Trump or Clinton--our own poll

[v7a]

You guys are hilarious, with your humor and cynicism. Way too high brow for me.

In this election, humor is all I have left. Well that, and praying that the Senate stays in Republican hands.

Reality check: three weeks until the election, Trump is only +4 in the latest Texas poll. So, yeah, I hope nobody here is holding on to hope that he's going to win traditionally blue states (New Jersey, etc) like his campaign said he would.

Oh, and if anyone here haven't actually asked their spouse who they're voting for, you might actually want to ask instead of just assuming:

[v7a]

Here is some info on the alternative.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-d ... otect-her/

I'm well aware that Hillary is horrible. Unfortunately for the country, a plurality of Republican primary voters decided to walk straight into the trap that the Clinton campaign and the media set for the Republican party. Even though many Republicans during the primary were shouting:

[Soccerdad1995]

That same conversation was happening in every locker room I found myself in when I played sports. It may be foreign language to you, but most males are familiar with it.

Feel free to cite a scientific survey of men that shows that admissions of sexual assault are normal in locker rooms.

Sure. I will also cite a scientific study that shows men claiming 2X the number of sexual partners they have actually had, women admitting to 1/3 of the actual number of partners, and men claiming that a certain appendage is 20% larger than it actually is. Men and women both exaggerate and yes, they outright lie on occasion.

As far as "sexual assault", lets start with HRH and her attacks on the victims of her husbands sexual assault. I must have missed her disgust at the criminal acts of her rapist husband and her insistence that all of his accusers needed to be believed.

This has nothing to do with a sudden concern for women on the part of HRH or any of her minions. This is only about attacking Trump. If you honestly believe otherwise, then I don't know what to tell you.

[allisji]

Here is some info on the alternative.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-d ... otect-her/

I'm well aware that Hillary is horrible. Unfortunately, a plurality of Republican primary voters decided to walk straight into the trap that the Clinton campaign and the media set for the Republican party. Even though many Republicans during the primary were shouting:

No need to bash Trump supporters and Trump primary voters. I voted for Ted Cruz, but I am backing Trump now.

I don't think Trump will win, but I think that the energy around Trump and among his loyal supporters will change the republican party for the better. I think the he is starting a movement and that people will start to realize that his ideas weren't all bad. We need someone who will dismantle the Washington establishment, and I think that if we don't lose our freedom forever that one day we may look back and thank Trump for being the champion for change in our political system.

[mojo84]

[v7a]

That same conversation was happening in every locker room I found myself in when I played sports. It may be foreign language to you, but most males are familiar with it.

Feel free to cite a scientific survey of men that shows that admissions of sexual assault are normal in locker rooms.

Sure. I will also cite a scientific study that shows men claiming 2X the number of sexual partners they have actually had, women admitting to 1/3 of the actual number of partners, and men claiming that a certain appendage is 20% larger than it actually is. Men and women both exaggerate and yes, they outright lie on occasion.

Right, so you were extrapoliting your own personal experience to the majority of the male population. However, your personal experience is no more representative than mine (which is that men in locker rooms generally do not boast about sexually assaulting women by touching their genitals without consent). Never mind that locker room talk isn't even the applicable standard here. Trump made these comments to a TV host, not in a locker room setting.

As far as "sexual assault", lets start with HRH and her attacks on the victims of her husbands sexual assault. I must have missed her disgust at the criminal acts of her rapist husband and her insistence that all of his accusers needed to be believed.

Hillary's crimes and behavior do not excuse Trump's and vice versa.

This has nothing to do with a sudden concern for women on the part of HRH or any of her minions. This is only about attacking Trump.

Of course it's being used to attack Trump. Which is why it was the height of stupidity for Trump to make Bill's sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assaults the closing theme of his campaign when he had his own skeletons in the closet. Professional campaigns do opposition research on their own candidate so they can be prepared for attacks. Trump however is a clown candidate so naturally he refused to let his campaign do opposition research on himself:

Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, requested that Trump submit himself to a forensic evaluation that is traditional for any public figure seeking office, according to people granted anonymity to speak freely about the campaign’s start-up days last year. Opposition research would allow Trump’s new political team to prepare for potential attacks on his candidacy.
Paul Manafort and his team made a similar request when they took over the reins after Lewandowski, who was ousted this June.
Trump declined, the people said, and the issue became a point of contention among his closest political advisers and some long-time employees at the Trump Organization. Trump spokespeople Jason Miller and Hope Hicks didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

[Soccerdad1995]

Right, so you were extrapoliting your own personal experience to the majority of the male population. However, your personal experience is no more representative than mine (which is that men in locker rooms generally do not boast about sexually assaulting women by touching their genitals without consent). Never mind that locker room talk isn't even the applicable standard here. Trump made these comments to a TV host, not in a locker room setting.

Yes. I was basing my perception of the world in part on my own personal experiences. Just like you are doing. And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S. Regardless, neither of us has any "scientific studies" that show what men (or women) talk about when they are having private conversations. But I'm assuming that we have been involved in plenty of private conversations with others of the same sex, so that is what we have to go on. My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse. And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs. "Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room. I would have assumed that someone with a personal experience that was as broadly representative of the entire male population would be more familiar with that term.

Hillary's crimes and behavior do not excuse Trump's and vice versa.

Agreed. She should be held to task for her attacks on rape victims of her husband and for enabling his behavior regardless of anything that Trump may or may not have done. It is just very ironic when she then holds herself out as a champion for women (the one ad I saw of hers where she did anything other than attack Trump).

Of course it's being used to attack Trump. Which is why it was the height of stupidity for Trump to make Bill's sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assaults the closing theme of his campaign when he had his own skeletons in the closet. Professional campaigns do opposition research on their own candidate so they can be prepared for attacks. Trump however is a clown candidate so naturally he refused to let his campaign do opposition research on himself

Why do all of you people (Hillary supporters) insist on name calling and vitriol? "Clown candidate"? Really? And I suppose you still think that Trump's campaign is the one that is based on hate?

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject. I'm done with this thread.

[mojo84]

[bblhd672]

Regardless of the results in 3 weeks, I pray that all of us who support the 2nd Amendment, no matter who we vote for, can stand together for America and the Constitution.

[parabelum]

And why didn't these allegations against Trump appear until AFTER the Republican primary? Because the Democrats WANTED to run against Trump...since even Jeb! could have beaten HITLERY.

Because Billy boy, Jeb!'s little cousin, along with the whole ruling class families, Bush and Clinton in particular, would have treated Trump much differently had he not taken Jeb!'s turn.


For what it's worth, these two families would have, in my opinion, destroyed Ted Cruz, Rubio or whoever else would have gotten in their way.


But you see, there are millions of us who know their game and we will not forget.


Traitors. Dirty rotten traitors they are all, for what they've done to this Nation.

And now, they salivate over themselves how successful they are at infiltrating conservative channels, just as they were able to get few of their moles in here.

[parabelum]

Right, so you were extrapoliting your own personal experience to the majority of the male population. However, your personal experience is no more representative than mine (which is that men in locker rooms generally do not boast about sexually assaulting women by touching their genitals without consent). Never mind that locker room talk isn't even the applicable standard here. Trump made these comments to a TV host, not in a locker room setting.

Yes. I was basing my perception of the world in part on my own personal experiences. Just like you are doing. And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S. Regardless, neither of us has any "scientific studies" that show what men (or women) talk about when they are having private conversations. But I'm assuming that we have been involved in plenty of private conversations with others of the same sex, so that is what we have to go on. My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse. And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs. "Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room. I would have assumed that someone with a personal experience that was as broadly representative of the entire male population would be more familiar with that term.

Hillary's crimes and behavior do not excuse Trump's and vice versa.

Agreed. She should be held to task for her attacks on rape victims of her husband and for enabling his behavior regardless of anything that Trump may or may not have done. It is just very ironic when she then holds herself out as a champion for women (the one ad I saw of hers where she did anything other than attack Trump).

Of course it's being used to attack Trump. Which is why it was the height of stupidity for Trump to make Bill's sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assaults the closing theme of his campaign when he had his own skeletons in the closet. Professional campaigns do opposition research on their own candidate so they can be prepared for attacks. Trump however is a clown candidate so naturally he refused to let his campaign do opposition research on himself

Why do all of you people (Hillary supporters) insist on name calling and vitriol? "Clown candidate"? Really? And I suppose you still think that Trump's campaign is the one that is based on hate?

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject. I'm done with this thread.

Soccerdad,

These are the moles who have been sitting here as poseurs pretending to be "one of us".

I have ZERO patience at this point for these smears. Just look at the quantity of smear posts against Trump by the same few people.

They are the dividers.

[v7a]

And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I didn't make the claim that they're equally representative, which would be a stupid claim to make as they cannot be equally representative. I said your experience is no more representative than mine. That's another way of saying that with only anecdotes and no data we have no way of knowing which experience is actually representative. You're right that I didn't provide any proof, for the obvious reason that unlike you I did not make a claim that a particular experience is representative (of the majority of males).

My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse.

I wasn't offended by his words per se. I was offended by the sexual assault he described himself committing. I'm sorry for you that you do not find sexual assault offensive.

And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs.

A conversation with a TV host while wearing a microphone is not a private conversation, even if one is so naive as to assume that the mic is off.

"Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room.

Indeed. You might want to inform Rep. Ted Yoho and other Trump supporters, though:

I talked with several Trump supporters this week who truly thought the comments were made in an actual locker room...

Rep. Yoho just said Trump made 2005 comments in a locker room. No he didn't. He said it while mic'd up talking to someone he barely knew

"Clown candidate"? Really?

I think it's a fitting description for a candidate who refused his own campaign's repeated requests to do the customary opposition research on yourself. Is there another word you would have used instead? Incompetent, perhaps? I'd be happy to switch to another word. After all, I wouldn't want to upset Trump supporters by using words that are politically incorrect.

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject.

If thinking that I'm voting for Hillary makes you feel better about voting for Trump, then by all means, carry on with your delusion.

[Bitter Clinger]

And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I didn't make the claim that they're equally representative, which would be a stupid claim to make as they cannot be equally representative. I said your experience is no more representative than mine. That's another way of saying that with only anecdotes and no data we have no way of knowing which experience is actually representative. You're right that I didn't provide any proof, for the obvious reason that unlike you I did not make a claim that a particular experience is representative (of the majority of males).

My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse.

I wasn't offended by his words per se. I was offended by the sexual assault he described himself committing. I'm sorry for you that you do not find sexual assault offensive.

And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs.

A conversation with a TV host while wearing a microphone is not a private conversation, even if one is so naive as to assume that the mic is off.

"Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room.

Indeed. You might want to inform Rep. Ted Yoho and other Trump supporters, though:

I talked with several Trump supporters this week who truly thought the comments were made in an actual locker room...

Rep. Yoho just said Trump made 2005 comments in a locker room. No he didn't. He said it while mic'd up talking to someone he barely knew

"Clown candidate"? Really?

I think it's a fitting description for a candidate who refused his own campaign's repeated requests to do the customary opposition research on yourself. Is there another word you would have used instead? Incompetent, perhaps? I'd be happy to switch to another word. After all, I wouldn't want to upset Trump supporters by using words that are politically incorrect.

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject.

If thinking that I'm voting for Hillary makes you feel better about voting for Trump, then by all means, carry on with your delusion.

v7a, apparently you are so busy waging keyboard jihad on your fellow forum members, you fail to see that you have been duped by the Clinton machine:

[v7a]

These are the moles who have been sitting here as poseurs pretending to be "one of us".

I'd be curious to hear how my contributions to the campus carry lawsuit thread fit into your mole theory. Presumably you're already familiar with those contributions from your in-depth research of moles on this forum.

[v7a]

v7a, apparently you are so busy waging keyboard jihad on your fellow forum members, you fail to see that you have been duped by the Clinton machine:

Comedy gold. Wikileaks has confirmed that Hillary's campaign wanted Trump as the nominee. So it's actually Trump supporters who were duped by the Clinton machine.