economy and if it keeps up they'll be a stock market collapse and a massive round of layoffs to boost prices back up (gotta do those buy backs). But again, you'd need to have that information to make the right value judgement...

You're almost right

[rsilvergun]

it wasn't set up to keep the densely populated cities from ignoring rural ones. It was set up that way because wealthy landowners didn't want to risk poor city folk voting for high taxes. This is because in the 1800s when the constitution was written being wealthy meant owning land, not corporations.

It was just another way the founders put the breaks on Democracy on populism and made sure the ruling class stayed on top. It was so we could have a quasi-democracy where the ruling elite got to vote on things but poor folks just had to shut up and take what they could get.

Go find a book called "A People's History of the United States". Damn near nothing we did in the first hundred or so years of our history was done for good reasons. We are not a nice people. Not in terms of our institutions anyway. And anything good that came out of us is really in spite of the constitution rather than because of it.

What we really need is a parliament with proportional representation. I'm fed up with being pushed around by a few hundred folks in Montana with 43 times the voting power I have.

Re:You're almost right

[Anonymous Coward]

"A People's History of the US?" please that book has been thoroughly debunked. It is not an accurate accounting of history by anymeans. Howard Zinn tried to rewrite history to push the leftist agenda, and so many like you have bought into it..

Real Historians laughed at the book and rightfully so.

Re:You're almost right

[_Sharp'r_]

"A People's History of the United States"? Yeah, that made it to what, #2 on the list of least credible history books in print for the History News Network?

A book so bad that the President of Purdue University issued a statement which said he “wanted to make certain that Howard Zinn's textbook, which represents a falsified version of history, was not being foisted upon our young people" and "No one need take my word that my concerns were well-founded. Respected scholars and communicators of all ideologies agree that the work of Howard Zinn was irredeemably slanted and unsuited for teaching to schoolchildren.”

Try getting your history from real history books based on primary sources, not left-wing nonsense designed to push an agenda by misciting secondary sources.

Is this a Russian Troll?

[rsilvergun]

I keep seeing this "LOL...Trump Derangement Syndrome" post in anything that touches on Trump, usually followed by a "Hillary was robbed" post. It's also usually modded up. I know I'm not supposed to complain about the mods, but it's not the kind of post that should get modded up. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and it's not overly amusing (there's no jokes or puns there).

And the comment has the structure of a Natalie Portman / Hot Grits post (e.g. it's a copy pasta) with a political bent. It's weird seeing that kind of meme creation in a political context, and creepy as hell if you ask me (which you didn't, but this is a web forum so you're stuck with me unless a mod comes along).

Re:Online Polls?

[mnemotronic]

I see nothing illegal going on here. Just a confirmation that the results of online polls are suspect.

Re: Oh NOES!

[x0ra]

Come and get me.

Re: fake populism

[x0ra]

Lucky I happened to have plenty of ammo to shoot down the mob coming to get me !

You political bias is showing

[JustNiz]

You really are stupid enough believe the Democrats don't do exactly the same thing?

Re:You political bias is showing

[Oswald McWeany]

You really are stupid enough believe the Democrats don't do exactly the same thing?

If they do, I hope that they too go to jail.

Re:You political bias is showing

[JustNiz]

Yep me too, except Hillary is apparently already getting out of much worse somehow.

Re:I'm struggling

[eepok]

"What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world."

See, that's where you let your intelligence get the best of you. The intent of polls is to measure the current status of opinion. Polls are USED, however, to suggest to those who prefer not to think critically HOW they should be thinking. As much as people like to assert that they'll make up their own mind, if they have an extreme minority opinion, they tend to change sides.

It doesn't do any good to access propaganda

[rsilvergun]

we want news.

And yes, it is convenient that Journalists can be so easily manipulated. Except it's not. We've been letting billionaire members buy up news outlets for ages. In 2019 with Youtube you'd think folks who post political comments in their spare time would know this...

The trick works for polls you don't commission yourself too, btw. It's just one less step. It's helps that the right wing pretty much own the media in America. Fox News, CNN & MSNBC (and now all local channels thanks to Sinclair) are basically propaganda for the corporate establishment. Ignore their social issue coverage. Pay attention to economics. They're all right wing all pro-corporate all the time.

The media has a right wing bias in economics (e.g. pro trickle down economics, or "Supply Side" if you prefer), which is the only place that really matters in life.

Ok ...

[Obfuscant]

we want news.

Good for you. What you want isn't the point. You're not going to pay enough to support all the journalists. Nor will Joe American who expects to see news for free when he turns on the TV. Move "The Six O'Clock News" over to a pay cable channel and guess who won't be watching the six o'clock news anymore.

And yes, it is convenient that Journalists can be so easily manipulated. Except it's not.

Except for the journalists that work at the Washington Times, Fox, etc, right?

The trick works for polls you don't commission yourself too, btw.

My response had nothing to do with the "trick" working, it was with your statement that step 1 was to commission a poll. Neither poll was commissioned by Trump. Nor did he win either poll.

They're all right wing all pro-corporate all the time.

It's clear you don't watch what you are so ready to condemn.

Re:Except DC

[Immerman]

You also get far more direct access to ALL representatives than anyone else.

Re:Part of the problem

[GameboyRMH]

That's a lot of eloquent words to try to make that stupid-ass culture war bullshit sound less idiotic (and bigoted, again they weren't called racists, sexists etc without good reason). But to continue your analogy, the works they threw that molotov cocktail into was the utility room of the apartment building all Americans share. That's a form of protest only someone who's an idiot, evil, or an evil idiot would use.

Re:Online Polls?

[drinkypoo]

You do realize that it doesn't matter where the money came from, polls influence elections, so influencing the polls is an attempt to influence elections.

Go read 538's blog

[rsilvergun]

they are well aware of biases and the like and have detailed methods for weighting them and accounting for them. They were pretty spot on in general.

Re:Except DC

[dwillden]

And DC should have No Representation or electoral votes in my opinion. It was not conceived to be the equivalent of a state but an independent seat of Government. It's not beholden to any state but it should also be entirely populated by those working to represent the states. We should actively work to remove the permanent population of DC and return it to it's intended purpose. The Seat of the Federal Government where our elected officials from across the nation go to conduct the business of the nation.

My opinion is that it should have no residents who are not subject to being recalled to their home state at the next election. Those permanent bureaucrats necessary to support the functions of the government can live in VA and Maryland.

Correct the Record

[Undead Waffle]

And in 2016 the Super PAC "Correct the Record" paid people to join online conversations to post pro-Hillary stuff and attack comments critical of her. It also coordinated with her campaign, claiming they were exempt from rules against coordination. That was much more extensive than a few internet polls.

Re:Online Polls?

[AmiMoJo]

Even Russia is thinking of bringing treason charges against him.

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

Oh yea, Trump is a really bad guy as a result? Oh we have proof!

For Pete's sake people. Yea, Trump is FAR from perfect, but we ALL knew that BEFORE the election so tell me something I didn't know before he won. Just in case you thought there was any doubt, the Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape should have clued everybody in as to what kind of guy Trump was and is. So why do we have to keep digging up stuff about Trump to beat him with? What's the point of reporting on such things?

Trump's voters didn't care about it back then, at least most didn't. Such stories, designed to separate Trump from his base, actually don't and may in fact further solidify his base because they see all this as unfair and biased reporting. The media ignores his accomplishments and bellows on about his character flaws, real and imagined. Why do you suppose Trump talks about "fake news" all the time? It's like he's vaccinating his supporters from even believing the media, at all, so it won't matter in October 2020 what the other side pops up with as an October surprise.

Personally, I grow very weary of all the "bombshell" revelations about Trump that are no surprise at all. I'm sorry but I've been assailed by better stories than this that turned out to be pointless. Let the guy be president and attack him on what he does and says in that capacity and let's forget all these "before the campaign" escapades "Oooo Look Orange man bad" stores. Like this one, they are pointless to the point of irrelevancy, much like bantering on about White Water or some such.

This is just the tip folks...

[burtosis]

Giuliani just admitted Russian collusion, live on national TV. I have no idea what would make him move the goal posts into another solar syste...

Breaking News: Trump ordered Cohen to lie to congress in order to cover up his Trump tower Moscow project. For a measly 3m up front and 4% of the profits we had our country sold to the Russians. At this point it wouldn't suprise me at all if the pee tape was simply short for pedo.

Which polls was he supposed to rig?

[mkaylor]

Which "pre-candidat" online poll was he supposed to have rigged?

lawfare

[cascadingstylesheet]

So you've managed to get some guy who is in legal jeopardy to say a lot of stuff. Interesting.

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

"What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world."

See, that's where you let your intelligence get the best of you. The intent of polls is to measure the current status of opinion. Polls are USED, however, to suggest to those who prefer not to think critically HOW they should be thinking. As much as people like to assert that they'll make up their own mind, if they have an extreme minority opinion, they tend to change sides.

See, that's where your critical reading skills failed you..

Nobody but political punditry pay attention to their results and then only when they support their political ideas, otherwise nobody looks at the results or takes them seriously.

I fully understand how these polls are used and by who. However, my point is they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, and one more thing... This story is about something that happened BEFORE Trump threw his hat in the presidential ring... Like a whole year before. This episode had exactly zero affect on the election results...

Re:Developing plans is their J O B

[GameboyRMH]

Well they damn well should've been ignoring Venezuela. As for the other two, they were specifically asked by the Trump administration to create invasion plans.

Re: Still trying to polish that turd ?

[CronoCloud]

You really think half the voting population is composed of closet bigots who got fired and replaced with a member of a protected class?

Is English not your native language? Where did I use the word "fired"? I literally said "changes in american society and economy" which is NOT "they all got fired and replaced by a minority."

Though as an aside, don't you think outsourcing and the use of H1B's has increased the amount of anti-India bigotry seen on Slashdot?

Re:Online Polls?

[Oswald McWeany]

I couldn't care less if it's true or not. Online polls are completely useless.

You have three candidates running for Office.

Mr. A has 50% of the vote in the polls.
Miss B has 45% of the vote in the polls.
Dr. C has 5% of the vote in the polls.

You like Dr. C the best- you're indifferent about Miss B... but you really hate Mr. A and think he would be a disaster.

Who do you vote for?

Most people in that situation in the US would vote for Miss B, because clearly Dr. C has no chance of preventing Mr. A winning the election.

In this case, the polls turned out to be handy for Miss B. because a lot of Dr. C voters would have switched their vote to Miss B.

Re:Online Polls?

[DaHat]

It does matter *when* the act occurred, because if you really want to get into territory of anything potentially influencing the vote, no matter how minor, before or after declared candidacy, major or minor poll... I demand the immediate arrest of Russel Brand for conducting foreign interference of our elections in 2008.

Celebrity endorsements influence elections... right? Well he asked Americans to vote for Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhpZFqpK74), and they did. Worse, it was foreigner doing so. Eeeek!

I know it's warm and cuddly having your anti-Trump goggles on. Screaming Orange Man Bad! all of the time. When you take them off though and look at things a good bit more level headed, you see things aren't as horrible as you see, and the kind of 'crimes' you alleged are either not crimes, didn't happen, or have occurred in other forms for years.

Am I condoning poll rigging? No, I just recognize it's nothing new.

Re:I'm struggling

[amicusNYCL]

Yea, Trump is FAR from perfect, but we ALL knew that BEFORE the election so tell me something I didn't know before he won.

How about the fact that he's willing to damage the country to benefit himself? Is that enough for you? What about literally embracing our adversaries and shitting all over our allies? How about the fact that he'll do everything he can to literally obstruct justice, which is a crime if you didn't know, in order to benefit himself? I mean, being a cocksucker is one thing. Being a cocksucker who thinks the laws don't apply to him and who will damage the country if it helps him is something you may want to be concerned about, depending on how you feel about the United States as a whole. If you don't care about the well-being of the US, I can understand excusing all of Trump's behavior, but it seems really unlikely that someone who didn't care about the US would care so much about Trump.

So why do we have to keep digging up stuff about Trump to beat him with? What's the point of reporting on such things?

Because he continues to actively damage the country. It's that simple.

Trump's voters didn't care about it back then

Obviously. Many of them appear to not care about it even now also, which is a little confusing when they're also talking about how important they think things like the security of the US are. It's kind of hard to understand the cognitive dissonance with wanting a secure country and also supporting a man actively making the country less secure.

they see all this as unfair and biased reporting.

Which of course is not the same thing as untrue. Although I have to admit that it was amusing to hear Trump whine about everything (read: our federal laws) being "unfair" to him. He makes such huge efforts to act like he's some tough guy, so it's frankly funny to see him moan and whine when people don't want to break the law for him or people don't want to lie for him or people want to hold him to the same standards as everyone else as being "unfair." He obviously believes that, as the president, he's better than everyone else and is no longer applicable to certain laws. Well, he's wrong, and it makes him look like a bitch to whine about that being unfair. If he can't take the heat....

The media ignores his accomplishments

I don't think so, I'm aware of him doing several things that I approve of, I caught that reporting. But he's a machine gun president, no one story stays in the news long as long as he's tweeting about some absolutely absurd shit. He's the reason why good things he's done don't stay in the media, because he immediately does something stupid that everyone starts talking about. And he commits unforced errors all the time. Like backing out of the CR after saying he would sign it, for example, that could have been a softball win for him, but instead of taking the easy W he decided to fuck everything up and then the media started reporting on that instead. So, yes, the media reports on a lot of negative stories about him, but the single reason for that is because he does so many negative things to report about. If he wants positive stories then maybe he should stop directing people to lie to Congress and stop being an obstinate fucker and actually get some things done. I'll give him credit where it's due, he's done good things with regard to pharmaceuticals, although I'd love to see a lot more (another easy win for him if he cared to do it between tweet rages). But those don't excuse the absurd things he does on nearly a daily basis. It's frustrating to even keep up with, it's tiring. One story isn't even finished being discussed when he's doing the next stupid thing that people are going to want to talk about. So with regard to which stories are being covered on a daily basis, he only has himself to blame for that, because I hear when he does something I appreciate. And

Re:STFU you CHATTERING TWAT... apk

[amicusNYCL]

It's hilarious to see the frothing stalking behavior come out again. I see all those "9 hidden comments", I know you're trying to get my attention. I've already shredded everything you've done or everything you're so proud about, though. No reason to keep shooting the dead cow. I'm not going to gain any insight by reading your 9 hidden comments on every post I make, like the unhinged stalker you are. Go ahead and link to the post where I tore down your accomplishments, though. I'm not reading your replies but something tells me you've neglected to do that. It's embarrassing for you, I get it.

Re:I'm struggling

[bobbied]

Again.. From my view, you are just making stuff up here. Orange man bad! Orange man Bad!

IF you where honest about this and what you actually KNOW (and not just suspect) I'm afraid you'd be a lot less confident about just how bad Trump really is. But no, we have to take 3 years of foaming at the mouth, outlandish accusations that don't have ANY basis in law or fact and a media that is fully invested in bringing the guy down, regardless of their journalistic standards getting trampled in the dust.

Seriously, I've heard a whole pile of charges being made, which are ludicrous on their face, yet we've been regaled for days over them. Like firing James Comey is somehow obstruction of justice, or his "Go easy on Flynn" statement being proof of it too.. And that's just two examples of bogus charges which consumed MONTHS of breathless news coverage.

This is absolutely ludicrous yet folks like you run headlong into the fray, repeating the unfounded charges as if they where facts and pointing your crooked fingers and saying "See! Orange man BAD! REALLY bad!" The truth is that you and your leaders just don't like him, want to get rid of him, being reasonable or even factual about it doesn't matter. He's got to go and the ends justify the means, ANY means.

Don't you understand how this hysteria is being used? How this whole campaign is really an appeal to anger that has to keep advancing the level of outrage because the voters are growing tired of being angry? Eventually this won't work anymore, the shrill voices will have deafened all the ears that matter. Given the current volume level, I suspect we are rapidly approaching the end, where it won't matter how ridiculous and loud the pundits get. Just watch then, just keep your ear plugs in..

Re:I'm struggling

[amicusNYCL]

From my view, you are just making stuff up here.

Well, the funny thing about facts is that they don't require people to believe them.

But no, we have to take 3 years of foaming at the mouth, outlandish accusations that don't have ANY basis in law or fact

What's with all the extremes? We have plenty of evidence. You've said yourself we knew who he was before the election. There's plenty of evidence of him lying. One great piece of evidence is how he'll say one thing one day, and then the opposite another day. They can't both be true.

I mean, some things are factual, others less so, some have a lot of evidence, others less so, it's not all about extremes. It's not all or nothing. There is plenty of basis in fact.

Like firing James Comey is somehow obstruction of justice

Why is that ludicrous? Comey was in charge of the FBI and its investigations. Trump LITERALLY SAID ON TV that he fired him in part because of the Russia investigations. If Trump is one of the subjects of those investigations, how exactly is that not obstruction? And you're saying it's "ludicrous?"

I'm getting a huge sense that people in this country are living in different realities, I'm sure you feel it too.

repeating the unfounded charges as if they where facts

He fucking said it in an interview with Lester Holt! What the fuck? This is crazy shit man, now you're trying to gaslight me too. "No, that never happened, he never said that. What you remember isn't what happened, let me tell you what happened instead." How about "no"? Does "no" work for you?

and pointing your crooked fingers

Hold on, why are my fingers crooked? It makes you feel better if you believe I'm some sort of monster, or somehow corrupt or sub-human, doesn't it?

The truth is that you and your leaders just don't like him, want to get rid of him

While I do feel those things about him, who exactly are my leaders? Do they have crooked fingers too? They probably don't love the country also, right? We're probably not even human, are we?

being reasonable or even factual about it doesn't matter

It matters a great deal, actually, more than most other things. Which is why it's so tiring to fight against this revisionist gaslighting with people trying to convince us that things that we saw and heard didn't actually happen.

How this whole campaign is really an appeal to anger that has to keep advancing the level of outrage because the voters are growing tired of being angry?

Oh come on, it's none of that. It's the news selling news, that's all it is. They need something to talk about, and Trump gives them shit to talk about all goddamn day, every day. That's all it is. The bigger picture, Trump actually getting removed, is up to Mueller's report and whatever Congress decides to do. In the absence of Mueller's report, people whose job it is to go on TV and talk will talk about whatever they want, but ultimately what matters is the result of that investigation.

Eventually this won't work anymore, the shrill voices will have deafened all the ears that matter.

Yeah, that's happening now, look at your shrill voice trying to convince me that things which happened did not happen. It's all over the place, I can't listen to some of the damn shows on CNN because all it is is a bunch of assholes trying to talk over each other. That doesn't change the facts though. It doesn't change what actually happened, and Trump or you or anyone else trying to convince us that things which happened did not actually happen aren't going to change the facts. It's not going to change Mueller's report.

Vetted information

[Weaselmancer]

You are correct to be suspicious. Anyone can lie. A valid point, and one I wish more people would lead with.

However, Cohen was giving these interviews to the FBI. Mueller took that information, used his not-insignificant resources at the FBI, and determined the information provided to be credible.

What that means to us lay people is that the FBI has used it's resources to verify that information and found it to be credible. It lines up with the other information they possess. The FBI doesn't think he's lying.

So, if you'd wish to doubt it at this point, you would have to know more about the topics in the Mueller investigation than the FBI does, which is exceedingly unlikely.

Re:Online Polls?

[Lost Race]

Find solace in the fact that after these guys faked the polls for them Trump/Cohen cheated them out of their payment which is standard Trump Organisation practice. The lesson here is, never do business with anybody whose business practices you haven't thoroughly researched.

It's simpler than that: If someone hires you to cheat, expect them to cheat you. (Get payment up front, then you can cheat them!)