skylined! posted:

ur dum hth

Cup Runneth Over posted:

Cognitive dissonance in action

Radish posted:

If the polls are tightening it has a lot more to do with sheepish Republicans realizing they don't care about sexual abuse, national security, or whatever and coming home to vote for the guy that says he's cut the taxes of people richer than them.

Seriously spend five minutes of social media and you'll see that no one of the right side of the spectrum had forgotten about the emails prior to last Friday. They haven't forgotten about the cattle futures.

Any Democrat that has decided not to vote is just using that as an excuse for probably not planning on actually voting.

pgroce posted:

I'll be very mad if reporters don't take the Harry Reid bait on Russia and run with it like they did Comey's "literally nothing known, but EMAILZ!"

freckle posted:

Teriyaki Koinku posted:

Heh, and conservatives like to complain about the mainstream media having a liberal bias.

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

Have you watched the news in the past few days at all? I think that might be why Hillary isn't doing well in the polls. I don't think it's an existential sudden change in the priorities of Trump voters. If I had to guess it would probably because Hillary is under investigation by the FBI and could be indicted before the election.

Also why are you framing everything as a party line us-vs-them race when that's clearly not what's happened this election cycle in either party? I'm voting against Hillary and I am a democrat. I'd say "people who read wikileaks" vs "people who read huffpo" is the line in the sand for this election, not party lines.

But I think it's interesting you mention those 3 points because those are why I'm voting trump. I'm not a fan of him, I just want my vote to count twice as hard against her.

- I care about sexual abuse, so I can not in good conscious vote to put a man who is on video groping a woman sexually in charge of economic policy & living in the whitehouse.
- I care about national security, and I think that electing a president with a track record of poor ethics and transparency who proposes to enact an act of war against Russia and Syria is a guaranteed danger to anyone. A guaranteed war with Russia is a lot worse than the chance of Trump loving up royally. I'll take a wildcard over a poo poo hand any day.
- I believe that closing tax loopholes and such is a lot more important than keeping tax rates for the rich high. Many of the ultra-wealthy pay no taxes or very little by hiding their income offshore, or avoid domestic business taxes through outsourcing. We need to get these people to start paying in the first place, not sperg out over not feeling vindicated by the rich getting punished.

other reason:
- Trump's propositions to combat government corruption, such as congressional term limits, are well worth 4 years of putting up with him. This is arguably more important than SCOTUS picks or any policy difference between the 2 candidates, if Trump can get it to pass.

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

If I had to guess it would probably because Hillary is under investigation by the FBI

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

No, it's ... bait

ohgodwhat posted:

Your poor reading comprehension is triggering me, please stop

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

No, it's not bait. You can't just dismiss a valid opinion backed by evidence because i don't like how it makes me feel to think about this

this board is "Debate and Discussion" yet you all seem incapable of doing anything beyond calling me names and circlejerking.

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

other reason:
- Trump's propositions to combat government corruption, such as congressional term limits, are well worth 4 years of putting up with him. This is arguably more important than SCOTUS picks or any policy difference between the 2 candidates, if Trump can get it to pass.

Hitler B. Natural posted:

At what point does this become boring and repetitive even for the troll?

quote:

Rasmussen

Clinton 45
Trump 42
Johnson 5
Stein 2

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

Refute this with your Dad's college degree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loRkVW0fys

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777

Potato Salad posted:

You have just enough understanding to make your vote very, very dangerous. Meanwhile, I'm voting to keep loving militiamen like Oathkeepers and 3%ers from following through on promises to mobilize in my state.

I'm glad you're in a place where you can afford to have a Trump presidency in safety. Meanwhile, I'm going to go back to the muslim family on the third floor with the Trump sign on their door who said they're voting for him because it's the only way to make sure their family is safe from white terrorists they feel are watching the polls and will otherwise find out voted against him and hurt their children. They bought four of the TRUMP CAMPAIGN EXCLUSIVE MEMBERSHIP cards for $200 total. To carry around, in case they need to save their lives.


I need you to reconsider your vote for Trump

Crows Turn Off posted:

No, she isn't.

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777


Was a 45-45 tie the last poll (on the 28th I think?)

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777


Was a 45-45 tie the last poll (on the 28th I think?)

MattD1zzl3 posted:

Wow johnsons numbers really dropped through the floor. That must all be doing to trump considering how far behind he was a week or two ago.

Deified Data posted:

If the final oppo bomb on Trump exists it drops today, correct?

aBagorn posted:

Term limits would only serve to increase the power of lobbyists and is a godawful idea.

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777


Was a 45-45 tie the last poll (on the 28th I think?)

Radish posted:

I'm not getting too hopeful but there's the possibility of this being a hilarious blowout just because Trump's infrastructure is so comically inept and that can't show up in polling. Either way this will be a good lesson on how effective actually running a campaign is and if all you need is to rile up angry white people.

aBagorn posted:

Term limits would only serve to increase the power of lobbyists and is a godawful idea.

hobbesmaster posted:

I didn't know that Bill Clinton was running for president. Has anyone told him about the 22nd amendment?

Teddybear posted:

Yeah, if you look at states where these have been implemented, the state houses have become effectively run by lobbyists and outside interests, since they're now the only folks who possibly have experience on a given field. By rotating in a continuous cast of small-town nobodies and not allowing anyone to stay in office to build experience and wisdom on governing, you leave the groups who get paid to push their views as the only expert voices.

Granted, lobbying isn't ALL bad-- industries and interest groups deserve a seat at the table when it comes to regulations, and they can provide information on what would or wouldn't work and why. But they shouldn't be the ONLY seat at the table, which is what term limits often does.

MattD1zzl3 posted:

Wow johnsons numbers really dropped through the floor, wasnt he closer to 10%?

canepazzo posted:

Welp.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/793069967725899777


Was a 45-45 tie the last poll (on the 28th I think?)

Tashan Dorrsett posted:

How so? Explain your reasoning.
Term limits would only serve to kill off the world's penguin population. <-- this has just as much merit as the point you made.

Teddybear posted:

Yeah, if you look at states where these [term limits] have been implemented, the state houses have become effectively run by lobbyists and outside interests, since they're now the only folks who possibly have experience on a given field. By rotating in a continuous cast of small-town nobodies and not allowing anyone to stay in office to build experience and wisdom on governing, you leave the groups who get paid to push their views as the only expert voices.

Granted, lobbying isn't ALL bad-- industries and interest groups deserve a seat at the table when it comes to regulations, and they can provide information on what would or wouldn't work and why. But they shouldn't be the ONLY seat at the table, which is what term limits often does.

Antti posted:

Protip: put the guy linking Russia Today as a source on ignore; also please stop quoting him so the rest of us don't have to scroll past their drivel. Thanks.