2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[ILOVEBEER]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

He didn't serve a full life term because he was pardoned, but the guy in NC's linked article has been in prison since 2007. Plenty of time for a nonviolent drug offense, in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's had two past drug convictions, he's admitting it in the article. My opinion is he hasn't been rehabilitated. He needs to learn a lesson. What happens if he's released and does it again? That's the whole point of prison. You break the law you do time. You break it again, you go back. He's a typical criminal. Not sorry until he's caught.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by 37Jetson

Now I know where pgisback's unused subscription was transferred for the Leftist Regurgitation Letter.

You coulda just went with "I got nothin'", but this is fine for my ego, too.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by GoTribe!!!

Wasn't the Democratic party back in the 2008 election questioning McCain's health. Probably not, that would make them hypocrites.

Even though what you wrote borders on nonsensical, to make your point, such as it was one, you really should've posted examples of them doing that, but then, that would require the type of diligence you seem wholly incapable of.
Besides, Obama didn't need to mention McCain's health to thump him soundly. Palin was all it took to seal the deal.
This time, it's the top of the GOP ticket that is the albatross.
Go figure...

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by cruiserdaddy7

He won't want to address this. They were all over his health. Was all over the news. Yet....he sure seems healthy 8 years later doesn't he?

Just busy, buddy, but beyond that, cruiser, if I had a nickel for every time I left you speechless, well, I'd have a whole lot of nickels, wouldn't I?
You aren't anyone to be talking about what people do and don't choose to address considering the amount of times you've ducked out of debates despite the very real possibility that you're on this forum virtually every waking hour.
Proof is in the pudding.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by CrownCollector

How dare you, bringing facts to this thread, shame on you.

Worry not, good sir. He left the facts completely undisturbed, as usual.

[Astros19]

Yawn.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[corndog]

Trump is going to Mexico to meet with Nieto.

I like that in a leader.

Polls are even as Hillary's massive problems continue to flow from her blowout diaper.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by corndog

Trump is going to Mexico to meet with Nieto.

I like that in a leader.

Polls are even as Hillary's massive problems continue to flow from her blowout diaper.

What polls?

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by corndog

Trump is going to Mexico to meet with Nieto.

I like that in a leader.

Polls are even as Hillary's massive problems continue to flow from her blowout diaper.

Polls are far from even. The poll of polls has Trump behind by 6 pts. He has made up .8 points over the last two weeks and is losing in most key swing states.

[ensbergcollecto]

the way the electoral college is set up, trump has a nearly 0% chance of winning. if hillary wins the states that always vote democrat, and trump wins the states that always vote republican, he would need to win every single swing state in order to win the election.

[ssbledsoe]

New Todd Young commercial in Indiana: dude is the kind of clown that tucks his t-shirt into athletic shorts. Can't for for him... Gonna have to find out our Evan Bayhs proclivities for playing pickup basketball...

[ajlaxmn]

Originally Posted by ensbergcollecto

the way the electoral college is set up, trump has a nearly 0% chance of winning. if hillary wins the states that always vote democrat, and trump wins the states that always vote republican, he would need to win every single swing state in order to win the election.

Hence why the electoral college thing is dumb. Why can't it just be, you have 11,234,567 votes and you have 11,234,568 votes. Person with the most wins. I guess the argument might be the majority issue, but I doubt an election this day in age will come down to one single vote, or even a couple hundred for that matter, or possibly even a thousand or couple thousand. I don't know, the electoral college seems stupid, some states are worth 2, others are worth 20+, who's vote is more valuable at that point?

[trixstar]

I really don't understand how anyone takes him seriously. He can't even convey a thought that requires any thinking at all.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12712078/trump-education

[GoTribe!!!]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Even though what you wrote borders on nonsensical, to make your point, such as it was one, you really should've posted examples of them doing that, but then, that would require the type of diligence you seem wholly incapable of.
Besides, Obama didn't need to mention McCain's health to thump him soundly. Palin was all it took to seal the deal.
This time, it's the top of the GOP ticket that is the albatross.
Go figure...

Nonsensical? I'm incapable of diligence? Typical democratic responses, they don't like something they start with the insults.

1. I gave an example of the democratic party doing something they now are chastising others for doing. Hypocrites.

2. You really need me to post examples? Is your memory really that short or just selective? Typical, wanting someone else to do the work and have it given to you. Pretty easy to fact check this one
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-page-12/?_r=0

3. The bolded is correct, but does not take away from the fact that they made his health an issue.

Serious question, why is it that those who support Trump realize and admit his flaws. Yet those who support Hillary will ignore and deflect anything and everything negative about her?

[GoTribe!!!]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Worry not, good sir. He left the facts completely undisturbed, as usual.

As usual ? How many times have I posted in this thread? It's ok you can lie like your messiah Hillary

[xavieronly1]

Originally Posted by ajlaxmn

Hence why the electoral college thing is dumb. Why can't it just be, you have 11,234,567 votes and you have 11,234,568 votes. Person with the most wins. I guess the argument might be the majority issue, but I doubt an election this day in age will come down to one single vote, or even a couple hundred for that matter, or possibly even a thousand or couple thousand. I don't know, the electoral college seems stupid, some states are worth 2, others are worth 20+, who's vote is more valuable at that point?

The number of electoral votes is propertional to the state's population. Everyone's vote is somewhat the same "valuable" even if it is casted under population voting system. The argument is that, if you live in Republican state, your dem vote is "meaningless" as it does not change the electoral voting. This is the bad side of the electoral voting system.

However, if you go by population vote, candidates will go to states/cities with high population density (NYC, CA). They may even shift their policies toward these group of city people more than rural area folks. So, candidates would pay very little attention to small states. With electoral votes, small swing states like New Hampshire would have more say under electoral votes. This is the good side why we have electoral voting system. It is to counter the population density problem.

So...... Just using an example:

In electoral vote system, candidate would need to make a stop in Manchester, NH (has about 0.2 mil of people) because they need that 4 points. If we are in population voting system, candidate would not waste time to talk with these 0.2 mil of people in Manchester because Brooklyn, NY has 2.6 million of people.

[trixstar]

Republicans really don't want electoral colleges to go away.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by xavieronly1

The number of electoral votes is propertional to the state's population. Everyone's vote is somewhat the same "valuable" even if it is casted under population voting system. The argument is that, if you live in Republican state, your dem vote is "meaningless" as it does not change the electoral voting. This is the bad side of the electoral voting system.

However, if you go by population vote, candidates will go to states/cities with high population density (NYC, CA). They may even shift their policies toward these group of city people more than rural area folks. So, candidates would pay very little attention to small states. With electoral votes, small swing states like New Hampshire would have more say under electoral votes. This is the good side why we have electoral voting system. It is to counter the population density problem.

So...... Just using an example:

In electoral vote system, candidate would need to make a stop in Manchester, NH (has about 0.2 mil of people) because they need that 4 points. If we are in population voting system, candidate would not waste time to talk with these 0.2 mil of people in Manchester because Brooklyn, NY has 2.6 million of people.

I would rather have a popular vote over electoral system. This way every vote counts period. It sucks to see that in some states peoples votes do not count towards the Presidential election because the states lean one way. Electoral vote is out dated.

[xavieronly1]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

I would rather have a popular vote over electoral system. This way every vote counts period. It sucks to see that in some states peoples votes do not count towards the Presidential election because the states lean one way. Electoral vote is out dated.

States can pass laws, so that they can split the electoral votes (instead of winner takes all).

[NeilCO]

Hillary's popularity is plummeting. If Julian Assange has anything real on her Trump could still win this election. Scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlzinck]

Hillary over 17% here.

[CrownCollector]

Oh great, Krapernick went on a tirade against Hillary. That just means more votes for the lying traitor b***h now. I bet if there was a disclaimer it would read "This tirade paid for by The Clinton Foundation".

[NeedChapmans]

New Gallup poll today that declares "Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama".

Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama, Gallup poll finds - Chicago Tribune

So how does the Gallup come to such a conclusion? By interviewing at least 500 adults of course over the age of 18.

How Does the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index Work?

Very impressive to consider that in a nation of 325 million people, you only need to know how 500 are doing to declare everyone is doing so much better! Wooo Hooo.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

New Gallup poll today that declares "Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama".

Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama, Gallup poll finds - Chicago Tribune

So how does the Gallup come to such a conclusion? By interviewing at least 500 adults of course over the age of 18.

How Does the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index Work?

Very impressive to consider that in a nation of 325 million people, you only need to know how 500 are doing to declare everyone is doing so much better! Wooo Hooo.

They interview 500 people over the age of 18 every day (excluding major holidays and events). So 500 people over the age of 18, 350 days a year.

This amounts to 175,000 respondents, and over 2 million since 2008.

This seems like a pretty sturdy representation if you ask me. Definitely a large enough sample size to extrapolate from.

What was your point???

[pingbling23]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Hillary over 17% here.

I like to look at it as over 80% is against her