get your tinfoil out, folks

get your tinfoil out, folks

It's obvious something was added.  With the perfect make-up all debate participants use (ever since Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked bad on TV), it's unlikely she had a visible blemish on stage.

Then there's the video of it disappearing before our eyes.

Cutting off microphones, adding blemishes, ..... there's no level so low the Liberal press won't stoop to.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics

commercial plug for Dr Pimple Popper

Everyone forgetting bernie got burned by clinton. Why would someone bail out the dnc if theyre not getting the nomination? And bernie doesnt have the balls to speak up. So would he stand up for our nation if he cant stand up for himself?

Yangs mic got cut i heard.

#needtoborrowsometinfoil

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Everyone forgetting bernie got burned by clinton. Why would someone bail out the dnc if theyre not getting the nomination? And bernie doesnt have the balls to speak up. So would he stand up for our nation if he cant stand up for himself?

Yangs mic got cut i heard.

#needtoborrowsometinfoil

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There's evidence of Yang talking loud enough to be heard on others' mics, but not being picked up on his own mic.  There's also video of people turning to look at Yang as he spoke while the audio wasn't picking him up.

Now, Marianne Williamson is claiming she had her mic cut, too.

If either of those had been like Trump, they'd have leaned over to their neighbor's mic and let the moderators know their mic wasn't working.

The most interesting thing after the debate/s is that nobody is talking about Bernie much.  His "Santa Claus" impersonation has so much competition compared to 2016, he really has nothing to use to distance himself from the pack.

Bernie was "the other Democrat" in 2016, even though he was a registered Independent.  Now, he's obscured by 22+ other Democrats who are all pandering to Millennials by offering free everything.

And I don't think "Trump's a big, mean bully!!" is working.  People want a bully when that person is representing them in a fight or negotiation.  Whining about his personality and outright lying about him are about all they can muster to denigrate the President.  Most of us are smart enough to look at results over personality.  33% of voters are not party-first voters.  Those are the people the Dems have to lure away from Trump in 2016.  I don't see these radical policies doing that.

Even the MSM had some analysts saying the winner of the Dem debates was Donald Trump.

There's evidence of Yang talking loud enough to be heard on others' mics, but not being picked up on his own mic.  There's also video of people turning to look at Yang as he spoke while the audio wasn't picking him up.

Now, Marianne Williamson is claiming she had her mic cut, too.

If either of those had been like Trump, they'd have leaned over to their neighbor's mic and let the moderators know their mic wasn't working.

The most interesting thing after the debate/s is that nobody is talking about Bernie much.  His "Santa Claus" impersonation has so much competition compared to 2016, he really has nothing to use to distance himself from the pack.

Bernie was "the other Democrat" in 2016, even though he was a registered Independent.  Now, he's obscured by 22+ other Democrats who are all pandering to Millennials by offering free everything.

And I don't think "Trump's a big, mean bully!!" is working.  People want a bully when that person is representing them in a fight or negotiation.  Whining about his personality and outright lying about him are about all they can muster to denigrate the President.  Most of us are smart enough to look at results over personality.  33% of voters are not party-first voters.  Those are the people the Dems have to lure away from Trump in 2016.  I don't see these radical policies doing that.

Even the MSM had some analysts saying the winner of the Dem debates was Donald Trump.

Flapp
"Most of us are smart enough to look at results over personality.  33% of voters are not party-first voters"
Is that true in Honolulu and  most American large cities?
I'm making plans for another total Democrat take over and
the results.
Hopefully you are doing the same.

What in the blue f&$k is going on?  Pimplegate?! Micmutegate?!

Who looks that closely enough to notice a chin pimple?  I guess with HDTV, people can and will, but WTF?  That people would try that is pretty troubling, but those that actually noticed it is also 

Anyways, continued lunacy. . .

Flapp
"Most of us are smart enough to look at results over personality.  33% of voters are not party-first voters"
Is that true in Honolulu and  most American large cities?
I'm making plans for another total Democrat take over and
the results.
Hopefully you are doing the same.

I don't make general comments about voters unless I'm speaking nationally.  If I wanted to narrow my focus to the state of Hawaii, I'd have said so.

We all know the political party that has a stranglehold on the state.  But in the General Election, unless and until the National Popular Vote actually determines the winner, Hawaii is a non-player.  Our four electoral votes can't affect the outcome at all.

The 33% I was talking about are the "Blue" or "Leans Blue" states that Trump turned "Red" as well as the true swing states that have no party leaning year to year.  That's the group that the Dems running for President are losing, because they are chasing radical Liberal voters to win the DNC nomination.

Once the nominee is officially named, it's going to be all but impossible for them to slide back to the center after all their crazy talk for over a year.

If they think they can pull that off, they haven't factored in Trump.  You can't preach for open borders, healthcare for illegals, decriminalizing crossing the US border, and free everything without Trump pointing out how crazy and unrealistic it all is.

I have approximately zero confidence or belief in the accuracy of such "models" (in this case a "partisan-based model"), whichever side they come down on, but...

Election model that predicted 2018 blue wave has Trump losing, liberal voters ‘terrified’

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/election-model-that-predicted-2018-blue-wave-has-trump-losing-liberal-voters-terrified

A university election model that predicted the blue wave in the House in 2018 almost to the seat is predicting a big loss by President Trump next year due to an explosion of bitter partisanship and Trump hate.

An election forecast model designed by Rachel Bitecofer, assistant director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, predicted that Trump will lose the Electoral College 297-197, with 270 of 538 needed to win.

* * * * *
The original more detailed article is here: http://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2019/07/01-2020-election-forecast/

(Note that twice in that article she parenthetically refers to Trump success with certain demographics due to "suppression/defection materials by the Russians".)

I wrote her and asked for her forecast for the 2016 election. She provided this response:

Thanks for reaching out with your question. I finished my PhD in summer of 2015 and did not forecast the 2016 election. Indeed, the failure of the Democrat's "demographics are destiny" wall to materialize in 2016 is partly what inspired me to start thinking about why, and to develop the theory and model I developed for 2017, 2018, and 2020 (2017 I had the theory before the election and built the model after the elections to see if I could find a way to quantify it).

In the academic version of this research, I will be modeling 2016, 2014 and on back and my theoretical expectation is that as I move backwards, my partisan-based model will become less powerful and less accurate. That is what I would want to see.

The 2018 take-over of the House was almost a given.  What should have also been a given was that they should have taken, or have come very close to taking, the Senate, too.

Midterm elections which occur as the House, Senate and Oval Office have the same party in power almost inevitably shift power in Congress to the other party.

It took 2 elections for the GOP to take the House and the Senate under Obama after the Dems held Congress for 2 years.  The Dems lost the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014.

The GOP promised to right all the Obama administration's wrongs if they only had the Congress.  Didn't happen.  Then they said, "We need a Republican President." 

Careful what you wish for!   

Historically, the balance of power in Congress always swings back.

Models aren't needed.  It's cyclical.

The GOP promised to right all the Obama administration's wrongs if they only had the Congress.  Didn't happen. 

And the useless bastards lost thousands of GOP members, including me. 
Not another penny from me, the spineless wimps. 
Not that Hawaii registers by party.

And the useless bastards lost thousands of GOP members, including me. 
Not another penny from me, the spineless wimps. 
Not that Hawaii registers by party.

The Swamp is evil, dark and deep,   
But I have promises to keep,   
And miles to go before I sleep,   
And miles to go before I sleep.

That should be Trump's slogan.  He's keeping promises and has more energy than anyone I've seen in his age bracket, let alone as President.