On 1/9/2025 8:37 AM, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-01-09, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers are laughing at you.
>
> Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
> or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
He has no case.

J Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> wrote in news:vlp154$3f80j$4@dont-email.me:

> On 1/9/2025 8:37 AM, pothead wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>>
>>> You mean the free press was invented to lie, subvert, and
>>> propagandize?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers are laughing at you.
>>
>> Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
>> or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
> He has no case.
>

But the good part is by filing
a civil suit Trump can be ordered
by the court to sit down for a
sworn and taped deposition. And
he cannot hide behind the Fifth
Amendment this time........

Trump pleaded the fifth more than 400 times
in fraud deposition, video shows
Jan 31 2023
http://tinyurl.com/3xty43c3

pothead <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0GTfP.922643$bYV2.417940@fx17.iad:

> On 1/9/2025 4:44 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented [sic] to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>
> No, and they don't do any of that.
>
> The inaccurate Iowa poll was not "election interference." Only morons
> could think it was.
>

Should all winning candidates
sue the polls showing they would
lose?

Did Truman sue?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-nov-01-mn-38174-story.html

Did Kennedy sue?

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-drama-behind-president-kennedys-
1960-election-win

Did Carter sue?

https://www.historynet.com/gerald-fords-near-miracle-of-1976/

On 1/9/2025 8:37 AM, pothead wrote:
>
> Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
> or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
> That will not be easy.

The case may not even get that far. Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer
Fraud Protection Act. In order to get to discovery, Trump will have to
convince the judge that he (as a consumer, which is only a natural
person in Iowa, not a campaign) has stated an actionable claim that he
personally had to spend money as a result of the poll. His filing only
mentions that his campaign had to spend money as a result of the poll.

But discovery or not, this is just classic Trump being a whining baby
who can't stand victory (let alone defeat).

pothead wrote:
> On 2025-01-09, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers are laughing at you.
>
> Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
> or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
> That will not be easy.
>

First amendment includes the freedom to lie. This narrowly
restricted in commercial speech when lying is used for fraud. A
newspaper can lie openly or obscurely as long as this is not a
ploy to defraud real people of real money.

Even though the deleterious lies of Fox are rampant in your
bullshit, because is not getting money from you, they are not
restricted.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

pothead wrote:
> On 1/9/2025 4:44 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear*  you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented [sic] to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>
> No, and they don't do any of that.
>
> The inaccurate Iowa poll was not "election interference." Only
> morons could think it was.

Colonial press was outrageously partisan and lied, subverted, and
poropagandised. The founding fathers recognised this was valuable
in allowing issues to be fully discussed and explored. So they
protected speech and press. They expected citizens to take the
energy to sort through it.

You repeating your Gilded God's Los Angeles lies speaks to your
lassitude not the evils of the press.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

In article <vlp154$3f80j$4@dont-email.me>, j_carlson@gmx.com says...
>
> On 1/9/2025 8:37 AM, pothead wrote:
> > On 2025-01-09, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
> >> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
> >>> hyperpartisanise elections.
> >>
> >> You mean the free press was invented to lie, subvert, and
> >> propagandize?
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers are laughing at you.
> >
> > Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
> > or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
> He has no case.

CBS gave him 15 million.

On 1/9/25 11:37 AM, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-01-09, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers are laughing at you.
>
> Unless Trump can prove in a court of law that the pollster either knew,
> or manipulated the data for partisan reasons, IMHO he has no case.
> That will not be easy.

He may not have a great case - but after being
victimized by 'lawfare' that isn't the POINT.
He has to show he WILL fight whatever and put
serious assholes under the bright lights. The
court of public opinion is more useful here
than any court of law.

Get it now ?

As for Ms Pollster ... if you've got a big blob
of kinda subjective raw data in yer face, personal
biases WILL influence what conclusions you draw.
There may have been no CONSCIOUS intent to arrive
at the wrong conclusion and she could argue,
honestly, that this was how she saw it. The
court, MAYbe even the public, may see it her way.

186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>   He may not have a great case - but after being
>   victimized by 'lawfare' that isn't the POINT.
>   He has to show he WILL fight whatever and put
>   serious assholes under the bright lights. The
>   court of public opinion is more useful here
>   than any court of law.

idjt drops his suits the day before he has to testify in discovery.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:27:24 -0800, pothead <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/9/2025 4:44 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>
>> You mean the free press was invented [sic] to lie, subvert, and
>> propagandize?
>
>No, and they don't do any of that.
>
>The inaccurate Iowa poll was not "election interference." Only morons could
>think it was.

So, Trump is a moron, in your opinion?

Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:27:24 -0800, pothead <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/9/2025 4:44 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:10:22 -0800, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> I could*swear* you libs were against election interference....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not. We invented the free press to interfere, antagonise, and
>>>> hyperpartisanise elections.
>>>
>>> You mean the free press was invented [sic] to lie, subvert, and
>>> propagandize?
>>
>>No, and they don't do any of that.
>>
>>The inaccurate Iowa poll was not "election interference." Only morons could
>>think it was.
>
> So, Trump is a moron, in your opinion?

<what Rex Tillerson said>

--
Real software engineers work from 9 to 5, because that is the way the job is
described in the formal spec. Working late would feel like using an
undocumented external procedure.