Clinton vs Trump, Trump vs Clinton

[Night Owl]

Y'all got room in Australia?

@%$! Off, We're Full.

Jokes. That's what the bogans say. The equivalent of a redneck here.

Our election campaigning lasts for 3 weeks, and that's too long. 2 years (if that's correct) is waaaaay toooooo long.

Come on over. We could do with a hush.

We're offering Medicare, for all your health needs.

 

[Eventhorizon]

This just in...

Yes. Liberal media doing their best to put out as much misinformation as possible.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think liberal media has called it correctly and that Clinton has this is the bag. Im not even going to vote now. Such a waste of time.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I am disappointed that such a rare mbti type does not also share a wealth of uncommon sense.

 

[Night Owl]

 

[Eventhorizon]

People died because she couldnt be bothered to do her job. Not 1 request, not 25.... 600.

 

[Eventhorizon]

 

[hush]

View attachment 29461

That's a low blow

 

[Stu]

Winning vs Whining


OCT 3, 2016 AT 8:07 PM

"This makes for a pretty darned clear difference. In the set of pre-debate polls, Clinton was barely ahead. Out of 67 polls, she led in 34, trailed in 29 and was tied with Trump in four. That’s why our model had Trump drawing the Electoral College almost — but not quite — to a tie before the debate. We had a lot of data, much of it from high-quality pollsters. Clinton’s leads in potentially must-win states, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado, were tenuous. And she wasn’t clearly ahead anywhere else, although Florida andNorth Carolina were tossups. It wasn’t quite enough to make Clinton an underdog, but it was getting close.

But Clinton’s advantage in the post-debate data is just as clear. Out of 20 post-debate polls in swing states, she’s led in 18, trailed in only one (today’s Quinnipiac poll of Ohio) and was tied in one other."http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/
.
.

whaaaaa!

 

[Eventhorizon]

Winning vs Whining


OCT 3, 2016 AT 8:07 PM

"This makes for a pretty darned clear difference. In the set of pre-debate polls, Clinton was barely ahead. Out of 67 polls, she led in 34, trailed in 29 and was tied with Trump in four. That’s why our model had Trump drawing the Electoral College almost — but not quite — to a tie before the debate. We had a lot of data, much of it from high-quality pollsters. Clinton’s leads in potentially must-win states, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado, were tenuous. And she wasn’t clearly ahead anywhere else, although Florida andNorth Carolina were tossups. It wasn’t quite enough to make Clinton an underdog, but it was getting close.

But Clinton’s advantage in the post-debate data is just as clear. Out of 20 post-debate polls in swing states, she’s led in 18, trailed in only one (today’s Quinnipiac poll of Ohio) and was tied in one other."http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/
.
.

Who exactly is saying this? Where is the information coming from?

 

[Stu]

I provided a link to the site,http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/ FiveThirtyEight is as data driven news and sports website. As is most of the media (infact the majority of college educated Americans) it is leftwardly leaning. They have a great podcast as well http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/elections-podcast/

 

[Eventhorizon]

I provided a link to the site,http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/ FiveThirtyEight is as data driven news and sports website. As is most of the media (infact the majority of college educated Americans) it is leftwardly leaning. They have a great podcast as well http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/elections-podcast/

Out of collage never having lived in the real world does seem to hqve most identify as liberal. A few years in the real world though has a tremendous effect on people.

 

[Stu]

Not so much, of course if one cares to ignore the data that is their prerogative.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04...party-affiliation/#party-id-by-race-education
"Differences in partisan identification across educational categories have remained fairly stable in recent years, with one exception: Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.

About a third (34%) of those with a college degree or more education identify as Democrats, compared with 24% who identify as Republicans; 39% are independents. In 1992, Republicans held a seven-point lead among those with at least a college degree (34% to 27%), while 37% were independents.

Democrats now hold a 12-point lead (52% to 40%) in leaned party identification among those with at least a college degree, up from just a four-point difference as recently as 2010 (48% to 44%). There has been less change since 2010 in the partisan leanings of those with less education.

Currently, those who have attended college but have not received a degree lean Democratic 47% to 42%; Democrats hold a 10-point lead in leaned party identification among those with no more than a high school education (47% to 37%).

The Democrats’ wide lead in partisan identification among highly-educated adults is largely the result of a growing advantage among those with any post-graduate experience. A majority (56%) of those who have attended graduate school identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 36% who align with or lean toward the GOP.

Among those who have received a college degree but have no post-graduate experience, 48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican."

 

[acd]

Everytime I read the title of this thread, I read it to this music in my head:

Just thought you guys might care about that.

 

[Skarekrow]

Out of collage never having lived in the real world does seem to hqve most identify as liberal. A few years in the real world though has a tremendous effect on people.

Yes...because anyone who is left-leaning or liberal in your eyes is living with the wool pulled over their eyes...especially those who have been “brainwashed” by the liberal colleges of our country.
Nice job grouping people together and insulting them with your subjective opinion.
@Stu is once again correct with his statistics.

It’s funny that the red states are the heaviest users of social services like food stamps and welfare, yet consistently vote against their own interests because the conservative party is also heavily aligned with evangelical christianity and their politicians love to cut social services all while inflating the military.
Should I lump you in with that same group?

Let’s actually try to be objective as you suggested earlier.
I think I’ve seen my fair share of the “real world” Sir. and so have many others.

 

[Wyote]

Hey did you guys know that you only get PTSD and depression if you're weak? Trump is strong, he would never get PTSD or depression in his ivory tower of life difficulties. Building sketchy businesses is hard guys, but thankfully he is such a badass he can power through with his father's money. If only all the weaklings out there grew some balls and just got themselves stronger.

http://www.upworthy.com/trump-told-...that-ptsd-only-affects-those-who-arent-strong

My friend who committed suicide would have fucking gutted and ate Trump and his dumb scraggly carrot top. Fuck this guy, I'm done.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Not so much, of course if one cares to ignore the data that is their prerogative.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04...party-affiliation/#party-id-by-race-education
"Differences in partisan identification across educational categories have remained fairly stable in recent years, with one exception: Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.

About a third (34%) of those with a college degree or more education identify as Democrats, compared with 24% who identify as Republicans; 39% are independents. In 1992, Republicans held a seven-point lead among those with at least a college degree (34% to 27%), while 37% were independents.

Democrats now hold a 12-point lead (52% to 40%) in leaned party identification among those with at least a college degree, up from just a four-point difference as recently as 2010 (48% to 44%). There has been less change since 2010 in the partisan leanings of those with less education.

Currently, those who have attended college but have not received a degree lean Democratic 47% to 42%; Democrats hold a 10-point lead in leaned party identification among those with no more than a high school education (47% to 37%).

The Democrats’ wide lead in partisan identification among highly-educated adults is largely the result of a growing advantage among those with any post-graduate experience. A majority (56%) of those who have attended graduate school identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 36% who align with or lean toward the GOP.

Among those who have received a college degree but have no post-graduate experience, 48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican."

Ha ha ha ha!
If one choose to ignore the data that is their prerogative. Exactly.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Hey did you guys know that you only get PTSD and depression if you're weak? Trump is strong, he would never get PTSD or depression in his ivory tower of life difficulties. Building sketchy businesses is hard guys, but thankfully he is such a badass he can power through with his father's money. If only all the weaklings out there grew some balls and just got themselves stronger.

http://www.upworthy.com/trump-told-...that-ptsd-only-affects-those-who-arent-strong

My friend who committed suicide would have fucking gutted and ate Trump and his dumb scraggly carrot top. Fuck this guy, I'm done.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/

You decide.

 

[acd]

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/

You decide.

"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it. But a lot of people can’t handle it."

In his own words, he made the distinction. He said those that return without PTSD are "strong" and some "can't handle it." So basically, yes, he did say vets with PTSD are weak. Not explicitly. That is why context and comprehension are important. Trump always gets away with saying the dumbest most ignorant shit by claiming everyone twists his words. He suggests things.

The coward also said he likes people who aren't captured.... You know, POWs like John McCain. He appears to have no respect for men and women who serve in the military.

 

[CindyLou]

Yeah, but that's taking what he said really really literally and out of context. He's talking to a room full of vets. He knows how to sell what he's talking about to a room full of people who would never admit they have that problem, but still care about it, because they do.