Trump

JC29856

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

You are saying that in his capacity as SOS and/or Senator, John Kerry has said Ohio was stolen?? I have never heard or seen that. Please post it. I'd be curious and it would be a breach of protocol in many ways.

Here's an example in the New Yorker: (key part about 20 paragraphs in)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Speaking to Abdullah Abdullah from Afghanistan he said that there were election irregularities in Ohio. Now he didn't use the word "stolen" but he said they could have fought in court but for the good of the country he let it go. He used this story to encourage Abdullah to accept the results of the Afghani election. Now one can look at this and say what Kerry did was noble but others can look at this and say he painted W's Presidency as an illegitimate one. In my opinion talk like this should be left at the water's edge even if it has political usefulness. Too many dangerous games can be played with legitimacy.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

Not particularly. Its mean-reverted bias is a few points leans Republican first off. Second, you never look at any one poll. That's why 538 is so useful in understanding the preponderance of the evidence as to where the election is trending. LA Times, Rasmussen, IBD always seem to have the race closer because of their assessment of the election demographic.

JC29856

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

I remember how spineless Kerry was, he wouldn't challenge the results. Some 3rd parties actually tried doing DNC dirty work for him. He should have challenged the voting machines and exit polling data.

"Right wing" sources have identified a link between soros and smartmatic voting machines installed in 16 states.

JC29856

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

You are saying that in his capacity as SOS and/or Senator, John Kerry has said Ohio was stolen?? I have never heard or seen that. Please post it. I'd be curious and it would be a breach of protocol in many ways.

Here's an example in the New Yorker: (key part about 20 paragraphs in)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Speaking to Abdullah Abdullah from Afghanistan he said that there were election irregularities in Ohio. Now he didn't use the word "stolen" but he said they could have fought in court but for the good of the country he let it go. He used this story to encourage Abdullah to accept the results of the Afghani election. Now one can look at this and say what Kerry did was noble but others can look at this and say he painted W's Presidency as an illegitimate one. In my opinion talk like this should be left at the water's edge even if it has political usefulness. Too many dangerous games can be played with legitimacy.

I don't understand the good of the country bit, he was probably pressured into not challenging by the DNC in exchange for a favor to be named later. Spineless!

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

I remember how spineless Kerry was, he wouldn't challenge the results. Some 3rd parties actually tried doing DNC dirty work for him. He should have challenged the voting machines and exit polling data.

"Right wing" sources have identified a link between soros and smartmatic voting machines installed in 16 states.

Exit polling data is irrelevant. Most states have auto recount provisions if they are within a certain % (not sure about Ohio). But there's something to be said about how Gore and Kerry handled the situation. I wouldn't call it spineless. I would call it "country over party".

josevolution

Trump today stated that he will accept results of election if he wins it lol

JC29856

josevolution said:

Trump today stated that he will accept results of election if he wins it lol

He qualified it today!

JC29856

I think a few years after the Ohio irregularities some election staff were convicted and jailed for rigging.

josevolution

JC29856 said:

josevolution said:

Trump today stated that he will accept results of election if he wins it lol

He qualified it today!

I stated it wrong he said , Only if I win

JC29856

Republican progress!

Dole > Bush > McCain > Romney > Trump

Cliffy6745

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

Not particularly. Its mean-reverted bias is a few points leans Republican first off. Second, you never look at any one poll. That's why 538 is so useful in understanding the preponderance of the evidence as to where the election is trending. LA Times, Rasmussen, IBD always seem to have the race closer because of their assessment of the election demographic.

This does make me nervous. It did do well the last couple elections, but it can't be a coincidence that pretty much every single other poll disagrees and it is a national poll

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

I remember how spineless Kerry was, he wouldn't challenge the results. Some 3rd parties actually tried doing DNC dirty work for him. He should have challenged the voting machines and exit polling data.

"Right wing" sources have identified a link between soros and smartmatic voting machines installed in 16 states.

Exit polling data is irrelevant. Most states have auto recount provisions if they are within a certain % (not sure about Ohio). But there's something to be said about how Gore and Kerry handled the situation. I wouldn't call it spineless. I would call it "country over party".

I'm not sure it's exactly that. It's more "feed your base red meat that you were robbed" while claiming to take some moral high ground at the same time. It allows one to appear oh so noble while undermining the electoral system at the same time. I don't blame Trump for using the word "rigged" when he and others have been fed this crap on a regular basis since 2000. It's why Bernie supporters continue to say Clinton rigged the election against them. Hell the Pedestal emails show that Hillary believes Obama rigged it against her. This isn't new.

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

so will this ^^

Gern Blansten

fucking hilarious...

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

What source do you have for Kerry saying Ohio was stolen?

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

I remember how spineless Kerry was, he wouldn't challenge the results. Some 3rd parties actually tried doing DNC dirty work for him. He should have challenged the voting machines and exit polling data.

"Right wing" sources have identified a link between soros and smartmatic voting machines installed in 16 states.

Exit polling data is irrelevant. Most states have auto recount provisions if they are within a certain % (not sure about Ohio). But there's something to be said about how Gore and Kerry handled the situation. I wouldn't call it spineless. I would call it "country over party".

I'm not sure it's exactly that. It's more "feed your base red meat that you were robbed" while claiming to take some moral high ground at the same time. It allows one to appear oh so noble while undermining the electoral system at the same time. I don't blame Trump for using the word "rigged" when he and others have been fed this crap on a regular basis since 2000. It's why Bernie supporters continue to say Clinton rigged the election against them. Hell the Pedestal emails show that Hillary believes Obama rigged it against her. This isn't new.

There's just a world of difference between the candidate and the base. You expect one to show decorum, leadership, high mindedness. The other one is a rabble. I don't know the reference to HRC in the Podesta emails, but I'm sure she never said it on a stump or publicly.

P.S. - where the link on Kerry claiming fraud/rigged while oversees?
P.S.S. - I'm not a shit talker, but.... TRIBE!

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

You are saying that in his capacity as SOS and/or Senator, John Kerry has said Ohio was stolen?? I have never heard or seen that. Please post it. I'd be curious and it would be a breach of protocol in many ways.

Here's an example in the New Yorker: (key part about 20 paragraphs in)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Speaking to Abdullah Abdullah from Afghanistan he said that there were election irregularities in Ohio. Now he didn't use the word "stolen" but he said they could have fought in court but for the good of the country he let it go. He used this story to encourage Abdullah to accept the results of the Afghani election. Now one can look at this and say what Kerry did was noble but others can look at this and say he painted W's Presidency as an illegitimate one. In my opinion talk like this should be left at the water's edge even if it has political usefulness. Too many dangerous games can be played with legitimacy.

Oh I see....he didn't say that

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

You are saying that in his capacity as SOS and/or Senator, John Kerry has said Ohio was stolen?? I have never heard or seen that. Please post it. I'd be curious and it would be a breach of protocol in many ways.

Here's an example in the New Yorker: (key part about 20 paragraphs in)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Speaking to Abdullah Abdullah from Afghanistan he said that there were election irregularities in Ohio. Now he didn't use the word "stolen" but he said they could have fought in court but for the good of the country he let it go. He used this story to encourage Abdullah to accept the results of the Afghani election. Now one can look at this and say what Kerry did was noble but others can look at this and say he painted W's Presidency as an illegitimate one. In my opinion talk like this should be left at the water's edge even if it has political usefulness. Too many dangerous games can be played with legitimacy.

Sorry BS. I missed this. But I think this is an elegant point on how to create a sustainable democracy, using a personal example. I don't think he was painting it as illegitimate at all. The only example in history that I can really think of where someone truly questioned the legitimacy was the 1824 election and Corrupt Bargain. This gave JQA the election over Andrew Jackson.

Go Beavers

josevolution said:

JC29856 said:

josevolution said:

Trump today stated that he will accept results of election if he wins it lol

He qualified it today!

I stated it wrong he said , Only if I win

It's nuts how Trump can be so clueless and self-absorbed.