Glad the free speech folks are in charge
-
Amen.
It was so far out from every other poll, I'd like to know how heavy the thumb on the scale was. If it was rigged, it was definitely election interference.
-
Amen.
It was so far out from every other poll, I'd like to know how heavy the thumb on the scale was. If it was rigged, it was definitely election interference.
@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
Amen.
It was so far out from every other poll, I'd like to know how heavy the thumb on the scale was. If it was rigged, it was definitely election interference.
An outlier like that was far more statistically probable than every frigging poll being within 2. That’s how statistics and random sampling works…
-
Discovery's going to be fun. Did Selzer know her numbers were bogus? If so why did she publish the results when it was obvious that she was SUCH an outlier?
OTOH, he's charging her with fraud. He won the state, and the election. I've been assured that if no one is harmed, even if there IS fraud, a crime has been committed.
-
You’re all off base completely there’s no fraud there will be no discovery this will get tossed.
Long before the free speech crowd threatened to investigate her for her speech, Nate Silver was giving pundits a hard time for criticizing her so harshly. He wants outlier polls to be published and wants pollsters to have the courage to publish their true results and not sit on them if they’re not in line with everyone else’s. That sort of censorship doesn’t lead to a good result.
-
You’re all off base completely there’s no fraud there will be no discovery this will get tossed.
Long before the free speech crowd threatened to investigate her for her speech, Nate Silver was giving pundits a hard time for criticizing her so harshly. He wants outlier polls to be published and wants pollsters to have the courage to publish their true results and not sit on them if they’re not in line with everyone else’s. That sort of censorship doesn’t lead to a good result.
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
You’re all off base completely there’s no fraud there will be no discovery this will get tossed.
He's alleging fraud. Isn't that the whole point?
IF there's no fraud, there's no discovery. You're right, but that's a cart/horse thing.
Who decides there's no fraud to prevent discovery?
(I'm not sure I agree with this suit, just spit balling)
I think Nate's right - President-Elect TRump is alleging that she published her supposedly fake poll to influence an election. Goodness, we can't have fake news released to affect election results, can we?
Right New York Times? RIGHT?
-
Lying to get money is fraud. Lying to get votes is politics.
But it’s highly unlikely she made anything up. You can calculate the odds for an outlier poll of several points, and they are high enough that they should be seen among the hundreds of polls released in a presidential election year.
-
Ken White put it this way in his podcast, talking about the likely unconstitutionality of a Minnesota law banning political deep fakes:
“The closer you get to getting money for your false statement, the more likely it is to be outside the First Amendment, and the more you're getting a vote based on it, the more likely it is to be protected by the First Amendment.”
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Ken White put it this way in his podcast, talking about the likely unconstitutionality of a Minnesota law banning political deep fakes:
“The closer you get to getting money for your false statement, the more likely it is to be outside the First Amendment, and the more you're getting a vote based on it, the more likely it is to be protected by the First Amendment.”
@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
“The closer you get to getting money for your false statement, the more likely it is to be outside the First Amendment, and the more you're getting a vote based on it, the more likely it is to be protected by the First Amendment.”
Well put.
-
Apart from his more devout followers, does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
-
Apart from his more devout followers, does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
You know what's worse than a sore loser?
A sore winner.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
You know what's worse than a sore loser?
A sore winner.
@George-K said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
You know what's worse than a sore loser?
A sore winner.
I was going to say a sore asshole.
-
@George-K said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?
You know what's worse than a sore loser?
A sore winner.
I was going to say a sore asshole.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
I was going to say a sore asshole.
Does he do buttsecks? I had no idea.
ETA: NTTAWWTIYKWIM
-
From the Serious Trouble podcast:
Josh Barro:
But now Trump is suing and saying that her poll was not just wrong, but it was a violation of Iowa consumer protection law, that it was misleading the public by being such a wrong poll. And so that's not a thing, right?Ken White:
It's not, and this is pure petulance by Trump. This poll really got under his skin. He got really upset by it. He grumbled over it for weeks, and now he sees this opportunity to strike back, and it's part of a general narrative that pleases his base of going after the media. But no, using consumer protection laws to go after political speech I think is not going to satisfy any First Amendment analysis and shouldn't. So the Supreme Court has made it clear that you can't just by labeling something false take it outside of First Amendment protection — that it's really only outside of First Amendment protection when it's combined with things that make it actual fraud, like trying to get money from somebody, stuff like that. And absent a gigantic rearrangement on the Supreme Court on this issue, I don't think it's at all plausible that they're going to uphold this.Now, to me, ironically, this is what some resistance people, what some very anti-Trump people have been asking for years. We've got to police the media and get all the fake news and the disinformation and all that because it's defrauding the public. We've got to use traditional fraud and consumer protection measures to stop all this propaganda from the right. And this is, well, this is what it looks like, lawsuits like this suing under consumer protection laws because you didn't like a poll and you could see how broadly this could work because it doesn't have to be a poll. It could be anything. It could be a story about the Trump campaign that he believes was false. It could be anything if you accept this theory that it is a violation of consumer protection law to give an opinion to the public based on your political analysis that turns out to be wrong. So I think it's very frivolous. I think it's going to have a really hard time even at the motion to dismiss stage and we'll see.
-
All part of the election interference reform.
Go get 'em, Trump!
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:
All part of the election interference reform.
Go get 'em, Trump!
And presumably, if he loses the suit, you will call for the reform of a hopelessly biased legal system.
