From: Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:00:50 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 1/2/2025 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 10:11:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2025 8:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:43:16 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> So, she should have not published in 2024 after examination and
>>>> published in 2016 and 2020 after examination because of this clear party
>>>> motivation thing? Laughter, indeed.
>>>
>>> Good lord, you're dense. You've had your question answered no fewer
>>> than three times and you ask it again. Oh and you snipped the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> "It was very clear to anyone paying attention that 2024 was very
>>> different for party motivation. Seltzer's failure to check her
>>> methodology problem resulted in her career ending. At this point, you
>>> are asking hypotheticals of hypotheticals since you are presuming that
>>> she checked her methodology when she saw the poll this year was out of
>>> bed. My position is she did not and the easiest explanation is
>>> usually the correct one. "
>>>
>>> I never said jack about not publishing the polls yet you keep implying
>>> that I'm saying that.
>>
>> That means you have not answered my questions on whether she should have
>> published in 2016, 2020 or 2024 after checking her methodology.
>
> Laughter.
> Already answered no fewer than three times.
Bullshit. You can't have answered it because you admited that you never
said jack about it.
> Your inability to comprehend responses doesn't mean they don't exit.
>
> <eyeroll>
>
>>
>> There are two possible assumptions: she did not check her methodology in
>> any of 2016, 2020 and 2024. In that case, you think she was wrong in all
>> those years not to check. OK, I understand that argument and it is
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> This has been addressed as well.
>
>> But, it doesn't end the discussion. Let's assume she did the right thing
>> and checked. What then? Publish or not publish? You refuse to answer.
>
> And this was addressed as wel.