Hillary beats Trump in Latest National Poll by 11%

[bripat9643]

Yes, and the idea private events are open to the public means they can't remove those they don't want there is retarded. Libraries can kick you out if you keep talking, you can't go to a church service that is open to the public and put up banners and disrupt the service, Nazis can't wave a flag at a Jewish service without getting kicked out. Camp is just an idiot. He's a totalitarian government anarchist, you know that's going to lead to being an idiot

I never said a person couldn't be asked to leave or removed by security persons at a private of public event or venue. That is open to the owner of the property, the party renting the property or law enforcement. Security may be under the control of both the renter and the owner and are acting as agents for whichever is paying them or representing them. Once a person is asked to leave, they must leave. If they don't, the above-mentioned entities have the right to remove them. Resisting can lead to various criminal charges,including trespassing.

You have just describe virtually every incident of "so-called" violence at Trump rallies, disrupters getting the boot as they deserved.

All but the crowd participation and assaults on the protesters by persons not connected to security. You know, like when a protester or heckler is being escorted out under control of the security or law enforcement and people take it on their own to get involved.

There's no law that says participants can't boot unwanted interlopers at the direction of the venue owner.

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

The venue owner has the right to use private security to evict trouble makers. That includes unpaid security, which means anyone in the audience. What you're claiming is like saying you can't throw someone out of your house if you don't want them to be there.

Bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, and the idea private events are open to the public means they can't remove those they don't want there is retarded. Libraries can kick you out if you keep talking, you can't go to a church service that is open to the public and put up banners and disrupt the service, Nazis can't wave a flag at a Jewish service without getting kicked out. Camp is just an idiot. He's a totalitarian government anarchist, you know that's going to lead to being an idiot

I never said a person couldn't be asked to leave or removed by security persons at a private of public event or venue. That is open to the owner of the property, the party renting the property or law enforcement. Security may be under the control of both the renter and the owner and are acting as agents for whichever is paying them or representing them. Once a person is asked to leave, they must leave. If they don't, the above-mentioned entities have the right to remove them. Resisting can lead to various criminal charges,including trespassing.

You have just describe virtually every incident of "so-called" violence at Trump rallies, disrupters getting the boot as they deserved.

All but the crowd participation and assaults on the protesters by persons not connected to security. You know, like when a protester or heckler is being escorted out under control of the security or law enforcement and people take it on their own to get involved.

You're obviously not watching the videos, they are all over the place. Stop being a bitch of politicians and actually watch them

At the point. we have come to I support anyone showing even the slightest bit of violence at any political event, on either side or no side, should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That would mean allowing thugs to disrupt Trump's events.

Go fuck yourself. Trump is entitled to kick out disrupters. He doesn't have to satisfy your squeamish notions about what kind of use of force is permissible.

 

[Camp]

I never said a person couldn't be asked to leave or removed by security persons at a private of public event or venue. That is open to the owner of the property, the party renting the property or law enforcement. Security may be under the control of both the renter and the owner and are acting as agents for whichever is paying them or representing them. Once a person is asked to leave, they must leave. If they don't, the above-mentioned entities have the right to remove them. Resisting can lead to various criminal charges,including trespassing.

You have just describe virtually every incident of "so-called" violence at Trump rallies, disrupters getting the boot as they deserved.

All but the crowd participation and assaults on the protesters by persons not connected to security. You know, like when a protester or heckler is being escorted out under control of the security or law enforcement and people take it on their own to get involved.

There's no law that says participants can't boot unwanted interlopers at the direction of the venue owner.

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

 

[bripat9643]

You have just describe virtually every incident of "so-called" violence at Trump rallies, disrupters getting the boot as they deserved.

All but the crowd participation and assaults on the protesters by persons not connected to security. You know, like when a protester or heckler is being escorted out under control of the security or law enforcement and people take it on their own to get involved.

There's no law that says participants can't boot unwanted interlopers at the direction of the venue owner.

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

Those may have been the rules where you were. That doesn't mean those are the rules at every event.

 

[Camp]

All but the crowd participation and assaults on the protesters by persons not connected to security. You know, like when a protester or heckler is being escorted out under control of the security or law enforcement and people take it on their own to get involved.

There's no law that says participants can't boot unwanted interlopers at the direction of the venue owner.

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

Those may have been the rules where you were. That doesn't mean those are the rules at every event.

Any venue without a system in place similar to the one I described would be taking enormous risks of both civil and criminal law- suits and charges. It is extremely unlikely that any venue property owner would allow an event to take place without a system in place that was approved and coordinated with local law enforcement. Imagine if a fire broke out and no one was assigned or trained to open emergency exits.

 

[HenryBHough]

Without thugs could The Democrat Party even exist?

 

[kaz]

There's no law that says participants can't boot unwanted interlopers at the direction of the venue owner.

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

Those may have been the rules where you were. That doesn't mean those are the rules at every event.

Any venue without a system in place similar to the one I described would be taking enormous risks of both civil and criminal law- suits and charges. It is extremely unlikely that any venue property owner would allow an event to take place without a system in place that was approved and coordinated with local law enforcement. Imagine if a fire broke out and no one was assigned or trained to open emergency exits.

The ones taking risks were the violent leftists who thought they could attack people and get away with it. They got what fer

 

[Dot Com]

q

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[Dot Com]

The Bern prolly beats Donnie by more

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[Camp]

Sure there is. The venue owner does not have the power to appoint law enforcement deputies. That is why they are obligated to have private security trained to work with law enforcement and the limits of their authority.

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

Those may have been the rules where you were. That doesn't mean those are the rules at every event.

Any venue without a system in place similar to the one I described would be taking enormous risks of both civil and criminal law- suits and charges. It is extremely unlikely that any venue property owner would allow an event to take place without a system in place that was approved and coordinated with local law enforcement. Imagine if a fire broke out and no one was assigned or trained to open emergency exits.

The ones taking risks were the violent leftists who thought they could attack people and get away with it. They got what fer

Like I have said in a previous post, those people that use violence at a political rally should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent, all of them, no matter who or what cause they claim to represent.

 

[bripat9643]

And where do these special powers that "private security" have that attendees of the rallies don't have come from?

All the events I have been involved with have required the names of all persons involved with security be supplied to law enforcement before the event and wear some kind of consistent identifying article of clothing. Often a specific pass is worn on a chain or cord around the neck or a clip or paper "badge" over the breast pocket designating areas of the venue where the particular personnel is assigned. The entities under the control of those people are legally obligated to ensure they are trained and understand their limited authority. For example static and crowd control security may wear red t-shirts with yellow ID passes while backstage security may be wearing blue blazers and red ID passes.

Those may have been the rules where you were. That doesn't mean those are the rules at every event.

Any venue without a system in place similar to the one I described would be taking enormous risks of both civil and criminal law- suits and charges. It is extremely unlikely that any venue property owner would allow an event to take place without a system in place that was approved and coordinated with local law enforcement. Imagine if a fire broke out and no one was assigned or trained to open emergency exits.

The ones taking risks were the violent leftists who thought they could attack people and get away with it. They got what fer

Like I have said in a previous post, those people that use violence at a political rally should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent, all of them, no matter who or what cause they claim to represent.

What you're really saying is that Trump shouldn't be allowed to eject disrupters.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hillary is so fucking cool.

 

[Toro]

Carter had a 13 point lead over Reagan just before the election.

And he was an Incumbent.

You got it backwards. This is a myth that permeates in conservative circles.

Reagan had a 13 point lead before the election. Reagan was trailing Carter badly in the winter of 1980, but had caught up to him in the Spring and surpassed him in the summer.

Debunking A Myth: Reagan Was Leading Carter Long Before That Final October Debate

 

[Toro]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

 

[HappyJoy]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

 

[Redfish]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

 

[HappyJoy]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

 

[badnose]

I wonder how many people saw any part of that Hillary speech in which she calmly eviscerated Trump.

Probably very few. I hear there's a big dust-up over at the Kardashian's house over some shoes.
.

Check this out.... www.trumpofdoom.com So many lies....... :-(

 

[Redfish]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

They are no better than educated guesses. They are statistically garbage. The sample size is so small that it is meaningless mathematically.

That's my point, yes, some of them have guessed correctly, so have I, so have you.

 

[HappyJoy]

FYI, I believe this is an online poll. Online polls tend to be less reliable.

I think Reuters has two different polls...I believe both online.

This is their daily tracking poll, I don't give this one too much credit:

Follow the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls on everything from politics and elections, to social issues and current events.

Then there is the Ipsos poll which this thread is about and 538 gives them an A- rating. So, they are rated well however I have the same distrust of online polls as you do.

So they poll 1000 people out of 330,000,000 and claim that it means something? Really?

Pay me to do a poll, tell me the result you want, and I will find 1000 "random" people to give you that answer. Its statistical bullshit.

Even the great Steven Hawking would agree with that.

That's how polls work and their success rates are rated, we can actually see how they have performed in the past. We knew the winner of most elections due to polling. Those of us who took polling seriously knew that Romney was going to lose in 2012. Stick your head in the sand if you want but polls are for the most part pretty accurate.

They are no better than educated guesses. They are statistically garbage. The sample size is so small that it is meaningless mathematically.

That's my point, yes, some of them have guessed correctly, so have I, so have you.

It's not meaningless mathematically. You keep saying that.