• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Trump: Dems favorability down to 31%! All time low! Sad!

He had to hang up on the Australian PM on a 5 o'clock because he was tired after the end of a long day.
 
He asked the SCOTUS nominee runner-up to drive toward Washington to give the illusion that he was in the running even though the true pick had been leaked days earlier.
 
WFFaithful said:
He asked the SCOTUS nominee runner-up to drive toward Washington to give the illusion that he was in the running even though the true pick had been leaked days earlier.
Click to expand...

Gotta boost those ratings.

Just imagine how great a war is going to be for ratings.
 
The high speed trains Obama wanted to build and Republicans didn't want?
 
DeaconSig said:
So you feel like there is voter fraud. Sure.


Ready to take back your use of a debunked article as evidence yet?
Click to expand...


So, the good professor wants his own extrapolation based on his own previous study to be used and interpreted only in the way that he claims to want, namely that voting fraud by non-citizens during the 2016 election were not as extensive as Donald Trump claimed it was. Fine, as far as it goes. He's certainly entitled to his interpretation. On the other hand, his study also supports my belief that there is far more extensive voter fraud then our left-libs would care to admit. One might also argue that his study was flawed and cannot be used to support or dismiss the idea of voting fraud by illegal aliens. If that is the case, then that would tend to support my assertion that accurate assessments of the extent of voter fraud are not particularly easy. Take your pick.

In general, academic debates often occur over how to interpret data, or what the data means. The insistence that data can only mean one thing, be used in a certain way, and be interpreted in one way is just more left-liberal totalitarian rubbish, more nonsensical claims that the left-liberals have a monopoly on the truth, only their shills need to be consulted, and only their interpretation has any validity.
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
So, the good professor wants his own extrapolation based on his own previous study to be used and interpreted only in the way that he claims to want, namely that voting fraud by non-citizens during the 2016 election were not as extensive as Donald Trump claimed it was. Fine, as far as it goes. He's certainly entitled to his interpretation. On the other hand, his study also supports my belief that there is far more extensive voter fraud then our left-libs would care to admit. One might also argue that his study was flawed and cannot be used to support or dismiss the idea of voting fraud by illegal aliens. If that is the case, then that would tend to support my assertion that accurate assessments of the extent of voter fraud are not particularly easy. Take your pick.

In general, academic debates often occur over how to interpret data, or what the data means. The insistence that data can only mean one thing, be used in a certain way, and be interpreted in one way is just more left-liberal totalitarian rubbish, more nonsensical claims that the left-liberals have a monopoly on the truth, only their shills need to be consulted, and only their interpretation has any validity.
Click to expand...

It's ok to admit you were wrong. The rest of us already know it. Now do you also want to admit that you cited an article that said President Trump called the Canadian PM as evidence that the President had made a public statement about Quebec- which was patently false?

You were hired to educate. At some point, people thought you had integrity. Let's reward their faith in you.
 
Donald Trump called Robert Kraft every week for a year after his wife died, just to make sure he was okay.
 
sailordeac said:
So, the good professor wants his own extrapolation based on his own previous study to be used and interpreted only in the way that he claims to want, namely that voting fraud by non-citizens during the 2016 election were not as extensive as Donald Trump claimed it was. Fine, as far as it goes. He's certainly entitled to his interpretation. On the other hand, his study also supports my belief that there is far more extensive voter fraud then our left-libs would care to admit. One might also argue that his study was flawed and cannot be used to support or dismiss the idea of voting fraud by illegal aliens. If that is the case, then that would tend to support my assertion that accurate assessments of the extent of voter fraud are not particularly easy. Take your pick.

In general, academic debates often occur over how to interpret data, or what the data means. The insistence that data can only mean one thing, be used in a certain way, and be interpreted in one way is just more left-liberal totalitarian rubbish, more nonsensical claims that the left-liberals have a monopoly on the truth, only their shills need to be consulted, and only their interpretation has any validity.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call the 30+ GOP Secretaries of State (many of whom have Voter ID Laws pending) who have stated there was no such voter fraud are hardly "left-libs". But in sailor's irrational world the indisputable fact that RW SOS say he is wrong is immaterial.
 
Gotta love checks and balances, especially when Trump and his shills don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top