I called the 2016 election around June-July or so, based on following the data the primaries produced comparing "voter excitement" between the parties, and the election came out pretty close to what those results showed. It's a method that has an extremely good track record. I was eager to do it again this year.
Then Covid hit, muddled up the primaries, and I didn't have any reliable data to go off of other than the early primaries which showed a relatively strong showing for Trump and weak results for the Democrats, even with many Democrat candidates to choose from.
So my radar is blank from a data standpoint, but when it comes to polls, the most successful poll in 2016, which did actually predict Trump to win or at least be close, was the USC Dornsife / LA Times poll. It used a method where respondents are asked "who do you think will win" as a question. This was what showed Trump winning more often than not.
Currently, the few polls doing this are overwhelmingly showing a Trump win. Gallup, for example recently used this polling tactic and had 57% of respondents say they think Trump will win. Others phrase it as "who do you think others will vote for?" and they come out with Trump being who they think others will vote for.
This gets around the pressure to not have to reveal who you are voting for. And it accurately predicted Trumps victory in 2016, right up to the point where Hillary was leading by "double digits" in traditional polls.
They've even trotted out the same Professor Lichtman, the guy who supposedly "has accurately predicted every election since 1984" to say his "13 keys" show Biden will win. They did the same in 2016, to say his same "13 keys" predicted a Clinton victory. How can they say he was accurate last election? Easy, he changed to Trump winning the last minute. coughBScough.
Polls are a game with these people. Psychological warfare. Data is real, but we don't have much of that this time around. The only polls that seem to be somewhat accurate ask people who they think will win (which tells me the psychological warfare doesn't work). Ignore the polls. Look at logical outcomes and remember, it is from the Left where the idea that "most Americans are idiots" comes. No true American patriot believes that.
Or they don't really believe in the idea of America, or that it could ever be Great if it is full of that many idiots.
I'm really disturbed by this "it was just mace" argument floating around. It's really obfuscating the underlying issue here and it bows to ridiculous arguments the left makes when it comes to someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, for example.
It is not required that a lethal weapon be employed in an attack in order to use a lethal weapon in self-defense. Stop pushing that idea.
The ISSUE is not what weapon anyone had or used. The ISSUE is who was the aggressor. That is what determines who was using self-defense. The evidence so far is that the guy with the mace was using self-defense. The guy with the gun was the aggressor, and his actions are thus murder.
That's the bottom line. Stop it with the "it was just mace" bs. If someone attacks you with anything, you have a right to use deadly force. The key is that they attacked you. If you are coming after them and raising a weapon at them like this guy did, that completely turns it around to being murder.
At no point am I suggesting otherwise. Of course they are open to lawsuit no matter what. The degree to which 9 News as an organization is involved changes to what degree they can be sued and even to the level they could be criminally prosecuted.
Either way, they would remain silent about it going forward.
Not really. Proving the person or the campaign was telling people to commit voter fraud is impossible in this context, since neither can be taken seriously to prove "beyond a doubt".
It's useful to show around on social media like this, but that's about it.
An example of what could potentially be used as evidence is seriously asking how to vote multiple times and being given instructions as to how to do it, no matter how many times the person instructing them says "unofficially", since that isn't any sort of legal "get out of liability" magic word.
There's really nothing else they can do. Maybe stop tweeting at all for a while, but that won't actually help anything.
They definitely don't want to comment on it. That's legal stupidity. Especially if 9 News itself was not directly involved and they have an actual case showing it was the reporter/camera whoever acting on their own.
As bad as media is, at the end of the day they do try to cover their ass and it's improbable, if not impossible, that a news station would pull a stunt like this with really no good foreseeable outcome.
A young modern "journalist" though? I could see that. Those people are just as stupid as the Antifa idiots running around setting things on fire.
If the news station did greenlight this thing, they really don't want to comment on it.
Either way, ignoring it is the only thing to do.
An effective ad, but I do have a problem with it.
When it comes to places like Youngstown or Portsmouth, OH, or many other Rust Belt industrial towns, there is a direct correlation between the crime, poverty, and drug epidemics that have hit them hard and representation in the Federal government. Their representatives did not fight for their jobs, or were outnumbered by people giving it all away to globalism.
But in places like South LA, San Fransisco, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, etc...even if you fix the greater economic problems at the federal scale, you're still left with systemic crime, poverty, drugs, and bad education. Because that is local governance at work in those places.
Electing this guy will help in keeping the Trump economy going and put Trump in a better position to clean up federal government, which means success and prosperity for most places in the country. But it doesn't clean up South LA. As long as the same rats are in charge of the city and the local districts and the schools, places like this won't see much improvement. Not even with Opportunity Zones or any federal funding their congressman can get for them...it'll just be squandered by the local government, traded for favors or other corrupt schemes, and the local neighborhoods won't see anything of meaning from it.
It's Civics 101. And more people, especially in places like this, need to learn how government works and the difference between local, state, and federal, and just who it is they need to be replacing if things are bad in their neighborhood. Our Republic was never setup in order to fix problems at the local level. It was always intended for local people to choose local representation to fix local issues, for state representation in order to run statewide affairs, and federal representation to look out for their interests in Federal affairs.
I wish him and others like him success in rundown areas, but if they win, I hope they use their influence to really educate their constituents as to who it is they need to be voting out to make real change right at home. Change he simply can't personally bring about, no matter how much he wants to.
Yeah it is actually. Because at least commie faggots believe in their idiotic ideology.
People like Jack don't believe in any of that crap. They knowingly push what is false because it serves their elitist interests. He's worse than commies. All of these elitists are worse than the commies they move around like pawns on a chessboard.
They're willing to utterly destroy a nation to get what they ultimately want; unlimited wealth, power, and control on a global scale.
Yeah exactly. The election will remove her from the Speakership.
I have very little doubt they will retake the House, when all the dust settles. I feel a very strong storm coming, and I don't think the Democrat's cheating like they did in 2018 is going to be even close to enough to stop it. The best they'll be able to do is muddle everything up for some weeks with lawyers and courts.
But ultimately, they are going to lose bigly. I can feel it, far more strongly than I did in 2016.
Absolutely, but that's a long term thing. Probably not for decades. I don't think South Korea wants to take on the humanitarian nightmare of millions of refugees racing South for food.
A few decades of steadily increasing quality of life in the north is practically a requirement for reunification, like a quarantine of sorts. Trickling in aid as well as agricultural advancement, while opening trade and business opportunities in the North to slowly get it to a point where even the border can be fully opened in order to prevent a mad rush of starving northerners is a must.
I think what it is, is that Kim Jung Un and probably some in his government are tired of being nothing but a glorified buffer zone for China. They get nothing out of the deal but just enough to prevent their country from total collapse.
They're looking at Beijing and seeing how China has made trillions off of the western market and a large wealthy elite, any of which are more wealthy than a Kim can be and want a piece of that pie.
Trump comes along and probably presented the possibility of real trade and prosperity in exchange for abandoning their bellicose games and isolation.
If you're Kim, you know the status quo just isn't going to cut it anymore, and with a little trust in this new type of American president, the DPRK might be able to go forward without China's table scraps.
It's a delicate dance for Kim and any allies in his party no matter what they do, as China likely controls some of that party, but he seems willing to try as long as Trump is president at least.
Actual reunification or toppling the Kim regime, or anything like that is pretty much a fantasy in the near future. But pacifying the regime, opening it up, and letting economic prosperity remove it from the list of hotspots on the global stage is absolutely possible. And I think that's the goal.
Considering a committee of 5 Norwegians led by a former leftist politician decide it, I wouldn't expect him to win it, no matter how well deserved. It's become nothing more than a political tool for them. They have no compulsory reason to award it to Trump, even if he is nominated a thousand times.
If the aggressor is the one who kills someone, it is murder.
If the aggressor is the one killed, it is self-defense.
Period.
The scumbag with the gun was the aggressor in this case, thus it's murder.
In Kenosha, the aggressors were the three who were shot, thus it was self-defense.
It doesn't matter who had what politics or anything like that, only who instigated the violence.
Even if 60% of real voters in California voted for Trump, he would still lose. The amount of rigging in California's political system has surpassed Chicago. It's the leftist test bed for instituting a single party system.
Blinding you and then beating you to death can make it one. Absolutely if I am armed and someone is coming at me with pepper spray, I'll be prepared to fire before being blinded.
That isn't what happened here, so the point is moot, but I'm not going to give in to the argument that how deadly a weapon is should determine your self defense rights. That's the left's argument every time they get shot.
The common theme in all cases is that it's the leftist who is the aggressor. That is what changes this to a homicide and not self-defense, and the point we need to make clear.
Pinkerton has hired good detectives and cops as well as straight up thugs since the 1850s. Their customers have often been criminals themselves, so I don't think they'll lose any business or sleep over this.
A "Pinkerton Man" wasn't always a good guy in the movies, and there's a reason for that.
Well no matter how Trump plans to do things, when he engages fully with the deep state, which will be the toughest battle of his life, and the most critical in our nation's history since the Civil War, they must go after corporate media as well, and with just as much force.
Such government corruption simply cannot exist without an equally corrupt media. This makes the recent SCOTUS nomination even more crucial and opportune, because the media will absolutely use federal courts to try and sink any attempt at going after media by making 1st amendment arguments.
It will end up in SCOTUS as some of the most important constitutional decisions to ever come before the bench. That's where having discerning, constitutionalist justices will be more critical than ever. There is a fine line between a free press and a corporate controlled, pro-corruption propaganda confederation, and it will take the likes of scholars such as Thomas to lead the effort in finding it.
Because as long as the media is never brought to account for their role in the overall schemes and crimes of the bureaucracy, no matter if the "swamp" is drained, it will simply fill again with a sympathetic media waiting to run cover once again.
Precisely. The popularity of talk radio is a symptom, not the cause of why people are turning away from leftist ideology. It represents people turning off the major networks and tuning into the radio stations that the mainstream hasn't taken control of since they abandoned it in the 60s.
They daren't admit that though.
It's possible. I'd imagine that since pretty much everyone in the political class believed Hillary was going to win, much of the external political infrastructure with which to coordinate corrupt activities was setup within the Clinton Foundation, as it was an already corrupt group under full control and outside of FOIA jurisdiction.
Which would make the Clinton Foundation a tangled mess of loose ends just waiting to be unraveled in any serious endeavor to fight the overall government corruption.
A backdoor to evidence if you will.
The problem with these people is that they think equality and equity are the same thing. They aren't. Equality is everyone has the same opportunity. Equity is everyone has the same outcome.
By definition you cannot have both. The Left wants equity and refuses to admit both the required discrimination to get it and the lowering of prosperity for all as the outcome.
That is the fatal flaw in Marxism.
Well either it's impossible to find someone for the position who can do what needs to be done, or the doj is so corrupt and independently powerful that it doesn't matter what AG you have.
I tend to think the latter is more likely true.
"The slap nor the bear spray were deadly force - this is not am authorized use of deadly force"
WRONG.
Deadly force is authorized when attacked. Stop making up rules. If you are attacked, you have a God-given right to defend yourself, including using deadly force.
The guy with the gun was the aggressor. The guy who used mace was using self-defense. Thus the guy who shot him committed murder. That is the difference. ACTIONS are the difference between a crime and defense.
STOP making up rules about when you can or cannot use a gun. You use whatever you have when someone attacks you to defend your life. I don't care if someone sprays water at you or comes at you with bare fists, if they are attacking and you are armed, you have a right to defend yourself. Period.
Don't make up rules here. The actions of the killer are what makes him a murderer, not what weapons were employed by who. You need to see the danger in your argument. If the attacker had the mace and the minister had the gun, and it was the attacker who got shot, do you see the difference? Would you be saying "that minister shouldn't have shot the poor Antifa guy because he just had mace"?
NO. Because then you could clearly see the underlying problem. The Antifa guy was the attacker, no matter if one had a banana and one had an orange. The criminal is the attacker. The crime is the attack. Using a gun and a death resulting only complicate the crime and make it murder.