This is one reason i love Trump

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Nah, HRC would destroy DT.

So EVERY national poll is completely wrong???

I'll make a bet with you when Trump loses your done posting here, if Hillary loses I'm outta here, take the bet or are you yellow???

Why would I want to bet with you on someone I'm not even going to vote for in the primaries? I don't know who will win. That's why we have a goddamn election, dumbass. No one will know until the returns come in and the votes are tabulated.

Just what I thought you are Chicken shit..

I don't need any ******* primaries to know Clinton will be the Dem nominee, I will spell it out for your retarded sorry ass again, if anyone else not named Clinton wins the WH, I'm outta here forever, if she wins you are gone forever, I will set it up for the mods to cut our accounts, whoever the loser is..

Understand dumbass?? Take the bet you *****, time to back up your shit talking..

You think you are a boss huh, LOL!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[MarcATL]

About two week ago, Trump said to let Putin take care of ISIS.

This week he's saying we should be bombing the blank out of them.

In a few weeks Trump will be saying we should do nothing and the far rightwing radicals like Boss will continue to cheer him on as they have been no matter what.

It's a real-life reality TV show, except way more entertaining.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

^^^^^^^^^^ A perfect example of a low information voter. ^^^^^^^^^^

Why? Is anything I said wrong? If so, please correct me.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

i would say trump is gonna be pissed about the new ad....basically using the lines about the nazis....

they came for this group and i did nothing...saying that trump will soon come for you

We already know what the left is going to do, they can't run on their record. It's abysmal to say the least. Foreign policy is a disaster. The only possible thing that keeps Hillary Clinton from being the worst Secretary of State in US history is mashed potato face, John Kerry. The economic growth is anemic and job growth is stagnant. Civil unrest and violence in the inner cities is at an all-time high. Race relations have never been worse. We have police officers being assassinated all over the country. More people on food stamps than any time in history.

So the liberal left is going to do what they do best... LIE and DIVERT. They will smear their opponents with outright lies and distortions... attack, attack, attack... because they have nothing else in the arsenal.

Trump's position on the Syrian refugees is, he wouldn't have taken them in. Period. He would have preferred setting up a 'safe haven' in their country instead, manned by NATO allies and personnel from the gulf states. On the condition that we are going to bring them to this country, he said he thinks we should register them in a database so we know who they are and where they are at all times. This was quickly morphed into Trump turning Nazi and demanding all Muslims be registered and in a database... he never said any such thing.

But this is how the liberal left plays ball whenever they can't run on their abominable record.

"The Left" isn't doing anything.

His opposition is coming mostly from the right.

For instance, did you know that the candidates on the right got together to form a pact to take T-Rump down? If not, look it up. This has happened.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

Going to Ohio, home of one of the worst presidential candidates in history--Kasich. Can't debate, loves #ObamaCare--dummy!

He isnt part of the good ol buddy establishment club. He doesnt take crap from anyone and he doesnt give a damn what anyone thinks, especially the media.

Lol

More wet panties

 

[MarcATL]

Nah, HRC would destroy DT.

So EVERY national poll is completely wrong???

I'll make a bet with you when Trump loses your done posting here, if Hillary loses I'm outta here, take the bet or are you yellow???

Why would I want to bet with you on someone I'm not even going to vote for in the primaries? I don't know who will win. That's why we have a goddamn election, dumbass. No one will know until the returns come in and the votes are tabulated.

Just what I thought you are Chicken shit..

I don't need any ******* primaries to know Clinton will be the Dem nominee, I will spell it out for your retarded sorry ass again, if anyone else not named Clinton wins the WH, I'm outta here forever, if she wins you are gone forever, I will set it up for the mods to cut our accounts, whoever the loser is..

Understand dumbass?? Take the bet you *****, time to back up your shit talking..

You think you are a boss huh, LOL!!!

I like bets like these. Made one on here myself. Remember a poster named Listening? He lost the bet...Obama won.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Drumpf all but invented the "good ol [sic] buddy establishment club" and he owes a debt to every single member.

Wrong, asshole. Unlike the establishment Republicans, Trump has received nothing from the billionaires who want to control the Republican nominee. Bush, Rubio and Kasich have received millions from them. That's why they hate Trump so much: they know he can't be controlled. He's the most dangerous man in the country, as far as they are concerned.

 

[Boss]

"The Left" isn't doing anything.

His opposition is coming mostly from the right.

For instance, did you know that the candidates on the right got together to form a pact to take T-Rump down? If not, look it up. This has happened.

No, the Establishment GOP made a pact to bring Trump down. They also want to marginalize the Tea Party who threatens their power. Trump is actually fighting a battle on two fronts but it's okay because he's still kicking ass. If the smear and jeer isn't working for the moronic left, I don't know what makes people like Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove and Jeb Bush think they can pull it off.

For the record, when it comes to American politics, I avoid "looking up" stuff on the Internet. It's pointless because mostly it's agenda-driven nonsense and propaganda. I listen to the candidates and what they say. I look at their records and donor lists. I ultimately pick the one who is most conservative and aligns with my philosophy of conservatism. Right now, that person is Ted Cruz. Yeah, I know, he can't be president cuz he was born in Canada but I figure if a Kenyan can be elected a Canadian should be a piece of cake.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Vigilante]

• Retired FBI Agent: Bureau received ‘stacks of reports’ of calls of Muslims celebrating
  ABC NEWS WISCONSIN ^ | November 25, 2015 | Bill Riales
  One retired FBI agent says Donald Trump's claims of seeing Muslim celebrations following the attacks on 9-11 are absolutely plausible. Jim Burkett was an assistant special agent in charge with the FBI's office in Boston during 9-11 and afterward. He says during that time the office received tons of phone calls from people who feared more attacks and others reporting suspicious activity. Many of those calls, said Burkett, came from concerned and angry Americans reporting Muslim's celebrating over the destruction of the twin towers and damage to the Pentagon. The calls were logged, reports were made and there were "stacks...

 

[Toro]

Trump's unfavorable ratings - 55%

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

 

[Toro]

I would vote for Trump if he got the nomination, but the more I see of him, the less impressed I am with him as a candidate who could win the general election. I am starting to seriously doubt that he could beat Hillary.

If he gets the nomination, I hope I' wrong.

You're not.

 

[Toro]

The answer to Zander and the rest of the far right fascists is

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Again... your link shows Trump and Hillary in a statistical TIE... that's a far cry from Hillary trouncing Trump as you claimed.

Clinton is leading in the RCP averages by 4.4%. That's not a statistical tie. Statistically, Clinton is leading.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Of course, that can change.

A statistical tie is when one candidate is within 3% in a poll of 1000 people. But since the RCP averages are an aggregation of recent polls, and the total respondents in the aggregation are 3000-5000, a statistical tie would be 1%-1.5%.

 

[Boss]

The answer to Zander and the rest of the far right fascists is

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Again... your link shows Trump and Hillary in a statistical TIE... that's a far cry from Hillary trouncing Trump as you claimed.

Clinton is leading in the RCP averages by 4.4%. That's not a statistical tie. Statistically, Clinton is leading.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Of course, that can change.

A statistical tie is when one candidate is within 3% in a poll of 1000 people. But since the RCP averages are an aggregation of recent polls, and the total respondents in the aggregation are 3000-5000, a statistical tie would be 1%-1.5%.

Well Hillary has one poll showing her up by 15 points over Trump which is just not realistic. Not to mention, the erroneous poll is less than 600 registered voters. You sure are giving a lot of credence to that one poll. Also, I don't know where you get that statistical ties are determined by aggregate totals of people polled in different surveys. That's the goofiest thing I've ever heard. If the margin of error in a Gallup poll is 3%, it doesn't suddenly change because Fox News did a similar poll with a 3% margin of error.

My god, the level of dumbness is astounding!

 

[Toro]

The answer to Zander and the rest of the far right fascists is

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Again... your link shows Trump and Hillary in a statistical TIE... that's a far cry from Hillary trouncing Trump as you claimed.

Clinton is leading in the RCP averages by 4.4%. That's not a statistical tie. Statistically, Clinton is leading.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Of course, that can change.

A statistical tie is when one candidate is within 3% in a poll of 1000 people. But since the RCP averages are an aggregation of recent polls, and the total respondents in the aggregation are 3000-5000, a statistical tie would be 1%-1.5%.

Well Hillary has one poll showing her up by 15 points over Trump which is just not realistic. Not to mention, the erroneous poll is less than 600 registered voters. You sure are giving a lot of credence to that one poll. Also, I don't know where you get that statistical ties are determined by aggregate totals of people polled in different surveys. That's the goofiest thing I've ever heard. If the margin of error in a Gallup poll is 3%, it doesn't suddenly change because Fox News did a similar poll with a 3% margin of error.

My god, the level of dumbness is astounding!

After conservatives went Full Retard in 2012 over polls, you'd think you guys would STFU and learn something.

Excluding that one poll, the previous five polls has Clinton leading by 2.4% on average. And the one poll that has Trump ahead - Fox News - also had him ahead in October, even though every single other poll since the beginning of September had Clinton leading. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that Fox is an outlier. However, Fox's polls will have more credence if they are confirmed by other polls.

Since it is not unreasonable to assume that the same participants in one poll are not the same participants in the other polls, it is not unreasonable to assume that an aggregation of the polls estimates a greater sample size of the population. Excluding the Marist poll, there were 5300 respondents in the other five polls. You can calculate the confidence interval with a population of 5300 respondents here - http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm.

At a 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is 1.75%, meaning Clinton is almost certainly leading Trump, since her lead averages 2.4% in the five polls. If you exclude the Fox News polls, given its potential biases, and the Marist polls, Clinton is leading by 3.4%, well above the confidence interval.

As a former psychologist, I hope you are capable enough recognize your obvious cognitive biases, which are evident on the board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss is well aware he is struggling with his cognitive dissonance. He is aware that he so badly wants to believe that Trump is viable.

 

[Boss]

The answer to Zander and the rest of the far right fascists is

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Again... your link shows Trump and Hillary in a statistical TIE... that's a far cry from Hillary trouncing Trump as you claimed.

Clinton is leading in the RCP averages by 4.4%. That's not a statistical tie. Statistically, Clinton is leading.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Of course, that can change.

A statistical tie is when one candidate is within 3% in a poll of 1000 people. But since the RCP averages are an aggregation of recent polls, and the total respondents in the aggregation are 3000-5000, a statistical tie would be 1%-1.5%.

Well Hillary has one poll showing her up by 15 points over Trump which is just not realistic. Not to mention, the erroneous poll is less than 600 registered voters. You sure are giving a lot of credence to that one poll. Also, I don't know where you get that statistical ties are determined by aggregate totals of people polled in different surveys. That's the goofiest thing I've ever heard. If the margin of error in a Gallup poll is 3%, it doesn't suddenly change because Fox News did a similar poll with a 3% margin of error.

My god, the level of dumbness is astounding!

After conservatives went Full Retard in 2012 over polls, you'd think you guys would STFU and learn something.

Excluding that one poll, the previous five polls has Clinton leading by 2.4% on average. And the one poll that has Trump ahead - Fox News - also had him ahead in October, even though every single other poll since the beginning of September had Clinton leading. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that Fox is an outlier. However, Fox's polls will have more credence if they are confirmed by other polls.

Since it is not unreasonable to assume that the same participants in one poll are not the same participants in the other polls, it is not unreasonable to assume that an aggregation of the polls estimates a greater sample size of the population. Excluding the Marist poll, there were 5300 respondents in the other five polls. You can calculate the confidence interval with a population of 5300 respondents here - http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm.

At a 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is 1.75%, meaning Clinton is almost certainly leading Trump, since her lead averages 2.4% in the five polls. If you exclude the Fox News polls, given its potential biases, and the Marist polls, Clinton is leading by 3.4%, well above the confidence interval.

As a former psychologist, I hope you are capable enough recognize your obvious cognitive biases, which are evident on the board.

I don't give a damn how you explain it, moron. If two separate polls are conducted and they each have a 3% margin of error, the margin of error in the combined polls is still 3%. The polls don't suddenly become more accurate because of your common core math skill.

And even IF Clinton does lead by 4% or whatever, that's not "trouncing Trump" by any stretch of the imagination. 70% of GOP voters are still supporting their guy or gal over Trump at this time and are not likely to give Trump support in any poll. That does not mean they will not vote for Trump when their guy/gal drops out and it's down to him and the Hildabeast. I find it fascinating that a woman who has been running for president for the last 16 years isn't doing any better against a total caustic jackhole. Hell, she's barely beating the damn Socialist old white guy!

And oh by the way, you should avoid using the word "cognitive" in any conversation, moron.

 

[Boss]

boss is well aware he is struggling with his cognitive dissonance. He is aware that he so badly wants to believe that Trump is viable.

I'm well aware that you're a dipshit. Trump is viable as long as he garners 35-40% of the GOP vote with 15 other candidates in the race. You and the Establishment GOP might not want to admit that but it's just plain old fashioned reality slapping you upside your goofy head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss, you are a psychologist because you could not learn math.

Now STFU and learn.

 

[basquebromance]

the American dream is dead. but Trump will make it bigger and better and stronger than ever before!