Trespassing is an arrestable offense, earl. Also, Hillary was never arrested for anything. You can blame the FBI for choosing to not prosecute Hillary, but you might want to consider Comey's political affiliations first.Trying to do away with polls and make them illegal is one of the dumbest things you have ever said, and that's really saying something...




[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 7:46 PM. Reason : haha nm]

10/10/2016 7:42:45 PM

a presidential debate is going on. the fact that you consider a presidential candidate showing up to debate as trespassing is the point. it is not democratic and it is the way things work in this country. What trump is suggesting is much cleaner than that. He did not suggest arresting her simply because she is trying to become president. Thats what was done to Stein.

^the polls are used to influence the election. why not just let people decide who they want to vote for? exit polls can check for shenanigans. theres no real need for all of the polls we have now other than voter suppression and to give the debate commission a tool to keep the opposition out

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 7:47 PM. Reason : d]

10/10/2016 7:45:50 PM

so you're in favor of oppressing free speech and science because you want to combat voter oppression. got it.

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 8:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2016 7:50:29 PM

if we could take money out of elections and media then it would all be fine (and polls would be truly scientific) but others like you will also argue that putting your money into elections is your freedom of expression so at some point yes. voter intimidation should not be protected by free speech. Just because you have billions of disposable cash, doesn't mean you should get more votes than me. The real problem is that you have all of that extra money in the first place.

Its a huge problem and something should be done. I'm just throwing out possibilities they aren't perfect but I don't really see anyone else talking about better solutions.

It all points back to unchecked capitalism. None of this would really matter if we had functional regulation but we can't get the chicken or the egg in this case.

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM. Reason : k]

10/10/2016 7:58:40 PM

wow, so we've gone from making polls illegal to campaign finance reform? Ok, where are we going next?

10/10/2016 8:07:49 PM

well if the polls are being done by companies with ties to companies with ties to candidates who have made promises to make favorable policies for companies with ties to the people who have interests in previous companies then the polls end up being a tool. CNN is a tool. the newspapers are tools.

Control the press--->Control the people

10/10/2016 8:14:35 PM

you're sort of forgetting that fact that people can believe literally anything they want (hello, first amendment) as well as SAY anything they want (hello, again). You're also removing people's right to think critically about the truth of a claim and make the decision to believe it or not. sounds pretty undemocratic to me. funny how you're bitching about Stein being trespassed and having her "rights" to show up uninvited 'violated', yet wanting to control the flow of information and how it's accessed. but you're earl, so I can see why you'd play logical hopscotch the way you are right now.

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2016 8:22:45 PM

Quote :

" as well as SAY anything they want (hello, again)"

false. not all speech is protected.

Quote :

"You're also removing people's right to think critically about the truth of a claim and make the decision to believe it or not."

children aren't really able to do this and can be easily brainwashed. i'm not removing people's right to think critically, I'm just diagnosing it. A very tiny fraction of the country knows who is running for president. How is it democracy if people don't even have the right to know who they can vote for? Schools teach that there are only two parties. The media, debates, and schools all present presidential elections as a two option choice.

Most people view both candidates as unelectable but have been forced to vote for one. People have a right to true information and screaming fire in a crowd when there is no fire is a CRIME.

Quote :

" but you're earl, so I can see why you'd play logical hopscotch the way you are right now. "

Its pretty consistent and simple. Don't let corporations run elections.

10/10/2016 8:34:55 PM

look, just stick with "the electoral system is broken" and call it a day. details are hard for you.

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2016 8:44:45 PM

that type of vague complaining doesn't have much value. saying something is wrong without explaining why you think it's wrong or offering any possible solutions.

my ideas are not unique. I'm just turning the porch light on. people will slowly continue to come inside and join

10/10/2016 8:56:40 PM

Quote :

"that type of vague complaining doesn't have much value. saying something is wrong without explaining why you think it's wrong or offering any possible solutions. "

Kind of like "institutional racism"?



Also looks like more unbiased objectivity from the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI

Let's trust CNN's "unbiased" sample groups, right SJWs?

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2016 10:34:00 PM

Quote :

"screaming fire in a crowd when there is no fire is a CRIME. "

it's actually not; that court ruling was overturned almost half a century ago.

10/10/2016 11:07:04 PM

lol eleusis got Earled.

10/10/2016 11:18:40 PM

^^touche. It was "an against democracy judge" tho

Quote :

"Kind of like "institutional racism"?"

no institutional racism is very specific with very specific causes, timeline and a solutions. Maybe the people you've talked to haven't given them because they were probably neolibs like ujustwait and goalielax and not true SJWs

10/10/2016 11:24:28 PM

https://twitter.com/songadaymann/status/785328861978497024

10/11/2016 1:45:43 AM

No the entire point of using the term "institutional racism" is that you can't list a specific instance of "racism" because the entire premise is based on a false narrative.

10/11/2016 2:47:27 PM

10/11/2016 2:56:38 PM

I don't know why Clinton avoided answering the question about the Emails like that.

God, I wish Romney would have just waited, he would have been better than either of these two. Although I have never voted for a Republican in my life, I would have voted for him over Clinton.

10/11/2016 3:03:23 PM

10/11/2016 3:46:10 PM

Trump would have done the same thing to Romney. Too many angry tax payers pissed at big government/Obamacare/dey took r jerbs

10/11/2016 5:05:36 PM

Quote :

"it's actually not; that court ruling was overturned almost half a century ago."

Half a century ago? Lol, they walked that ruling back literally less than a month later. Might have been less than a week. It's indisputably in the top 3 worst SC decisions of all time.

10/12/2016 10:40:37 PM

It's not surprising, but it is depressing, that what we're currently talking about the most are allegations of sexual assault and/or harassment rather than the very real possibility of a military conflict with russia.

The idea of a no fly zone in Syria now is just an attempt to provoke Russia, as is our "leaked" plan to launch an illegal cyber security action against their government. I mean, are we actually trying to make ourselves look like shit on the world stage? It's fucking astonishing.

10/15/2016 1:12:59 PM

I just watch the complete second debate for the first time, and how exactly was this not a fucking knockout punch? All trump did was say disgusting and disgraceful nearly every time that he breathed, while at the same time doing nothing to lay down policy. He actually avoided talking about policy by bringing up Clinton.

Hillary, on the other hand, kept her composure and used her time to lay out exactly what she has done for the US people since she has been in public service, and tied that into to her main goals for her time in office. She also methodically exposed Trump as somebody that is just running for himself and his friends by stating non-disputable facts in very impressive fashion.

This election should be over and in the can by now. What a shit show. I was actually on the fence about Clinton but that performance sold me.


[Edited on October 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM. Reason : a]

10/16/2016 2:35:42 PM

I hear the liberal media thinks the liberal candidate won.

All I know is America lost regardless.

10/16/2016 2:54:34 PM

Quote :

"All I know is America lost regardless. It's disgraceful"

there, Fixed it for ya!

10/16/2016 3:23:49 PM

Moderator at the next debate needs to ask Trump if he will feel guilty/responsible if any of his supporters are killed trying to start a revolution due to rigged elections.

[Edited on October 17, 2016 at 8:03 PM. Reason : Or if anyone is killed by his supporters]

10/17/2016 8:02:37 PM

Nawh...they can't afford to take time off from walmart to do that.

10/17/2016 8:11:50 PM

Best Buy needs to brace for the coming revolution.

10/17/2016 8:45:14 PM

The streets will be covered in Cheeto dust

10/17/2016 8:59:05 PM

Quote :

"I just watch the complete second debate for the first time, and how exactly was this not a fucking knockout punch?"

Drumpf was on the ropes right before the debate due to the recording; however, at the start of the debate, he was able to put Hillary on the defensive, and she just spent so much time defending herself instead of talking policy. While his tactics were not fully presidential, they weren't the full-blown rambling misogynistic xenophobia Drumpf rants to which we are accustomed. She looked ineffective by not being able to finish a crippled opponent.

Essentially, she was lost without her hard-lined talking points; she could not adjust. This was especially clear on the last question ("What do you admire about your opponent?") which she completely whiffed and he knocked out of the park. The softest of softballs, and she whiffed with a completely phoned in answer.

[Edited on October 18, 2016 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2016 3:01:58 PM

I actually thought she did a decent job picking something about him that doesn't actually make him any more qualified for the job while he picked something that not only made her look good, but also went against a lot of claims he's made about her

10/18/2016 3:10:28 PM

^Precisely! Though I suspect we are interpreting that differently.

This was a softball question meant to show humility in an otherwise contentious election cycle. She dodged the entire purpose of the question, which was to compliment your opponent and his/her credentials to be President. Really, her answer reminded me of the first debate question, another softball, which both candidates decided to dodge and turn into unrelated talking points for an intro speech. In other words, a complete bullshit answer.

Even with her setting that tone, Trump still kept with the spirit of the question and gave her a real compliment. The actual compliment wasn't the goal; it was the ability to actually give a true compliment. Trump ended strong, and that was a terrible way for Hillary to end the debate.

10/18/2016 4:06:28 PM

I think our interpretations are only slightly different. She may not have looked so great in the moment by giving a non-answer answer to the question, and he might have looked better by giving a thoughtful one...but nowadays it's all about what can be played over again and brought back to be thrown in your face.

Her answer was safe, his answer opens him up to hypocrisy and TV ads. Maybe our disagreement is simply about the short-term vs long term "winningness" of their answers.

10/18/2016 4:27:59 PM

I understand your point. From my side, the actual words (and lasting sound bites) aren't as important as the tone it set at the end of the debate. That finish solidified the lasting impression that Trump easily won the second debate (from my POV). He is still a raging, misogynistic, xenophobic, shyster who would be a terrible President and would never get my vote, but he still won the debate. And that was with him being embattled prior to the debate with his VP pick possibly considering jumping ship (granted that was a possible PR stunt).

In the end, the debate likely would not change anyone's mind, but the Trump supporters definitely were more emboldened afterwards than Hillary supporters.

10/18/2016 5:07:18 PM

I thought that Donald Trump's answer to the final question at the last debate was akin to being asked at a job interview what my strongest weakness is and responding that I always sleep through my alarm and show up late to work.

In other words: Why would someone say that?

10/18/2016 5:50:26 PM

Wtf, Trump is bringing Obama's half brother to the debate? Who is he even trying to troll at this point? Or is this Bannon just living a Breitbart readers wet dream at this point?

10/18/2016 6:23:50 PM

Quote :

"That finish solidified the lasting impression that Trump easily won the second debate (from my POV). "

nah

spewing bullshit and threatening to throw your opponent in jail if elected automatically DQ's you from ever winning a debate

10/18/2016 6:41:46 PM

^This is the exact type of off-the-cuff dismissal that lead to Trump being the Republican nominee. "Well, I guess he won the nomination, but he spouted a bunch of bullshit that should have DQed him. MORAL VICTORY!!!" Get your head out of your ass and realize this is not a standard election cycle. Winning a debate is completely based on what you take away from it.

Trump was against the ropes and needed to stop the bleeding. He needed to put Hillary on the defensive, make her look weak to keep her off script; without her scripted talking points, she flounders. He did these things. He gained a lot of momentum that he lost the previous weekend. Perhaps he isn't back to where he was prior to the sexual harassment tapes, but he was certainly stronger after the debate than he was the day before.

Hillary had to either put Trump away or look like a strong, confident candidate. She did neither. She was on the defensive and dodged softballs (for no damn reason!). Ultimately, her performance will keep her supporters and base, sure, but she gains absolutely nothing over the prior day, and this debate won't be the straw to pull over more undecided voters.

Trump gained significantly more in this debate. He performed above expectations (regardless of how low they were); she performed much lower than expectations. Is there disagreement here?

10/18/2016 7:11:41 PM

he's been down in every post-debate poll....

10/18/2016 7:19:55 PM

^^ if you think his performance in the second debate has righted his campaign ship, I've got some beach front property to sell you in AZ (which is likely going to Hillary btw).

10/18/2016 7:28:25 PM

There are people out there who would still vote for Trump even though he called network security "the cyber." All hope is lost for those people.

There are people out there who would still vote for Trump even though he said awful things about women. All hope is lost for those people.

10/18/2016 9:01:13 PM

Texas is actually in play for Hillary. Arizona is leading for Hillary.

Nuts

10/19/2016 11:21:38 AM

Quote :

"CNN’s @brianstelter says Steve Bannon told him Obama’s half-brother being invited to debate just an “appetizer” for what’s to come."

Congrats GOP, you are now literally the party of Breitbart.

[Edited on October 19, 2016 at 11:50 AM. Reason : Also what is the Obama brother thing? Is there some conspiracy i don't know?]

10/19/2016 11:36:40 AM

Quote :

"Arizona is leading for Hillary."

The poll that showed Hillary leading in Arizona used a D+34 sampling group in an R+5 state. If you think the polls in this country aren't rigged beyond belief, then you're being delusional.

[Edited on October 19, 2016 at 12:20 PM. Reason : even Podesta knew the polls were fake.]

10/19/2016 12:17:36 PM

Last six Arizona polls on 538 have Trump leading one.

[Edited on October 19, 2016 at 12:26 PM. Reason : Rigged is such a dumb word for polls. They do have House biases in some case though.]

10/19/2016 12:25:23 PM

^^I've heard unconfirmed stories of a brother of the president living destitute. It went in one ear and out the other, I never really paid much attention to it, but maybe that has something to do with why he's there.

Going to be a shit show, break out the popcorn. Might as well enjoy some nice buttered popcorn as we watch our country go to shit.

10/19/2016 12:25:59 PM

^^Nate Silver has been so far off on everything Trump this year that it's not even funny. His bias has shown through constantly, both in his articles and in his forecasting.

10/19/2016 12:28:58 PM

Ok, but Nate Silver doesn't commission polls. Your comment would make sense if I was commenting on his models.

10/19/2016 12:37:17 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

538 had a great record of predicting the winners in caucuses and primaries (52 of 57 Democratic and Republican contests, at the time of Trump clinching the Repub nominee), but their attempts to predict Trumps future polling-wise was off (like how he'd fare when other politicians would drop out). Don't think it's wise to write off 538 at this point in the election.

[Edited on October 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2016 1:05:08 PM

538 predicting a win or loss based on the polls they have available, the handicapping they perform, and the model they create doesn't influence the actual vote. It doesn't fucking matter who they want to win, what they do has nothing to do with opinion. It's in their best interest as a company with a future to predict what's going to happen to the vote as accurately as possible, regardless of which party that goes for.

Yes, they were wrong about Trump during the primaries, and has been pointed out already, have admitted they fucked up and hopefully corrected that mistake. They were also majorly factoring in endorsements based on past performance and those didn't seem to make a difference this time. That's not entirely their fault.

But in the end, your argument is we should basically just ignore them because they were wrong about Trump? If the night of the election they are still calling it for Clinton and Trump wins, they lose a ton of credibility and probably become irrelevant going forward. If it turns out that going forward they were right about everything and you're wrong for discounting them and being a jackass to anyone who still believes their numbers, what do you give up? Will you promise to stop posting or pay me $100 or anything at all? Until you're willing to do that, start acting like your opinions on 538 are exactly that, opinions, and people who choose to cite them don't get their posts trashed by you automatically on the basis that they're using 538

10/19/2016 1:17:13 PM