OT: Shocking news

The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It doesn't always work.

High-gain, un-understood chaotic systems are hard to control. The universe works that way.

What's impressive is that "experts" think they do understand, and can control, such systems.

The New York Times has "rededicated" itself to honest reporting. I only regret that I had but one subscription to cancel.

Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

wt

Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to go vote

Michael Moore of all people said that Trump would win and even made a powerful speech as to why.

I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they feed.

It was my impression that the "coastal elites" primarily mocked the overtly bigoted working-class people, so why the rest of the simple country folk would become angered by aspersions cast on people whose values they are also in active opposition to, or at least do not share, is certainly anyone's guess.

I doubt voters cared much about the /press/. Thumbing their noses to those in power is far more plausible.

I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst possible choice for Sec. State.

What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?

--sp

Terrell:

Newt

now

I must admit that the Dems are showing unusual sense in not claiming vote r fraud after more or less discounting it earlier (more or less because the y did leave wiggle room that the Russians might hack the vote in Trump's fa vor).

Maybe they just didn't want to go through the "hanging chad" embarrassmen t again.

Are you even capable of recognizing that you're parroting the DNC stereot ype of all working-class-whites-are-bigots, much less refraining from it?

Perhaps you fancy yourself to be one of the elite...

"Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.

Apparently it takes a Brit comedian to "get" what so many of America's la mestream elites don't (NSFW):

Mark L. Fergerson

It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on you. Hmmm.

--sp

I don't know, when Conservative comedians poke fun at $8 Starbucks latte drinking academic hipster social justice warriors from NYC, I think it's pretty funny, too. They are insufferable, aren't they?

I don't get upset, because that's not me. Why does Real America take it so personally? Maybe they need thicker skins. What a bunch of cupcakes.

Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space because someone made some meanie-head jokes?

Nate silver punted on the election. He had trump at 30% which was the thres hold he set to stay credible and not get laughed at when hillary beat him. He knew something was not right. He started calling a lot of state electi ons at 50 50. I kind of felt sorry for him cause i think he knew he was in a box.

I read that. The bagdad bob speeches were more believable

I think part of the problem is that there isn't some gold standard of racism, sexism, or homophobia to go by. There is no "sexist" measuring stick maintained by the NIST like a platinum meter bar, or one for homophobia, or one for racism.

Some people want a wall, and some don't. Some of the people who don't believe that construction of it would be racist, and when they make that statement it's not out of intentional malice, they're simply stating a fact which they know, as obvious on its face as that the sky is blue.

And you're sitting around wondering why in the world they're calling you a racist, and they're sitting around wondering how in the world you can't notice that the sky is blue.

How did they get that way? Well, they probably learned it in a "liberal university" slash indoctrination center. If that's the case, then it starts to make you wonder if anyone can be trained to believe just about anything.

And if that's the case, what room is left for moral absolutes?

If I absolutely had to pick, Secretary of Defense, probably.

Reason being is that he's finally right, it's not worth facing down a nuclear conflict over the Ukraine or Georgia. What some of the other Conservative hawks available for the job would suggest in that situation is definitely anyone's guess.

The question is would Russia be satisfied with that. Unfortunately, probably not. Maybe we'll all be uploaded into computers before we have to worry about it. Probably not.

As it sees is popular to say these days: least-worst option.