Are Trump supporters just going to take it?

what's so fascist about that?

 

What about the analysts from Market Financial?
https://t.co/ea0Tu8TIGt

 

The [Republican] Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday [4/21/2020] reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

"When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."
We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We are going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” part of President Trump's instructions to the mob on Jan. 6, 2021.

"A federal appeals court is allowing the Justice Department to continue looking at documents marked as classified that were seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort.

NBC reports, "Former President Donald Trump will be the subject of a second special counsel investigation, this one focused on his handling of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home and “key aspects” of the investigation into his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday.

"Garland said that on Friday morning he signed a letter formally naming John L. Smith, known as Jack Smith, a prosecutor at The Hague and a former federal prosecutor, to begin serving as special counsel “immediately.” Smith was previously the chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, where he oversaw public corruption and elections-related investigations.

"Smith is assigned with investigating whether anyone violated the law in connection with efforts to “interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia will continue investigating those individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol.

"Garland said that Smith will also have in his portfolio "the ongoing investigation involving classified documents and other presidential records" taken from Trump's White House "as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation.”

"In an interview with Fox News, Trump criticized the probes as "so unfair" and "so political," saying he will "not partake" in the special counsel's investigation."

 

Nooooo, we are not.
Maybe the trump clan are, because they don't know reality from fiction.
But real Americans still are democrat/republican/independent for the vast majority.

 

Yes though thats not all of the issue.

 

This quote is from the analysts from Market Financial:

Do they also not understand Gauss's work?

 

Just because he's a better pick than anything the D's are putting up doesn't mean there's not ALSO plenty of fair criticisms to make against him.

 

Is that a real question?

He is the best advertising for the Democrats now.

 

Trump is the rights candidate, Trump gets out the dem vote... up to you guys to remove him in the primaries if you don't want him

 

Let's review actual results:
Trump - $2.39 gas the day he left office
Biden - $5-$8 gas
Trump - law and order
Biden - violent crime skyrocketing
Trump - 1.6% inflation
Biden - 9.6% inflation
Trump - no new wars
Biden - Ukraine
Trump - secure borders
Biden - Spending billions to defend Ukraine's borders while leaving our own wide open
Trump - fentanyl was a PROBLEM... not a CRISIS
Biden - fentanyl is a CRISIS
Trump - NATO nations secure
Biden - NATO nations attacked

 

Trump's a great guy... but old. GO DeSANTIS!

 

You didn't answer the question. If you consider him a viable alternative despite the "fair criticisms" you (and Fox, and the WSJ, and the NYP, and his former allies) make against him, that is the definition of "standing by him". So what is this mythical "third option" you seem to be invoking.

 

Same.

 

Correct, as the above quote proves. There is no reason to expect voting to be Gaussian. The notion of comparing election results to lottery results shows they don't understand why "Gaussian" could only be expected to describe certain parts of the distribution of votes.

 

Few seem to be standing by him. Both his wife and daughter came out and said they want no part of this now.

 

I do wonder if Trump will end up running even if he doesn't get the nomination this time.

 

So the analysts from Market Financial do not understand Gauss. What about the authors, reviewers and editors of the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210722109

 

Right. They don't understand that Gaussian distribution assumes the relevant factors are independent and sum arithmetically. Neither of those assumptions can be justified in the case of election results.

They are not claiming the distribution has to be Gaussian in order not to be fraudulent. You don't seem to understand the difference between observing a near-Gaussian distribution of some data and assuming the distribution has to be Gaussian for the data to be honest. Consider the movement of stock prices. We can observe lots of nice Gaussian distributions. But that doesn't mean that when any given stock price -- or even the whole market -- moves far out of the Gaussian that the prices are being manipulated.

 

Aren't prices usually being manipulated?

 

Very likely: he craves the attention.

 

No, and being far from Gaussian is not evidence of manipulation.

 

So the analysts from Market Financial do not understand some basic probability theory stuff? You can't sarcastically say "what a surprise!" like you did in the case of the WP journalist who probably has a BA.

But if it does not indicate fraud why would they look into this distribution in the first place? Also some articles they cite explicitly say that deviations from Gauss mean fraud. Although they do not explicitly say it means fraud they insinuate it. All countries Gaussian except for Russia and Uganda. And why US data are missing from that plot? This looks like data selection to fit an agenda.

 

The number of bins can be whatever.

It says the same about Michigan elections what the plot in the PNAS article says about Russian elections.

 

Or are pretending not to.

Sure I can. It's political.

People do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

Then they are wrong.

Then they are dishonest (surprise!).

No, only the countries looked at, and only closer to Gaussian than Russia and Uganda.

It's not my plot.

Look, I'm not saying there was no electoral fraud in Russia, or in MI. What I am saying is that just comparing the distribution to the Gaussian is not a very good test for fraud.

 

Alternative options to "...join in on ridiculing their old leader? Or will they stand up with him..." include:
-Doing both; ridiculing his failures while standing with him in attempt to correct them (sometimes referred to as 'constructive criticism')
-Ignoring him until we actually know who he's running against
-Viewing him as one of many terrible options, of which the 'least worst' will be the likely choices available, kinda like how many did with Clinton and Biden

In other words, your two boxes everyone must conform to do not adequately represent the multitude of positions that exist.