Rasmussen tracking has Trump +2 today... that's a 9 point swing since the debate, which tells us he really does have a post debate bounce. Neither Trump or Clinton ever get anywhere near 50% support on much of anything, so that fact leaves me guessing about any polling being accurate on election day. Too many not participating in this distasteful selection.

 

The LA Times tracking poll has Trump bumping back up to a fractional, one tenth of a point lead... Tied.

 

Daily releases from WikiLeaks are playing havoc with the Clinton team as they try to dodge their own deplorable behavior. They want to blame "the Russians", but even the most simple minded of American knows that you need to be concerned about bullets, bombs, and missiles... but you should never be afraid of the truth.

This is significant... Suffolk just released a North Carolina poll that shows Clinton +2... significant because it was taken all after the last debate, and the previous Suffolk poll from N. C. had Trump +3... so the Donald has more work to do in this state that he must win to have a prayer of winning this.

 

His rally schedule is exhausting. Just saw him in Palm Beach Florida, very effective and on point. The latest barrage of baseless allegations show a level of desperation rarely seen, totally expected, and completely designed to suppress turnout. WikiLeaks exposed today the Clinton team crafting their web of lies about Hillary's private server... priceless.

 

One debate to go and a few weeks before election day... Why do I think much more will happen?

Dictators need a powerbase though, enough to crush all opposition. That, or they need to roll it back gradually. The US has way too many checks and balances for any one president to even attempt the latter. Ironically, as a tradeoff this also makes your government system spectacularly ineffective.

 

Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.

 

Hilowe is 100% correct. If Clinton wins, the next 4 years will be an all out war to protect the Constitution. The whole Progressive agenda is based on changing the interpretation, and undermining the Constitution through judicial decree, rather than State Ratification. They have found it's much easier to change things through liberal judges, than the impossible task of allowing the American people to decide for themselves in their favor. This is how civil wars begin, and I would rather avoid that.

 

 

an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html

 

The progressive agenda knows that the constitution was written in a very different time than our current society. Many of its tenets are still very applicable but some are very much less so. Its not about destroying or not respecting the constitution, its about understanding what is no longer relevant to us in this day and age. I believe that we should be able to have guns personally, however, the 2nd amendment was written when any man could go get a gun that was every bit as effective as the firearms used by national military's. These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military. That being said I still believe there are valid reasons that we should be able to possess guns, I don't however believe that we need access to all the different kinds of guns we currently have, but that's just me.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-post-debate-polls-show-trump-still-in-big-trouble/

hilowe, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:39, said: onbekende, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:19, said: In other news, compromise is NOT defeat, it is actually a very healthy thing to do Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised. They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense. It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians. Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's). There used to be no background checks at all. Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's). There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole. If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines. Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check. Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check). Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's. Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store. Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office PS I can't go into a US gun law debate plainly cause I don't know the law(s) But I will add this: It is a law from the foundation of your country, it is from the very birthplace of your nation you so proudly inhabit. But things change, society changes and adjusted to new parameters, in this case automatic and-or heavy weaponry. I doubt the 18th century police wouldn't have said a thing if you had a howitzer in your backyard "for personal leasure".

 

Saw this post, which does a great job of explaining why I don't want universal background checks (one of the "reasonable" or "common sense" measures that keeps getting tossed around).

 

Also, forgot to respond to your last two comments. 

 

During the revolutionary war, private citizens had cannons (essentially the howitzer of the time). Now, that being said, I'm ok with not having one, nor any other private citizen having one (see, I can be reasonable).  I also don't think private citizens need to have access to nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons.  In my opinion, these weapons are too indiscriminate (ie, everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a right to self-defense, so why should I, as a private citizen, have weapons that cannot be controlled in who they attack.  The ones I list I feel are specifically weapons of the state, to be used on another state [or country, read that however you really want]).

 

Automatic weapons. Did you know that there were already two different models of weapons that were much faster than muskets at the time of the revolutionary war?  There were two models that I had been told about (and a couple more that I found while looking for the correct names of the two I had heard of).  While not true automatic rifles, they definitely throw out the notion that the only thing available was muskets and that's all the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment.

 

The two I knew of:

 

Belton flintlock - This was actually proposed to be sold to the Continental Congress, but was denied due to cost.  Was supposed to fire up to 20 musket balls in 5 seconds, or 16 musket balls in 16 seconds (no known models exist today, even though it was built and tested. Only known about today because of letters between the inventor, Belton, and Congress). Rate of fire depends on the source of the information.

 

Kalthoff repeater - used two magazines, one for the musket balls, and one for the powder.  Depending on the model, held 7, 12, or even 30 musket balls, and could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. 

 

The ones I didn't know of:

 

Girandoni rifle - could fire 22 times in 30 seconds, and was supposedly used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Lewis, provided to them by Thomas Jefferson. Was also supposedly issued by the Austrian army at the time.

 

Pepper box revolvers - essentially a multi-barreled handgun, the barrels rotated as it was fired, allowing multiple shots without reloading

 

Puckle gun - another revolver type of weapon, that was specifically designed to be used to stop ship boarding. had a removable cylinder that could be reloaded with shot and powder while detached from the gun.

 

My internet searches:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

 

 

 

an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571 http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html

 

I heard about this one this morning, and I don't believe it.  I really think it's people trying to paint trump supporters in a very bad light.

 

 

 

These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military.

 

I'll disagree with this specifically. Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many problems our military had with guerilla fighters that blended in with everyone else.

 

Also, look at the number of citizens in the US vs the number of active duty military personnel.  I heard a stat recently that only 1% of Americans do or have served in the armed forces.

Edited October 13, 201610 yr by hilowe

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-post-debate-polls-show-trump-still-in-big-trouble/

What I learned from the last election is that polls are largely meaningless. What I have learned from the last year is that the overwhelming majority of TRump's core supporters are xenophobic, delusional men, who don't really care about factual information that is not in alignment with thei fixed delusions, and sincerely believe they are somehow being victimized by a system that has always favored them and continues to favor them. Normal common sense tells us that Clinton will win, yet common sense assumes that voting public will make a sensible choice that is for the good of the nation, it also fails to take into account the pure, rabid, irrational loathing many people have towards Clinton. I know Clinton should win, but I have serious doubt that she WILL win. The debates help her, but will that be enough?

 

Trump stands up in debates, incoherent, blatantly lying and hovering menacingly over a little old lady, who is a foot shorter than him, but his supporters say he's great. He interrupts, whines, engages in schoolyard bullying tactics and some right wingers deny this is happening and deny this could well indicate the doom of our nation in terms of international affairs if he takes power. He praises Putin and these people don't bat an eye!

 

I see polls showing Clinton ahead, but I've had a lot of rude awakenings about just how self destructive the electorate can be. I used to oppose the electoral college, which exists because our founders believed that the general voting public could not be trusted to make intelligent choices. I am not as opposed to it as I used to be.

 

More than anything, I just wish the election were done already! A year a a half of candidates' venom and mudslinging is poisoning my beloved country and the entire world.

 

Dictators need a powerbase though, enough to crush all opposition. That, or they need to roll it back gradually. The US has way too many checks and balances for any one president to even attempt the latter. Ironically, as a tradeoff this also makes your government system spectacularly ineffective.

 

Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.

 

 

And what's he going to do, personally drag his poilitical opponents to jail?  Prosecutions need to go through a system that the President only has very limited influence on. He would need hundrens if not thousands of diehard loyalists in key positions, which he doesn't, and likely wouldn't.

 

I came off as pretending to care about your constitution? My interest is purely academic, as seeing how I'm not a US citizen, I have little direct stake in all this.

 

 

Dictators need a powerbase though, enough to crush all opposition. That, or they need to roll it back gradually. The US has way too many checks and balances for any one president to even attempt the latter. Ironically, as a tradeoff this also makes your government system spectacularly ineffective.

 

 

 

Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.

 

Hilowe is 100% correct. If Clinton wins, the next 4 years will be an all out war to protect the Constitution. The whole Progressive agenda is based on changing the interpretation, and undermining the Constitution through judicial decree, rather than State Ratification. They have found it's much easier to change things through liberal judges, than the impossible task of allowing the American people to decide for themselves in their favor. This is how civil wars begin, and I would rather avoid that.

 

 

 

 

an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html

 

The progressive agenda knows that the constitution was written in a very different time than our current society. Many of its tenets are still very applicable but some are very much less so. Its not about destroying or not respecting the constitution, its about understanding what is no longer relevant to us in this day and age. I believe that we should be able to have guns personally, however, the 2nd amendment was written when any man could go get a gun that was every bit as effective as the firearms used by national military's. These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military. That being said I still believe there are valid reasons that we should be able to possess guns, I don't however believe that we need access to all the different kinds of guns we currently have, but that's just me.

History has shown us time and time again conventional military forces tend to fare poorly in irregular warfare. Vietnam War, Russian War in Afghanistan, 1st Chechnya War, 2nd Chechnya War, US War in Afghanistan, US War in Iraq to name a few. And don't be so quick to believe the DOD would be so willing to kill Americans. Just because an order is issued, doesn't mean the men on the ground will follow it.

I wonder if Clinton will bring the four women Trump sexually assaulted (allegedly) to the next debate.

Well this is interesting.

 

Lots of anger over that LA Times poll that always shows Trump doing much better nationally than all the rest. I just found out why. In 2012, the "LA Times" poll was called the "RAND" poll. Depending on your age, or how much you follow politics, you may or may not know what happened in the 2012 election. National averages had Romney actually winning by +.3 (3 tenths) of a point... but the RAND poll had Obama winning by +3.8 percent... which was almost exactly how it ended up for Obama on election day.

 

So you can see why Clinton supporters are worried. But don't get your panties in a bunch over this... because in reality it's much harder for Trump to win than this poll would lead you to believe. We do not elect Presidents by a popular vote. We elect Presidents by Electoral College votes. Each state has a set amount of E.C. votes representing their population. Populous states like California and Texas carry a lot of votes, where states like Montana and my state of Nevada carry much less weight.

 

Most states are either so heavily populated with Democrats or Republicans, that the outcome is already set in stone... but there are several states considered "Battleground" states that are too close to call. This part of the equation has shifted dramatically to the Democrats since the 2008 election. Solid Republican states like Virginia have changed stripes since the Obama era came to be. Big Government has taken root in Northern Virginia from Washington D.C. influence, and now dominates the once proudly red state. What I'm trying to explain is that Hillary Clinton has such a lock on so many Electoral votes that Trump absolutely has to win every one of these battleground states to even be in position to win... and then he has to win one of them from her side.

 

Swing states like Florida, and North Carolina... Trump has to win them all. Even then Trump will have to steal something like Pennsylvania from the blue side to win. If Hillary beats him in just one of those "swing" states, Trump will have no chance to win. That's why the Clinton's are dragging out every nuke in the arsenal, and every dirty political trick, to win those states. The Clinton's are lifelong professional politicians with a compliant media in their pocket. Barring revolution, they will win this easily.

 

Even if Trump wins the popular vote by a whopping 5 percentage points, he will not be President if he loses a state like North Carolina. So what happens when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated?  Mission accomplished... we made history again and elected the first woman President. The compliant media which has been on a singular mission to destroy the evil Donald, now has nothing to do but comb over all the stuff they have ignored for the last 4 years... and they will turn on her faster than you can say "Clinton Foundation".

 

I predict 4 more years of denial, scandal, corruption, and impeachment trials... but she will get those judges.

 

But we can always fall back on that old Obama mantra called hope.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

http://news.usc.edu/109339/why-the-usc-dornsifel-a-times-presidential-poll-is-unlike-other-polls/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=1

Scott Adams has an interesting take today on his blog.

Before you start sobbing at the fact that Clinton and Trump are the best this country has to offer, I predict that all future presidential elections will be this nasty. Thanks to whistleblowers, hackers, and hot mics, we now have the means to see/read/hear the actual inner thoughts of candidates in ways that were never before possible. And if you learn enough about a human being, you’ll almost certainly hate that person. Expect future candidates to rival Clinton and Trump for unpopularity. That’s the new world we live in. We have the means to know too much about people. 

 

To prepare for this new world of too-much-disclosure, I suggest we abandon the idea that presidents should be role models for our kids. Let’s treat the election like we are hiring for any other type of job. A candidate either has the right skills and motivation or doesn’t. Their rotten inner souls aren’t necessarily an indication of future job performance.

 

Clinton and Trump are in the so-called basket of deplorables along with 100% of American voters. We’re all flawed. I suggest voters pick the job applicant they think can best do the work of President and leave the role-modeling to mom and dad. 

 

 

Essentially, he says that because we have access to so much more information on candidates, we'll get to know our candidates better and be more likely to hate them.

 

 

Came across a website by the Americans for Tax Reform (they state that they are anti tax hike for anyone).  Website is http://www.hightaxhillary.com/. I haven't had a chance to look through the site, to see if the info is factual, but thought I would put it out there.  From the little I've seen, the website is pro-Trump, but I haven't seen if it's because of his policies (ie, being objective in their limited scope) or if they're just pro-Trump/anti-Hilary (ie, putting information out support one or damage the other based on personal beliefs).  I haven't had a chance to look and see if there is similar criticism of Trump.

Comparing the LA times poll to past polls is misleading. It is a totally new methodology that throws a lot of orthodoxy out the window. It also appears to be a very risky way to poll. Pollsters reckon you have a 1/20 chance of a misleading sample in each poll. Normally not an issue as you have lots of polls and get a new sample each time. If you have one sample for the entire election and it is wonky...well you're fucked.

 

Also the mechanism means it requires very engaged persons to partake in it who probably don't reflect an average voter. For example they may be more partisan than average.

 

Overall remember it's an experiment, an entirely untried method. Qudos is owed for trying this new concept in so public and open a way. And it could be right. It could also be wrong.

 

Overall there is also a common train of thought of polls can be wrong....Therefore Trump is doing better than polling suggests. Yep...could be true. But they could be wrong the other way. If you think that there is a possible 6-8% error on average...fair enough. It's possible and polls have been unreliable in the past. But before you cuddle your Trump teddy with glee remember that it could also mean Clinton in fact has a 14 point lead and is on the way to winning Texas, and the scenarios are about as likely as each other.

 

Also remember in 2008 it was the Bradley effect. In 2012 it was the poll unskewers. Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

Nothing to do but comb over 

 

I see you. I see the jokes Lys, and I must say.... nice. 

 

 

Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

 

That may be true, but Clinton is waaaaay ahead in the polls i've seen and I don't want to have my soul crushed by getting my hopes up that we don't end up with President T,  and then he gets elected.

 

And here I thought the Civil War happended cause 1 part of the nation disagreed FUNDAMENTALLY with another part of the nation, hence it being a civil war and not a coup. You seem to ignore what political representation is, namely the people putting forward people (politicians) that they feel are up to their views and are a good representation for them to the rest of society. You now claiming when 50%+1 of the people want A, you don't need to get A? Perhaps add some minority support then, like I said before. 1 such mintory support is a 2/3th rule for example.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean sometimes, but I'll give it a shot. The United States is a Republic of 50 states. You can't just hold a Democracy vote... get 51%... and change the Constitution... it takes majority support from 38 individual states to amend the Constitution. If the issue is repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it would be dead on arrival because they will never get 38 states to support the repeal. But if they can pass a law disarming the American people in Congress, and it works it's way to the Supreme Court, and then a liberal court determines that the 2nd Amendment says "militia", and we don't have "militias" anymore... so 5 judges wipe out a section of the Bill of Rights overnight. Yeah... lots will die.

 

.

I was indeed showing the rather difficult path in changing an amendment thruw Congress/House/President.

 

I would also never advocate for any radical alteration, heck most anti-gun people in the US just want more checks on the present guns and less sources of the "excessive" guns, don't think you have a meaningfull % of the population wanting to go full gun abolishment.

.

 

hilowe, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:39, said: onbekende, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:19, said: 2) You are on the diminishing side of the US electorate, if you don't like being a minority with no powers perhaps change that before it is to late? yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house. I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative. It's nobody else's business what I have in my home. . So I guess you don't mind being shot by a police officer when asked if you got a gun, you reply negative and then he spots it in your glovebox while you reach for your insurrance papers?

I can't comment on other states, but where I live, because I have a permit to conceal carry, I am required by law to inform the officer. So, I'll run with the traffic stop that you hypothesized here. What I was taught was to keep my hands on the steering wheel, inform the cop when he/she got to my window, and ask how they want to proceed. Haven't been pulled over since I got my permit, so I'll have to let you know how it goes when that happens.

 

By law in mjy state, I could actually keep a loaded gun in the car, so long as it is in plain view. Putting a loaded gun in the glove box like you stated is a huge problem.

 

.

I replied to you disliking government officials doing government duty (the background check), perhaps you just don't dislike them if they can shoot you?

.

Also, forgot to respond to your last two comments.

 

During the revolutionary war, private citizens had cannons (essentially the howitzer of the time). Now, that being said, I'm ok with not having one, nor any other private citizen having one (see, I can be reasonable). I also don't think private citizens need to have access to nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. In my opinion, these weapons are too indiscriminate (ie, everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a right to self-defense, so why should I, as a private citizen, have weapons that cannot be controlled in who they attack. The ones I list I feel are specifically weapons of the state, to be used on another state [or country, read that however you really want]).

 

Automatic weapons. Did you know that there were already two different models of weapons that were much faster than muskets at the time of the revolutionary war? There were two models that I had been told about (and a couple more that I found while looking for the correct names of the two I had heard of). While not true automatic rifles, they definitely throw out the notion that the only thing available was muskets and that's all the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment.

 

cThe two I knew of:

 

Belton flintlock - This was actually proposed to be sold to the Continental Congress, but was denied due to cost. Was supposed to fire up to 20 musket balls in 5 seconds, or 16 musket balls in 16 seconds (no known models exist today, even though it was built and tested. Only known about today because of letters between the inventor, Belton, and Congress). Rate of fire depends on the source of the information.

 

Kalthoff repeater - used two magazines, one for the musket balls, and one for the powder. Depending on the model, held 7, 12, or even 30 musket balls, and could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute.

 

The ones I didn't know of:

 

Girandoni rifle - could fire 22 times in 30 seconds, and was supposedly used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Lewis, provided to them by Thomas Jefferson. Was also supposedly issued by the Austrian army at the time.

 

Pepper box revolvers - essentially a multi-barreled handgun, the barrels rotated as it was fired, allowing multiple shots without reloading

 

Puckle gun - another revolver type of weapon, that was specifically designed to be used to stop ship boarding. had a removable cylinder that could be reloaded with shot and powder while detached from the gun.

 

My internet searches:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

 

 

.

I reasonable stance indeed, it is just the black/white taking of the whole argument that bothers me, the thing should be able to be discussed without going to extreme points of the spectrum and just throwing rocks at eachother

.

Also, look at the number of citizens in the US vs the number of active duty military personnel. I heard a stat recently that only 1% of Americans do or have served in the armed forces.

.

And about 1% of the male population (unsure about gender % in US army, but I'd guess we come lose) are in prison >_>

Comparing the LA times poll to past polls is misleading. It is a totally new methodology that throws a lot of orthodoxy out the window. It also appears to be a very risky way to poll. Pollsters reckon you have a 1/20 chance of a misleading sample in each poll. Normally not an issue as you have lots of polls and get a new sample each time. If you have one sample for the entire election and it is wonky...well you're fucked.

 

Also the mechanism means it requires very engaged persons to partake in it who probably don't reflect an average voter. For example they may be more partisan than average.

 

Overall remember it's an experiment, an entirely untried method. Qudos is owed for trying this new concept in so public and open a way. And it could be right. It could also be wrong.

 

Overall there is also a common train of thought of polls can be wrong....Therefore Trump is doing better than polling suggests. Yep...could be true. But they could be wrong the other way. If you think that there is a possible 6-8% error on average...fair enough. It's possible and polls have been unreliable in the past. But before you cuddle your Trump teddy with glee remember that it could also mean Clinton in fact has a 14 point lead and is on the way to winning Texas, and the scenarios are about as likely as each other.

 

Also remember in 2008 it was the Bradley effect. In 2012 it was the poll unskewers. Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

Did you not read what I said? The LA Times Poll is the American Life Panel. They did the same thing in 2012. It was called the RAND poll. https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2012 This year it's the LA Times Poll https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2016 Same place, same thing. It's not a "totally new methodology".

 

 

 

 

Nothing to do but comb over 

I see you. I see the jokes Lys, and I must say.... nice.  http://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/UfkQRi_NE-ZEDIqcsG9c4A/ms.jpg

 

Well it's good to know that everything I do is not considered deplorable by you Sir. Happy to make you smile for a change.

 

 

Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

 

That may be true, but Clinton is waaaaay ahead in the polls i've seen and I don't want to have my soul crushed by getting my hopes up that we don't end up with President T,  and then he gets elected.

 

Don't worry Sweetheart... you got this one in the bag, because I do believe the polls.

Never mind.

@Onbekende - sorry dont want to quote that long reply

I only have 2 responses to 2 seperate points. Where you say the population of "gun grabbers" as I will call them is small, I feel thats a little different. While the policies never really effect me, I've met several very vocal people against guns in general and believe they just shouldnt exist. Ive even met people who are so firm in that belief that they are disgusted by the military because they feel we 'worshipped gun culture.' Albeit, I've only had one lady ever tell me the second thing.

 

The other is the 1% statistic. I believe it is around 3% have served in the Army alive (not just GWOT; Vietnam and Ww2 included). 1.7% navy, 1.4% Air force and around 0.8% Marines. Of those, between 9% and 9.6% are females.

Quick tip. Calling a women who is not your relative or significant other "sweetheart", it comes across condescending and rude.

@Onbekende - sorry dont want to quote that long reply

I only have 2 responses to 2 seperate points. Where you say the population of "gun grabbers" as I will call them is small, I feel thats a little different. While the policies never really effect me, I've met several very vocal people against guns in general and believe they just shouldnt exist. Ive even met people who are so firm in that belief that they are disgusted by the military because they feel we 'worshipped gun culture.' Albeit, I've only had one lady ever tell me the second thing.

 

The other is the 1% statistic. I believe it is around 3% have served in the Army alive (not just GWOT; Vietnam and Ww2 included). 1.7% navy, 1.4% Air force and around 0.8% Marines. Of those, between 9% and 9.6% are females.

 

You kinda defeated your own stance, you go for "very vocal people", those are virtually never in any significant numbers, most just don't care I'd think

 

almost 10%, seems nice!

 

 

@Onbekende - sorry dont want to quote that long reply

I only have 2 responses to 2 seperate points. Where you say the population of "gun grabbers" as I will call them is small, I feel thats a little different. While the policies never really effect me, I've met several very vocal people against guns in general and believe they just shouldnt exist. Ive even met people who are so firm in that belief that they are disgusted by the military because they feel we 'worshipped gun culture.' Albeit, I've only had one lady ever tell me the second thing.

The other is the 1% statistic. I believe it is around 3% have served in the Army alive (not just GWOT; Vietnam and Ww2 included). 1.7% navy, 1.4% Air force and around 0.8% Marines. Of those, between 9% and 9.6% are females.

 

 

 

You kinda defeated your own stance, you go for "very vocal people", those are virtually never in any significant numbers, most just don't care I'd think

 

almost 10%, seems nice!

I see your point to the first thing. Im usually under the impression if there are really vocal folks with an opinion, there are more with that same opinion that just don't speak up. But like you pointed out, ive met such a small number, near nonexistent really, I wouldnt consider them a majority by any means. Gun grabbers do exist though

Quick tip. Calling a women who is not your relative or significant other "sweetheart", it comes across condescending and rude.

You should come to Las Vegas. Bring someone. Stay at the Venetian, or the Golden Nugget if you want to be on Fremont. My wife and I will take you to Settebello. They make the most amazing pizza, cooked in a wood burning oven. We'll have a couple glasses of Old Rasputin... it's a Russian Stout served in an 8 ounce brandy sniffer at 9 bucks a pop. Maybe go to the Martini Bar after for an Espresso Martini and hit the 4 card Keno machines for fun. After that... we'll take you back to your hotel, shake hands, and you can tell me if Republicans are condescending and rude.

 

 

My wife and I will take you to Settebello. They make the most amazing pizza, cooked in a wood burning oven. We'll have a couple glasses of Old Rasputin... it's a Russian Stout served in an 8 ounce brandy sniffer at 9 bucks a pop. Maybe go to the Martini Bar after for an Espresso Martini and hit the 4 card Keno machines for fun.

We are absolutely doing this if I ever come to Vegas in the foreseeable future.

 

My wife and I will take you to Settebello. They make the most amazing pizza, cooked in a wood burning oven. We'll have a couple glasses of Old Rasputin... it's a Russian Stout served in an 8 ounce brandy sniffer at 9 bucks a pop. Maybe go to the Martini Bar after for an Espresso Martini and hit the 4 card Keno machines for fun.

We are absolutely doing this if I ever come to Vegas in the foreseeable future.

 

Dude, we already discussed this... oh sorry... is calling someone "Dude", condescending and rude?

Hey that rhymes... "Hey Dude! You're Condescending and Rude!"

I will never understand this "politically correct" bullshit.

Well it's been an interesting day. This harem of women suddenly trotting out claiming Donald Trump grabbed their snatch are quickly exposed as a flock of frauds. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/list-debunked-groper-allegations-corrupt-media-donald-trump/ It's all a typical political trick to hit your opponent with disgusting accusations and watch them chew up weeks defending themselves... and at the same time distract everyone from the infamous Goldman Sachs speeches that WikiLeaks dropped on us this morning.

 

Out of all the damage they contain, what amuses me the most is Hillary telling union leaders she will protect fracking, and that climate change environmentalists should "get a life"... Priceless!

 

My business partner has had open heart quadruple bypass surgery... which leaves us with the perfect time to take off a little early this time for our annual Anniversary trip. We're going away to Sedona, Arizona for a couple days... I'll return Tuesday night to terrorize the Progressives once more! Muahaha!