Welpee wrote:

reub wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

I don't get this. Democrates are become to well versed to name calling. If someone isn't for their party they must be idiots right. Democrates really need to take their head out of the sand and be more open minded.

No, no. Not at all.

It's like the all apes are mammals but not all mammals are apes thing.

Trump supporters aren't all idiots.

Poll deniers are.

It just so happens not all Trump supporters are poll deniers but almost all poll deniers are Trump supporters.

I'm in Texas. They say it's about to become a purple state. I been talking to people I would say majority are still republican and will vote republican. I think the polls are inflated for Hillary. But that could comeback and haunt her because thinking she is going to win some people won't bother to vote.

It's all in the Wikileaks emails. The Clinton corruption machine has been scheming to inflate the polls in their favor for years now. They were requesting the best methods to "oversample" their numbers. They did the same to Bernie and he won a lot of states where the polls showed he was going to get slaughtered.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

And you really interpreted that email to mean the campaign was going to make the media over represent democrats in the polls they published. That's how you read this? Also, did you catch the date? 2008? Really?

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:

reub wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

I don't get this. Democrates are become to well versed to name calling. If someone isn't for their party they must be idiots right. Democrates really need to take their head out of the sand and be more open minded.

No, no. Not at all.

It's like the all apes are mammals but not all mammals are apes thing.

Trump supporters aren't all idiots.

Poll deniers are.

It just so happens not all Trump supporters are poll deniers but almost all poll deniers are Trump supporters.

I'm in Texas. They say it's about to become a purple state. I been talking to people I would say majority are still republican and will vote republican. I think the polls are inflated for Hillary. But that could comeback and haunt her because thinking she is going to win some people won't bother to vote.

It's all in the Wikileaks emails. The Clinton corruption machine has been scheming to inflate the polls in their favor for years now. They were requesting the best methods to "oversample" their numbers. They did the same to Bernie and he won a lot of states where the polls showed he was going to get slaughtered.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

is that corruption? Or are those tactics to gain an advantage?

Your question is moot, because they actually didn't do that.

Again, we do the discourse a disservice by answering stupid questions genuinely.

The poll stuff is silly. Both sides typically start with about 40% of the popular vote. The question is who swings that one way or the other. So when it comes to minorities, women, seniors, millennials, etc... who from those groups are coming out in droves to support one side over another? Aside from Brigg's certainty of Trumps win because of all the signs on lawns where is the refute? Is he going to win solely on the pro life vote? Because he's going to build a wall? I mean where are the votes coming from? Which swing states is he winning?

Bonn1997 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

reub wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

I don't get this. Democrates are become to well versed to name calling. If someone isn't for their party they must be idiots right. Democrates really need to take their head out of the sand and be more open minded.

No, no. Not at all.

It's like the all apes are mammals but not all mammals are apes thing.

Trump supporters aren't all idiots.

Poll deniers are.

It just so happens not all Trump supporters are poll deniers but almost all poll deniers are Trump supporters.

I'm in Texas. They say it's about to become a purple state. I been talking to people I would say majority are still republican and will vote republican. I think the polls are inflated for Hillary. But that could comeback and haunt her because thinking she is going to win some people won't bother to vote.

It's all in the Wikileaks emails. The Clinton corruption machine has been scheming to inflate the polls in their favor for years now. They were requesting the best methods to "oversample" their numbers. They did the same to Bernie and he won a lot of states where the polls showed he was going to get slaughtered.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

And you really interpreted that email to mean the campaign was going to make the media over represent democrats in the polls they published. That's how you read this? Also, did you catch the date? 2008? Really?

Oh wow. I missed that.

Read this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/very-bad-analysis-of-a-2008-email-is-donald-trumps-new-excuse-for-why-hes-losing/

Again, we give credence to stupidity by responding earnestly to stupidity rather than exposing the stupidity.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

I don't get this. Democrates are become to well versed to name calling. If someone isn't for their party they must be idiots right. Democrates really need to take their head out of the sand and be more open minded.

But the person at the top of the ticket (Trump) does more name calling than anyone else (Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hillary). I know, Hillary once made and then took back the deplorables comment but it's a regular occurrence (in fact, an intentional strategy) on Trump's part.

The New York Times — all the Marxist news that's fit to print — just published a two page spread full of all of Trump's insults.

I don't know why I'm trying to defend Trump supporters... just seems cheap, even though I've done it. It's just frustrating.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I posted an article, you came back with comments about the Russians being the hackers. I and others have shown you that they may not be.

You have? I missed that. I guess so.

As for the second part...I will post the last 3 paragraphs of the article.

Okay, so the article is all about Clintion Foundation corruption... got it.

While few people know the Clinton Foundation’s ties to Uranium one, or the Podesta Group’s ties to both Uranium One and Sberbank, even fewer people know Bill Clinton’s activities in Russia. As stated above, “Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.”

Accusing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks of working for Russia or Trump is not only irresponsible, but also ignores the fact millions of Americans want to learn about corruption within their political system. WikiLeaks has thus far contributed greatly to American democracy by balancing out a press enjoying lavish dinners at John Podesta’s house. Even more troubling is NBC’s Chuck Todd hosting a dinner for John Podesta. Between the Washington Post and New York Times sending the Clinton campaign articles to edit, America needs Julian Assange and WikiLeaks more than ever.

Most importantly, the Podesta Group’s well-documented ties to Russia far outweigh the Cold War propaganda leveled at WikiLeaks. There’s a reason the Clinton campaign has frantically blamed Russia for every WikiLeaks revelation. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t want voters to learn of her campaign’s links to Russia, and would rather disparage a needed whistleblower than focus upon the lobbying history of her own campaign manager.

If you have a problem with that, contact the writer.

I intended to highlight how much of the last three paragraph were actually about Clinton Foundation corruption and how much were about misplacing blame on the Russian accusation on Clinton. I thought I'd bold maybe three sentences when I started. I didn't realize or intend I'd bold all but 2.

You posted the graphs, so I'll ask you. Do you not recognize how the last sentence in the concluding statement of the thesis of the whole article and how it is misleading?

Yes or no?

You just demonstrated I understood the point of the article all along.

Ok, if you think so. The article is about Podesta and the Clintons and the Foundation making money on selling Uranium to a Russia based company. If you are inferring the writer is providing cover for Trump wouldn't that be the same as the NPR article by Tamara Keith that you sent me to? She afterall, was at Podesta's house so we know who she shills for.

I've stated my position on hacking and whistleblowing clearly.

Can you state yours?

And does it include you too? Can anyone hack your data and leak it to the public to justify their ends?

You have yet to comment about Clinton and Podesta and the Uranium deal discussed in this article. Instead, You pivot and deflect.

Hacking is illegal. The hackers know that. Find them and prosecute them. Whistleblowers can be our first line of defense and they can be traitors. I don't know if you can put them in a neat box.

Cyber warfare is here and real. If the Russians did it, it won't be the last time. If its intended to help Trump (It sure should not help HRC), or influence our elections, then shame on us. Shame on our stupidity and lack of security.

You talk about the things that Trump does on twitter that disqualify him and rightly so. But you have seem to have no issue with HRC conducting National security business on an unsecured server in her bathroom ? IS that not colossally stupid ? THat alone disqalifies her, IMO.

Personally, I would be very upset if my data was breached. However, when on the internet you must expect that it could happen. IF I was involved in illegal activities,I would probably try to discredit the info, and prosecute the hackers if I could ever find them.

My best defense against my info being stolen is to not use the internet or if I do, not post anything that I would be ashamed of.

Are you now questioning the authenticity of the leaks?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Ok, if you think so. The article is about Podesta and the Clintons and the Foundation making money on selling Uranium to a Russia based company. If you are inferring the writer is providing cover for Trump wouldn't that be the same as the NPR article by Tamara Keith that you sent me to? She afterall, was at Podesta's house so we know who she shills for.

I'm not inferring anything about Trump. I don't do the "yeah, but the other side" thing...

I'm not inferring, but stating outright that the headline, introductory paragraph and closing paragraphs make cleat what you seem to misinterpret - what the article is in fact about.

The author made the Podesta-Russian thing a secondary part of the article. It supported his point.

If you'd like to find another writer who actually focuses on that topic and not have Clinton is using the Russians as an excuse to draw attention from it, I'd be glad to consider it. Given the weight of the topic, I'd imagine that won't be difficult to do.

But yeah, I'd appreciate seeing an article ABOUT that if you'd like to talk about that.

You have yet to comment about Clinton and Podesta and the Uranium deal discussed in this article. Instead, You pivot and deflect

Not at all. I'm saying what I mean and intend outright and directly. I will comment on it when I see a good sourced story on it. The one you cited was not. If you can provide that in the next few minutes, my on topic reply will be a few minutes after.

Don't let me wiggle out of it. Hold me to it. I'm on record. Give me a good link and remind of my words. Don't let the topic slide. Stay on it.

Okay?

Hacking is illegal. The hackers know that. Find them and prosecute them. Whistleblowers can be our first line of defense and they can be traitors. I don't know if you can put them in a neat box.

You can, hacking isn't whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing begins with knowledge and concerns. Hacking begins with illegal fishing expeditions.

Cyber warfare is here and real. If the Russians did it, it won't be the last time. If its intended to help Trump (It sure should not help HRC), or influence our elections, then shame on us. Shame on our stupidity and lack of security.

Indeed sir, indeed.

You talk about the things that Trump does on twitter that disqualify him and rightly so. But you have seem to have no issue with HRC conducting National security business on an unsecured server in her bathroom ? IS that not colossally stupid ? THat alone disqalifies her, IMO.

I've made my position on this being a binary issue clear. I make no apologies for that nor do I seek to marginalize if with "lesser of two evils' talk.

Trump's incompetence and ill-preparedness and the degree in which he is temperamentaly unsuited is much, much more severe.

Are you now questioning the authenticity of the leaks?

I think you should get used to the fact I don't imply or infer much. I'm pretty consistent with stating my points outright.

I'm not.

I'm saying the end do not justify the means.

We have a standard of due process in this country. And its a good one. It's part of what separates us from other societies, developed and otherwise.

The underlying premise is the ends don't justify the means. That in the big picture process is more important. We let criminals go when we don't observe this.

The hacking of information is simply unAmerican. So why are we trying to even preserve or get back to if we justify it as a means? We lose what some people have convinced themselves we're trying to get back along the way if we go that route.

I get the world is a bad place the the U.S. does bad things in secret (and sometimes not) in the guise of keeping us safe. And we both know we've abused our power. But no, I don't endorse doing or accepting corrupt things to battle alleged corruption. I don't consider it a "check."

The only path following that direction is a downward one.

And I don't know how the Times got Trump's tax return, but no, I don't celebrate its release either.

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Hope you and your families stay healthy next year cuz Obamacare is going to double in premiums--you sckers want to pay more in taxes and healthcare while illegal immigrants pay zilch---real F smart.

I don't have what you refer to as 'Obamacare' and like the majority of Americans the ACA as intended is in fact keeping my employer-provided premiums down versus pre-ACA rates, but thank you.

Briggs you are 100% wrong and backwards. Premiums are already high because you subsidize the population that DOESNT have Obamacare. You literally have it backwards.

djsunyc wrote:trump wants to deport mexicans and illegals.
he also wants to bring back jobs to america, which more or less means no more outsourcing or manufacturing in foreign countries.

ok.

what's the ramifications of that?

companies can afford to exist BECAUSE they are outsourcing and having products manufactured outside the US. if they are forced to bring those jobs back they will have to either lay off a ton of current american workforce or apple will have to charge you $2000 for the next iphone. that next tv you want to buy? add a 0 to end of that number. and if companies don't do that, they will most likely go bankrupt. either way, the american people's net will be less than it is now. and those jobs coming back...minimum wage.

then by removing jobs overseas, you are causing other countries unemployment to skyrocket...which leads to more economic refugees trying to come to this country thereby increasing immigration. and if you shut those immigrants down, then they will turn to another foreign power that can give them the resources they need.

it's a very complicated issue...but definitely not one trump wants to explain to you (if he's aware of it at all) and things trump supporters either don't know about or choose to ignore.

the bigger issue here is the changing landscape of the world and the technological revolution. you can now make a strong case that capitalism, aka the "american dream", is now preventing this country from being a united one and doing way more harm than good.

BRIGGS wrote:Hope you and your families stay healthy next year cuz Obamacare is going to double in premiums--you sckers want to pay more in taxes and healthcare while illegal immigrants pay zilch---real F smart.

Vmart wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Hope you and your families stay healthy next year cuz Obamacare is going to double in premiums--you sckers want to pay more in taxes and healthcare while illegal immigrants pay zilch---real F smart.

I agree with you. I don't want to pay more Taxes and definitely Obamacare is horrid.

And this is why Trump supporters get made fun of. Not because we know what your IQ is or your level of education (we don't know or care).

But because of the stupid things you say publicly without realizing they're stupid.