earthmansurfer wrote:Michael Flyn to be new National Security Advisor! Nice nice pick.
If you want to know more, great video here:

"I spoke at [Defense Intelligence Agency] last month," Powell wrote after Flynn spoke at the Republican National Convention. "Flynn got fired as head of DIA. His replacement is a black Marine 3-star. I asked why Flynn got fired. Abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc. He has been and was right-wing nutty every [sic] since. I watched about five minutes on line of his talked [sic] and switched off."

Powell also wondered "how he got that far in the Army."

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Michael Flyn to be new National Security Advisor! Nice nice pick.
If you want to know more, great video here:

Since you like Wikileaks so much..Here is Colin Powell's comments on Mike Flynn via hacked emails release by Wikileaks...

"I spoke at [Defense Intelligence Agency] last month," Powell wrote after Flynn spoke at the Republican National Convention. "Flynn got fired as head of DIA. His replacement is a black Marine 3-star. I asked why Flynn got fired. Abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc. He has been and was right-wing nutty every [sic] since. I watched about five minutes on line of his talked [sic] and switched off."

Powell also wondered "how he got that far in the Army."

Holfresh, I'm sure you (especially you ) can find negative stuff about anyone.
I've stated what I like about Trump and some things I didn't like (a few pages back). I think that is realist.

All you do is state negative things. Be careful though as to a point, we create our reality and it appears miserable for you right now.

At least Hillary isn't president, maybe she'd give more military information away...

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, one of GOP nominee Donald Trump's key surrogates, questioned why Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would pinpoint, during Wednesday night's debate, the time period it takes for a president to launch the nation's nuclear codes.

"I'm not going to sit here and confirm or deny what she just stated," Flynn, a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Fox News' Fox and Friends.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Off to a great start.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/MarkSimoneNY/status/799338464403562496

Without looking up anything...Think about that statement for one second...Obama, the leader of the Free World spoke to no foreign leader until January 8th..I'm going to say that is impossible after such a historic election...

I think the point can be lost in the details. As a Knicks fan, I'm just not used to all this winning.

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Michael Flyn to be new National Security Advisor! Nice nice pick.
If you want to know more, great video here:

Another GREAT Pick! Turning it into the White-Power House:

Donald Trump's choice for US Attorney General was deemed too racist to be federal judge
Jeff Sessions, now a US senator, denied agreeing a lawyer was probably a 'race traitor', defending the Ku Klux Klan and refering to a black official as 'the n*****'

Mr Sessions’ nomination for a position as a federal judge was previously blocked by the Senate Judiciary Committee after it heard allegations he:

-agreed a white lawyer working for black clients was probably "a race traitor”;
-claimed the only problem he had with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was their drug use;
-called a black lawyer “boy” and told him to “be careful what you say to white folks”;
-referred to a black local government official as “the n*****”;
-and called US civil rights groups “un-American organisations teaching anti-American values” and “communist-inspired”, accusing them of trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racism-senate-usa-a7424341.html

Carry on singing his praises, it just reveals to everyone what you believe in.

I don't know anything about Sessions (have to read up). I didn't mentioned him, did I?

But, regarding your misguided point:
Do you really think the other 61 million people voted for Trump because they are racists?
And before Sessions was picked? Seriously, grow some heart.

The only violence I have seen regarding Trump, is on Trump supporters from Hillary supporters. A little bit ironic, don't you think?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I asked you if you were illegal on a sports site hidden behind anonymity and you basically accused me of being reckless and asked me why would you incriminate yourself like that and if I was a cop?

So I don't understand this 13% of illegals vote stat. What does it have to do with the 2016 presidential election? The figure assumes you first of all know the number of illegals to begin with, and then these illegals are admitting to pollsters that they not only are here illegally but voted illegally on top of that? I don't get why they would even do that.

The URL you posted refers to this article from the Daily Signal where he asserts this 13% figure: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

In that article there is a link to the poll: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf The methodology of this poll says: "This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013."

As I've said before, I'm not a stats guy. But I don't understand how the Daily Signal writer is getting this 13% figure. Can you look through that poll data and show me how he's getting that?

So to recap: I'm not sure how an article from 2015 about a poll from 2013 of 800 people can lead you to say with confidence "13% of illegals admit they vote". Because of what 800 Hispanics said on the phone to someone in 2013?

You know that "illegal immigrants" isn't synonymous with "Hispanics".

I'm honestly confused. Help me out earthmansurfer.

I've had too many people in this thread suddenly get friendly and then try to corner me, lol. It started getting old and then you ask me if I'm here legally? lol, seriously?
Hidden behind anonymity? They have my email. I'm not on TOR. Childs play easy; I think you know that...

The point with that article was that if they voted in the past (and since some were caught this last election - Was a video feed on the news online though I don't know which one now, it was live.) that it is likely to continue. There are many many articles out there on illegals voting. I'm not going to do stats now as it is bedtime.

Another quote, but different article and also from the past(but there are many many more.) If it is a concern to you, really, just do a search, the result list is long.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

The big deal is Bev Harris and the voting machines. Even though it is Alex Jones interviewing her, as I told Martin, listen to her words. Don't let the Alex part stop the message. This is a bit of a problem with Mainstream, they have certain boundries due to their deep ties with the establishment. Some things they won't touch till they have to.

So you didn't answer my questions about that 13% stat. I can't figure how a poll of 800 Hispanics in 2013 gives you any insight on the illegal immigrant population as a whole. Do you still want to stand behind it? I'm not going to waste my time following your links until you answer what I think are fair queries about that 13% stat. Did you even take the time to glance at the poll data like I did?

You want me to go through a 63 page study and answer a question for you? I'm not a stats guy either. That stuff burns me out. The original article makes sense and is not anything really shocking. They extrapolated out, is all it looks like, regarding polling 800 hispanics in 2013 and applying it to a larger sample. If you want answers on stats, really, ask a stats guy.

If you want your standard of judging me and my posts, to be based on that one article, that is fine. No offense taken.

The original article didn't make that much sense to me. It made sense to you because of confirmation bias.

A 2013 poll of 800 Hispanics can't tell you about illegal alien population patterns as a whole because not all undocumented aliens are Hispanics. You don't need to be a stats guy to figure that out.

You should spend more time reading studies and original research. Why cite something if you aren't going to stand behind it when questioned?

You are just on to the next tweets in your timeline to feed your confirmation bias.

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I asked you if you were illegal on a sports site hidden behind anonymity and you basically accused me of being reckless and asked me why would you incriminate yourself like that and if I was a cop?

So I don't understand this 13% of illegals vote stat. What does it have to do with the 2016 presidential election? The figure assumes you first of all know the number of illegals to begin with, and then these illegals are admitting to pollsters that they not only are here illegally but voted illegally on top of that? I don't get why they would even do that.

The URL you posted refers to this article from the Daily Signal where he asserts this 13% figure: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

In that article there is a link to the poll: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf The methodology of this poll says: "This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013."

As I've said before, I'm not a stats guy. But I don't understand how the Daily Signal writer is getting this 13% figure. Can you look through that poll data and show me how he's getting that?

So to recap: I'm not sure how an article from 2015 about a poll from 2013 of 800 people can lead you to say with confidence "13% of illegals admit they vote". Because of what 800 Hispanics said on the phone to someone in 2013?

You know that "illegal immigrants" isn't synonymous with "Hispanics".

I'm honestly confused. Help me out earthmansurfer.

I've had too many people in this thread suddenly get friendly and then try to corner me, lol. It started getting old and then you ask me if I'm here legally? lol, seriously?
Hidden behind anonymity? They have my email. I'm not on TOR. Childs play easy; I think you know that...

The point with that article was that if they voted in the past (and since some were caught this last election - Was a video feed on the news online though I don't know which one now, it was live.) that it is likely to continue. There are many many articles out there on illegals voting. I'm not going to do stats now as it is bedtime.

Another quote, but different article and also from the past(but there are many many more.) If it is a concern to you, really, just do a search, the result list is long.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

The big deal is Bev Harris and the voting machines. Even though it is Alex Jones interviewing her, as I told Martin, listen to her words. Don't let the Alex part stop the message. This is a bit of a problem with Mainstream, they have certain boundries due to their deep ties with the establishment. Some things they won't touch till they have to.

So you didn't answer my questions about that 13% stat. I can't figure how a poll of 800 Hispanics in 2013 gives you any insight on the illegal immigrant population as a whole. Do you still want to stand behind it? I'm not going to waste my time following your links until you answer what I think are fair queries about that 13% stat. Did you even take the time to glance at the poll data like I did?

You want me to go through a 63 page study and answer a question for you? I'm not a stats guy either. That stuff burns me out. The original article makes sense and is not anything really shocking. They extrapolated out, is all it looks like, regarding polling 800 hispanics in 2013 and applying it to a larger sample. If you want answers on stats, really, ask a stats guy.

If you want your standard of judging me and my posts, to be based on that one article, that is fine. No offense taken.

The original article didn't make that much sense to me. It made sense to you because of confirmation bias.

A 2013 poll of 800 Hispanics can't tell you about illegal alien population patterns as a whole because not all undocumented aliens are Hispanics. You don't need to be a stats guy to figure that out.

You should spend more time reading studies and original research. Why cite something if you aren't going to stand behind it when questioned?

You are just on to the next tweets in your timeline to feed your confirmation bias.

+1 on both points. EMS, you seem to just post anything good your hear about Trump and anything bad you hear about Clinton or Obama. You don't seem to care if it's accurate or not. The problem is that anyone can write anything on Twitter or other internet sites. You will find a virtually infinite number of negative tweets about any national political figure. Don't you want your beliefs to be shaped by *accurate* information?

Wow, the Clergy agreeing with the preacher, should I be offended?

I tried talking about Trumps policies but no one wanted to actually discuss going forward, most people just posted negative stuff against Trump.
Some things might be true, some false. Just like MSM and I can't fact check every little thing but I do read the articles I post. Other things are tongue in cheek.
You reap what you sow.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Off to a great start.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/MarkSimoneNY/status/799338464403562496

Without looking up anything...Think about that statement for one second...Obama, the leader of the Free World spoke to no foreign leader until January 8th..I'm going to say that is impossible after such a historic election...

I think the point can be lost in the details. As a Knicks fan, I'm just not used to all this winning.

A) I'm not sure this is true since I don't just believe everything I read on twitter.
B) I'm not sure if a President elect should be having serious discussions with foreign leaders a few months before taking office. He's not the actual President right now. You could argue either way - either that he's doing important planning or that he's undermining the current president. The tweet even if correct doesn't make it clear whether anything good or harmful is happening from these meetings.

A) - Yeah, I can't seem to verify the Obama part but the point was he is already succeeding. I enjoy seeing Trump get out there. It shows some positive things with all the negativity going on.
B) - No one said anything about serious discussions. I think they were (mostly) phone calls. Doesn't seem like he broke any laws, gave up nuclear response times, had a private server, or the like. lol

The point, below budget and ahead of schedule.
Get used to it.

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Michael Flyn to be new National Security Advisor! Nice nice pick.
If you want to know more, great video here:

Another GREAT Pick! Turning it into the White-Power House:

Donald Trump's choice for US Attorney General was deemed too racist to be federal judge
Jeff Sessions, now a US senator, denied agreeing a lawyer was probably a 'race traitor', defending the Ku Klux Klan and refering to a black official as 'the n*****'

Mr Sessions’ nomination for a position as a federal judge was previously blocked by the Senate Judiciary Committee after it heard allegations he:

-agreed a white lawyer working for black clients was probably "a race traitor”;
-claimed the only problem he had with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was their drug use;
-called a black lawyer “boy” and told him to “be careful what you say to white folks”;
-referred to a black local government official as “the n*****”;
-and called US civil rights groups “un-American organisations teaching anti-American values” and “communist-inspired”, accusing them of trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racism-senate-usa-a7424341.html

Carry on singing his praises, it just reveals to everyone what you believe in.

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I asked you if you were illegal on a sports site hidden behind anonymity and you basically accused me of being reckless and asked me why would you incriminate yourself like that and if I was a cop?

So I don't understand this 13% of illegals vote stat. What does it have to do with the 2016 presidential election? The figure assumes you first of all know the number of illegals to begin with, and then these illegals are admitting to pollsters that they not only are here illegally but voted illegally on top of that? I don't get why they would even do that.

The URL you posted refers to this article from the Daily Signal where he asserts this 13% figure: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

In that article there is a link to the poll: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf The methodology of this poll says: "This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013."

As I've said before, I'm not a stats guy. But I don't understand how the Daily Signal writer is getting this 13% figure. Can you look through that poll data and show me how he's getting that?

So to recap: I'm not sure how an article from 2015 about a poll from 2013 of 800 people can lead you to say with confidence "13% of illegals admit they vote". Because of what 800 Hispanics said on the phone to someone in 2013?

You know that "illegal immigrants" isn't synonymous with "Hispanics".

I'm honestly confused. Help me out earthmansurfer.

I've had too many people in this thread suddenly get friendly and then try to corner me, lol. It started getting old and then you ask me if I'm here legally? lol, seriously?
Hidden behind anonymity? They have my email. I'm not on TOR. Childs play easy; I think you know that...

The point with that article was that if they voted in the past (and since some were caught this last election - Was a video feed on the news online though I don't know which one now, it was live.) that it is likely to continue. There are many many articles out there on illegals voting. I'm not going to do stats now as it is bedtime.

Another quote, but different article and also from the past(but there are many many more.) If it is a concern to you, really, just do a search, the result list is long.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

The big deal is Bev Harris and the voting machines. Even though it is Alex Jones interviewing her, as I told Martin, listen to her words. Don't let the Alex part stop the message. This is a bit of a problem with Mainstream, they have certain boundries due to their deep ties with the establishment. Some things they won't touch till they have to.

So you didn't answer my questions about that 13% stat. I can't figure how a poll of 800 Hispanics in 2013 gives you any insight on the illegal immigrant population as a whole. Do you still want to stand behind it? I'm not going to waste my time following your links until you answer what I think are fair queries about that 13% stat. Did you even take the time to glance at the poll data like I did?

You want me to go through a 63 page study and answer a question for you? I'm not a stats guy either. That stuff burns me out. The original article makes sense and is not anything really shocking. They extrapolated out, is all it looks like, regarding polling 800 hispanics in 2013 and applying it to a larger sample. If you want answers on stats, really, ask a stats guy.

If you want your standard of judging me and my posts, to be based on that one article, that is fine. No offense taken.

The original article didn't make that much sense to me. It made sense to you because of confirmation bias.

A 2013 poll of 800 Hispanics can't tell you about illegal alien population patterns as a whole because not all undocumented aliens are Hispanics. You don't need to be a stats guy to figure that out.

You should spend more time reading studies and original research. Why cite something if you aren't going to stand behind it when questioned?

You are just on to the next tweets in your timeline to feed your confirmation bias.

Perhaps you are right. But like many Americans, I am distrustful of the corrupt media as they have lied to us too many times and reported biased news. Like many Americans I am distrustful of a corrupt system.

When you lie to and steal from people for years, eventually there will be blowback, right or wrong. We are a part of a bigger system and it seems to be self correcting right now.

The lies are getting tiring...

Hillary had a lot on her side and still lost

If your news station didn't mention Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd, it was probably fake news.

Comical..You do know that all the news media exchange email addresses and phone numbers with the Campaigns for press release items right???..Wasn't Robert Byrd a Senator..Keep listening to Breitbart..More fake news...