Hillary Clinton

[GravitySucks]

You watch this video and tell me if you could actually imagine a group of Trump supporters acting like this to a homeless person carrying a Hillary sign.


https://youtu.be/KnCEnWxoHas

[theONE]

Stop it 21.Every time I come to my computer you are posting more joyful memes

[21st Century Man]

You watch this video and tell me if you could actually imagine a group of Trump supporters acting like this to a homeless person carrying a Hillary sign.


https://youtu.be/KnCEnWxoHas

This one is even more disturbing.  I'd like to belt the shit out of that fat Mexican.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB91BBPt8g4

[136 or 142]

The L.A. Times/USC poll has Trump leading by 2.4 as we speak.  Neither institution can by any stretch be considered right leaning and the methology the poll employs  includes a larger sampling and more frequent updating of data.  Even liberals recognize it's superiority to more traditional methodology. What's your take on this.  Wait, let me guess, it's just another outlier, right.

1.After reaching a certain number, around 1,000, the size of the sample doesn't matter very much.  People who believe that a larger sample must be more accurate simply show they don't understand statistics theory.  Of course, a poll of 50,000 people or so will have a significantly smaller margin of error, but in most cases, that isn't very important.

2.The L.A Times/USC poll is a tracking poll. There are several tracking polls all of which update daily.

3.The methodology used by the L.A Times/USC poll, you are likely referring to: that they poll the same people,  is not recognized by anybody as superior.  It's been rarely used before and nobody has any idea how it will turn out.

4.The problem with the L.A Times/USC poll is that it's sampling is based on asking how people voted in the last election to determine the partisan makeup of their weighting.  People who don't know anything about polling methodology think this is unbiased and totally fair, but those who know about polling, know, for instance (and this isn't quite an accurate comparison but it still shows the problem with this idea) is that polls showed during the 20th Anniversary of Woodstock that around 20 million Americans claimed to be one of the 500,000 people who actually attended the 1969 Woodstock concert.

Because of this, virtually every person with a background on probability and statistics who has commented on the L.A Times/USC poll regards it as a junk poll.

Nate Silver tried to 'unskew' this poll by taking 3 or 4% away from Trump and increasing Hillary Clinton's support by 3 or 4%. He either reduced the shift recently or maybe he stopped including the poll outright, I haven't looked into that.

[GravitySucks]

The L.A. Times/USC poll has Trump leading by 2.4 as we speak.  Neither institution can by any stretch be considered right leaning and the methology the poll employs  includes a larger sampling and more frequent updating of data.  Even liberals recognize it's superiority to more traditional methodology. What's your take on this.  Wait, let me guess, it's just another outlier, right.

The one thing I have noticed is the lack of energy behind Clinton supporters. On Reddit, there are 5x as many people subscribed to The_Donald thread as there are to the HillaryClinton thread. On Facebook go look at the number of negative comments on every Hillary Clinton post. Very few positive comments. Trump has 2 million more followers on Twitter.

These are typically liberal platforms, but the support for Trump far outweighs the support for Clinton.

You can buy Twitter and Facebook followers, but only the Clinton campaign has been proven to pay Correct the Record to engage in social media. They are being drowned out.

Look at the number of people showing up to the rallies. Trump gets more protesters than Clinton gets supporters.

The country may be split down the middle as far as parties, but the more energetic supporters end up taking the initiative to actually vote. This is something the polls do not guage well.

Look at how many less people voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. If the Democrats can only get the votes they got in 2012, Clinton will probably lose.

It is effortless to answer a poll. It takes effort to vote.

Polling methods need to evolve to compensate for the fact that many people don't even have a landline and many people use caller id to ignore calls not on their contact list. I have over 100 numbers blocked on my cell phone and my VOIP phone automatically blocks any anonymous calls.

[136 or 142]

The one thing I have noticed is the lack of energy behind Clinton supporters. On Reddit, there are 5x as many people subscribed to The_Donald thread as there are to the HillaryClinton thread. On Facebook go look at the number of negative comments on every Hillary Clinton post. Very few positive comments. Trump has 2 million more followers on Twitter.

These are typically liberal platforms, but the support for Trump far outweighs the support for Clinton.

You can buy Twitter and Facebook followers, but only the Clinton campaign has been proven to pay Correct the Record to engage in social media. They are being drowned out.

Look at the number if people showing up to the rallies. Trump gets more protesters than Clinton gets supporters.

The country may be spoit down the middle as far as parties, but the more energetic supporters end up taking the initiative to actually vote. This is something the polls do not guage well.

Look at how many less people voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. If the Democrats can only get the votes they got in 2012, Clinton will probably lose.

It is effortless to answer a poll. It takes effort to vote.

Polling methods need to evolve to compensate for the fact that many people don't even have a landline and many people use caller id to ignore calls not on their contact list. I have over 100 numbers blocked on my cell phone and my VOIP phone automatically blocks any anonymous calls.

Hillary Clinton's campaign claims to have more than 1 million volunteers and she received more votes during the Primary process than Donald Trump did.

As far as I can tell, Donald Trump's campaign is so badly organized they don't even know how many volunteers they have.

The early voting numbers also dispute your claim here, unless several million registered Democrats voted for Trump.

the polling firms are well aware of the problems with people moving away from landlines and also had the problem that even before that an increasing number of people refused to respond to pollsters.  This is one of the reasons why the L.A Times/USC is experimenting with their methodology of polling the same people throughout the campaign (though they may be adding in some people during the campaign or something like that.)  Many other polling firms are experimenting with online polling.

For all of the criticisms of polls, most of them are still quite accurate.  Here in Canada for instance, the final polls were pretty much dead on, though as usual in Canada, the polling firms also try to predict the seat count in the House of Commons based on their polls and they usually end up making fools of themselves when they try and do that. 

[theONE]

I'm almost always relaxed, thanks.  If I were actually to seek help for anything, I certainly wouldn't want it from any of you Trumptard Retards here.

Seek help from voodoo doctor because regular psychiatrists are not able to help you since you are lucking brain matter
to think clearly. Your reasonings are on the level of SciFiAuthor's goats.
You embarrassing other Canadians on this board

[GravitySucks]

Hillary Clinton's campaign claims to have more than 1 million volunteers and she received more votes during the Primary process than Donald Trump did.

As far as I can tell, Donald Trump's campaign is so badly organized they don't even know how many volunteers they have.

The early voting numbers also dispute your claim here, unless several million registered Democrats voted for Trump.

We shall see on November 8 in the only poll that counts.

Not all states require you to register for a party. Texas has 15 million registered voters with no party affiliation.

[theONE]

I heard this show twice. (They repeated this show when for some reason they couldn't put out a live broadcast.  My guess is this was a result of Ian's then emerging tinnitus so they went with a 'best of Ian Punnett.')  The first time I heard this show I thought this guy made a strong case.  The second time I heard it, his claims started to seem a bit odd:  They (whoever they is) killed Sonny Bono, but they didn't kill this guy so they left him alive to talk?  Why wouldn't they have killed this guy as well?

Since then, this guy has been back on Coast to Coast twice making increasingly outlandish claims about different completely unrelated things. I think one of them was something about his alien abduction or something like that.

I think we can mark this guy down as either a loon or a fraud.

136. That's how you are marked here

[The King of Kings]

Most polling firms don't intentionally bias their polls but they do use different methodologies.  This is why the generally best way to consider these polls is to throw out the handful of intentionally biased polls and to add all the remaining polls together into a meta poll.  Prior to this latest email thing, Hillary Clinton had a 7-8% lead in these meta poll.

Of course, even here there is a bit of dispute about the best way to combine the polls into a meta poll.  Nate Silver weights the surveys on a ranking that he uses based on the firm's past performance (or the past performance of the methodology the poll uses) while others add all the polls in equally.

(((Nate Silver))) is a fucking idiot.

This election cycle both the primary(both sides) and the general have shown polls to be pretty unreliable when to came to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

To be quite honest it wouldn't surprise me if Hillary blew out Donald in a landslide win and vice versa.  On the same token it wouldn't surprise me if it was razor sharp close with either person winning.

[theONE]

Get used to it.  If there were a viable alternative, I wouldn't be voting for Trump so I'm voting for him with deep reservations.  Still I'm a Trumptard.  I absolutely do not want to see Hillary as President and that is my primary motivation for voting Trump.  136 is a Hill shill who tries to pass himself off as unbiased.  It's a clever tactic but one that is ultimately failing him on this forum.

clever and 136 - is like saying that Hillry is the most honest person in America
same oxymoron

[136 or 142]

We shall see on November 8 in the only poll that counts.

Not all states require you to register for a party. Texas has 15 million registered voters with no party affiliation.

It's a comparison between the same state in 2012 and 2016.

Don't forget though, as Trump himself said, for his supporters the day to vote is November 29.

[Value Of Pi]

The only confrontational, non-peaceful protests I have seen have still been from the left. And now more and more evidence is being brought forward that it comes from Soros and the DNC.

Groups like BLM, New Black Panthers and La Raza, and their financial backers, are a bigger threat to our country than anyone attending a Trump rally.

While I hope for a Trump victory, I do have fear for what will happen in some of our larger cities, most of which have been run by Democrats for decades and many of which have established themselves as sanctuary cities.

I wasn't drawing any direct parallels with the protests of the 1960s and I don't have a sense of what would happen with the Trump "movement" if he loses or with BLM protests whoever wins.

But a lowering of tensions in general will only happen if some consensus starts to emerge in Washington on major issues. Unfortunately, it's hard to even imagine that happening with a President Clinton or Trump. Neither will surmount the current divisions, IMO.

[136 or 142]

Seek help from voodoo doctor because regular psychiatrists are not able to help you since you are lucking brain matter
to think clearly. Your reasonings are on the level of SciFiAuthor's goats.
You embarrassing other Canadians on this board

Heh. TheNO_ONe.  I seemed to have really annoyed you.  Maybe you should take up the advice that I was given earlier.

[theONE]

OK, but you did write this: Do early Hillary voters get free "I voted for Hillary before she was a felon" t-shirts?  Asking for a friend.

At a minimum I think you've used up your quota of 'asking for a friend.'

136 you are such a fucking sensitive delicate cry baby

[attachment deleted by admin]

[136 or 142]

136 you are such a fucking sensitive delicate cry baby

You're the one whining about me.  I haven't mentioned you here.

[21st Century Man]

I wasn't drawing any direct parallels with the protests of the 1960s and I don't have a sense of what would happen with the Trump "movement" if he loses or with BLM protests whoever wins.

But a lowering of tensions in general will only happen if some consensus starts to emerge in Washington on major issues. Unfortunately, it's hard to even imagine that happening with a President Clinton or Trump. Neither will surmount the current divisions, IMO.

Nope, no harmony in DC after this election.  It will be even more contentious.  Neither of the candidates are uniters.  The nation needs a Ronald Reagan or to pick a Democratic president, an FDR.  Neither come close.

[Kidnostad3]

All the ones calling for revolution against the Establishment, no matter how bloody it needed to be. There were groups as diverse as SDS and the Black Panthers, each of which had a political manifesto and a strategy of confrontational, non-peaceful protest.

The current sympathy in some quarters for the Russians is somewhat reminiscent of Vietnam protesters flying North Vietnamese flags -- just another way to demonstrate opposition to the system.

The Clinton's are those self same radicals.  Have you not heard about Hillary being a self-admitted acolyte of Saul Alinsky.  Her husband Bill instead of finishing his studies at Oxford went on  sabbatical in Moscow.  There is a whole lot more info available about the Clinton's radical youth. 

I would arguye that Obama is nothing more than a 60's radical by proxy by virtue of his being brought up by a hippie radical mom and self identified Marxist grandparents.  One of his neighbors in Chicago was Bill Ayers who was a kind of godfather to him and ghost wrote his books. 

There is much lacking in your knowledge base in this regard.

[136 or 142]

Nope, no harmony in DC after this election.  It will be even more contentious.  Neither of the candidates are uniters.  The nation needs a Ronald Reagan or to pick a Democratic president, an FDR.  Neither come close.

Or Hillary Clinton with a majority Democratic Congress.  If the U.S Senate increases the number needed to sustain a filibuster on all issues from 41 to 51 then I think a lot would be accomplished.

[136 or 142]

The Clinton's are those self same radicals.  Have you not heard about Hillary being a self-admitted acolyte of Saul Alinsky.  Her husband Bill instead of finishing his studies at Oxford went on  sabbatical in Moscow.  There is a whole lot more info available about the Clinton's radical youth. 

I would arguye that Obama is nothing more than a 60's radical by proxy by virtue of his being brought up by a hippie radical mom and self identified Marxist grandparents.  One of his neighbors in Chicago was Bill Ayers who was a kind of godfather to him and ghost wrote his books. 

There is much lacking in your knowledge base in this regard.

Or maybe Value of Pi knows the full story behind these things and not the Breitbart half truths you've presented here.

You also forgot to mention Reverend Wright.  Any reason for that slip up?

[chefist]

What will 136 do without those correct the Record checks after the election?

[Value Of Pi]

The Clinton's are those self same radicals.  Have you not heard about Hillary being a self-admitted acolyte of Saul Alinsky.  Her husband Bill instead of finishing his studies at Oxford went on  sabbatical in Moscow.  There is a whole lot more info available about the Clinton's radical youth. 

I would arguye that Obama is nothing more than a 60's radical by proxy by virtue of his being brought up by a hippie radical mom and self identified Marxist grandparents.  One of his neighbors in Chicago was Bill Ayers who was a kind of godfather to him and ghost wrote his books. 

There is much lacking in your knowledge base in this regard.

I've certainly heard of these connections but Presidents Clinton and Obama didn't govern as radicals and Sen Clinton didn't legislate like one.

[Kidnostad3]

Or maybe Value of Pi knows the full story behind these things and not the Breitbart half truths you've presented here.

You also forgot to mention Reverend Wright.  Any reason for that slip up?

Really, you're going to use that dodge? 

I actually read books.  I know who Breitbart is but I'm not a follower. 

Your act is getting stale.  There is no help for willfull ignorance.

[21st Century Man]

Or Hillary Clinton with a majority Democratic Congress.  If the U.S Senate increases the number needed to sustain a filibuster on all issues from 41 to 51 then I think a lot would be accomplished.

That is the kind of harmony I don't want.  I'll settle for Trump with a Republican majority.

[21st Century Man]

I've certainly heard of these connections but Presidents Clinton and Obama didn't govern as radicals and Sen Clinton didn't legislate like one.

Obamacare wasn't radical?  So where were the Republican votes?

[136 or 142]

Really, you're going to use that dodge? 

I actually read books.  I know who Breitbart is but I'm not a follower. 

Your act is getting stale.  There is no help for willfull ignorance.

Reading Dick and Jane doesn't count.

There are all sorts of Republican enabling Falsify the Record type websites out there.  If not Breitbart, you obviously picked these up from one or more of them.

[theONE]

15th Century Man, I'd like you to find me one case where I wrote something defending Hillary Clinton that was not correct. 

You're a Trumptard retard and a shill because you either post lies defending Trump like "all the claims against Trump are speculation" (lie) or you post nonsensical defenses of him, often mindlessly regurgitated, like that his admission that he is a serial sexual assaulter was just 'locker room talk.'

A shill is somebody who defends their candidate with lies.  You are a shill. I am not.

If you can't find even one case, then I will post this every time you refer to me as a shill.

The '3 emails' thing does not count, because that was what was believed at the time, and I posted the updated information on it as soon as I saw it.

I know you say that you like needling me sometimes, but I've also written here the one thing I can't stand is having my integrity attacked.

So, if you can't come up with one case and don't apologize and stop referring to me as a shill I hope you die as quickly and as painfully as possible because I know you'll be burning in hell for all eternity.  Not for attacking me, but because you seem to be a complete sleaze in general.

I also think that you are a Hillry shill but you are trying to do that bit differently than other shills, you are less direct but still is very evident
that you are her shill and you are twisting facts & projecting lies to suite your views.

And as to wishing quick and painful death on 21 -it's up to others here but I would suggest that posters who do that get ignored by others.
One thing is to disagree but to go to such low levels like this "friendly Canadian scum bag" is doing deserves BIG massive IGNORE from all posters here.

Or if responding to his lunacy is to just mock him, but not to engage in any civil discussions with garbage human being like 136 demonstrated
that he is by wishing painful death on other poster,
be grateful you Canadian scum bag that someone is responding to your lies -yet you wishing them death.

We have (Redacted) aka Heather Wade number 2 here.
136 Canadian full of lies scum bag Hillary's paid shill

[GravitySucks]

The Clinton's are those self same radicals.  Have you not heard about Hillary being a self-admitted acolyte of Saul Alinsky.  Her husband Bill instead of finishing his studies at Oxford went on  sabbatical in Moscow.  There is a whole lot more info available about the Clinton's radical youth. 

I would arguye that Obama is nothing more than a 60's radical by proxy by virtue of his being brought up by a hippie radical mom and self identified Marxist grandparents.  One of his neighbors in Chicago was Bill Ayers who was a kind of godfather to him and ghost wrote his books. 

There is much lacking in your knowledge base in this regard.

I think the sexual assault claims of Eileen Wellstone played a bit of a factor in his departure from Oxford.

[theONE]

Pay no attention, they're getting a bit unhinged as her campaign falls apart.

Hahaha, nice twist Sci-Fi

[136 or 142]

That is the kind of harmony I don't want.  I'll settle for Trump with a Republican majority.

I highly doubt that would lead to harmony.  Even if Donald Trump and Paul Ryan were both elected, I doubt they'd work together all that easily.  Hard to say for certain because Trump himself has no actual policies to speak of (at least, not coherent ones) so he might just agree to adopt Ryan's policies.  However, I think the Trumptards would be unhappy with a number of those policies: expanded free trade, cuts to entitlement programs that they support or receive themselves.

Of course, if the (more) radical Republicans like the House 'Freedom' Caucus tried to overthrow Ryan as Speaker, the whole Republican term would possibly descend into chaos for their whole two years.