y Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Where did I say it mattered, electorally? The discussion is about whether polls were accurate in 2016. I simply pointed out that nationally, they were: they nailed Clinton's share of the popular vote.

Please tell me you realize the following:

1. Whether the thing being measured is relevant to some other process has nothing to do with whether it is being measured ACCURATELY;
2. Polling accuracy in elections is not "did the poll predict the eventual winner?" It's "how close, mathematically, was the poll to the final result?"

 

Yeah. Looks like Dirty Debbie may be involved in Seth Murder cover-up.

 

Your repeated failure to address anything I wrote is noted.

Instead, you deflect again, with yet ANOTHER completely unrelated claim, this one yet ANOTHER Gateway Pundit link, this one a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED claim about the Seth Rich case -- a "case", by the way, that has been so thoroughly debunked that you discredit yourself simply by mentioning it as a possibility.

Good job on ensuring you will never again be taken seriously.

 

Most of them are clearly not ready for that. The next election may get them there, but I have been thinking that for the last 4 election cycles.

 

How many scandals do we have now, based on unsourced claims? Isn't it a little late for the virgin act?

MSNBC Analyst Shocks Host as He Comes Unhinged, Insists Jared Kushner is a Russian Agent

 

What scandals do we have based completely on something a blogger made up? I'm not talking "anonymous sourcing" -- I'm talking COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. As in, "a mere assertion by one of the dumbest blogs on the Internet, with ZERO evidence offered to back it up."

 

As the rural embattled police chief pointed out, "I got the body which is dead! And the motive which is money!" Add power.

 

As it seems to be your pattern now, instead of gathering your wits about you, and engaging what is the actual argument, you again feel the need to drift off into this other dimension, by deflecting with some other example that has nothing to do with the current argument.

From a sheer point of view of logic and facts, you seem to have gotten out of focus here.

Didn't we already explain to you what a "back channel actually" is; http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/no-kushner-didn-t-seek-a-legitimate-back-channel-955217475931? Pay attention to Joy Reid school us all on what a "back channel" is. What Kushner did was no "back channel" proposition. So, in order for you to ask the question about a back channel, you need to know exactly what it is first. Pay attention to David Frums explanation as well. It is crystal clear that what Kushner did was no "back channel".

 

IOW, you would rather spew more ad hominem nonsense than actually answer my question.

 

Yep, I figured this last post of mine would do you in, when you revealed that you did not know what a "back channel" was.

By the way, I can't answer your question. You are asking the question in the context of someone who does not understand the meaning of a "back channel". That's why I posted that link. Both Joy Reid and David Frum are explaining the meaning to you.

 

What was Kushner doing there as a private citizen suggesting to commit espionage behind the back of a sitting president? Kushner had no official government role. McCain even made this point.

 

How do you know that these "anonymous" sources aren't fictional?

 

Uhh.. David Frum is a first rate idiot.

Here he is fantasizing the run-up to the 2020 election:

The business community learned its lesson early. “You work for me, you don’t criticize me,” the president was reported to have told one major federal contractor, after knocking billions off his company’s stock-market valuation with an angry tweet. Wise business leaders take care to credit Trump’s personal leadership for any good news, and to avoid saying anything that might displease the president or his family.

The media have grown noticeably more friendly to Trump as well. The proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner was delayed for more than a year, during which Time Warner’s CNN unit worked ever harder to meet Trump’s definition of fairness. Under the agreement that settled the Department of Justice’s antitrust complaint against Amazon, the company’s founder, Jeff Bezos, has divested himself of The Washington Post. The paper’s new owner—an investor group based in Slovakia—has closed the printed edition and refocused the paper on municipal politics and lifestyle coverage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

 

I see that you came here to expose how grossly unprepared you are to debate the substance of my post, by attacking the messenger and not the message. Congratulations! You accomplished your primary goal to go off message. I am awarding you five stars for this masterful achievement in incompetence of engagement. Who would have ever guessed you'd be getting the award?

 

The Obama Transition Team was in bed with the Iranians.

 

You get two five stars now for doing the same thing twice. Gosh you're good. You simply are totally paralyzed when it comes to engaging in one subject at a time because you lack the necessary arguing points to finish out that first argument, so you start another one. Gosh, I wish I had the talent to do that.

 

No secret setup in the Iranian embassy however away from the eyes and ears of the IC agencies and after Russia lifted Trump over the finish line. CONTEXT is relevant.

 

Obama did the same years ago. It is perfectly acceptable, common, and NOT a crime.

 

Because credible media sources don't have a habit of simply making up sources. They put their own credibility on the line when they use anonymous sources: so they do it carefully.

The bigger question with anonymous sources from credible outlets is not that the source is fictional: it's that the source has a reason for leaking, and sometimes the media outlet doesn't know the true reason for the leak. Sources will rarely outright lie, but they may not tell the whole truth. So like any claim, you have to weigh what anonymous sources say.

 

No, Obama did not do the same thing. When are you people going to get this? It's not that hard. Let some people like David Frum explain it to you; http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/no-kushner-didn-t-seek-a-legitimate-back-channel-955217475931

 

These fake news outlets have no credibility.

 

Then say that and stop whining about anonymous sources per se.

Unfortunately for you, most normal people consider major media outlets like the NYT and WaPo credible.

 

The contest is that your making a delusional claim in order to avoid admitting that your party ran a old washed up Drunk that lost the election because of her own screw ups. Which is fine. The Left hasn't hit bottom yet.

 

Really? Prove it.. No doubt you are a "Christian".

 

Why not? When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, its the one that got hit that yelps, and you folks are a yelping mess. The old standard was 3 verified named sources, willing to go on the record before publishing. These click-whores run nothing more than rumors, front page, above the fold. As a result, Americans Trust the WH more than media.



Credibility, gone!

And no one ever deserved more to lose it!

Media comes in 3rd behind "don't know"!