Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you mock somebody with pneumonia?
you mock somebody with pneumonia?
Yeah, she had pneumonia like I have the winning lottery numbers. She really got over it quick though. They rushed her to her daughters apartment (which is what anybody would do with a sick person) and after she sobered up..........er got a rest, she was back to normal and kissing kids on the street.
Why wouldn't they show up?If all those people that went to the Trump events of the last 15 or so months, vote,,and along with the millions who had to wait outside the arenas......Trump Wins!!!
And what are the average size crowds for Hillary and Tim?
Sander's rallies were "packed" with dopers and children who really believed Uncle Bernie would wipe out the 80K they borrowed from the taxpayer to fucking party for four years while learning about the evolution of medieval footwear.Why wouldn't they show up?
And what are the average size crowds for Hillary and Tim?
Today you will learn lots of people at rally's don't equal victory.
Remember Bernie events were packed?
And what are the average size crowds for Hillary and Tim?
Yeah, I dont know of any formal studies done, just examples like Gibsons marketing Passion of the Christ.I just think you overestimate the power of word of mouth, who people vote for is based on their beliefs, not what a friend tells them. Plus I don't think everybody at trump rally's are going to vote for trump, many are just checking out the show. Also, if you add Hillary plus her serrogates attendees they are getting the same numbers if not more when compared to just Trump and pence. Plus they have a much bigger ground game that gets out the vote... add all that together and you have a very tight race and advantage Clinton when considering the polls and electoral map
And Sanders is right; today's college students have been defrauded by higher education establishments, and with the future of the jobs market so bad due to robotics becoming capable of doing ALL JOBS over the next 20 years, these student will need relief and they will get it rather than let a financial crisis develop due to catastrophic defaults in student loans.Sander's rallies were "packed" with dopers and children who really believed Uncle Bernie would wipe out the 80K they borrowed from the taxpayer to fucking party for four years while learning about the evolution of medieval footwear.
About the existing student debt there's zero chance most of it will ever be paid off by the student who spent four years studying the evolution of medieval footwear.Win or lose, Trump has emasculated ruling class
Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.
Though a novice in politics, he captured the party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation’s ruling class from which it may not soon recover.
Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.
Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.
Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy, but he recognized them, tapped into them and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.
Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.
[hmmmmm . . . . I thought you douche bags like McCain and Romney. You keep telling us that's the kind of guy we should have nominated.
You nominated a loser.
He was losing against Clinton during the primaries, and he's losing now.
But you Orange Jesus worshipers closed your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears, wouldn't listen, and nominated the guy who consistently was the worst candidate against Clinton. All the other candidates did better than Trump against Clinton.
Now, he's going to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever to run for the Presidency - other than him, of course - a woman who has serious ethical and possibly legal issues.
That's how bad Trump is.
So you guys don't really give a shit about Clinton winning. You were more interested in settling scores in the Republican Party.
It was just an interesting side note. Not everything is do or die. ChillFunny, a friend of mine play golf with trump and said that he cheated Biggly. Notes a tendency for kicking balls out for better shots (the ol foot wedge). True golfers know what this says about a person
We can certainly not vote for him for that reason. Believe it or not, some are so petty they won't vote for Hillary because she erased evidence subpoenaed by the United States Congress........imagine that!!!!
I'm in the marketing business and agree with much of what you say about word of mouth, however that applies to normal consumer products and services. People want to know which doctor their friends recommend or which TV has the best picture, which movie to go see, etc a recommendation from a friend goes a long way with that stuff. Voting is a different game. While I do recognize an effectiveness of word of mouth, it can also be very polarizing as it is a personal choice that many are passionate about. Both sides of this race want a landslide but reality is that we are in a close race and Clinton has an advantage. To say a Clinton victory means fraud before the votes are cast is a foolish statement. To say Trump has no chance of winning is also a foolish statement.Yeah, I dont know of any formal studies done, just examples like Gibsons marketing Passion of the Christ.I just think you overestimate the power of word of mouth, who people vote for is based on their beliefs, not what a friend tells them. Plus I don't think everybody at trump rally's are going to vote for trump, many are just checking out the show. Also, if you add Hillary plus her serrogates attendees they are getting the same numbers if not more when compared to just Trump and pence. Plus they have a much bigger ground game that gets out the vote... add all that together and you have a very tight race and advantage Clinton when considering the polls and electoral map
The media downplays or ignores the impact of Word of Mouth because they sell advertising and Word of mouth topics in essence undercut their cash flow.
But it is very effective and I recall that the whole phenomena is often referred to as a "social epidemic"
How Ideas Spread [repost]
four key principles that make information more memorable;
why word of mouth is more than 10 times as powerful as traditional advertising;
how triggers in the environment can influence everything from what we buy to how we vote;
which types of sales messaging drives consumers to act; and
why your looser social ties are more likely to help you find a job than closer ones.
Create Predictably Viral Word of Mouth Campaigns - Synerzip
This posting explores how an advertiser can virally spread a message by leveraging laws of social epidemics extolled in the highly acclaimed book- “Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell . The book was written before social networks like Facebook and Twitter came into existence. Now it has become much easier to spread social epidemics or build up popularity of a concept by spreading “word of mouth” using social media. Towards the end, this posting explores how we can test a message on a small slice of the target population or cohort and create a predictably viral word of mouth campaign.
Like you said, all politicians lie, which means all politicians are corrupt to a degree. Knowing Trumps character I have no doubt that he would be, by far, the most corrupt politician in history. Clintons corruption that yall have been obsessing about is bad but not as bad as you make it out to be. I don't condone what she did with the server but I understand why she wanted to protect her communications. She's had millions attacking her and trying to discredit her for decades. Many lies and manipulations agaist her by her opponents. I don't blame her for being secretive and guarded.No they aren't. He lies more than Hillary. He would be much more corrupt than Hillary. A egomaniac that can't take responsibility for his mistakes. His entire run would be cover ups, distortion of the facts, bullied attacks against his critics, lies, lies and more lies. There is no doubt
All politicians lie. It's not how much they lied, it's what they lied about.
I love your wording: Trump "would be" more corrupt than Hillary. How can you take that argument to the polls? You would elect somebody that is corrupt over somebody that isn't corrupt, but might be later on?
You keep telling yourself that excuse......gonna be around this evening for the celebration?Sander's rallies were "packed" with dopers and children who really believed Uncle Bernie would wipe out the 80K they borrowed from the taxpayer to fucking party for four years while learning about the evolution of medieval footwear.Why wouldn't they show up?
And what are the average size crowds for Hillary and Tim?
Today you will learn lots of people at rally's don't equal victory.
Remember Bernie events were packed?
Against H. Clinton either one would have won...and then the GOP would get to pick SCOTUS nominees. Now..............?[hmmmmm . . . . I thought you douche bags like McCain and Romney. You keep telling us that's the kind of guy we should have nominated.
You nominated a loser.
He was losing against Clinton during the primaries, and he's losing now.
But you Orange Jesus worshipers closed your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears, wouldn't listen, and nominated the guy who consistently was the worst candidate against Clinton. All the other candidates did better than Trump against Clinton.
Now, he's going to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever to run for the Presidency - other than him, of course - a woman who has serious ethical and possibly legal issues.
That's how bad Trump is.
So you guys don't really give a shit about Clinton winning. You were more interested in settling scores in the Republican Party.
Nice way to change the subject. Were McCain and Romney the kind of candidate we should nominate, or were they "losers," as you described them?
Win or lose, Trump has emasculated ruling class
Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.
Though a novice in politics, he captured the party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation’s ruling class from which it may not soon recover.
Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.
Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.
Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy, but he recognized them, tapped into them and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.
Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.
That's true, but I don't think either could have beating Trump in the primaries. (A younger McCain might have chewed off Trump's head onstage in a debate, but that's another matter)Against H. Clinton either one would have won...and then the GOP would get to pick SCOTUS nominees. Now..............?[hmmmmm . . . . I thought you douche bags like McCain and Romney. You keep telling us that's the kind of guy we should have nominated.
You nominated a loser.
He was losing against Clinton during the primaries, and he's losing now.
But you Orange Jesus worshipers closed your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears, wouldn't listen, and nominated the guy who consistently was the worst candidate against Clinton. All the other candidates did better than Trump against Clinton.
Now, he's going to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever to run for the Presidency - other than him, of course - a woman who has serious ethical and possibly legal issues.
That's how bad Trump is.
So you guys don't really give a shit about Clinton winning. You were more interested in settling scores in the Republican Party.
Nice way to change the subject. Were McCain and Romney the kind of candidate we should nominate, or were they "losers," as you described them?
You say that the Dems won the popular vote, but it was only the largest block, not a majority except for 2012 and 2008.I'm an American more than I am partisan about any issue ... unless it involves something beyond question constitutional like equal protection. The dems have won the popular vote (Perot I know) in 5 of the last 6, and 2004 was decided on terror, so imo they deserve to control the scotus. To me the interesting question is whether Trump will effectively change the gop to make it a more populist party.
Yeah, the techniques that make Word of Mouth work well are polarizing as Trump "rebranding" of his opponents illustrate. Hell, only now Cruz is campaigning for him and he is still butt hurt over the whole primary thingy.I'm in the marketing business and agree with much of what you say about word of mouth, however that applies to normal consumer products and services. People want to know which doctor their friends recommend or which TV has the best picture, which movie to go see, etc a recommendation from a friend goes a long way with that stuff. Voting is a different game. While I do recognize an effectiveness of word of mouth, it can also be very polarizing as it is a personal choice that many are passionate about. Both sides of this race want a landslide but reality is that we are in a close race and Clinton has an advantage. To say a Clinton victory means fraud before the votes are cast is a foolish statement. To say Trump has no chance of winning is also a foolish statement.Yeah, I dont know of any formal studies done, just examples like Gibsons marketing Passion of the Christ.I just think you overestimate the power of word of mouth, who people vote for is based on their beliefs, not what a friend tells them. Plus I don't think everybody at trump rally's are going to vote for trump, many are just checking out the show. Also, if you add Hillary plus her serrogates attendees they are getting the same numbers if not more when compared to just Trump and pence. Plus they have a much bigger ground game that gets out the vote... add all that together and you have a very tight race and advantage Clinton when considering the polls and electoral map
The media downplays or ignores the impact of Word of Mouth because they sell advertising and Word of mouth topics in essence undercut their cash flow.
But it is very effective and I recall that the whole phenomena is often referred to as a "social epidemic"
How Ideas Spread [repost]
four key principles that make information more memorable;
why word of mouth is more than 10 times as powerful as traditional advertising;
how triggers in the environment can influence everything from what we buy to how we vote;
which types of sales messaging drives consumers to act; and
why your looser social ties are more likely to help you find a job than closer ones.
Create Predictably Viral Word of Mouth Campaigns - Synerzip
This posting explores how an advertiser can virally spread a message by leveraging laws of social epidemics extolled in the highly acclaimed book- “Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell . The book was written before social networks like Facebook and Twitter came into existence. Now it has become much easier to spread social epidemics or build up popularity of a concept by spreading “word of mouth” using social media. Towards the end, this posting explores how we can test a message on a small slice of the target population or cohort and create a predictably viral word of mouth campaign.
Every party typically gets hit in off year elections. The founders set it up that the president who wins gets to nominate. The Founders may not have foreseen parties, but that's the way it's set up. And the reason is pretty clear. Presidents come and go, but Justices tend to last a long time. So it's a check against overwhelming populism. The gop's position on not confirming Garland is wrong, as a matter of principle.You say that the Dems won the popular vote, but it was only the largest block, not a majority except for 2012 and 2008.I'm an American more than I am partisan about any issue ... unless it involves something beyond question constitutional like equal protection. The dems have won the popular vote (Perot I know) in 5 of the last 6, and 2004 was decided on terror, so imo they deserve to control the scotus. To me the interesting question is whether Trump will effectively change the gop to make it a more populist party.
That hardly makes them the dominant party that should get to pick all SCOTUS appointments.
That is why we have a system that has a prescribed process.
IF the Dims wouldnt get shellacked in off year elections this wouldnt even be an issue.
And yes, I think Trump has recast the GOP as a populist party and the Dims need to emulate him without credit as they always do when someone beats them at their own game.
