TexasCHLforum.com

JakeTheSnake wrote:I don't guess I will bother to vote, with all the voter fraud and how rigged it is per Trump.
With all the illegals and dead poeple voting whats the point?

JakeTheSnake wrote:I don't guess I will bother to vote, with all the voter fraud and how rigged it is per Trump.
With all the illegals and dead poeple voting whats the point?

The Annoyed Man wrote:And still no reply at all, let alone a rational reply from the Hillary voters. It's awful quiet in here.........

The Annoyed Man wrote:

surprise-poll-results.png

Per 18 USC Ch. 101 field-end:cite : RECORDS AND REPORTS:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

dale blanker wrote:

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?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll share my recollection of that event...

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.

allisji wrote:These debates have driven me crazy. I honestly can't believe how poorly Trump debates her. He is so bad in these debates, which boggles my mind, because he hits her on the issues twice a day at his rallies and then in the debates he sinks down to personal attacks and name calling rather than hitting her on the issues.

Flightmare wrote:

Skiprr wrote:I strongly debated (pun intended) either watching another fingernails-on-blackboard presidential debate, or watching on demand the sequel to the movie Independence Day.

Forty-five minutes in, I'm still watching the debate. But I bought some .22 LR CCI Mini-Mags from Midway USA while I watched. Made me feel better about the whole thing...especially after Hillary contended the core of the whole Heller decision centered around safety for "dozens of toddlers."

I ordered some .45 ACP. I'm good on .22 LR for as little as I shoot it.

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote: Dale, you did not burden me. I would not waste my time reading any fiction that you post a link to...Stevens was murdered and Hillary is responsible, and she lied about it. Not sorry to burden you at all.

Bitter, if you will not see facts presented to you and instead simply do personal attacks you will not be able to reason.

v7a wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:polls that sample predominately hard core Democrats could possibly exhibit some inherent bias, but that would never occur to our friend

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.

In any case, let's reconvene on November 9th to assess how (in)accurate the polls turned out to be.

v7a wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:POLLS ARE NOT CORRECT, they never have been, look at their history in past elections and with Brexit.

Polls have a stated margin of error. Some polls are better than others. There were Brexit polls that showed slight majority support for exiting, but pundits decided to ignore them in favor of their preferred outcome.

As for the US: In the 2008 election Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states. In 2012 he got all 50 right. Here's his latest prediction for 2016:

parabelum wrote:Mojo,Soccerdad,TreyHouston and others:

Great job on doing research and trying to demonstrate what's going on here.

Those who still beat the same drum and continue to smear Trump right now are either heavily medicated, are receiving some kind of kickback from the fascist machine, are playing for the other side, or all of the above.


By definition, you cannot reason with unreasonable people.

v7a wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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:

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

CBSNews wrote: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.