They wonder why we think some of them are stupid.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB1aUoou?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
(This is linked from an MSN news aggregator, so it might not be paywalled.)
If at first you don’t secede…
What is he so mad about? Texas is still red. My vote and any other Texan blue voters didn’t count, as usual.
I believe the answer is found in my bolded part in this statement:
“Patrick, the state’s leading supporter of President Donald Trump, echoed many of the Republican chief executive’s as-yet-unsupported allegations of irregularities and partisan chicanery in last week’s presidential election.”
IOW “The president lurves me the bestest of all!”
Patrick is a toady, flatterer, flunky, sycophant, lickspittle, bootlicker, suck-up.
And gunning for higher office.
Where is this, “up to one million dollars” coming from? A grant from the Trump foundation? Eric’s piggy bank? Deutsche Banc?
Taxpayers, I would assume.
That site appears to be paywalled. Is there any indication of what fine print there might be in that offering? Such as: This bounty will be paid out only if the conviction is for voter fraud on a large enough scale to change the outcome of the Presidential election, or This bounty will be paid out only if the conviction involved voter fraud that benefited a Democratic candidate.
Also, is there any indication of where the money for any putative payouts is to come from? I wouldn’t think he has the authority to offer it out of anyone’s purse but his own.
ETA: I see that I’m not the only one with that last question. Does the linked story address it?
This Texas Tribune article isn’t paywalled (I think).
Patrick said that anyone who provides information that leads to a conviction will receive at least $25,000. The money will come from Patrick’s campaign fund, according to spokesperson Sherry Sylvester.
Word to the wise–anyone who’s run their research proposal past an IRB knows that a disproportionate reward for participation endangers your findings, and sometimes your participants.
Indulge a non-academic – because such disproportionate rewards incentivize shoddy research/cherry-picked data/hastily-designed clinical trials?
Also, what does IRB stand for (I presume it’s some sort of Review Board)?
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio claim that Biden talking to foreign leaders since his election is the same as Michael Flynn’s dealings with Russians.
As Biden talks to foreign leaders, GOP tries to create a controversy?
A local Miami television station did a report on unaffiliated and unidentified candidates who caused disruptions in the voting in their local area, hinting possible dirty tricks
Internal review board.
Over-incentivizing leads to participants lying in order to participate, and leads people not to disengage from the study even when they should or feel too vulnerable. So if I want to run a study where I do blood draws, for example, it needs to pay participants enough to get a good sample for an uncomfortable procedure, but not so much that people lie in order to qualify for the study (say, misrepresent their health or the amount of exercise they get in a week), and not so much that people can’t take the economic hit of discontinuing so they stay in the study, don’t report adverse impacts, or misrepresent something (like exercise).
I haven’t seen this mentioned, yet: part of the Trump effort to overturn the election of Biden involves a list of supposedly “fraudulent” votes by legal Nevada residents. And it turns out that the list is made up to a great extent of US military members who legally vote in Nevada (by absentee ballot) while stationed elsewhere:
Hey, who told those suckers and losers they could vote??
The McCloskeys, the St. Louis couple who were photographed waving their guns at protesters, are suing the photographer for ruining their lives. In response, he has sent them at $1500 bill because they used the photo on their Christmas cards.
So they’re suing a photographer for accurately depicting them in a photograph? Yeah, that should work out great.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the gun-toting couple who gained recognition after confronting protesters passing by their St. Louis home, have sued a United Press International photographer and the wire service, alleging a photo that has risen to international prominence was taken on their property.
In a lawsuit filed Friday in St. Louis Circuit Court, the McCloskeys accuse UPI photographer Bill Greenblatt of trespassing to capture one of the most iconic images of the confrontation between the McCloskeys and protesters on their way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house.
UPI has been considering issuing the McCloskeys a cease & desist order.
