Return to “Trump or Clinton--our own poll”
mojo84 wrote:Out of curiosity and not to start a forum war, here's a question for the Hillary supporters that indicated they plan to vote for her.
Has the recent FBI announcement and Wikileaks revelations caused you to reconsider or change your voting preference?
Gore didn't have Wikileaks and Project Veritas videos that clearly show media bias, admission of voter fraud and campaign finance crimes among other improper activities.dale blanker wrote:I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll share my recollection of that event...Alf wrote:Can anyone can explain why it was acceptable for Gore to challenge the 2000 election results, and take it to court when he didn't like the results, but it's deplorable for Trump to reserve the possibility of doing likewise?
Gore had conceded the election but then retracted his concession when he realized the Florida vote was so close and made the big difference in the electoral college. Calling for a recount is not unusual in many local elections. Florida did not finish a recount in a timely fashion and so the Supreme Court said "you're done" and left the Florida count in Bush's favor. This put Bush into the majority of electoral votes needed for the presidency even though Gore had won the popular majority. I believe it was later determined that a really final count in Florida would have still been in Bush's favor.
Note that Gore had not suggested the election might be rigged before the election or even after it.
I received the same answer on here when I asked the question about Hillary's accomplishments.mojo84 wrote:infoman wrote:Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.
I am confident Hillary would work to severely limit gun ownership as she has publicly indicated. How successful she would be is an unknown at this point. However, that is not the only issue.
You ignored my previous question. What has she done or what positions, specifically, makes her your preferred choice? I listed quite a few reasons she shouldn't be a liberty minded moral person's choice and am interested in why people think she is the best choice.
The good folks over at Campus Reform hit the streets again in search of well-informed Democrat voters who can pinpoint just one thing Hillary Clinton has accomplished in her entire adult life working in politics. This turned out to be an impossible task.
In the clip (below), the students of Georgetown University are perplexed when reporter Cabot Phillips asks them to follow up their support for Crooked Hillary with an example of what she's done as a career politician. Phillips opens by stating that Fox News released a poll this week "showing that a majority of young people view Hillary Clinton as a positive role model."
"Today we're asking students what about Hillary makes her admirable," says Phillips.
Here's some poll data for you.v7a wrote:Fair point. There's a distinction between "Trump voter" and "Trump supporter".mojo84 wrote:Not those of us that supported and voted for another candidate during the primaries.
Ah, but therein lies the rub: Trump being viable is subjective opinion and not fact (and of course the same goes for my opinion that Trump isn't and never was viable as a general election candidate). Many of us warned during the primary that Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Hillary. As far as we're concerned, Hillary won the Presidential election on July 19th. When Trump is only +4 in Texas (of all states) three weeks out from the election, it beggars belief that Trump is going to win enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. It's not impossible, but I consider McMullin winning Utah and throwing the election into the House as more likely (as unlikely as that is).However, my guy didn't win the nomination and it does the country no good to publicly slam the only viable option to Hillary.
Summary: Stephen M. Silberstein, a member of George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance, sheds light on the extent of Soros’s socialist agenda for America. Silberstein’s foundation backs a panoply of leftist groups that fight for higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution schemes, single-payer socialized medicine, burdensome regulation of energy markets, judicial activism designed to advance a radically egalitarian agenda, and the replacement of the linchpin of federalism, the Electoral College, with a national popular vote. George Soros’s secretive donor consortium, the Democracy Alliance, has been making news lately in the wake of a new plan set forth at its four-day conference entitled “A New Progressive Era?” which took place in Chicago at the end of April 2014. According to the Washington Post, “The plan, being crafted in private by a group of about 100 donors that includes billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros and San Francisco venture capitalist Rob McKay, seeks to give Democrats a stronger hand in the redrawing of district lines for state legislatures and the U.S. House.” More specifically, the newspaper reports that “keeping Democratic control of the Senate” was of paramount concern to the donors. “There’s a lot of anxiety about the midterms,” admitted McKay, the outgoing chairman, “who said substantial investment this year will go to local and state minimum-wage campaigns that can help drive turnout for federal races.” The new plan would shift significant resources away from the Alliance’s typical focus on donating to left-wing media outlets and think tanks, such as Media Matters for America and the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress. Assuming the reported shift occurs, the Alliance will try to engage in ground-level political campaigning by in effect acting as a bundling super PAC—an über super PAC—in order to prevent the expected GOP takeover of the Senate.
v7a wrote:Oversampling a particular demographic would indeed affect a poll's predictive value. Of course, you neglected to provide any credible evidence that the majority of polls are oversampling. I'm so old that I remember people clinging to the same delusional belief in 2012. Romney himself on election night still believed he was going to win because he clung to the "unskewed" polls. And speaking of Romney, he won Texas by +16. Trump is currently polling at +4 in Texas.Bitter Clinger wrote:polls that sample predominately hard core Democrats could possibly exhibit some inherent bias, but that would never occur to our friend
In any case, let's reconvene on November 9th to assess how (in)accurate the polls turned out to be.
http://twitchy.com/loriz-3139/2016/10/1 ... nrage-you/BOMBSHELL video: What James O’Keefe just exposed about Hillary Clinton will ENRAGE you
His viability had definitely taken a hit from some of his past and current idiocy. However, much of the damage that's being done is being fueled by those that are typically republican voters but are falling for the proggressive smear campaign, media bias and typical dem voters that would never vote for a republican even if the dem nominee was Satan him/herself, which may be the case.v7a wrote:Fair point. There's a distinction between "Trump voter" and "Trump supporter".mojo84 wrote:Not those of us that supported and voted for another candidate during the primaries.
Ah, but therein lies the rub: Trump being viable is subjective opinion and not fact (and of course the same goes for my opinion that Trump isn't and never was viable as a general election candidate). Many of us warned during the primary that Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Hillary. As far as we're concerned, Hillary won the Presidential election on July 19th. When Trump is only +4 in Texas (of all states) three weeks out from the election, it beggars belief that Trump is going to win enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. It's not impossible, but I consider McMullin winning Utah and throwing the election into the House as more likely (as unlikely as that is).However, my guy didn't win the nomination and it does the country no good to publicly slam the only viable option to Hillary.
Not those of us that supported and voted for another candidate during the primaries. However, my guy didn't win the nomination and it does the country no good to publicly slam the only viable option to Hillary.v7a wrote: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.Bitter Clinger wrote: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:
