POLL: Have You Changed Your Mind?

[bshole]

and developed into some weird amalgam of asian-american sythesized pop nonsense that grope women on trains and openly read comic book porn magazines well into their so-called adult years. ....I find this strange.

Damn I hope you never find out about my sex habits. If that is weird to you, I am an outright twisted pervert. Oh man I did some twisted sex shit in college.... it was the highlight of my life actually. I really miss those days.

 

[fskimospy]

That would be nice if it went country-wide.

Well the good news is that it only needs to happen in states that account for 50.1% of electoral votes and then for all intents and purposes it is nationwide.

Yes, in a population of 300+ million, one vote doesn't mean much. But according to 538's voter power index, voters in Pennsylvania have a power of 3.4 and voters in my location have a power of <0.1 (that isn't exact, so, I'll just assume 0.05 for this post). That means that someone's vote in Pennsylvania counts as ~68 of my votes. It doesn't need to be 1:1, but 68:1 is just wrong.

But it isn't the single voter that matters. There are a million voters like me here, all of which have essentially zero voter power. We are all ignored. Agriculture (6% of our GDP) came up a grand total of 0 times in the debates if I recall correctly (I didn't see the VP debate though). It only came up indirectly in Trumps anti-NAFTA rants in which killing NAFTA would kill farming in the US. I'm a flyover voter, but also a flyover state. In the EC, politicians can ignore flyover states (except Iowa) and it won't change a thing. But, the flyover states are ~20% of the population. Ignore the flyover states in a popular vote scenario and you lose.

I don't disagree. When I say that we should move to a national popular vote people say that it just means that the cities will have all the power and will get all the attention. First, I don't think that's true as large percentages of people don't live in cities and second, I hardly see how even if that happened it would be worse than it is now. Why should national policy be based on what people in 5 or 6 states think? I grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia which meant my whole childhood was basically ground zero for political attention. As a kid I met (for like 1 second) Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, and President Clinton because they would routinely make stops either a few blocks from my house or in a nearby area. I agree that it's absolutely ridiculous that so much attention would be paid to one area and your whole state would be ignored.

My thought on the whole thing is pretty simple and that's if the president is supposed to be the president of everybody, then everyone should have an equal say in who it is.

 

[zinfamous]

Damn I hope you never find out about my sex habits. If that is weird to you, I am an outright twisted pervert. Oh man I did some twisted sex shit in college.... it was the highlight of my life actually. I really miss those days.

the difference, to me, is reading that shit openly in public, during rush hour going to and from work. I guess it isn't weird there because it seems to be the norm with that demographic. lol.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia which meant my whole childhood was basically ground zero for political attention

I spent a few of my teenage years there when my dad was assigned to the shipyard and it was quite the xperience. I spent most of that time in South Philly and it was where I was introduced to the soft pretzel and cheese steaks as well as AOR radio with WMMR and WYSP. I still remember the concerts at the Spectrum as they were so loud that all I had to do was open up my bedroom window on the second floor, which faced it from over a mile away, and listen to them. The one thing that I do remember is the racism/racial divide that existed with each group maintaining their own territory in the city. I'm a mix of Hawaiian and Caucasian but managed to get along with all of them but I did experience it firsthand from some Italians.

 

[sontakke]

Why would republicans ever would agree to have presidency be decided by popular vote? When was the last time that would have helped them? Obama won by 10 million votes. Gore would have been president. Obama 2008 Election Popular vote 69,498,516 59,948,323

Republicans would never ever win in that scheme.

 

[zinfamous]

Why would republicans ever would agree to have presidency be decided by popular vote? When was the last time that would have helped them? Obama won by 10 million votes. Gore would have been president. Obama 2008 Election Popular vote 69,498,516 59,948,323

Republicans would never ever win in that scheme.

Quite, bro! They still believe in their hearts that they are some sort of majority for some reason.

 

[nakedfrog]

Quite, bro! They still believe in their hearts that they are some sort of majority for some reason.

They keep forgetting that non-white-males count as a full vote.

 

[fskimospy]

I spent a few of my teenage years there when my dad was assigned to the shipyard and it was quite the xperience. I spent most of that time in South Philly and it was where I was introduced to the soft pretzel and cheese steaks as well as AOR radio with WMMR and WYSP. I still remember the concerts at the Spectrum as they were so loud that all I had to do was open up my bedroom window on the second floor, which faced it from over a mile away, and listen to them. The one thing that I do remember is the racism/racial divide that existed with each group maintaining their own territory in the city. I'm a mix of Hawaiian and Caucasian but managed to get along with all of them but I did experience it firsthand from some Italians.

Oh man was my town racist. We had about 5 black kids in my high school and while I only knew one he was harassed by the cops CONSTANTLY. What's funny is that the cops never bothered me and my friends and as far as I know he was an upstanding citizen and we were a bunch of miscreants.

I do love a good cheese steak though. Man, I would eat one right now.

 

[edro]

Yeah, I was leaning Trump at the beginning, thinking he was a brilliant business man that could do Washington good.
Now I see he is a childish, chauvinistic, shady attention whore.
Hilary may be status quo, but I'm ok with that.

I'm voting to Keep America great.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Oh man was my town racist. We had about 5 black kids in my high school and while I only knew one he was harassed by the cops CONSTANTLY. What's funny is that the cops never bothered me and my friends and as far as I know he was an upstanding citizen and we were a bunch of miscreants.

I do love a good cheese steak though. Man, I would eat one right now.

You reminded me of something that I saw while in the 10th grade over at John Bartram High. We had forced bussing so black kids from the west side were shipped all the way over to the east side of a predominantly Italian neighborhood. Every afternoon on my walk to the trolley stop I'd have to go by their buses with the neighborhood kids hurling insults and rocks at the mouthy kids on the buses. One particular afternoon it got especially violent with the buses incurring broken windows in the exchange. When Philly's finest showed up they tried to make everyone at the trolley stop wait for them to come back and then they took off up the street to the buses. When our trolley arrived every single one of us boarded and never looked back. I don't know what happened that day to make things get that out of hand but I never saw it again. I was glad when I transferred over to southern after being sent to a star class program over on the west side which took a long time to get to using the bus and subways from the navy base. My dad retired in the middle of my senior year and I ended up finishing high school down here in FL. I started HS in Beaufort, SC at Battle Creek High, went through 4 schools in Philly and ended up at J.M. Tate in Gonzalez, FL.

 

[TheGardener]

lol. This guy said Trump makes an "honest living!"

😀

She didn't take the money. The Clinton foundation took the money & spent it for good causes all around the globe. The Saudis & the Qataris already have access at the highest levels of our govt. Mere fact. Clinton made no monetary gain. She & Bill have, in fact, donated ~10% of their own income to charity for over a decade & paid ~30% in federal income taxes at the same time without complaint.

She actually proposes raising her own taxes significantly, something that attests to her sincerity in a way that no Repub politician can even approach.

To paraphrase zinfamous.... lol. This guy said The Clinton foundation makes an "honest living!".

Many politicians have bag men so they don't have to touch the money. The Clintons are just much more sophisticated. Btw, you are wrong according to Bill Clinton. He acknowledged the scandal that you deny. And Clinton blamed the accountant. You don't even keep up with the lies they tell. You're a very lazy HACK!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-puts-blame-for-familys-scandals-on-accountant/

 

[TheGardener]

Clinton Foundation has done great work and Clintons have not drawn any salary from it. She makes an honest living from selling and promoting her name. Do you have any proof of wrong doing except right wing conspiracies.

So in 2013 the Clinton Foundation spent over $8,000,000 in travel by the Clintons. The foundation paid out in grants just over $8,000,000, compared to taking in about $115,000,000. And did you know that the foundation incurred a $40,000,000 deficit, coincidentally in the years of 2007 and 2008, when last ran for president? It's not about a conspiracy, it's about the media not delving into the crime family who use their foundation as a front.

And if President Trump's foundation were to take in tens of millions from high ranking foreign officials while he is serving as president, you'd be okay with that. You'd say their is no conflict of interest or no implied bribery. I'm sure you'd be as even handed in that case.

 

[TheGardener]

Why would republicans ever would agree to have presidency be decided by popular vote? When was the last time that would have helped them? Obama won by 10 million votes. Gore would have been president. Obama 2008 Election Popular vote 69,498,516 59,948,323

Republicans would never ever win in that scheme.

I'd suggest you try opening a book for a change. It might make you a smarter person.

 

[dank69]

So in 2013 the Clinton Foundation spent over $8,000,000 in travel by the Clintons. The foundation paid out in grants just over $8,000,000, compared to taking in about $115,000,000. And did you know that the foundation incurred a $40,000,000 deficit, coincidentally in the years of 2007 and 2008, when last ran for president? It's not about a conspiracy, it's about the media not delving into the crime family who use their foundation as a front.

And if President Trump's foundation were to take in tens of millions from high ranking foreign officials while he is serving as president, you'd be okay with that. You'd say their is no conflict of interest or no implied bribery. I'm sure you'd be as even handed in that case.

Wow, look at all those sources you supplied. Are those stats coming from your sphincter or Breitbart? Are you able to tell the difference?

 

[TheGardener]

Wow, look at all those sources you supplied. Are those stats coming from your sphincter or Breitbart? Are you able to tell the difference?

Why is it that you don't say the same to all the idiots here who I've had to fact check for? I can and will when you Clinton rump squad members post your citations, so I don't have to fact check.

 

[fskimospy]

So in 2013 the Clinton Foundation spent over $8,000,000 in travel by the Clintons. The foundation paid out in grants just over $8,000,000, compared to taking in about $115,000,000. And did you know that the foundation incurred a $40,000,000 deficit, coincidentally in the years of 2007 and 2008, when last ran for president? It's not about a conspiracy, it's about the media not delving into the crime family who use their foundation as a front.

And if President Trump's foundation were to take in tens of millions from high ranking foreign officials while he is serving as president, you'd be okay with that. You'd say their is no conflict of interest or no implied bribery. I'm sure you'd be as even handed in that case.

lol. Either you have been duped yet again or you are trying to deceive other people. There are so many basic facts wrong with what you wrote here that it's hard to know where to start. Let's just say it's amusing that you've decided the Clintons are a crime family based on comically wrong ideas of what the Clinton Foundation is.

1. The Clinton Foundation didn't spend $8 million on travel for the Clintons, they spent $8 million on travel for the foundation as a WHOLE, the vast majority of which was for program expenses, not managerial travel or fundraising travel such as what the Clintons would use.
2. The Clinton Foundation may have only given out about $8 million in grants but that's not surprising at all because they are an OPERATING foundation, not a granting foundation. It runs programs, it doesn't grant to other charities to run programs.

It has Charity Navigator's highest rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

So basically you had nothing right about them. Armed with this knowledge surely you'll revise your opinion, right? (LOL)

 

[SMOGZINN]

Why is it that you don't say the same to all the idiots here who I've had to fact check for? I can and will when you Clinton rump squad members post your citations, so I don't have to fact check.

If you are fact checking you need to cite your sources. Without the source your 'fact check' is no more valid than the original statement.

 

[Jhhnn]

To paraphrase zinfamous.... lol. This guy said The Clinton foundation makes an "honest living!".

Many politicians have bag men so they don't have to touch the money. The Clintons are just much more sophisticated. Btw, you are wrong according to Bill Clinton. He acknowledged the scandal that you deny. And Clinton blamed the accountant. You don't even keep up with the lies they tell. You're a very lazy HACK!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-puts-blame-for-familys-scandals-on-accountant/

So in 2013 the Clinton Foundation spent over $8,000,000 in travel by the Clintons. The foundation paid out in grants just over $8,000,000, compared to taking in about $115,000,000. And did you know that the foundation incurred a $40,000,000 deficit, coincidentally in the years of 2007 and 2008, when last ran for president? It's not about a conspiracy, it's about the media not delving into the crime family who use their foundation as a front.

And if President Trump's foundation were to take in tens of millions from high ranking foreign officials while he is serving as president, you'd be okay with that. You'd say their is no conflict of interest or no implied bribery. I'm sure you'd be as even handed in that case.

which explains this, obviously-

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

[dank69]

Why is it that you don't say the same to all the idiots here who I've had to fact check for? I can and will when you Clinton rump squad members post your citations, so I don't have to fact check.

If you want to question someone's post, ask them for sources instead of regurgitating conservative bubble bullshit. That way you avoid embarrassing yourself like this again in the future.

 

[sportage]

Watching a little of Fox Evening News THE KELLY FILE. 10/21.
Kelly has two poll experts asking them if Trump can bounce back.
On Fox tonight Kelly obviously expected the two polling expert guests to say or agree that Trump could catch up and regain the lead in the polls during these last couple of weeks.

Well, that didn't go so good for Kelly.
Both experts told Kelly it was impossible that Trump could or would bounce back in the polls.
Adding, that might the case if this were May or June, but now it is too late for Trump to bounce back. That 9 out of 10 people have made up their minds already, and many states have already started voting.

Kelly did not want to hear that bad news from her guests, obviously.
And Kelly closed by getting in the last word saying, WELL WHO KNOWS?
Then she deflected from polls onto republicans holding the house and senate and blocking any Hillary agenda.

This was quite telling of Fox.
That Fox is trying so hard to see the silver lining with a Trump loss, trying to get someone ANYONE to say that Trump can still pull this off and win, when no one is now saying that.

This is the point in the election where the loser, Trump, just digs himself in deeper and deeper.
One thing people do not like to see is an animal in panic, grasping and grabbing at anything and everything to stay afloat.
Trump has not only gone under, watching his impending political death simply makes one want to look away.
No one can help Donald at this point, not even Donald can help himself.
This is just going to be an very ugly death plain and simple.

 

[nickqt]

Aleppo is holding on line 2.
You didn't have to start that war against Assad.

And...you got nothin'.

Make sure to go and vote Republican this year, champ.

 

[MongGrel]

To paraphrase zinfamous.... lol. This guy said The Clinton foundation makes an "honest living!".

I find it a bit hard to believe zin would agree with the vast majority of the things you post.

But keep spinning.

 

[zinfamous]

Why is it that you don't say the same to all the idiots here who I've had to fact check for? I can and will when you Clinton rump squad members post your citations, so I don't have to fact check.

fact checking. ...I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

 

[Ackmed]

The problem is, this "both are terrible" argument is a false equivalency.

Clinton actually has political experience. And while she has done shady things (though not as many as Trump claims), most of the statements coming out of her mouth are true. She is calm and rational; she doesn't see the presidency as a means of silencing her critics; she supports LGBT and women's rights.

Trump genuinely doesn't understand how politics work (see the whole build-a-wall-and-make-Mexico-pay-for-it thing). It's confirmed that he would delegate most real responsibility to Pence. He not only lies most of the time, he lies in situations where it's trivially easy to catch him or foresee serious repercussions (say, lying about what he discussed with Nieto). He's hotheaded, impulsive and petty; he wants to use the presidency to hush critics through harsher libel laws; he's racist, sexist and willing to pander to homophobes.

So no, voting for Clinton is not as bad as voting for Trump. With Clinton, you'll at least get a basic level of competence and social progress. With Trump, there's a very real chance that he'll sour diplomatic relations, delay or reverse social progress, or even find a way to get in so much trouble that he's forced out of office. He also reminds me a bit of Bush Jr. in that he'll likely be a puppet for others with their own agendas. I think the US needs true alternatives beyond the two main parties, but now is not the time to throw your hands up and claim that there's no viable choice.

Just because she knows how to play the game doesn't mean she is better than him. I agree he has next to no clue and is a huge buffoon. If elected he has a great chance of being the worst President ever if he continues to act as he has. I see no reason why he would change, perhaps even get worse. I am certainly not a fan of him, but around here is you go against Hillary you are deemed a Trump supporter and insulted. Whatever.

Yes she has done a lot of "shady" things, and we find out more and more by the day. Are they all true? Seem to be when they don't denounce them. I am sure some things aren't though, just as some aren't about Trump. Other things you've said are opinion about him. You could say some of the same things about her. Trying to get people to vote for her because she is a woman, isn't that like someone not voting for her because she is a woman? Support gays and women? Well unless you live in a country that abuses and kills both and she takes money from them. Or are a woman that was abused by her husband, which then she tries to destroy them. But those are all lies too, right? A pretty clear example of the media and peoples bias to me is where some people think Trump wanted 2nd amendment people to kill her based on his comment. Yet when Hillary suggested he get taken out back

To me there is no viable choice. I've been waiting for either to be the type of President I would vote for. I simply cannot vote for either. The last two elections I didn't get to vote because I was deployed and could not, this one I very likely will sit out even though I can vote. Which to me is sad, I have always believed that we have a duty to vote, and you can't complain if you don't. But as of today that is where I am.

Face the facts....
Both candidates are flawed.
Trump's flaw, he is an egomaniac tax evader with no experience.
And Hillary's flaw, seems to be she is a women.
So in short, Trump has flaws. Hillary being a woman is thought of as a flaw by those that can not see a woman as president.
There are your flaw facts....

Then you have people like this who are so ignorant and misguided that they think Hillary's only flaw is that she's a woman, which isn't even a flaw (Yes I think he is being sarcastic). Ignoring all the facts of "flaws" she has. Who doesn't even know what context to use women or woman, yet Hillary supporters continually call Trump supporters stupid? So ready for this election to be over.

 

[Commodus]

Just because she knows how to play the game doesn't mean she is better than him. I agree he has next to no clue and is a huge buffoon. If elected he has a great chance of being the worst President ever if he continues to act as he has. I see no reason why he would change, perhaps even get worse. I am certainly not a fan of him, but around here is you go against Hillary you are deemed a Trump supporter and insulted. Whatever.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. Clinton knows how to negotiate political deals; she can set realistic policy goals; she will not let her a fragile ego or petty revenge dictate her actions; she doesn't fuel racism, sexism and religious discrimination; she will actually assume the responsibilities of President.

You see what I mean? This isn't a case of "dumb and dumber." It's a reasonably competent (though far from perfect) candidate versus one who shouldn't even be allowed to run as a city councillor, let alone run the US.

And no, you're not a Trump supporter if you don't like Clinton. I respect that. But to me, Trump is so fundamentally abhorrent to the concept of a democratic republic that it's worth voting Clinton just to keep Trump out. Think of it this way: Clinton would at least preserve some shred of the dignity of the country. Trump would not.

Yes she has done a lot of "shady" things, and we find out more and more by the day. Are they all true? Seem to be when they don't denounce them. I am sure some things aren't though, just as some aren't about Trump. Other things you've said are opinion about him. You could say some of the same things about her. Trying to get people to vote for her because she is a woman, isn't that like someone not voting for her because she is a woman? Support gays and women? Well unless you live in a country that abuses and kills both and she takes money from them. Or are a woman that was abused by her husband, which then she tries to destroy them. But those are all lies too, right? A pretty clear example of the media and peoples bias to me is where some people think Trump wanted 2nd amendment people to kill her based on his comment. Yet when Hillary suggested he get taken out back

To me there is no viable choice. I've been waiting for either to be the type of President I would vote for. I simply cannot vote for either. The last two elections I didn't get to vote because I was deployed and could not, this one I very likely will sit out even though I can vote. Which to me is sad, I have always believed that we have a duty to vote, and you can't complain if you don't. But as of today that is where I am.

Then you have people like this who are so ignorant and misguided that they think Hillary's only flaw is that she's a woman, which isn't even a flaw (Yes I think he is being sarcastic). Ignoring all the facts of "flaws" she has. Who doesn't even know what context to use women or woman, yet Hillary supporters continually call Trump supporters stupid? So ready for this election to be over.

Just because the Clinton campaign hasn't gone out of its way to deny a claim doesn't mean it's true. Remember, the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and conspiracy-addicted sites like Breitbart are not only throwing as much mud against the wall as possible to see if it sticks, they're trying to make mud out of things that aren't. Like the Podesta emails... if you actually examine them, there's not much there. Fighting every false or exaggerated allegation would not only consume a lot of time, but would give them credibility that they don't deserve.

This isn't to say that every claim levelled against her is false, just that there's a lot more fluff than there is substance. I would be especially worried about believing claims when it's pretty clear that the Russians are trying to manipulate the election through a hacking campaign.

I'm not so naive as to think that people are only criticizing Clinton because she's a woman. But on issues like LGBT rights? Well, it's simple: she'll protect gay marriage and anti-discrimination measures. Trump would appoint Supreme Court justices that would be against those measures, and just by virtue of being a Republican would likely sign any bills reversing progress for the LGBT community. I don't want the US to slide back into darkness simply because the Democratic candidate has some ethical concerns in her past.