Mission Accomplished!!! My liberal pro-Hillary daughter will not be voting!!!

[owebo]

We all know that so-called "fact checkers" are really leftwing propagandists. If you want some facts, refer to the actual documented facts found in the Wiki emails and uncovered by the FBI.

PLEASE show me a SINGLE fact checker (incl right-wing orientation) that shows Trump not lying more than Clinton.
Also, go ahead and show us the FBI facts related to the Wiener crap that implicates Hillary ... I'm waiting for your non-BS ...

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your believe in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

The best thing about your democrat blue collar workers, who you democrats hate, voting Trump is that the overwhelming majority live in battleground states....

You democrats are fucking doomed....

Who is "you"?
I am not a registered Democrat.
Are you ASSuming?

Your words speak for you....

Thanks for playing....

 

[PK1]

Apparently, evidence means nothing to your rigid biased position. Then on top of that, you proudly (LOL!) make insults.
All you got to do is Google all those fact checkers and see how much Trump lies, but you're partisan-blind to that.
Even this Canadian news outlet reveals Trump's un-presidential badness to the extreme ...
http://www.thestar.com/news/donald-trump-quickfacts.html

We all know that so-called "fact checkers" are really leftwing propagandists. If you want some facts, refer to the actual documented facts found in the Wiki emails and uncovered by the FBI.

PLEASE show me a SINGLE fact checker (incl right-wing orientation) that shows Trump not lying more than Clinton.
Also, go ahead and show us the FBI facts related to the Wiener crap that implicates Hillary ... I'm waiting for your non-BS ...

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your believe in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

 

[konradv]

Yeah, she told you that so you'd get off her back. Don't take that wrong. There are things a parent is just as well off not knowing, especially when they're grown.

I agree. He's going to be surprised by how large the "I-can't-tell-my-friends-and-family-but-I-can't-vote-for-Trump" vote is.

 

[bripat9643]

We all know that so-called "fact checkers" are really leftwing propagandists. If you want some facts, refer to the actual documented facts found in the Wiki emails and uncovered by the FBI.

PLEASE show me a SINGLE fact checker (incl right-wing orientation) that shows Trump not lying more than Clinton.
Also, go ahead and show us the FBI facts related to the Wiener crap that implicates Hillary ... I'm waiting for your non-BS ...

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your believe in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

 

[PK1]

PLEASE show me a SINGLE fact checker (incl right-wing orientation) that shows Trump not lying more than Clinton.
Also, go ahead and show us the FBI facts related to the Wiener crap that implicates Hillary ... I'm waiting for your non-BS ...

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your believe in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

 

[bripat9643]

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your believe in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.

The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

 

[PK1]

I gave you a reference to one of MANY fact checkers, but you cannot offer ANY specifics to dispute ANY of them? LOL.
Apparently, you must be one of the uneducated white men who blindly eat Trump's shit ...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, they were arrested. The question is: how many haven't been caught? Given how lawless and determined to ensure a Hillary victory her supporters are, it's likely this is going on in most of the Democrat precincts in the country.

Please quote where your link says they were arrested.... Or another link....

We'll wait for your proof of arrest.

I'm thinking you're lying to us...yet again. It's getting easier and easier to expose....you're really starting to suck at it.

You've already been proven wrong douche bag. That's all anyone needs to know. You don't get to keep asking me questions. so you can have another chance at not looking like a moron.

So you’re admitting you lied (we already knew that) and they were not arrested.
Thanks.

If that pathetic victory makes you feel better after making a total fool out of yourself on your original claim, I'm happy for you.

My original claim is that I make fun of people like you that think there is widespread voter fraud. And you played your part beautifully; first bringing up a story that apparently didn’t happen since there were no arrests AND THEN insisting there was an arrest.

I keep asking you guys this…do you ever get tired of lying? I mean is this the new default conserve-hate-ive position? Lie as often as you can and see what sticks? It sure seems to be.

IJR: 14 Cases of Voter Fraud Under Investigation as Election Day Approaches
Two women busted for election fraud in Miami-Dade
WATCH: Elections Commissioner Admits to Widespread Voter Fraud on Hidden Camera

I'd ask you the same question, but I already know Democrats never get tired of lying. If they did, they'd have chosen a different candidate instead of using media control and the party apparatus to get a liar and a cheater elected. I'd have ignored your posts, but I'm JUST bored enough to deal with a lefttard shill.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

As I already explained to you, the term "fact checker" is an oxymoron. These operations check facts about as well as Pravda did during the Soviet era. Your belief in them is charming - like a kid's belief in Santa Claus.

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Its okay, I voted enough for both of us.

Ha ha candycorn I guess it was jokes like this that made me think you were referring to Democrats and we're one.
Are you Green or Independent?

 

[PK1]

What you already demonstrated is that you don't know how to debate and dispute alleged facts that are reporting by MANY non-Russian sources.
You seem to understand only a kid's belief in Santa Claus. LOLROTF.

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Appealing to a bogus authority is not how you dispute facts. THe appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You would know that if you were able to commit logic. Since you aren't, there's no point in debating you. You fail to realize you have already lost the argument.

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

Actually, if you check the quotes in my post, your post is that I was referring to is up there, and you two were still discussing it, so there was no reason for me to add it to my main post.

I don't really think indoctrination is 'cute', but since Lefties have been using the 'education' system for that purpose for years, it wouldn't surprise me that they would find it 'cute'.

Oh sure, they're taught various subjects, expanding their knowledge in various areas, HOWEVER they are also introduced to various left wing ideals through certain required classes and side notes in textbooks. You know, as if DNC-controlled CNN wasn't enough.

 

[PK1]

There's no logic in your arguments if you cannot debate alleged facts from ANY alleged authority, including your own sources.

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

Actually, if you check the quotes in my post, your post is that I was referring to is up there, and you two were still discussing it, so there was no reason for me to add it to my main post.

I don't really think indoctrination is 'cute', but since Lefties have been using the 'education' system for that purpose for years, it wouldn't surprise me that they would find it 'cute'.

Oh sure, they're taught various subjects, expanding their knowledge in various areas, HOWEVER they are also introduced to various left wing ideals through certain required classes and side notes in textbooks. You know, as if DNC-controlled CNN wasn't enough.

I also don't feel that indoctrination is "cute"; i was referring to your conclusion that college education equates to left wing "indoctrination" when you probably have not had experience at the college level.

Why do you wear biased lenses when evaluating the value of college education? Many successful and/or powerful right wing thinkers attended universities. I don't think you would say they were "indoctrinated", would you?
At the college level, one is EXPOSED to a variety of ideas, but it's up to the individual to make sense of them with their free-thinking brain.
What "left wing ideals" do you think are glorified in required classes?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There you go again with the appeal to authority. As I previously pointed out, you are incapable of committing logic. The so-called "fact checkers" were shown to be frauds long ago. Yet, you are utterly helpless to demonstrate your case without appealing to them.
The long and the short of it is that you're a dumbass bonehead.

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

Actually, if you check the quotes in my post, your post is that I was referring to is up there, and you two were still discussing it, so there was no reason for me to add it to my main post.

I don't really think indoctrination is 'cute', but since Lefties have been using the 'education' system for that purpose for years, it wouldn't surprise me that they would find it 'cute'.

Oh sure, they're taught various subjects, expanding their knowledge in various areas, HOWEVER they are also introduced to various left wing ideals through certain required classes and side notes in textbooks. You know, as if DNC-controlled CNN wasn't enough.

I also don't feel that indoctrination is "cute"; i was referring to your conclusion that college education equates to left wing "indoctrination" when you probably have not had experience at the college level.

Why do you wear biased lenses when evaluating the value of college education? Many successful and/or powerful right wing thinkers attended universities. I don't think you would say they were "indoctrinated", would you?
At the college level, one is EXPOSED to a variety of ideas, but it's up to the individual to make sense of them with their free-thinking brain.
What "left wing ideals" do you think are glorified in required classes?

Oh look, spinning and we're only two posts into the discussion. You truly are incapable of having a normal conversation, aren't you?

You already know this, but what I said was that indoctrination comes WITH it, as in they're exposed to it ALSO. As in it's separate information that's provided with the education experience. Your obvious and failed spinning aside, now, a great example is Georgia Perimeter College. They have a required class called "First Semester Experience", a friend of mine had to attend that class, and part of that class involved information regarding Gender Identity and homosexuality, concepts the lefties push as 'normal' so that they can gain votes from the LGBT community. Just one example of indoctrination being involved in a college. People are also exposed to other left wing ideals, like Socialism, my friend noticed this ideology being presented in a positive light in his history class, another left wing ideal.

You also seem to be under the impression that presentation and content have absolutely nothing to do with influencing a person's perspective, but why would you? You've already been indoctrinated, so of course you wouldn't notice it since it aligns with your perspective.

 

[PK1]

Do you even realize how stupid your broken-record excuses are?
I simply asked you to provide YOUR OWN explanations based on YOUR OWN thoughts, if not YOUR OWN authoritative sources, but you keep going round and round like a child who believes in Santa Claus.
LOLROTF!

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

Actually, if you check the quotes in my post, your post is that I was referring to is up there, and you two were still discussing it, so there was no reason for me to add it to my main post.

I don't really think indoctrination is 'cute', but since Lefties have been using the 'education' system for that purpose for years, it wouldn't surprise me that they would find it 'cute'.

Oh sure, they're taught various subjects, expanding their knowledge in various areas, HOWEVER they are also introduced to various left wing ideals through certain required classes and side notes in textbooks. You know, as if DNC-controlled CNN wasn't enough.

I also don't feel that indoctrination is "cute"; i was referring to your conclusion that college education equates to left wing "indoctrination" when you probably have not had experience at the college level.

Why do you wear biased lenses when evaluating the value of college education? Many successful and/or powerful right wing thinkers attended universities. I don't think you would say they were "indoctrinated", would you?
At the college level, one is EXPOSED to a variety of ideas, but it's up to the individual to make sense of them with their free-thinking brain.
What "left wing ideals" do you think are glorified in required classes?

Oh look, spinning and we're only two posts into the discussion. You truly are incapable of having a normal conversation, aren't you?

You already know this, but what I said was that indoctrination comes WITH it, as in they're exposed to it ALSO. As in it's separate information that's provided with the education experience. Your obvious and failed spinning aside, now, a great example is Georgia Perimeter College. They have a required class called "First Semester Experience", a friend of mine had to attend that class, and part of that class involved information regarding Gender Identity and homosexuality, concepts the lefties push as 'normal' so that they can gain votes from the LGBT community. Just one example of indoctrination being involved in a college. People are also exposed to other left wing ideals, like Socialism, my friend noticed this ideology being presented in a positive light in his history class, another left wing ideal.

You also seem to be under the impression that presentation and content have absolutely nothing to do with influencing a person's perspective, but why would you? You've already been indoctrinated, so of course you wouldn't notice it since it aligns with your perspective.

Spinning goes both ways. Pumpkin.
How do you define a normal conversation?

Each college/university has its own graduation requirements, and graduates are often judged on which institution they attended.
YOU CHOOSE where you want to go for higher education. You don't like Georgia Perimeter College, then go elsewhere, like a right-wing religious/dogma school if you prefer.

Colleges should & usually offer classes that EXPOSE students to various ideas & information. It's up to the student to make up their own minds. I don't see a problem being exposed to subjects covering various philosophies or reviews of various behavioral patterns, such as LBGT. You learn about REALITY, and you should be able to argue your logical thoughts.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Done that many many many times as a campaign volunteer, hahaha.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

May seem like a strange question, but what exactly do those statistics prove? That Hillary has THE REST of the uneducated vote? That skipping the indoctrination that comes with college prevents you from becoming a mindless left wing drone or lowers your chances? Surely you have a point somewhere, but I just don't see it.

Pumpkin, are you referring to this reference that you omitted from your post's thread?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds Donald Trump crushes Hillary Clinton among white men without college degrees 76 percent to 17 percent—a 59-point lead.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rcent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees

If you're only 16-17 years old, then you likely have not had a college education and referring to it as "indoctrination" is not only ignorant, but cute ... at your age. It depends on the classes & major one pursues, but in many cases, a college student is exposed to various academic subjects that expand one's mind and provide analytical tools on top of evidentiary material for self thought (not indoctrination) to critically & logically evaluate claims made by others.

Those statistics i cited reflect the data pattern that white men who support Trump are much less likely to have a college degree.

Actually, if you check the quotes in my post, your post is that I was referring to is up there, and you two were still discussing it, so there was no reason for me to add it to my main post.

I don't really think indoctrination is 'cute', but since Lefties have been using the 'education' system for that purpose for years, it wouldn't surprise me that they would find it 'cute'.

Oh sure, they're taught various subjects, expanding their knowledge in various areas, HOWEVER they are also introduced to various left wing ideals through certain required classes and side notes in textbooks. You know, as if DNC-controlled CNN wasn't enough.

I also don't feel that indoctrination is "cute"; i was referring to your conclusion that college education equates to left wing "indoctrination" when you probably have not had experience at the college level.

Why do you wear biased lenses when evaluating the value of college education? Many successful and/or powerful right wing thinkers attended universities. I don't think you would say they were "indoctrinated", would you?
At the college level, one is EXPOSED to a variety of ideas, but it's up to the individual to make sense of them with their free-thinking brain.
What "left wing ideals" do you think are glorified in required classes?

Oh look, spinning and we're only two posts into the discussion. You truly are incapable of having a normal conversation, aren't you?

You already know this, but what I said was that indoctrination comes WITH it, as in they're exposed to it ALSO. As in it's separate information that's provided with the education experience. Your obvious and failed spinning aside, now, a great example is Georgia Perimeter College. They have a required class called "First Semester Experience", a friend of mine had to attend that class, and part of that class involved information regarding Gender Identity and homosexuality, concepts the lefties push as 'normal' so that they can gain votes from the LGBT community. Just one example of indoctrination being involved in a college. People are also exposed to other left wing ideals, like Socialism, my friend noticed this ideology being presented in a positive light in his history class, another left wing ideal.

You also seem to be under the impression that presentation and content have absolutely nothing to do with influencing a person's perspective, but why would you? You've already been indoctrinated, so of course you wouldn't notice it since it aligns with your perspective.

Spinning goes both ways. Pumpkin.
How do you define a normal conversation?

Each college/university has its own graduation requirements, and graduates are often judged on which institution they attended.
YOU CHOOSE where you want to go for higher education. You don't like Georgia Perimeter College, then go elsewhere, like a right-wing religious/dogma school if you prefer.

Colleges should & usually offer classes that EXPOSE students to various ideas & information. It's up to the student to make up their own minds. I don't see a problem being exposed to subjects covering various philosophies or reviews of various behavioral patterns, such as LBGT. You learn about REALITY, and you should be able to argue your logical thoughts.

Except you're the only one spinning, but you're right, it sure can go both ways.

The amount of choices depends on location and how many are controlled by lefttards. A friend of mine was recently fired as a substitute because all of the colleges in his area wanted to "Diversify" their staff. Wonder how many of those are controlled by lefttards.

It's not simply exposing someone to something if the way it's worded implies it's completely normal. I bet you'd be all over it if it was mentioned that it's a mental illness.

You know, even if you had a point here, I'm sure these statistics are just as accurate as the election statistics libtards were throwing around.

 

[TNHarley]

Its okay, I voted enough for both of us.

Thank you. I, too, voted six times. One of the times I even voted as DuShawntee Jackson.

I always write in Calvin Coolidge on my 12 ballot. He was my favorite President from History.

Relaxed and rested and raring to go after your vaca, I see.

Had my first taste of Tequila ever on the ship. The waiters from the Mexican Restaurant Sabor on the Liberty of the Seas held a guacamole and tequila class and we were able to sample tequilas from different parts of Mexico. The winner?

View attachment 96854​

Did you like it? I had an unfortunate incident involving a Tequila Sunrise when I was 18 and I have never since been able to abide even the smell of the stuff. But until then it was shots with a wedge of lemon and a dash of salt. Fiery stuff.

tequila makes my clothes fall off. Even made me throw a hotdog down the hallway a couple of times

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Thank you. I, too, voted six times. One of the times I even voted as DuShawntee Jackson.

I always write in Calvin Coolidge on my 12 ballot. He was my favorite President from History.

Relaxed and rested and raring to go after your vaca, I see.

Had my first taste of Tequila ever on the ship. The waiters from the Mexican Restaurant Sabor on the Liberty of the Seas held a guacamole and tequila class and we were able to sample tequilas from different parts of Mexico. The winner?

View attachment 96854​

Did you like it? I had an unfortunate incident involving a Tequila Sunrise when I was 18 and I have never since been able to abide even the smell of the stuff. But until then it was shots with a wedge of lemon and a dash of salt. Fiery stuff.

tequila makes my clothes fall off. Even made me throw a hotdog down the hallway a couple of times

You shouldn't throw food, it's bad manners.

 

[TNHarley]

I always write in Calvin Coolidge on my 12 ballot. He was my favorite President from History.

Relaxed and rested and raring to go after your vaca, I see.

Had my first taste of Tequila ever on the ship. The waiters from the Mexican Restaurant Sabor on the Liberty of the Seas held a guacamole and tequila class and we were able to sample tequilas from different parts of Mexico. The winner?

View attachment 96854​

Did you like it? I had an unfortunate incident involving a Tequila Sunrise when I was 18 and I have never since been able to abide even the smell of the stuff. But until then it was shots with a wedge of lemon and a dash of salt. Fiery stuff.

tequila makes my clothes fall off. Even made me throw a hotdog down the hallway a couple of times

You shouldn't throw food, it's bad manners.

so is taking my clothes off in front of strangers