Sunday, October 2, 2016

Do Not Trust the Polls - October Surprise

The Vanity Post | October 1st, 2016 | 1Eagle 

As I warned you prior to the 1st Debate, there was good reason to be cautious about putting any trust in the polls. Herman Cain has been hammering this topic very efficiently, whereas Sean Hannity actually said he trusts the polls.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'SCIENTIFIC POLL'. The average student having done well in any college level Statistics Class can tell you that. The 'margins of error' were blown out of the water so badly in 1996, they they can no longer be said to have any value. Who determines the margin of error? By what means do they calculate it? And why did 99% of polls in 1996 not only miss the mark but were completely outside their margins of error? A poll of even 20,000 people cannot be said to be accurate in a country of over 300 MILLION.

In my last post I warned you that the goal post would be lowered for Hillary, and with the excuse of any kind of win, albeit a purely debate win by scoring the most "points", or however, that this would unleash the skewed poll results.

But first we have to be properly brainwashed so as to accept this odd result, and so Hillary had to unleash what was apparently a pre-meditated crime of character assassination on Trump (ie: the gangster gal who was insulted) and having the moderator set up to be a "fact checker" to pummel Trump in the 2nd half of the debate to put him on the defensive. I'm sure Crowley must have been impressed. Here in America, Free Speech no longer exists on College Campuses or in Political Debates.

By the numbers, it went sort of like this:
1) Clinton Camp sets the stage with "War on Women" narrative. It never made any sense until now.
2) Clinton Camp sets stage by baiting Trump with Kelly's tough questions in line with "war on women"
3) Clinton Camp publicizes request for moderator to become a "fact checker"
4) Clinton sends signal for "fact checker moderator" to activate "OK, Fact Checker get ready to work on this one!" Afterwards, moderator starts hammering Trump.
5) Hillary sets off the "insulted woman" narrative with a last minute mention, followed by planned articles to activate the smear (character assassination) of Trump.
6) As days go by, we start getting articles like this one in the New York Times (click NYT link for the article).

All this just to make it seem reasonable for Hillarys numbers to go up when she is clearly not exciting anybody and she was just photographed weeks ago going into convulsions on the street. Something drastic had to happen, some shock and awe, some October surprise, something really big to get the bad news off the Front Page.

Article Link

T-Shirt