2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Because the other networks won't invite him now that he has become more focused and the race is tightening to the point where their candidate is in danger of losing.Quote: ams288Trump only does Fox News interviews now. Wonder why?
Quote: RS
Are you serious? She doesn't "just have a cold". Her health is seriously deteriorating.
You. Actually. Have. No. Idea. Either. Way.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause the other networks won't invite him now that he has become more focused and the race is tightening to the point where their candidate is in danger of losing.
Ah, another "liberal media" conspiracy theorist. You guys are as thick as fleas on a mangy dog. Yes, Clinton is "their" candidate. Yep. Yeah sure. You betcha.
Let's ignore the fact that the "liberal media" has been much, much harder on Clinton than Trump. That idiot "moderator" at the town hall simul press conference did nothing but lob softballs at The Donald, and didn't call him out on any of his lies. He spent fifteen minutes grilling Clinton on the tired old email issue, though.
And what have you been smoking that makes you think Trump is "more focused"? The only thing you could say is that he now sounds moderately sane almost twenty percent of the time.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYou were given more than a handful of specific examples. You say you refused to read any of them. Even the one-sentence or one-paragraph examples. That shouts out the loudest of all for all to see. And not for the first time, either.
Don't say foolish things. Your "specific examples" didn't actually prove jack diddly. You're the only person on the planet who believes Trump was telling the truth about that. Really, why the slavish, toadying loyalty to him? He's a liar, and everyone knows it.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikDon't say foolish things. Your "specific examples" didn't actually prove jack diddly. You're the only person on the planet who believes Trump was telling the truth about that. Really, why the slavish, toadying loyalty to him? He's a liar, and everyone knows it.
Ironic, coming from a Clinton supporter.
Quote: RSQuote: JoeshlabotnikDon't say foolish things. Your "specific examples" didn't actually prove jack diddly. You're the only person on the planet who believes Trump was telling the truth about that. Really, why the slavish, toadying loyalty to him? He's a liar, and everyone knows it.
Ironic, coming from a Clinton supporter.
Yes, Clinton is a thieving, conniving, evil witch who tortures small animals for fun, lies to everybody including her own computer, eats ground glass for breakfast, has destroyed entire ecosystems, and has personally murdered tens of millions of people.
However, that doesn't make Trump any less of a liar.
Prediction
Trump will say
Hillary Clinton started Trump University
Conservatives will applaud and nod in agreement :-)
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause the other networks won't invite him now that he has become more focused and the race is tightening to the point where their candidate is in danger of losing.
Nonsense. As usual.
"They won't invite him now?" Total B.S. (But I would expect nothing more from you).
What world are you living in? Trump still = ratings.
Hey now! I got suspended for a comment like that.Quote: ams288Nonsense. As usual.
"They won't invite him now?" Total B.S. (But I would expect nothing more from you).
What world are you living in? Trump still = ratings.
And of course it was aimed at you ;-)
I believe I posted something like;
"That's a pretty lame post, even for you"
Got me three days in the clinker it did.....
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause the other networks won't invite him now that he has become more focused and the race is tightening to the point where their candidate is in danger of losing.
So he goes on Russian TV instead
lol
Boy you really don't understand the network business
No network is going to turn down a Trump interview
The bottom line in the network business is getting eyeballs
Your reasoning is illogical
Quote: TwoFeathersATLHey now! I got suspended for a comment like that.
And of course it was aimed at you ;-)
I believe I posted something like;
"That's a pretty lame post, even for you"
Got me three days in the clinker it did.....
Moderation of comments here has been limited for whatever reason, so it is a bit of a fee-for-all. Plus someone can always say that "well, it isn't exactly the same"...not to mention that some people can simply get away with more than others. I don't have any problem with the things that could be "suspension worthy" in other threads getting a pass in these political ones.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLHey now! I got suspended for a comment like that.
And of course it was aimed at you ;-)
I believe I posted something like;
"That's a pretty lame post, even for you"
Got me three days in the clinker it did.....
Those were three very, very good days too. You missed out.
Quote: terapinedSo he goes on Russian TV instead
lol
Boy you really don't understand the network business
No network is going to turn down a Trump interview
The bottom line in the network business is getting eyeballs
Your reasoning is illogical
"Illogical" is being too kind.
He was just flat out lying.
I doubt we'll get a follow up post from him on this topic.
Quote: rxwineI think the US government already developed the anti-second amendment weapon in the early 1960s. It was the neutron bomb.
If we're assuming that the government is going to act ruthlessly anyway. It would certainly "cleanse" the land of rebels before they even saw anyone coming to get them.
By now, such a weapon would surely be perfected in perhaps ways not anticipated had they kept active development.
Perhaps it's time for conservative gun fetishists to abandon the macho fantasy of brave citizens whippin' out thar shootin' irons and fighting off an oppressive gummint/invading Russians/invading Martians/zombies/bunnies/whatever. I strongly suspect that having that scenario in some musty corner of their brains is what keeps these people happy in some way.
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, the Second Amendment refers to COLLECTIVE, not individual gun ownership. Even back then, though, the government could muster up far more firepower than the average citizen could. That disparity is even greater now. The government can overwhelm any rebellion. And you know what? THAT"S A GOOD THING. I could point out a dozen countries where the citizenry actually does outgun the government, and yeah, those are Second Amendment paradises on earth, all right.
Quote: MathExtremistWhich is kind of my point about the Second Amendment. It's all well and good that someone has a cabinet full of guns in their home, but if an airborne drone can aim a debilitating heat ray at your house and cause you to pass out, (or a microwave ray at your house and cause you to go blind) then your firearms don't matter at all. Whatever the purpose of the Second Amendment was (and I recognize that's a matter of historical debate), it wasn't ever to enable an individual citizen to resist that kind of advanced force projection. That's just impossible.
For that matter, it wasn't possible back then for an individual citizen to resist a dozen soldiers armed with muskets. That's why the Second Amendment refers to a COLLECTIVE, not an individual right.
It's not really a matter of debate what the purpose of the Second Amendment was, though gun fetishists and Trumpers may argue otherwise. Its language is precise. The beginning clause is an "ablative absolute"; its meaning cannot be separated from the rest of the sentence.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/
Another author (I can't find the link) also points out that when the Constitution was drafted, most persons were BARRED from serving in militias--another reason to not interpret the Second Amendment as referring to individuals.
Of course, all this is logic and grammar, two concepts utterly foreign to belching, scratching gun nuts.
Well, DC v. Heller says otherwise, and that's the current state of the law. It doesn't do any good to argue about what the law should be without starting from the position of what the law currently is -- because otherwise you won't know how to get there from here (assuming that's the goal). Also, while you think the language is precise, the fact that there's an ongoing debate about it indicates otherwise.Quote: JoeshlabotnikFor that matter, it wasn't possible back then for an individual citizen to resist a dozen soldiers armed with muskets. That's why the Second Amendment refers to a COLLECTIVE, not an individual right.
It's not really a matter of debate what the purpose of the Second Amendment was, though gun fetishists and Trumpers may argue otherwise. Its language is precise. The beginning clause is an "ablative absolute"; its meaning cannot be separated from the rest of the sentence.
Trump is such a crybaby wimp
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-anderson-cooper-debate-moderators-rigged-135933582.html
President George Herbert Walker Bush will be voting for Hillary Clinton,
Donald Trump Jr. thinks Syrian refugees are like candy,
and a senior leader in Donald Trump's campaign fundraising efforts is a man who pled guilty to the felony of bribing a public official.
Oh, it's gonna be a fun week.
Quote: MathExtremistOh, it's gonna be a fun week.
Hopefully people will be paying attention,
Quote:Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
Quote: MathExtremistWell, DC v. Heller says otherwise, and that's the current state of the law. It doesn't do any good to argue about what the law should be without starting from the position of what the law currently is -- because otherwise you won't know how to get there from here (assuming that's the goal). Also, while you think the language is precise, the fact that there's an ongoing debate about it indicates otherwise.
Actually, DC v. Heller is an interpretation of the law, since the law (as much of the Constitution) did not anticipate the current situation. And that interpretation of the law is manifestly incorrect, since there in fact is NO passage in the Constitution or its Amendments that deals with INDIVIDUAL gun ownership. The actual practice, stemming from Heller, is to leave the issue largely up to state and local jurisdictions, which is proper when there is ambiguity on issues such as this.
And the reason there is an ongoing debate about this issue is twofold: a) the massive power of the gun lobby, and b) the sad fact that many people spent high school English class sleeping or masturbating, so they don't understand the unequivocal grammar of the Second Amendment.
New Monmouth poll of Florida out today:
Clinton 46
Trump 41
Johnson 6
You KNOW righties are going to be stuck citing those favorable Trump polls that came out last week all the way up until election day....
Donate to the Trump Charitable Foundation, where we devote our funds to very important issues like paying office rent for the Trump campaign, settling litigations involving the Trump businesses, and charitable giving.Quote: rxwinehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
Quote: rxwineHopefully people will be paying attention,
Nope. Nobody who might be influenced will care. It's all durn liburrul media lies anyway. And what about Hillary's emails? HUH?????
After all, it's not like we need more evidence that the Orange Orangutan is a lying douchebag fraud. Trump is strangely immune. Every two or three days, he either says something horrible or some new evidence of fraud on his part emerges. Yet, his poll numbers, if anything, go up because of it. Bizarre.
Quote: ams288As expected, Hillary is regaining her lead in the polls.
New Monmouth poll of Florida out today:
Clinton 46
Trump 41
Johnson 6
You KNOW righties are going to be stuck citing those favorable Trump polls that came out last week all the way up until election day....
Polls showing Trump in the lead: the shining path to making America great again is glowing with patriotic fervor
Polls showing Clinton in the lead: evidence that the whole system is rigged against poor Donald
Nice choice of words:Quote: JoeshlabotnikPolls showing Trump in the lead: the shining path to making America great again is glowing with patriotic fervor
Quote: MathExtremistNice choice of words:Quote: JoeshlabotnikPolls showing Trump in the lead: the shining path to making America great again is glowing with patriotic fervor
Is that a reference to Sendero Luminoso?
For the record, my post WAS in this thread. Just noticed we had lowered our standards a bit recently. Perhaps a couple thousand posts from Larry, Freddie, and Moe had some influence after all ;-)Quote: RonCModeration of comments here has been limited for whatever reason, so it is a bit of a fee-for-all. Plus someone can always say that "well, it isn't exactly the same"...not to mention that some people can simply get away with more than others. I don't have any problem with the things that could be "suspension worthy" in other threads getting a pass in these political ones.
I wasn't asking for anyone to get suspended, please don't mis-understand.
But of course in response to my most recent post about my old response, AMS responded.
It was lame, but it was funny.
I give points for funny ;-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLFor the record, my post WAS in this thread. Just noticed we had lowered our standards a bit recently. Perhaps a couple thousand posts from Larry, Freddie, and Moe had some influence after all ;-)
I wasn't asking for anyone to get suspended, please don't mis-understand.
But of course in response to my most recent post about my old response, AMS responded.
It was lame, but it was funny.
I give points for funny ;-)
Are the points redeemable for rooms, show tickets, buffets, etc.?
again. Watch her eyes in this video from
yesterday. It's called reduced ocular vergence.
The left eye does not track properly with the
right eye, but overshoots in both directions.
This is well known in Parkinson's Disease.
The eye on your left moves while the eye
on your right doesn't sometimes. Spooky.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLFor the record, my post WAS in this thread. Just noticed we had lowered our standards a bit recently. Perhaps a couple thousand posts from Larry, Freddie, and Moe had some influence after all ;-)
I wasn't asking for anyone to get suspended, please don't mis-understand.
But of course in response to my most recent post about my old response, AMS responded.
It was lame, but it was funny.
I give points for funny ;-)
That post was a long time and a whole lot of insults ago! Sorry, I remember it now. At any rate, moderation has moderated to the point that one gentleman basically calls anyone not voting for Hillary (obviously making them a Trump-o-Matic Voter) names but gets by with it because he lumps them all into one neat, tidy little basket of deplorability!
AMS obviously enjoyed your time out!
Sometimes I get blurry vision when I stare at the computer screen for too long. Can you please diagnose my symptoms over the Internet and write me a prescription for the drugs that will fix my condition?Quote: EvenBobUh Oh, Hillary's Parkinsons is rearing it's head
again. Watch her eyes in this video from
yesterday. It's called reduced ocular vergence.
The left eye does not track properly with the
right eye, but overshoots in both directions.
Wait, first tell me if you're an in-network provider. My insurance company is finicky about such things.
Quote: EvenBobUh Oh, Hillary's Parkinsons is rearing it's head
again. Watch her eyes in this video from
yesterday. It's called reduced ocular vergence.
The left eye does not track properly with the
right eye, but overshoots in both directions.
This is well known in Parkinson's Disease.
The eye on your left moves while the eye
on your right doesn't sometimes. Spooky.
It's probably just a talent she learned where she had to keep one eye on Bill.
(I didn't actually see anything wrong.)
(And it drives him crazy when you ignore his stuff).
Quote: ams288As expected, Hillary is regaining her lead in the polls.
New Monmouth poll of Florida out today:
Clinton 46
Trump 41
Johnson 6
You KNOW righties are going to be stuck citing those favorable Trump polls that came out last week all the way up until election day....
It takes a little effort to look up the actual poll, but you might see that it is not as good as it looks from just the headline:
"Hillary Clinton holds a 5 point lead over Donald Trump in the crucial swing state of Florida. This is slightly less than the 9 point lead she held in a Monmouth University Poll of Sunshine State voters taken last month."
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_FL_092016/
So you are calling a smaller lead "regaining her lead in the polls"...that may well be something that happens, but this poll does not provide any proof of that...
Quote: RonCIt takes a little effort to look up the actual poll, but you might see that it is not as good as it looks from just the headline:
"Hillary Clinton holds a 5 point lead over Donald Trump in the crucial swing state of Florida. This is slightly less than the 9 point lead she held in a Monmouth University Poll of Sunshine State voters taken last month."
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_FL_092016/
So you are calling a smaller lead "regaining her lead in the polls"...that may well be something that happens, but this poll does not provide any proof of that...
Last week there was a CNN poll that showed her losing by 3 in Florida.
This week, one poll shows her +1 in Florida, and this one shows +5. I'd call that regaining her lead in the polls.
Is there any conceivable electoral map that gives Trump 270 without Florida?
Quote: ams288Last week there was a CNN poll that showed her losing by 3 in Florida.
This week, one poll shows her +1 in Florida, and this one shows +5. I'd call that regaining her lead in the polls.
Is there any conceivable electoral map that gives Trump 270 without Florida?
This poll does not prove your point at all. It shows it to be incorrect. She lead by 9 points in the last poll by this pollster; now she leads by 5 points. This poll shows that her lead has dwindled.
I am not saying that she may not move up in the polls or anything like that; I am simply telling you that the item you used for "proof" was as worthless as someone with no medical knowledge posting that Hillary is on her deathbed and just has not told us. I am also not disputing the fact that Florida is important, but that wasn't the issue at hand.
Quote: MathExtremistSometimes I get blurry vision when I stare at the computer screen for too long.
That looks like blurry vision to you?
My 90 year old father in law has
Parkinsons and this happens to him
all the time. It makes him very dizzy
when it does, with his eyes looking
in two directions at once.
Quote: rxwine
(I didn't actually see anything wrong.)
How about now?
Quote: RonCThis poll does not prove your point at all. It shows it to be incorrect. She lead by 9 points in the last poll by this pollster; now she leads by 5 points. This poll shows that her lead has dwindled.
Sorry, I am not placing much weight on a poll taken in mid-August showing her up 9 points in Florida. That was by far the worst stretch of Trump's campaign. After his disastrous RNC and during his attack on the Khan family. Of course her numbers were inflated then.
Heck, I'd be shocked if she actually wins Florida by 5 points. It will be closer than that. Obama won Florida by like 0.8 in 2012.
So you are wrong. She was down in the Florida poll last week. She's up in 2 Florida polls this week. Hence, "regaining her lead in the polls."
Plus, I haven't even mentioned the NBC poll showing her up +5 this week (only +2 last week). Regaining her lead.
Here, the fraud criticizes Trump for calling the New York explosion a bomb, after she referred to it as a bombing only seconds earlier.
all afternoon so everybody in the media
and in both campaigns has seen it. The
media is addicted to Drudge, they go
to his page 3-4 times an hour. And
millions of people will see it also. If
this was Trump, the networks would
be having a meltdown.
Quote: EvenBobThe
media is addicted to Drudge, they go
to his page 3-4 times an hour
They're just waiting to see if Drudge will finally come out of the closet on his site. They've been waiting for that announcement for years now...
But his readers would revolt!
Quote: ams288Sorry, I am not placing much weight on a poll taken in mid-August showing her up 9 points in Florida. That was by far the worst stretch of Trump's campaign. After his disastrous RNC and during his attack on the Khan family. Of course her numbers were inflated then.
Heck, I'd be shocked if she actually wins Florida by 5 points. It will be closer than that. Obama won Florida by like 0.8 in 2012.
So you are wrong. She was down in the Florida poll last week. She's up in 2 Florida polls this week. Hence, "regaining her lead in the polls."
Plus, I haven't even mentioned the NBC poll showing her up +5 this week (only +2 last week). Regaining her lead.
I don't know how anyone could say it to you much more clearly. The poll you cited does absolutely nothing to prove your point. It is really that simple.
Other things MAY prove your point; I did not say anything about it not being "provable"; it just is not with the evidence you provided.
Quote: ams288They're just waiting to see if Drudge will finally come out of the closet on his site. They've been waiting for that announcement for years now...
But his readers would revolt!
"For the third consecutive year, both Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report and Shepard Smith of Fox News have been added to Out magazine’s annual “Power List,” a list of “the gay men and women whose power and prestige is instrumental in influencing the way Americans think about, and engage with, the world.”
"Neither Smith nor Drudge have ever said they are gay."
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/04/10/shepard-smith-matt-drudge-out-power-list/
I think you are dead wrong about any possible revolt should Drudge choose to "come out"...much like Hillary's lies about the emails, they are already "baked" into public opinion. I am sure everyone has heard something about Drudge's sexuality so finding out officially will not change a thing or will, at most, change very little.
Quote: RonCI don't know how anyone could say it to you much more clearly. The poll you cited does absolutely nothing to prove your point. It is really that simple.
Other things MAY prove your point; I did not say anything about it not being "provable"; it just is not with the evidence you provided.
I understand the point you are trying to make. But it's irrelevant. There isn't any one pollster that does polls of a single state every single week. Most of them do 1 per month. So we don't have a Monmouth poll from last week. The one you're obsessing over is from Aug. 12-15.
We do have a CNN poll from last week showing her down 3.
We now have three Florida polls this week, showing Clinton +1, +5, and +6.
She's regaining her lead after her downswing last week. It's that simple. You can keep trying to nitpick all you want, but I'm not backing down.
Quote: RonCI think you are dead wrong about any possible revolt should Drudge choose to "come out"...much like Hillary's lies about the emails, they are already "baked" into public opinion. I am sure everyone has heard something about Drudge's sexuality so finding out officially will not change a thing or will, at most, change very little.
You are free to think that.
But I think you are dead wrong.
I'd love to see a poll of Drudge readers asking if they believe Matt Drudge is gay. I suspect hardly any of them know.
Quote: ams288I understand the point you are trying to make. But it's irrelevant. There isn't any one pollster that does polls of a single state every single week. Most of them do 1 per month. So we don't have a Monmouth poll from last week. The one you're obsessing over is from Aug. 12-15.
We do have a CNN poll from last week showing her down 3.
We now have three Florida polls this week, showing Clinton +1, +5, and +6.
She's regaining her lead after her downswing last week. It's that simple. You can keep trying to nitpick all you want, but I'm not backing down.
Didn't I just say that other things may prove your point...just not a poll she actually LOST ground in? How hard is it to just admit you chose a poor example to prove your point?
Quote: RonCHow hard is it to just admit you chose a poor example to prove your point?
Extremely hard when it's not true.
Quote: ams288Extremely hard when it's not true.
For the tremendous stubbornness in the face of being wrong, you are acting just like one of those deplorable Orange Warriors!!
Quote: RonCFor the tremendous stubbornness in the face of being wrong, you are acting just like one of those deplorable Orange Warriors!!
That makes no sense.
The deplorables are racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, and islamophobes - those are the groups Hillary specifically listed during the deplorables speech. And she was correct.
Has nothing to do with stubbornness.
