UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yep, johnson will win your state with 4% of the vote because you can pour dirt and gravel onto your road.
goddamn you are stupid.
The official Hillary Clinton will be our next president thread
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
- Status
goddamn you are stupid.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm just gonna ignore your right wing conspiracy theories, KKKynes. let's focus on your statement that "literally anyone" would be a better choice than hillary.
would you support a david duke/sarah palin ticket over hillary?
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
Well the average is 6 so yeah I would not call that a win especially since it's not even July...
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
He had 10% in a national poll and he just started running. Nobody likes Hitlery.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the average is 6 not counting the latest reuters poll which has hillary up by 14.
your penis is tiny.
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
Sarah Palin does suck but I would take her over Hitlery.
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
It's still June and still no debate and where do I enter my vote in the polls?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Drewby, you have almost exactly duplicated the behavior of the closed minded person discussed in that video. Especially that part where the closed minded person points at a single observation of theirs then claims it proves his point. Polls were wrong about Trump and Bernie -- "over and over". Really? "over and over"? Implying that most of the time, the polls got it wrong. In a study published in the NYTimes on March 1, they showed that there is on average a 4% margin of error of polls done the day before an election. 4% margin of error is pretty good.
Polls are just a snap shot of sentiment at that time. Predicting the future is fraught with error, so take their predictions with a grain of salt, but a well run statistically valid and constructed survey has more information behind it than your or my opinion. Last month, Trump was slightly ahead of Hillary in polling results, today he's down by double digits. It's quite possible that polls last month and today accurately reflected public opinion at those times. This is all to say that opinions can also change over time. Assuming we aren't closed minded that is.
I have not sworn an oath of loyalty to this country. I give my loyalty to people who earn it, not to a country that doesn't deserve it.
GardenGnome83
Well-Known Member
Gary Johnson will not win any states. He was a Republican up until 2012 or so.
Look to South Dakota, and you'll see how great libertarian policy works. They're selling their roads for fucks sake!
Look to South Dakota, and you'll see how great libertarian policy works. They're selling their roads for fucks sake!
drewby
Well-Known Member
Well fogdog if you want me to do the research for you,,,a person here was boasting the polls,,, so lets look at how accurate,they are,,,oh not looking good
http://www.may2015.com/featured/election-2015-how-accurate-have-eve-of-election-polls-been-in-the-past/
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0
Wall street Journal,,,why political polls are often wrong
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-political-polls-are-so-often-wrong-1447285797
About 7,520,000 results (0.77 seconds)
Showing results for how accurate have polls been threw 2015
Now were is the proof that they are correct,,,as the person who was claiming 94% of black votes,,, will not go to Trump on account of polls,,,,,,,I said the polls have not been really accurate which is my opinion ,,,,But there are facts to back that statement ,,for either side as there always is,,,I am sure you can research ,,and find info that goes either way,,,you can on any subject,,,As for my earlier statement I do retain the right to have a opinion ,,I did not stand at a hill top and say my opinion is fact,,,,,,But you seem to miss that part of it,,,I did post that video that shows simple and critical thinking and the right to change your mind when presented with facts that may be different then your original view,,,,My point in posting it was not to belittle or stop anyone from having there own opinion or view ,,,we all retain that right ,,My point was why put faith or so much faith in polls that provide no fact,,,and have proved to be wrong as much as right,,,people get fighting mad and neither really has fact to base on,,,,,as it is all speculation,,,as there has been no one to vote yet,,so any poll or suggested number is is a WAG "wild arse guess"
http://www.may2015.com/featured/election-2015-how-accurate-have-eve-of-election-polls-been-in-the-past/
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0
Wall street Journal,,,why political polls are often wrong
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-political-polls-are-so-often-wrong-1447285797
About 7,520,000 results (0.77 seconds)
Showing results for how accurate have polls been threw 2015
Now were is the proof that they are correct,,,as the person who was claiming 94% of black votes,,, will not go to Trump on account of polls,,,,,,,I said the polls have not been really accurate which is my opinion ,,,,But there are facts to back that statement ,,for either side as there always is,,,I am sure you can research ,,and find info that goes either way,,,you can on any subject,,,As for my earlier statement I do retain the right to have a opinion ,,I did not stand at a hill top and say my opinion is fact,,,,,,But you seem to miss that part of it,,,I did post that video that shows simple and critical thinking and the right to change your mind when presented with facts that may be different then your original view,,,,My point in posting it was not to belittle or stop anyone from having there own opinion or view ,,,we all retain that right ,,My point was why put faith or so much faith in polls that provide no fact,,,and have proved to be wrong as much as right,,,people get fighting mad and neither really has fact to base on,,,,,as it is all speculation,,,as there has been no one to vote yet,,so any poll or suggested number is is a WAG "wild arse guess"
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Oh ,,,, I see,,, ,,,
skewed ,,,,, poles ,,,,, yeah, that's it.
skewed ,,,,, poles ,,,,, yeah, that's it.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
The thing that amazes me about this, is not only that you don't know the difference between "threw" and "through", but also that you somehow also fucked up the word polls (which is why it is in italics after google corrected you, I'm guessing you typed "poles"). So basically, you are starting with "I am a person who googled "How accurate have poles been threw 2015", but you should still trust my research! It's not like I'm an idiot or anything".
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Just for laughs I am dropping this here. It seems to apply to one of the candidates for the presidency.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter101, Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter101, Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Hillary is the smartest, most accomplished candidate for the presidency. Evah.
LOL. Do we really want somebody as president that is too dumb to know how to do email, or so corrupt that she wants to avoid any possible examination of her record?
Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Clinton did "not know how to use a computer to do email. So it was never set up."
LOL. Do we really want somebody as president that is too dumb to know how to do email, or so corrupt that she wants to avoid any possible examination of her record?
Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Clinton did "not know how to use a computer to do email. So it was never set up."
see4
Well-Known Member
Pertaining to classified information. Which, at the time, were not classified.
That was the point of the investigation dumb-dumb. And so far none of the deleted emails and none of the retained emails were classified at the time of retention or deletion.
I know you want things a certain way, and I'm sure your church says if you pray hard enough and say it often enough, it will come true. However, back in reality, people like to work with facts. And unfortunately, you're lacking quite significantly there.
see4
Well-Known Member
You've clearly never had to deal with secured corporate email infrastructure. Lotus Notes is an absolute nightmare to work with. And I'm a fucking software developer.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, emails in general. The federal records act requires maintenance and retention of all emails by federal employees, even if their name is Clinton.
The classified emails are another felony that she is guilty of. Markings don't make an email classified, content does. That charge would be espionage. Thanks for pointing that out.
Do you think Obama will pardon her?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, you don't know how to do that email thingy either. It is terribly complicated. You have to use a mouse and everything. Ewwwww.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Then I'm going to ignore your question until you answer mine.
See, even I can learn (how to dumb things down to suit you) from you Bucky!
Let's just revisit what is inconvenient for you:
1.)
2.)
That's just about 5 questions you ignore when angling towards your favorite entrapment to allow the pontification of "Racist!".
Who told you this was your game?
Last edited:
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Well, you are correct that Hillary is very accomplished, and a smart woman. Too dumb for email? That's a stretch, and then you actually quote Patrick Kennedy, the ex-Congressman who has been battling mental illness and drug addiction. Maybe it's because he has taken up with Sabet and started SAM, the marijuana prohibitionist pigs. That's probably it, since you're a cop.
Many of us know to never listen to pigs.
- Status