This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Funny the only people caught so far for in person voter fraud are white Trump supporters. Weird huh?
The Clintons would have him donate to orchestrate an impartial hearing where they allowed those most opposed to Snowden to also contribute. In the end, one payment from each would not be enough to decide. Perhaps everyone wants to play again next year? My bathroom needs a remodel.
i think you're being overly excitable. for several reasons. The right in this country is pro- Jew. Its the left that is anti jew. secondly, this is a nation of 300 Million guns, no one is going to be able to successfully disarm the population to the point where you could force jews into cattle cars. third, Trump wouldn't have the power to do anything like what you seem to fear, and most likely would be assassinated or impeached before any of your supposed fears could be fulfilled.
Kind of like Kuwait and UBS? You know each giving to CGI to gain access trying to get the then Secy of State Clinton to side with them on a 5 billion dollar contract issue?
i'm on the right and have been pro snowden all along. I seem to remember Tim in particular (a lefty) firmly entrenched in his anti snowden schtick at that time.
The left isn't anti-Jew. Jews are a large part of the left. The left is anti-occupation. There is a difference.
One said she voted twice because trump told her to. The other did it because Trump told her the polls were rigged and she should vote multiple times. So words do have an impact.
The religious right is pro-Armageddon, not pro-Jew. They want the final battle so bad they can taste it. Kind of like how they are pro-fetus not pro-child.
You've gone off the deep end. Yesterday you alluded to a fake story (that also snared Sean Hannity) about Michelle Obama deleting Hillary mentions from her twitter feed. As someone who backed Bernie I agree she's awful but this is getting ridiculous. Soon, the 9/11 truthers are going to tie her to the WTC7 collapse (if they haven't already).
Yes, we can all point to Michigan as an outlier. But that was just one state and it wasn't very thoroughly polled (at least one of the poll companies used landlines only, which significantly reduced the number of younger respondents). But we've got literally thousands of Clinton-Trump polls, hundreds of which utilize the latest technologies and methods available in the world of polling. Taken together, they point to a strong electoral lead for Clinton.
There's the super kooky let's get our Armageddon on part of the religious right, but they aren't all that way. Like I said, they're pro-Israel, not necessarily pro-Jew.
Clearly polls can miss an election result. That just happens with statistics. But comparing one statewide election to a national election is flawed. The problem in arguing that Trump could beat the odds is that he'd basically have to repeat this scenario in several states instead of just one. So if his win probability in three swing states was 30% each (just to pick a number), his chance of winning all three is actually closer to 8 percent. Not impossible of course, but not something I'd bet money on either,
that line keeps getting more blurry http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/199809/stanford-professor-recommends-anti-semitic-website-to-readers-then-kind-of-takes-it-back
Clearly polls can miss an election result. That just happens with statistics. But comparing one statewide election to a national election is flawed. The problem in arguing that Trump could beat the odds is that he'd basically have to repeat this scenario in several states instead of just one. So if his win probability in three swing states was 30% each (just to pick a number), his chance of winning all three is actually closer to 8 percent. Not impossible of course, but not something I'd bet money on either,
Good thing the national election isn't made up of a series of statewide elections then.
Wikileaks pretty much undercuts your outrage. It is obvious from the Band emails exactly how things worked. And they did pit donors against each other for more money. As I related above. Pay for play all day in every way.
Consuming news has become a challenge these days. The sources we grew up watching every evening in our homes have become corrupted. People are seeking alternative sources via social media. Sometimes there are inaccuracies. Unfortunately, this is all a product of distrust for the media. If they wouldn't have whored themselves out to the highest bidder, maybe people wouldn't all be seeking out alternative media choices.
Yeah he is not going to be happy. Tim is the very essence of a country club republican. Very establishment. Center right on most issues.
I disagree with this. First, obviously, the margin between Clinton and Trump in the polls is MUCH smaller than the margin between Clinton and Sanders before the Michigan primary. Second, the thing about polling is that it is generally based on certain shared assumptions based on previous elections. If something upsets that balance ... say a particular demographic group comes out or stays home far more than than they had in previous elections ... all of the polls will be off. Not more than 2-3 points, most likely, but it can happen. In 2012 the RCP polling average had the election much closer than it turned out. IIRC most of the polls assumed youth and black turnout would be more in line with the historical numbers than the 2008 election, and that assumption was incorrect. The same thing could happen here, in either direction. In Clinton's direction the most likely possibility is vastly underestimating the Hispanic turnout, historically very low. In Trump's direction the most likely possibility is vastly underestimating the white non-college turnout, also fairly low historically.
He can take Florida and Ohio and still lose. If she loses Pennsylvania to him as well, then it may be over.
