SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Clinton is still in very good shape-

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/ ... -of-november-3rd_407.html

Unless the polling is way off I don't see how she can lose.

Good shape =/= no chance of losing

You're being intellectually dishonest and no one is buying it.

Is Nate Silver right?
Most polling models show Hillary Clinton winning easily. Why is 538 more cautious?
By STEVEN SHEPARD 11/04/16 11:55 AM EDT

"The latest RealClearPolitics projections have the race teetering on a knife?s edge. But other, more complex forecast models ? based on the same polls ? give Clinton a 98 percent or 99 percent chance of defeating Trump next Tuesday.

"As of noon Friday, the models and polling averages ranged from RealClearPolitics? close-to-tied electoral map ? if Florida were to flip back to Trump, he would be ahead in the Electoral College ? to HuffPost Pollster and the Princeton Election Consortium, which each show Clinton?s chances close to 100 percent, and Daily Kos Elections? model gives Clinton a 91 percent chance of winning.

In the middle are models from two high-profile data-journalism sites, FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times? Upshot. But those two models aren?t in complete agreement, either. FiveThirtyEight?s ?polls-only? model pegs Clinton?s chances at 67.8 percent as of late Friday morning, while the Upshot model is more bullish at 84 percent."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11 ... e-silver-538-right-230734


I believe that Nate Silver will be wrong. And when will this thing wrap up?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ar ... -334pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Clinton is still in very good shape-

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/ ... -of-november-3rd_407.html

Unless the polling is way off I don't see how she can lose.

Good shape =/= no chance of losing

You're being intellectually dishonest and no one is buying it.

SOS wrote:
Clinton is still in very good shape-

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/ ... -of-november-3rd_407.html

Unless the polling is way off I don't see how she can lose.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

I think Trump is a disaster but you're a fool if you don't think Trump doesn't have a chance at winning.

538 has him at 33% right now. Wake up and pay attention.

The race is getting tighter, more excitement I guess but fundamentals are the same. Trump will lose.

http://election.princeton.edu/
Nate Silver - 538 has sold out to get page hits in my opinion.
But on Tuesday night I'll be consuming some alcohol...

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

I think Trump is a disaster but you're a fool if you don't think Trump doesn't have a chance at winning.

538 has him at 33% right now. Wake up and pay attention.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

SOS wrote:


Go ahead and cherry pick factoids. Trump doesn't believe in climate change

MDM wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Possible. Depends on turnout. There are more D voters than R voters, but H has had issues with enthusiasm:

Local campaign headquarters with almost no volunteers

Her people complaining about the lack of enthusiasm (via Wikileaks).

Using a green-screen to make it look like Hillary had a big crowd show up.

Tim Kaine having less than 40 people show up at a rally then cancelling further rallies.
Etc.

Trump has been playing full houses and his people are pretty damn pumped. They are going to turn out to the polls. Will it be enough to throw MI or PA Trump's way? No idea. With cell phones, polling just doesn't have the accuracy it did years back. I.e. the polls had H winning big in the primary in Michigan... Sanders clobbered her.

Will Sanders people go to the polls in sufficient numbers to put Hillary in office?

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Possible. Depends on turnout. There are more D voters than R voters, but H has had issues with enthusiasm:

Local campaign headquarters with almost no volunteers

Her people complaining about the lack of enthusiasm (via Wikileaks).

Using a green-screen to make it look like Hillary had a big crowd show up.

Tim Kaine having less than 40 people show up at a rally then cancelling further rallies.
Etc.

Trump has been playing full houses and his people are pretty damn pumped. They are going to turn out to the polls. Will it be enough to throw MI or PA Trump's way? No idea. With cell phones, polling just doesn't have the accuracy it did years back. I.e. the polls had H winning big in the primary in Michigan... Sanders clobbered her.

Will Sanders people go to the polls in sufficient numbers to put Hillary in office?

SOS wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

fat-ass-bike wrote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
It is not racist to prevent dangerous people from immigrating here. We owe nothing to them and they will only drain us. I'm happy with the polls and think enough Americans will agree with me come Tuesday.

As for evidence of Hillary's corruption, there has been plenty of ink spilled on the subject over the years. There's a great book called Clinton Cash, which actually sparked the ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire ... nvestigation-clinton-cash

More recently, Wikileaks released a memo drafted by Bill Clinton's longest serving and most trusted advisor where he detailed the quid pro quo arrangement. I encourage you to read the entire memo and the book for the evidence you pretend you are interested in.

I asked for specifics and you don't provide them. Either they exist or they don't.

Clinton Cash is a book written by Trumps campaign CEO. It isn't a factual source.

As for your racism, it is on display here in multiple threads. It isn't only for your desire to deport brown people.

I did provide them. Do you know how to read? There is an entire book written on the subject containing specifics, along with the Wikileaks memo.

And while you may employ the typical liberal strategy of shoot the messenger while ignoring the message, the FBI does not see things your way. The book obviously matters for them to conduct an investigation into the Clinton Foundation after reading it.

Investigations are not evidence. Your book link isn't evidence as the author is not a newsman, he's the CEO of Trump's campaign.

I asked for evidence. You have not provided it.

Wikileaks does not contain anything either. If it did, you'd be able to provide a link to it. So... Provide or walk the claim back. Burden of proof is on you.

The book contains the evidence. The investigation stemming from the book is just proof that the book is true. If what you were saying was correct, the FBI would have laughed at the book and thrown it in the garbage.

As for the Wikileaks memo, here is an article from NBC (pro Hillary) discussing it:

Hacked Memo Reinforces Worst Perception of the Clintons

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first ... rception-clintons-n673806

Here is a good quote:


"The memo ? lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family's fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called 'Bill Clinton Inc.,' obtaining 'in-kind services for the President and his family?for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.'"

What the memo makes clear is how inseparable the Clinton Foundation was to business interests."

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
so...doanld used his charity to buy a painting for his golf course?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... ndation-article-1.2854613

Sure. And Hillary used her charity to exchange favors to donors, including foreign governments, in exchange for bribes. That's how the Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. The Washington Post called it Clinton Inc.

But don't worry, it seems that she will be in jail soon enough...

You did not read the article. Did you? Otherwise, you would know that it was not the Washington Post calling it 'Clinton Inc.'

You are right. It was Bill Clinton's longest held and most trusted advisor who called the Clinton Foundation "Clinton Inc." The Washington Post reported on it.

But that makes it worse. The Clinton insiders themselves brag about how their charity is just a slush fund for doing favors for donors in exchange for bribes. Think what the Healy administration got in trouble for, only its 10,000x worse.

So basically you were once again talking about something you did not (and atill don't) know anything about...

And you continue to make shit up. It is becoming a full time job to call you on all of them...

You are lying, yet again. The Clinton Foundation, or Clinton Inc., was a slush fund that got Bill and Hillary millions of dollars in exchange for buying "access" or "influence," aka favors.

I understand why you defend this corrupt woman so much, because you want Muslim "migrants" to pour into this country, but that doesn't make your statements true.

Here you go frothing at the mouth again...

I am for a human solution to a complicated problem, something you are way too racist to comprehend.

You are intentionally derailing from the proof of Hillary's corruption I posted after I was asked.

At least you admit your obvious motives behind your continued defense of this criminal candidate. I get the feeling you're a single issue guy, and if the parties' immigration positions were reversed, you'd be the loudest one here going after Hillary for her corruption.

I don't have an agenda, I have opinions.

You are the one with an agenda, a very racist one, one that I personally find terrifying...

You have a very clear agenda of bringing as many Muslim immigrants over here as possible (not talking about current American citizens), and if the parties had reversed immigration positions, you'd be the first one attacking Hillary.

Luckily this issue is beyond our control, and I feel good about the polls. But keep deflecting from the proof I posted about Hillary's corruption.

I don't know what to say to you. This is just not my position...
I never said that. I just find your positions despicable and feel I have to speak against them.

I guess it is a lost cause to try to reason with you...

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
so...doanld used his charity to buy a painting for his golf course?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... ndation-article-1.2854613

Sure. And Hillary used her charity to exchange favors to donors, including foreign governments, in exchange for bribes. That's how the Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. The Washington Post called it Clinton Inc.

But don't worry, it seems that she will be in jail soon enough...

You did not read the article. Did you? Otherwise, you would know that it was not the Washington Post calling it 'Clinton Inc.'

You are right. It was Bill Clinton's longest held and most trusted advisor who called the Clinton Foundation "Clinton Inc." The Washington Post reported on it.

But that makes it worse. The Clinton insiders themselves brag about how their charity is just a slush fund for doing favors for donors in exchange for bribes. Think what the Healy administration got in trouble for, only its 10,000x worse.

So basically you were once again talking about something you did not (and atill don't) know anything about...

And you continue to make shit up. It is becoming a full time job to call you on all of them...

You are lying, yet again. The Clinton Foundation, or Clinton Inc., was a slush fund that got Bill and Hillary millions of dollars in exchange for buying "access" or "influence," aka favors.

I understand why you defend this corrupt woman so much, because you want Muslim "migrants" to pour into this country, but that doesn't make your statements true.

Here you go frothing at the mouth again...

I am for a human solution to a complicated problem, something you are way too racist to comprehend.

You are intentionally derailing from the proof of Hillary's corruption I posted after I was asked.

At least you admit your obvious motives behind your continued defense of this criminal candidate. I get the feeling you're a single issue guy, and if the parties' immigration positions were reversed, you'd be the loudest one here going after Hillary for her corruption.

I don't have an agenda, I have opinions.

You are the one with an agenda, a very racist one, one that I personally find terrifying...

You have a very clear agenda of bringing as many Muslim immigrants over here as possible (not talking about current American citizens), and if the parties had reversed immigration positions, you'd be the first one attacking Hillary.

Luckily this issue is beyond our control, and I feel good about the polls. But keep deflecting from the proof I posted about Hillary's corruption.

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
so...doanld used his charity to buy a painting for his golf course?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... ndation-article-1.2854613

Sure. And Hillary used her charity to exchange favors to donors, including foreign governments, in exchange for bribes. That's how the Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. The Washington Post called it Clinton Inc.

But don't worry, it seems that she will be in jail soon enough...

You did not read the article. Did you? Otherwise, you would know that it was not the Washington Post calling it 'Clinton Inc.'

You are right. It was Bill Clinton's longest held and most trusted advisor who called the Clinton Foundation "Clinton Inc." The Washington Post reported on it.

But that makes it worse. The Clinton insiders themselves brag about how their charity is just a slush fund for doing favors for donors in exchange for bribes. Think what the Healy administration got in trouble for, only its 10,000x worse.

So basically you were once again talking about something you did not (and atill don't) know anything about...

And you continue to make shit up. It is becoming a full time job to call you on all of them...

You are lying, yet again. The Clinton Foundation, or Clinton Inc., was a slush fund that got Bill and Hillary millions of dollars in exchange for buying "access" or "influence," aka favors.

I understand why you defend this corrupt woman so much, because you want Muslim "migrants" to pour into this country, but that doesn't make your statements true.

Here you go frothing at the mouth again...

I am for a human solution to a complicated problem, something you are way too racist to comprehend.

You are intentionally derailing from the proof of Hillary's corruption I posted after I was asked.

At least you admit your obvious motives behind your continued defense of this criminal candidate. I get the feeling you're a single issue guy, and if the parties' immigration positions were reversed, you'd be the loudest one here going after Hillary for her corruption.

I don't have an agenda, I have opinions.

You are the one with an agenda, a very racist one, one that I personally find terrifying...

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
so...doanld used his charity to buy a painting for his golf course?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... ndation-article-1.2854613

Sure. And Hillary used her charity to exchange favors to donors, including foreign governments, in exchange for bribes. That's how the Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. The Washington Post called it Clinton Inc.

But don't worry, it seems that she will be in jail soon enough...

You did not read the article. Did you? Otherwise, you would know that it was not the Washington Post calling it 'Clinton Inc.'

You are right. It was Bill Clinton's longest held and most trusted advisor who called the Clinton Foundation "Clinton Inc." The Washington Post reported on it.

But that makes it worse. The Clinton insiders themselves brag about how their charity is just a slush fund for doing favors for donors in exchange for bribes. Think what the Healy administration got in trouble for, only its 10,000x worse.

So basically you were once again talking about something you did not (and atill don't) know anything about...

And you continue to make shit up. It is becoming a full time job to call you on all of them...

You are lying, yet again. The Clinton Foundation, or Clinton Inc., was a slush fund that got Bill and Hillary millions of dollars in exchange for buying "access" or "influence," aka favors.

I understand why you defend this corrupt woman so much, because you want Muslim "migrants" to pour into this country, but that doesn't make your statements true.

Here you go frothing at the mouth again...

I am for a human solution to a complicated problem, something you are way too racist to comprehend.

You are intentionally derailing from the proof of Hillary's corruption I posted after I was asked.

At least you admit your obvious motives behind your continued defense of this criminal candidate. I get the feeling you're a single issue guy, and if the parties' immigration positions were reversed, you'd be the loudest one here going after Hillary for her corruption.

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
so...doanld used his charity to buy a painting for his golf course?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... ndation-article-1.2854613

Sure. And Hillary used her charity to exchange favors to donors, including foreign governments, in exchange for bribes. That's how the Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. The Washington Post called it Clinton Inc.

But don't worry, it seems that she will be in jail soon enough...

You did not read the article. Did you? Otherwise, you would know that it was not the Washington Post calling it 'Clinton Inc.'

You are right. It was Bill Clinton's longest held and most trusted advisor who called the Clinton Foundation "Clinton Inc." The Washington Post reported on it.

But that makes it worse. The Clinton insiders themselves brag about how their charity is just a slush fund for doing favors for donors in exchange for bribes. Think what the Healy administration got in trouble for, only its 10,000x worse.

So basically you were once again talking about something you did not (and atill don't) know anything about...

And you continue to make shit up. It is becoming a full time job to call you on all of them...

You are lying, yet again. The Clinton Foundation, or Clinton Inc., was a slush fund that got Bill and Hillary millions of dollars in exchange for buying "access" or "influence," aka favors.

I understand why you defend this corrupt woman so much, because you want Muslim "migrants" to pour into this country, but that doesn't make your statements true.

Here you go frothing at the mouth again...

I am for a human solution to a complicated problem, something you are way too racist to comprehend.