Hillary’s Handlers Worried About Her War on Guns

Hillary Clinton gun control radical

Hillary Clinton has charged right into the mouth of a proverbial cannon in her campaign to strip Americans of their liberty when it comes to guns. And now, leaked emails confirm that her handlers have deep concerns that her radical positions would hurt her in the southern states.

The Washington Free Beacon has the story:

Clinton Camp Worried Gun Control Position Would Not Play Well in Southern States
Reworked debate talking points to avoid sounding too much like Sanders, hacked emails show

A top Clinton campaign staffer worried her gun control stance would turn off voters in southern states, a hacked email released on Sunday shows.

…On Tuesday, another batch of emails showed top Clinton staffers were concerned about attacking Bernie Sanders too aggressively over gun control. Emails released last Wednesday show the campaign was concerned about “fully embracing” New York’s strict 2013 gun control law.

Well, duh.

Democrat Bill Clinton lost the U.S. House of Representatives to Republicans for the first time in generations back in 1994 because of gun control. He admitted that his gun control push — in the form of an “assault weapons” ban “devastated” Democrats at the polls.

Democrat Al Gore likely lost the 2000 presidential race because of his support of radical gun control. Even the hard-lefties at Salon acknowledge that fact. The inventor of the Internet couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee.

And sixteen years later, after devastating losses at the national and state levels since Obama took office, here comes Hillary Clinton making gun control a central platform of her campaign. And her advisors worry it will hurt her.

Who would have thought it?

 

 

comments

  1. avatar YZAS says:

    I even remember not too long ago, Bill advising her (publicly) to ‘go easy on the gun thing’. Guess she wasn’t listening. She went Full Retard Anti-Gun. I really hope she gets torched on the 3rd rail for the whole world to see. Even with the totalitarian media pulling out all stops to get her elected, she’s only up by what – 7 points in the “polls”? Praying for a HUGE closet Trump vote to come out in full force on the 8th!

    1. avatar Simon says:

      Trump will win.

      1. avatar Aerindel says:

        Your an idiot. I hate hillary too but that doesn’t change reality.

        1. avatar HP says:

          *you’re

        2. avatar Danny says:

          You must put your trust in polls, hmm? That makes you the idiot!

        3. avatar NorincoJay says:

          All y’all’s a bunch a ignant fools.

        4. avatar asdf says:

          $0.30 has been deposited to your account. Thanks for Correcting the Record!

      2. avatar ron cassano says:

        right simon everyone we know is voting for trump,he will win but the lame stream bought and paid for Hillary bootlicker medias,coverup black out and run interference for Hillary.but look at the sizes of trumps crowds there in the 10,s of thousands.hillary has trouble filling up any big places.don,t believe the lame stream medias trump is killing Hillary.the lying bengazi murderer,hillary lied and americans in bengazi died.just google/fact ck Hillary Clintons scandals,and bill Clintons criminal/mena connection,also bill Clintons sexcapeds,from Juanita broddrick,who was raped by bill to paula jones Carolyn moffet Kathleen willey geniffer flowers lencola Sullivan.and Hillary laughed about defending a child rapist.she was 12 yrs old Kathy Shelton,and the rapist was 42 yrs old Thomas Alfred taylor.hillary lied and americans in bengazi died.go trump everyone we know is voting for you

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Hillary’s “supporters” can’t run on anything she’s done [this very OP here is how she can’t be the true asshole that she is in public or she’ll be run out of politics].

          Again, Hillary’s “supporters” don’t say ‘how good Hillary is’, they go out and say “Trump is a [some negative term]”, that ain’t “winning” sweetheart.

          And don’t worry about what Aerindel says, she ain’t from here.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          And everybody Pauline Karl knew voted for McGovern.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          titweena of Wii knows all the good liberal_progressive_communist_globalist evil (D) spokespeople, they are alinsky-like rabble-rousers, that the world will come to do without eventually and we will warn our great-grandkids about whatever next incarnation farts itself into this world from the subterranean.

          Why don’t we try Hillary’s plan(s) we could be Venezuela in about ~ 72 hours, and Cuba within 76 hours.

          NO MORE LIBERAL_PROGRESSIVE_COMMUNIST_GLOBALIST (D) CRAP! You cannot point to a single success of that bs, don’t get it anywhere near my country.

        4. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Joe.

          Please point to the sentence where tdiinva said he wanted Hillary to win. Make this minor effort before posting another incoherent ramble.

          Let me give you a clue: Thinking Hillary will win is not the same as wanting her to win.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          She cited Paulina Karl, not me, my response on that stays, the rest, ~ looks good.

          And CO is going strangubation blue so you’re suspect.

        6. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

          When you make a Kael-like statement expect to be compared to Pauline Karl. Everybody you know may be voting for Trump is just an indicator that you don’t know many people.

        7. avatar Joe R. says:

          My comment stands, [and it is only that] Kael was a liberal that spewed a lot of liberal crap, and you’ve similarly flopped your fair share of liberal crap here. Kael did it to be contrarian at first, but after gaining singular praise from those types she “hit the gas” and “let it eat her”.

          It doesn’t matter how many people I know, or how many are voting, if Donald Trump is one of the people they or I may be voting for, Hillary Clinton is a liberal_progressive_communist_globalist POS (D) in the classic sense (and your Kael reference lends to my comments both to how long such aholes have been around, what a huge detriment they tend to be [in at least the Balaam sort of way] how insidious they are, where they usually try to seat themselves, and that [softly couched in such a manner] despite the war they rage, however quietly, on Society, death comes to them by natural means).

          Liberals, Progressives, Communists, Globalists (D) are all the same bug in various life-cycle forms, they are each a scourge and America and Society survive despite (not because of) them. Hillary Clinton IS a criminal by her most basic admissions and anyone selling her is as well.

      3. avatar Paul Prochko says:

        Actually, Killary is not up in the polls and this is according to polling by IDB/TPP polling which has far and away been most accurate during the last three elections. Of course, the media won’t mention it, but by this poll, Trump is up and holding with a 1 point lead: http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-on-to-1-point-lead-as-debate-sparks-fly/

        1. avatar Dave says:

          And just think me and my girlfriend haven’t voted yet but we will be mr. Trump are two votes are coming sir that’s the best information I’ve heard all week thank you for posting that here just goes to show you what the liberal media will try to show on TV that mr. Trump is losing when in fact he’s only one point ahead but he still ahead. God Bless America God bless Donald Trump and everybody get your butts to the voting booth and make a boat for a good honest politician instead of the crap we’ve been handed the last 8 years. I cannot freaking stand to see another Democrat when it’s been 8 years hello can we have a republican thank you.

    2. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Not gonna happen. Too many nevertrumpers in our ranks. Look at the comments section of any of the politically motivated threads just in the last week. If there are that many that won’t vote for trump ON THIS SITE, imagine how many there are in the general population. In their defense, Trump has made himself a very hard sell. I get nauseated thinking about voting for him, but all I have to do is read the name on the next line to know I really have no choice.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        nevertrumpers posting here do not equal “nevertrumpers in our ranks”. There are millions of non-voters who are (D)/(R)/(I) that just sat the last few out. If they come off the bench who knows how they’ll vote (if someone doesn’t vote for them first). Fing with the vote (on any scale) should get the death penalty. Don’t give me that “that’s a big penalty for a relatively small offense”, I’ll tell you right there to get out of my country.

        How deep in POS mfs are we with the (D) ain’t so bad, but the (R) is just as bad posters here.

        How deep in POS mfs are not (obviously from certain spellings of words or sentence construction) are not even from here. If they are voting anti-trump then we do WWIII right now.

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        Even if Trump won over every single NeverTrumper, he still loses because he has zero appeal outside right leaning voters. Trump at his peak was at about 46%, and was leading mainly because Clinton was tanking.

        The fact that Trump and his supporters are still focused on the NeverTrumpers at this late date is a perfect illustration of why he’s going to lose. Trump’s problem isn’t a small slice of his own party. It’s giant segments of the electorate that find him even more unappealing than the other highly unappealing candidate.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Trump is focused on about 21 days out. Never-Trump is not an (R) movement it’s not even a (R)ino movement, it’s a Media/illegal alien/imported “refugees” that get paid vacations back where they escaped from/evil POS (D) movement, and they’re already counted in the Hillary for Prison column.

          Liberal enclaves are small, this is a Conservative Country.

        2. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Bullshit. Trump is up double digits amongst independents. Even according to rigged MSM polls. He also has more individual donations than any GOP candidate in history.

        3. avatar NorincoJay says:

          I disagree he only appeals to right leaning voters. I lean left and already mailed my ballot in with a vote for Trump and a yes on medical marijuana! If Dems weren’t anti 2a I’d be inclined to vote for some of them. But as a pro 2nd person it’s become impossible to be a democrat. It sucks.

        4. avatar Nobody special says:

          Your a rare bird norinco. Many especially among the left leaning don’t get the concepts of freedom. Meaning everything doesn’t require a law. More than that freedom trumps a party line.

          On a side note I know a lot of die hard union guys who will be voting trump. They are legitimately angry. They should be, they have been made fools of for decades only to have their benefits robbed to pay up to the corrupt. Barring serious and egregious voter fraud I don’t think hillary is gonna make it.

        5. avatar Accur81 says:

          I’m a registered independent and will be voting Trump 2016. I’ve also donated about $500 to the Trump campaign.

          I do however, believe that Trump will lose. We have too many low information voters, useful idiots (but I repeat myself), felons, and dead people who pull the D lever. Or have it pulled on their behalf. With years of public “education” and mainstream media indoctrination, we may never have another R president again. I would however, be very happy to be wrong on my last point.

          I’m hoping and praying for a Brexit style election. A Trump win and millions of lefties in disbelief. What we’ll probably see is Hillary. That scorned woman is going to be hell on our nation.

        6. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “and a yes on medical marijuana! “

          And you call yourself left leaning? Not just “legal marijuana?”

          (I kid…a well intentioned jab at someone admitting to be leftist here on TTAG)

      3. avatar Nobody special says:

        I’m not in love with Trump but I’m not dumb enough to vote for Hillary over my reservations. For starters he seems pretty weak on 2a and that worries me a lot. Constitutionalism? I think much of the never trumpers will end up pulling the lever for him on Election Day. To not would be suicide and they know it. The rest of them were never freedom loving conservatives to begin with. Ehem Glenn Beck.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Indeed. Glenn Beck always has been and always will be a liberal. That AIDS infected tool is pulling the lever for Hitlery, garunteed.

        2. avatar Nobody special says:

          I saw a video clip a few weeks back where he was all excited at the prospect of a trump presidency 5 or 10 years ago. My bet is he’s on the take. It would explain the excitement to vote for ol billary. Why he has been hiring and pushing over opinionated millennials who don’t know their rear from a hole in the wall and finally why the blaze is about to be history. good riddance.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Glenn Beck always has been and always will be a liberal.”

          And a Cheetohs addict.

          I liked Beck at one point. Whatever faith I harbored in him died when he cucked out with Zuckerberg.

          Glenn Beck is a sell-out.

      4. avatar The Deer Are Stirring says:

        We were told by the RINOs to hold our noses and vote for those RINO cucks Dole, McCain and Romney. Now it’s time for the RINOs to hold their noses and vote for Trump.

    3. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      How can she get burned by the third rail when she can”t even make it past the turnstile? (A little public transportation humor there.)

      1. avatar Rooster says:

        Hey give her some credit, at least she knew that the subway doesn’t still take tokens, unlike her competitor in the primaries. I tend to think that’s what won her the nomination.

    4. avatar Binder says:

      I think the biggest fear is that she is going to KILL the democrats in the mid term. All she see’s is that she beat Bernie in the midterms with her anti-gun rhetoric. She can’t see that Trump all but gave her the election.

  2. avatar JDC says:

    Comparing the public’s attitude on gun control in 2000 and now is apples and oranges. Not saying it won’t have an impact, just that you have to be careful in assigning the same mores.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Ya, NY is going ape to the power of sh_T, in obtaining firearms and cc permits, and that’s after passage (without tremendous enforcement) of the “We’re FING POS COMMUNISTS HERE’S OUR NYSAFE ACT”.

      AND DAMN TOO, we almost had all of those stupid mfs disarmed for the next civil war and all we had to do is let tricky-dick Chucky Doll “I think my niece is fat too” Schumer keep doing his evil BS. and broke-at-the-bend-anus Cuomo, and DeBlasio. . .

      Yeah, guns don’t mean sh_t,

      Soon we’ll be saying full-auto weapons don’t mean sh_t.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Strict Nine ain’t from here.

        Prognosticate all you want, but you been watching some faltering small-market media news on t.v. somewhere or your getting paid to spew that sh_t.

        I can play too, watch:

        Why can’t you just enjoy the fact that she’s gonna lose with us?

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      I don’t really see why people are freaking out that this lady is going to get elected at this point.

      A lot of these polls are seriously flawed. We know that 80% of people with masters or higher degrees vote democrat because most of those graduate level degrees are in the “soft sciences” where PC is king. Somewhere around 10-12% of Americans have such a degree, yet in these polls they’re oversampled, sometimes as much as 500%. Other problems arise with the internals on some of these polls as well. The LA Times and Rasmussen seem to avoid most of these sampling errors and the Times has it at +2 for Trump while Rasmussen has HRC at +1. That’s a horse race. Most of the other polls put it at +4-+6 for HRC with 3-3.5 MoE. Again a statistical dead heat. HRC isn’t running away with this race right now. Even further, look at how good the polling was on Brexit. Leave down 11 the day before the referendum ends up winning by almost +2.

      On top of that WikiLeaks, Project Veritas and Anonymous are savaging HRC with some really damning leaks which, they claim, will get worse as time goes on. They’re effectively ramping UP their saturation bombing campaign. 20 more traunches of WikiLeaks, Anon saying the Podesta hack will reveal some serious legal violations and just look at the first two videos Veritas has already put out with people admitting to some pretty serious legal violations.

      If any of that stuff gets out to the regular folks out there HRC goes down in flames because if she’s leading now it’s not by much.

      I simply don’t see a landslide for HRC on this. It’s a close race, unless you believe the MSM and/or have no idea how to read the internals on polls.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        snarkon “Lady” snarkoff

        Next you’ll claim Michelle Obumer is a lady.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          neiowa:

          *snicker* Touche.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        If any of that stuff gets out to the regular folks out there HRC goes down in flames because if she’s leading now it’s not by much.

        It won’t. So she won’t.

        They could find high-res video of her personally decapitating people, and it won’t make any difference unless the Yellow Stream Media puts it on the news. Which they won’t. So the people still planning to vote for her will never know about these wikileaks and veritas.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “They could find high-res video of her personally decapitating people, and it won’t make any difference …”

          That there, Steve, was pretty darned funny! Thank you for that little uptick in my day.

          Oh, and I hate to say that you are probably right in your entire comment. We shall see.

        2. avatar Brian says:

          The way the mainstream media acts, there could be a massive gathering of KKK/white supremacist members from all over the US in one area, and Trump, wearing a “Black lives matter” shirt and dual wielding AR-15s, could break the doors down, shoot every one in attendance, and the headlines the next day would read “Trump attends KKK rally!”.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Perfect.

          That’s even better than the joke I saw yesterday (and told several times today at the Trump Rally) where Trump walking on water was reported by the NYT as “Trump Can’t Swim.”

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “They could find high-res video of her personally decapitating people, and it won’t make any difference unless the Yellow Stream Media puts it on the news. “

          Two points:

          (1) New media and citizen journalists.

          For example, the 9/11 Hillary Collapse would not have been made mainstream if a bystander had not recorded it and made it public.

          Old Media is dead. The Gatekeepers of information are dead.

          (2) Saw a lady post on gab today that Trump could come out and kick her in the crotch (okay, so her language was more colorful) and she’d still vote for him over Clinton at this point.

          Don’t underestimate the points ‘our side’ are making. Trump has been hitting on all cylinders since the last debate.

        5. avatar David Keith says:

          This seems to be true. When I bring up a Clinton story that’s negative to a pro-Clintonite, they will have never heard the story and accuse me of making it up. These stories simply don’t get covered anywhere but Fox News and Clinton voters do not read Fox News.

      3. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Oh, and I did not see your post here, Strych9, before I made my larger post below. Thanks, you’ve at least raised some concrete points instead of just ramming your fingers in your ears and making assertions.

        Let me think about this.

      4. avatar Ing says:

        If it gets out to the regular folks…that’s a big if. Most people get all their politics from the front-page headlines of the Big Left media, and it’s not going to show up there. Ever.

        Plus there’s a significant number of people who just don’t care. Either it’s repellent but must be swallowed to defeat the Evil Orange Man, or they’re right on board with it, because they have the same moral sense as the Clintons (none).

        It’d take the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb to make a dent in most people’s opinions at this point, and even then I’m not so sure.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Dem interwebz tho…

          Hell even Reuters ran the “Quid Pro Quo” story. That forced Fox and CNN to run it too.

          This is going to get worse and worse for HRC. I know some of the people involved in this on 8chan. If what they tell me in confidence is true, this stuff is going to get way, way worse than it already is and will go wide, it simply can’t be covered up once it get’s sent to the European media with links to the original WikiLeaks emails. That will get the attention of the folks at Reuters and other major Euro news agencies and force the US agencies to cover it. At least, that’s their plan.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Scary that we have to rely on the integrity of EUROPEAN media to force ours to do its fucking job.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Steve:

          Indeed, but when you think about NATO and Russia, they have a vast incentive to be objective on this one.

        4. avatar SteveInCO says:

          That didn’t stop them from being a bunch of biased turds during the Reagan administration. What changed, I wonder? Perhaps they don’t think of Putin as a true commie.

          (I’m being half facetious there.)

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          “What changed, I wonder?”

          Their involvement in Iraq and A-Stan proved that, other than their serious SpecOps units, the military of each and every country is a glorified police force. They exist under our security umbrella. Putin is poking holes in that umbrella and folks West of Warsaw are starting to see that.

      5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        ” We know that 80% of people with masters or higher degrees vote democrat because most of those graduate level degrees are in the “soft sciences” where PC is king.”

        Glad to be part of your 20% then…in a hard science. A really hard science according to some.

        PC is king there, too, unfortunately. That’s why I’m not part of that “industry” any more.

        But, rest assured, there are those of us in the “educated” camp that absofreakinglutely won’t vote for Clinton. That group includes me wife, too…card carrying MD and she HATES Hillary Clinton with a burning, seething passion.

        1. avatar Gruney says:

          I hold a MS degree, not a manager, don’t do the PC thing. I despise the Hildabeast and with all his faults Trump is a knight in shining armor compared to that lying hag.

          I am also worried about the new “f*ck over a gun owner” gun confiscation order referendum on the ballot in Washington. The anti-gun elites (pricks) out here just keep coming up with new shit to piss off gun owners.

          I fear for what this state and the country will become for my children and grand children. “A Republic if you can keep it”. Tough to do when most people think our government is a democracy.

      6. avatar Geoff PR says:

        The Project Veritas and Anonymous leaks are getting little traction. No one will know about them if the majors continue to ‘forget’ to report on them…

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      In 2000 29% of people thought gun rights outweighed gun control while 67% thought gun control was more important that gun rights. This year it’s 52% in favor of gun rights, 46% for gun control.

      Running on this is a far worse idea than it was in 2000.

      http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        If we are going to ony quote the media that is gunning for the outcome they are pushing let’s be intellectually honest and ony use 100% and 0%? Mmmmmm K?

        ABC, CBS, MSNBC, covered Iraq (the WHOLE FING WAR) from the green zone, I think they are covering this election remotely from one of Hillary’s in-use:
        Estragyn
        Neo-Estrone
        Oestrilin
        [yes, she had to “go Canadian” due to Obamacare]
        suppositories.

        Just sayin.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Pew Research is now a media organization?

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          No, it’s a circle-jerk at a Holiday Inn Express and Suites.

          Didn’t get an invite?

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          This is the point where others would flame you.

          I’ll simply tell you to take your ignorant and unmannerly opinions with you when you fuck off.

          But hey, I’m not from around deez parts right?

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        The Pew Research Center is a liberal think tank, they attempt to create opinion by ‘polling’ not poll opinion to determine it http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/. Useful tools to those who use the tools against us.

        I don’t know of any similar organization that doesn’t, it’s just that Pew does its own thing for its own means. It is a self-serving inside the belt-way circle-jerk, Pew seems to have a very inflated opinion of its own work, thus the Holiday Inn comment (no offense to the HIES organization [although also not an endorsement, and all opinion of that is reserved]).

        I’ll f-off last, and no, you’re not from here.

  3. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Trump won the nomination so she will win in spite of it.

    The electorate is influenced more over allegations of groping than by Clinton’s illegal actions. Trump lost his groping card when he decided to be a Republican.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      How about the fact that her campaign is on tape inciting violence at Trump rallies and rigging elections?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I love that you guys will, in one breath, claim that the polls are all wrong and that the election is being rigged.

        How about you consider the simpler conclusion: The polls aren’t wrong, you just nominated someone so awful that even Hillary will easily win. Maybe the only candidate for the GOP that could lose to Hillary. But no, instead let’s go with conspiracy theories and pretend its someone else’s fault… TRUMP 2020, right??? God help us.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Hannibal, you’re not even from here. Plus, you watch too much mid-stream (p joke there) evil (D) media. Trump is more liked by the U.S. population is than Hillary is liked by her own party. People hate liberal_progressive_communist_globalist (D) crap, it always attempts a sale and then a fire sale. Even Ohole didn’t run as the “liberal_progressive_communist_globalist (D)head” that he is or he wouldn’t have been let out of Chitcago.

          Amy Schumer during a recent show got booed, and had a large glut of her paid audience walk out on her because she attempted an anti-Trump (not a pro-Hillary) rant.

          Hillary has only avoided a Watergate-esq prison-term due to the support of the mainstream media, and they’d flip and eat her lunch if they became president, just to have the cake-walk of a news cycle for a few years. Her media took a YYUUUUUUGE hit this election cycle and are cresting on a nuclear winter until the next major election. Toothpaste ads won’t keep half of those aholes employed.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Over at the Federalist they are already musing about Ivanka.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          titweena of Wii ain’t from here either.

          Again nobody, whose not a fan of liberal_progressive_communist_globalist POS (D) crap, is selling any of the finer points of Hillary’s policies, leadership, motherhood, wife-ly duties, etc., etc., etc.

          Saying Trump sucks does not lift Hillary up-to the ZERO peg, and she’s got permanent POS stink for not protecting the Whitehouse (the People’s House) from her ‘husband’s’ girl-friends. Further, she owes the AMERICAN PEOPLE A SIMPLE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY HER PARTY TRASHED D.C. WHEN THEY LAST LEFT THE WHITEHOSE AND WHY SHE HAD TO PERSONALLY RETURN OVER $250,000 IN WHITEHOUSE (U.S.) PROPERTY. She “left penniless” so she, Bill, and Chelsea didn’t have to pay to restore the Whitehouse and many of the associated D.C. offices and she left a shit-ton of her POS (D) behind in various offices and our Nation has suffered ever since.

          Where is the $5Billion in missing State Dept. funds?

          How much $$$ did her Foundation get to give away a huge chunk of U.S. Uranium?

          YOU CAN’T CAP THIS SH_T !!! SHE HAS A F-UP RATE THAT’S MEASURED IN Mhz.

          B U T
          SHE’S STILL NOT AS-BAD AS ALL THE IGNORANT POS OUT THERE THAT’LL VOTE FOR HER.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Joe, where are you getting this “not from here” crap? What does that even mean? Is everyone who disagrees with you somehow magically from Venezuela now?

        5. avatar CarlosT says:

          In some very real ways, the election is rigged, but they’re all ways Republicans knew about going in and needed to account for way before now.

          1) The mainstream media does heavily favor Democrats. To whom, exactly, is this a surprise? This has been true going back to at least Kennedy vs. Nixon. It should have been a data point to consider that Trump had a huge media advantage in the Republican primaries.

          2) Social media companies are actively discriminating against right leaning voices. They’re within their rights to do this, but these are not free channels of exchange. One example was Google’s search suggestions algorithm. Start typing something about Trump, for example “Trump U”, and you’d get various suggestions, including “Trump University scam”. Start typing “Clinton pneumonia”, and you got through the whole word with no search suggestions at all. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube also demonstrated bias in the way their policies have been applied. Again, this is not a surprise in most cases. These behaviors have been going on in some form or other for years.

          3) Election rolls haven’t been cleaned up in many places, and there are ineligible voters still included. Another long standing issue that shouldn’t be taking anyone by surprise. It’s also not a huge enough issue to swing a national election if the candidate does his or her job.

          4) Federal agencies such as the FEC and IRS obstruct organizations from participating fully in elections by dragging their feet on status approvals.

          These are all problems. None of them are surprises. Over the long term, the playing field should be made level, but at the start of the election, it’s going to be what it is, not what you wish it could be. Your strategy needs to be able to win under those conditions.

        6. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Carlos

          Part of the difficulty here is that the word “rigged” seems to mean different things to different people.

          Some seem to think it ONLY refers to actual vote fraud, in the form of 1) miscounting votes cast, 2) having nonexistent, dead, or ineligible people “vote” or some sort of other chicanery, directly altering what the ballot box shows.

          The sorts of things you’re talking about are a different sense of the word, naming many of the structural disadvantages any R nominee would face; they’re built into the playing field. If they are big enough, then there’s no reason to screw around with the ballot box; people will happily and deludedly vote for someone they wouldn’t vote for if they were truly informed.

          When I think about how biased the media is, I think it’s nothing shy of incredible that Republicans / Conservatives have done as well as they have in the last century. Without that bias, the Dems would almost always have been dead meat.

        7. avatar Chaotic_Good says:

          @joe_r
          Even Fox News has Trump down by seven points, unless they are a part of the conspiracy I’d say Trump is losing.

        8. avatar Joe R. says:

          If, by that, you wonder if I know FOX is not a Conservative news organization I would say yes, I know. They tend to suck really bad on the established republican tit. So, do I think they are “pulling” for Trump absolutely not, do I think they are pulling for Hillary, yes.

      2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        They have E-mails calling their supporters ill informed, i.e. stupid yet that doesn’t seem to have any effect.

        Barirng the political equivalent of a space rock hitting the planet Clinton is the next President.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Again. Her campaign is ON TAPE bragging about inciting violence and committing voter fraud. She’s done.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

          And your point is?

          They have classified E-mails on her home brew server.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Those emails aren’t getting record string views on YouTube.

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          Here’s the problem: voters this year are more tolerant of corrupt than creepy. People find him so unappealing that she’d have to eat a puppy on camera to lose.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Again. Her campaign is ON TAPE bragging about inciting violence and committing voter fraud. She’s done.”

          Yep, and it’s getting little traction in the media.

          The media is going to protect her at *all* costs…

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          The point is that we are now under no obligation to respect the outcome of this election. There is no way in hell she can claim she “won” regardless of what the votes say when her team is on tape bragging about stuffing ballot boxes. Were I Trump, (and by some freak accident I didn’t win) I would refuse to concede on election day and call her out on her voter fraud on national TV. Then I would call on patriots to arrest her, her campaign, and any other DNC staff.

        7. avatar Sian says:

          “Again. Her campaign is ON TAPE bragging about inciting violence and committing voter fraud. She’s done.”

          She’s done far, far worse without ever reaping any negative consequences.

          I don’t know what it will take to make her explicitly unelectable, because nothing ever sticks. If she ripped off her skin, revealing the lizard underneath, she’d still have 250 electoral votes locked In.

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    It isn’t that they never learn. They simply know that there is no way to completely control a country and force the citizens to accept your rulings if they can refuse to cooperate. The ultimate tool for refusal is the rifle. Until they can achieve near total disarmament American citizens posses the power to forcibly remove tyrants.

    This is part of the reason they want to import potential citizens that like and support socialist tyrannical governments.

  5. avatar Hannibal says:

    Yep her position on guns will hurt her, though not nearly as much as her position(s) on trade and the fact that about 75% of America distrusts her in general.

    Good thing for her some folks decided it would be a good idea to turn the election into a walk by nominating a washed-up reality show doofus.

    GG

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      So, Hannibal, you never answered my question. How much is Clinton paying you and her other online trolls? Please explain why members of her campaign are on tape bragging about inciting violence and committing voter fraud.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

        Trumpsters are the mirror image of the Low kids. If you don’t tow the party line you are the enemy. Both groups are at war with reality.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          To be fair, the establishment GOP created and perfected that game, and it’s fun watching them be forced to submit to Trump. Win or lose, perhaps they’ll learn they’re lesson about shoving RINOs like Romney down our throats.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Both groups are at war with Conservatism. Conservatism will either right-it, or sweep back into a pile what’s left after it don’t get righted.

  6. avatar cmac890 says:

    I read earlier (albeit on Jalopnik) that Michael Bloomberg was at one time considered for VP. No doubt her advisors convinced her that simply calling it quits would have been less costly. It does show though, that they see gun owners and the NRA as more than “representing the gun lobby”. My vote will be to keep it that way.

  7. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    Evil. Pure evil, and anyone who votes for her.

  8. avatar explainist says:

    Trump needs to redouble his efforts to get people to vote for the harridan. It has looked to me like he is a shill for Hillary from day 1.

  9. avatar Mad Max says:

    If we can keep Congress about the same as it is now, the only thing Hillary would have is executive orders.

    The Senate does not have to fill the Supreme Court vacancy (or any additional vacancies).

    A Republican Congress can continue as now for another 4 years and then maybe gain additional control (if things are economically bad under Hillary).

    There is always a chance that Trump dies, quits, or wins. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.

    1. avatar Truth says:

      I agree with you that containment is the best option if Hillary wins. The problem is that the Senate looks pretty shaky. The House still looks solid, but losing the Senate is a real possibility.

      I do not think the doomsday scenario of a Hillary presidency will play out unless she wins both houses of congress. Even if she gets the Senate, we might be able to survive until the midterms (although Obama did most of his damage in his first 2-year window of opportunity, when he had both houses).

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        That’s like saying if we lose our dead weight, we’ll only have storage space.

  10. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Yep. And our side went and nominated the one guy who could lose to her.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Yeah. That’s why all the metadata is showing a Trump landslide if the Clinton campaign doesn’t rig the vote the way they were caught on tape bragging about.

      1. avatar Truth says:

        Metadata isn’t votes. Bernie was off the hook with social media and engaging youngsters, and he still lost.

        If the Trump supporters don’t actually go to the polls and wait in the lines and cast their ballot, then all the metadata and facebooking and rally-attending in the world won’t mean a thing.

        47 million eligible white voters stayed at home during the 2012 election. If even 10% of them would have voted R, Obama would have lost the election. But they couldn’t be bothered to even go to the polls. Will they this time? And, more importantly, will they support your chosen candidate? Lots of reasonable, intelligent folks do not like the Trumpeter.

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        Links to the raw data please. It’s very much against the interests of the polling companies to be massively wrong about this. Their business is credibility and reliable analysis. Huge errors in analyzing as important an event as a Presidential election would be a huge blow to that. And if there were a conspiracy to get it wrong on purpose, there would be huge incentives to defect from the conspiracy, because after the election showed you and only you predicted the results correctly, you would stand above all others in wisdom and prestige. Your career would be made.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          THANK YOU, Carlos.

          A rare dose of common sense.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          Some of the pollsters could be DNC/Hillary operatives (especially the ones that work for the MSM) in an effort to sway low-information voters (everybody loves a winner).

          If the MSM polls all look like Hillary is winning by a wide margin, low-information voters will vote for the likely “winner”.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          It’s not about doing things on purpose. The fact is that the methodology of each poll has it’s pros and cons.

          Polling is extremely difficult and every pollster has their own opinion on how to create a representative sample. Put 10 of them in a room and ask this and you’ll get at least 12 answers. The problem is that, to at least some degree, every single one of them is wrong. For example, some people discount Rasmussen because that firm only uses land line calls. The argument is that this disenfranchises younger people, like myself, who only have a cell phone.

          That’s a fair argument but the sword has two sides. Cell phone polls are notoriously unreliable because you have no idea who you’re talking to or where they are because people are no longer forced to change their number when they move.

          The second issue is that we know there are people who lie to pollsters. Recently this seems to have skewed to the Left. Analysis of the Brexit polling (+11 for Remain the day before the vote, off by 12.9% in reality) indicates that it’s highly likely that a lot of people lied to the pollsters and gave them the “PC” response that they thought the pollsters wanted to hear. They wanted to Leave but they knew that wasn’t a PC answer so they said they intended to vote Remain.

          I see a lot of this at my school. We have a bunch of the undergrads who are all happy about Clinton. They’re mean as fuck. So everyone walks past them, waves and says “Voting for Clinton” when I know for a fact that a bunch of them are not. I do the same thing. It’s not worth getting screamed at by some dumbass 20 year old who’s voting with her vagina and emotions. She can’t be reasoned with and she’s as mean as a jar full of hornets that’s been vigorously shaken and then opened. Not worth the effort.

          The third issue relates to number one. You’ll note a lot of these polls have a sample size that’s a really random number. No, they didn’t survey 1746 people. They surveyed a bunch more than that and used their particular methodology to try to build a representative sample. The computer spit out that these 1746 created that sample. The problem is that there is no way to know that because there are too many variables and the assumption is that, for example, every black woman with a certain level of education is the same as another, which they clearly are not. On top of that, it’s really not possible to come up with a truly representative sample without surveying the entire country because, again, too many variables. 80% of financial advisers say Trump’s better. 56% of people making $100K or more say they’re voting Clinton. That’s a circle that you cannot square with a computer program. (I think 56% of those folks need to either listen to their financial adviser or get a new one.)

          Forth, polls don’t measure intensity of enthusiasm. Lot’s of people say they’ll vote for a specific candidate and then fail to show up to vote. Sometimes it’s weather or a personal issue but either way 40% of registered voters don’t vote for whatever reason or another. There’s really no good way to measure how likely what percentage of “pro candidate X” people are actually going to show up when polling. The Obama campaign attempted to gauge this by looking at yard signs and bumper stickers (motivated voters) and did so with some marginal success. If their work is to be believed, Trump has the edge here and it’s probably significant.

          Fifth and finally, related to 1 & 3. This comes down to the opinion of the pollster as to how to structure the poll and control the sample. Personal bias plays a roll in that. So does confirmation bias.

          Long story short, this is a really tough gig and many polls and pollsters have been WAY off the mark for years. It doesn’t hurt them because the media loves polls since it gives them something to fill the news cycle with and the people who finance this stuff know it isn’t an exact science. That’s why “focus groups” are so big in politics, because they add insight to how people think whereas polling just gives you an idea of what they deigned to say to you at a given point in time.

        4. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @strych9

          As I understood Carlos’ point, it was that polling companies have a strong incentive to be honest, and it sounds like you agree with that.

          You bring up the next point, and it’s a damned good one…that even trying to be honest, it’s hard to be accurate.

          I tend to follow poll aggregators (e.g., fivethirtyeight dot com and realclearpolitics dot com), rather than placing any trust in a specific poll. And as I said elsewhere, one of those called 50/51 correct last time, if you look at the page where they go ahead and call even statistical ties for whoever came out slightly ahead in their average. I see no reason not to believe they won’t do about that well this time around. (The pretending-to-be-PC-to-save-my-health effect was in play last time too, though it probably wasn’t as strong as it would be today; the left is a lot meaner now.) I would basically be greatly surprised if they got more than 5 out of 51 wrong and I’m figuring they’ll probably get 3 wrong. (Admittedly that’s a gut feel on my part.)

          Brexit: How many different polls were taken? By which countries? How is the UK a different environment to poll in than the US? How much is it the same? This shows that a poll CAN go wrong (well, duh!). It doesn’t show that the average US poll by (possibly different) companies IS wrong.

          It’s a damn tricky business–the earliest really famous failure was the poll in 1936 that surveyed people who had (land line, there being no other kind back then) phones. A Republican landslide was confidently predicted–they couldn’t have been more disastrously wrong and if I recall correctly, that newspaper ended up going out of business because they had such a huge ostrich egg on their faces. Of course, most of the poor in this country used a phone at the corner candy store when they needed a phone. Huge systematic bias in that poll! (I’m sure you’ve heard of this; I repeat it for the benefit of anyone else who may not have.)

          But I simply cannot see how “any particular poll can and likely will be wrong” (a true statement) leads to “the *average* of all reasonably-solid-but-by-no-means-infallible polls NECCESSARILY skews Democrat.” That’s the leap a LOT of people here seem to be making. Some of them sidestep this logical gap by assuming the polls are deliberately faked, rather than just suffering from some sort of measurement error they haven’t controlled for. But you don’t seem to share that assumption, so how do you make that step?

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Brexit is only an example of oppositions attempt to shape the narrative. They are still pitching that it’s only on the tipping point of popular because the anti-brexit promised satan anal if brexit didn’t fail. It’s all one world globalist crap, and it’s always been getting swirley but it’s circling the bowl faster.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          Steve:

          The problem is that when you look at the polls you find some serious outliers. +10 Clinton in the WSJ/NBC poll, +12 Clinton in Monmouth and +11 in the CBS poll. We also see a regular MoE of 3+. In fact if we average just those three polls their average MoE is 3.3.

          Now, I’m about to do some things statistically illegal but illustrative.

          Now, NBC and CBS both had journalists at dinner with HRC just before she announced and are basically in the tank for her. So, let’s remove these outlier polls and average the rest. We get 7+8+4+5+7= 31. 31/5 =6.2

          We now have an average lead for HRC of +6.2 because I’ve removed the double digit polls (which I have good reason to believe are wrong but that’s a very, very, very long post).

          If we average every MoE (including removed polls which actually helps Clinton in this case) we get 3.2% (removing the MoE of the removed polls leaves us an average of 3.3) as the MoE. Now, apply that to the polls that are not double digits. 3.2×2=6.4 (which is really how MoE works). Three polls fall within the MoE and are therefore statistical dead heats and the one’s she’s winning are less than 2% in her favor.

          Again, MoE is individually calculated so what I’ve done here isn’t strictly legal, but it’s close enough to show that she’s not running away with anything at this point.

        7. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @strych9

          That doesn’t make sense to me. If the MOE is 3.2%, and the result is 6.4 percent, that means the expected range is 6.4 percent +/- 3.2 percent, meaning she has a lead somewhere in the range of 3.2 to 9.6 percent. That’s not a statistical tie, because “tie” isn’t within the range of expected error. You have to have a margin less than the MOE, not less than two MOEs, for that. For example, Hillary +2 with a 3.2 MOE leads to a range of Hillary leads of -0.8% to +5.2%. Since zero advantage to Hitlary (or Trump, depending on how you look at it) is in that range, that would be a statistical tie.

          For what it’s worth, the one “outlier” in the polls that RCP aggregates is the LA Times Poll, which consistently disagrees with the rest of the pack by a very large amount, and they disagree *in favor of Trump* not in favor of Hitlary. (Which surprises me, given what I know of the LA Slimes. I’m convinced *that* poll is intended to be honest, if they wanted to be biased, they’d certainly fudge the numbers towards Hitlary.)

        8. avatar strych9 says:

          @Steve:

          Whenever the MoE is larger than the distance of the findings it’s a statistical tie.

          Imagine:

          Unicorns 45%
          Rainbows: 42%
          MoE: 3%.

          That means that within a 95% confidence level Unicorns are 42%-48% while Rainbows are 39%-45% at the same confidence level.

          That means that Rainbows and Unicorns overlap, statistically, between 42% and 45%. It’s a statistical dead heat because the we can’t go past that potential overlap and say within our confidence interval of 95% (standard for polls). So, we’re saying that we have 95% confidence that the party in question is at 45% + or – the MoE.

          That creates an overlap and it’s a statistical tie. Either way, we’re only 95% sure this is true with the current sample. Another sample may change it.

        9. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Precisely, Strych9, but that’s not what you said earlier, you called a 6.4 percent Klinton lead a statistical tie when the MOE is 3.2 percent. The example you just gave was a difference equal to the MOE, which is a statistical tie all right (but just barely). In the case you just now gave you could probably state with 94% confidence who the winner is (but not 95%). 🙂

        10. avatar strych9 says:

          Steve:

          Yeah, sorry, been up since 0530 and had three exams today. I’m burnt out on numbers at this point.

          My main point is this: There is absolutely no reason to believe that HRC has this is the bag. It’s a horse race down to the wire unless DJT decides to commit suicide on the track. The people saying HRC has already one are either sycophants or ignorant.

        11. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

          Carlos, you are incorrect. There are only two markets for the pollsters. One is the MSM, and they are all in the pocket of the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua (DEoC). Consequently, they will give their clients what they want, in the hopes of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.

          The other market is the campaigns themselves. This market will not, and in fact cannot, release the results. If the results of a particular campaign’s poll shows them losing, they have to hide the results from the public. If it shows them winning and they release the results they will be called liars,

          You may recall the polls during the Reagan – Dukakis race. They were close – right up until Reagan won 49 states.

        12. avatar Truth says:

          “You may recall the polls during the Reagan – Dukakis race. They were close – right up until Reagan won 49 states.”

          What is your basis for this statement? According to Wikipedia’s historical polling for US Presidential elections, Reagan was polling at or above 50% from January through to election day in November. Dukakis never polled above 47%, ever, and he generally steadily dropped and Reagan generally steadily rose, so that by September it was Reagan 58, Dukakis 37, and pretty much stayed that way until election day, within a few points either way (final poll was Reagan 59, Dukakis 41).

        13. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I do hope the both of you meant “Mondale” not “Dukakis.” Dukakis was 1988 against GHW Bush.

        14. avatar Truth says:

          Er, yeah… Mondale. That’s the ticket, yeah.

          I was going off the 49-state victory, yes I repeated “Dukakis” but the stats I pulled up were for Reagan/Mondale in 1984.

          You are of course correct that it was Bush/Dukakis in 1988. In that contest, Dukakis held substantial leads up until about September. But from September to November Bush held commanding leads, of 49/41, 47/42, 50/40, and the final week was 56/44. So even then, no, Dukakis was never close as the election drew near. He did have a huge lead back in May (Dukakis 52, Bush 38) and led (by smaller margins) through the summer, but by the time September showed up Dukakis was toast in the polls, and toasted at the ballot box.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      No fan of Trump here. ALL the GOP candidates would have rcvd the same treatment from the progtards. ALL would have run away with their tail between their legs by now. INCLUDING Cruz who was my candidate. Trump gets BIG points for staying and challenging the bastards.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Of course they all would have been attacked. How many of them have as much ammunition to be used against them? So what if he’s willing to fight, if the fights he’s pulled into are losing battles?

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          The MFM turned choir boy (Romney) into a devil by the end of the 2012 campaign.
          I agree that any of the other 17 R’s would be in as bad as shape or worse.
          The stupidity of the voters coupled with the power of an omnipresent MFM is nearly insurmountable.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          What “ammunition”? Half the shit that the Hitlary Ministry of Truth is freaking out over is shit nobody would have batted an eye at at the time.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Given that he’s the nominee, and given what has happened to him (and some of his own self-inflicted wounds) he really had no choice but to go nuclear.

        I went to his rally in Colorado Springs today. He gave a good speech without rambling, and it was focused on what he wanted to do, with a healthy leavening of nuclear-blast criticism of Hillary and the Media.

        It had the polish of politics, without the ever-to-be-damned spinelessness of politics.

        If he had been doing THIS at and since the convention, consistently, he’d be in a lot less trouble now.

      3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I changed my registration from independent so I could do my part in stopping all this Trump nonsense way back in February. I voted for Cruz but he can forget about my support in 2020. To me he’ll always be the ‘servile puppy dog’. Anyone who would let a guy like Trump publicly humiliate him like that is not fit to be president. The photo op of Cruz working the phones for Thedonald was a bridge too far.

        At this point anyone who hasn’t figured out that the old media is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the DNC deserves to have their voting rights stripped. But like Carlos said, he sure has given them enough am munition. He also could have made at least a cursory effort to unify the party. Instead he went out and told me that he doesn’t need my vote and in fact doesn’t even want my vote. Hiring morons to run your campaign doesn’t help either.

        At least we have the upcoming second Clinton impeachment to look forward to.

        1. avatar Truth says:

          “I voted for Cruz but he can forget about my support in 2020.”

          Ditto.

          When he gave his speech at the convention, I thought well of him. When he described Trump accurately (the famous “let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump” interview) I thought he was heroic. When he turned around and abandoned all that and actually endorsed Donald and worked the phones? He became what everyone always said he was – a greedy opportunist who will do and say whatever he needs to, to get elected. Screw him.

      4. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

        Not Scott Walker. The national Democratic Party machine went after him and he kicked their collective asses three times in four years.

  11. avatar Truth says:

    I think I’m almost coming around to the idea of voting for the Trump ticket. Pwrserge’s links to Project Veritas were certainly interesting (although, I would imagine that if the Democrats were to launch their own “project veritas” type of thing, they’d drum up equally disturbing things on the RNC side).

    Defeating Hillary is certainly a priority. Even if she can be contained, she’s better off defeated. The problem is, that leaves an aspiring dictator in office. Where I’m starting to come around is — I think Trump will be easier impeached and removed from office than Hillary would be. With Hillary, all the Dems will defend her to the death, so a conviction would be harder to get with her, than it was with Bill. With Trump, on the other hand, he’s gone to war with the Republican party. I think if he were to be impeached, a conviction would be rather easy to get. And that would result in Pence leading the party and a return to sanity, without a single shot being fired.

    Of course, the ideal solution would be to have McMullin win Utah, Trump deny Hillary 270, and the House picking McMullin as President while the Senate picks Pence as VP. That way neither Hillary nor Trump ever get the keys to the White House. Second to that (improbable) option, a Trump victory followed by a near-immediate impeachment the first time he does something blatantly unconstitutional is about the best backup position we can hope for. I have to believe there are a lot of Republicans, and all the Democrats, who would vote for that.

    Barring one of those two outcomes, I’m all in for secession.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      They dropped another bomb today with one of Hitlary’s toadies bragging about committing voter fraud with her knowledge.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        And that tape WILL NOT appear on the evening news. Instead, they will be continuing to push the Trump-As-Rapist story.

        So it won’t help Trump. It will not be *allowed* to help Trump.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Betcha Trump will bring it up in the debate. The videos are already setting records on YouTube. You can’t stop the signal. Hillary is done. Even if she squeezes out a win, we have hard evidence that gives us legitimate reason to not recognize the result. Trump will refuse to concede and this will have lawsuit after lawsuit fought over it. Realistically, she needed a mandate. These videos destroy that mandate.

          Were I her, I would withdraw my candidacy, grab my cash, and book a ticket to Cuba. That’s the only way she’s getting out of this one still breathing.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I think you meant North Korea.

          As for the rest, we’ll see. I really hope you’re right, I’m afraid you’re wrong.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      If you think that those videos are bad, study this. Study it carefully.

      Two of the people who are involved are obvious. David Brock of Media matters and Elliot Fink.

      http://imgur.com/a/ftReX

      Compliments of the Podesta hack.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Well, that was interesting. Not sure I believe it… If true, they’ve already done their dirty deed, and we have no way to verify any of it. But I wouldn’t put it past the progweasels. It’s plausible.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          That’s my backup of the image. Originally it was released on 8chan. The folks on the chat have been doxxed elsewhere. There is little reason to believe it to be a fake, but if it is, it’s a DAMN good one.

          That image caused the thread to be taken down and the ban hammer dropped on some Anon guys. 8chan is ALL about free speech and regularly wouldn’t censor. Make of that what you will.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Sitting Republicans, Democrats and all media better watch their collective asses. They’ve already permanently waived their right to bitch on quite a lot, but 100% of “bullsh_t” articles, and only (D) prezs have broke their asses to get impeached, hillash_t hasn’t fallen far from the plunger. Trump could out-Reagan Reagan merely because he’s seen it done, then the nation wont ask for another (D) candidate for a millena.

  12. avatar Firing Pin says:

    I pray I am wrong…Trump will lose and lose big. We have a lot of smart people in this country but as a people we are idiots. This country elected BO twice. A population that ill informed is bound to destroy itself. I have heard nearly 50% of the population is on some form of welfare. If true, are they going to vote themselves out of free handouts from Uncle Sugar? The population has shifted over the years from a self responsibility culture to a welfare and big government (nanny state) mentality. After 8 years of BO it will be almost impossible to reverse this course. Trump has the mainstream media and his own big mouth (and some strategic voter fraud) working against him, two very large obstacles to over come. There is too large a division in this country in its thinking for things to continue the way they are. The folks who work for a living are going to stop paying for those who don’t and Hildabeast is going to light the fuze. This is going to end and it is going to end badly!

    1. avatar Truth says:

      I’m not so sure the welfare vote will automatically go D this time. Trump’s a big welfare proponent too, he wants to replace Obamacare with a government-sponsored free healthcare single-payer plan. And unlike Bush and prior Republicans who have vowed to “fix” social security (which terrifies the AARPers), Trump has said he’ll “save” it. I don’t recall if he’s gone on any tirades about welfare mothers or such, so he may not be scaring the welfare recipient voter to vote D like they have in the past.

      Of course, many of them may still do so, but I question whether that will be as big a factor in voting as it has been in the past.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      The welfare queens, newly registered largely don’t show up to vote on election day. One reason the demtards have institutionalized their fraudulent “early”/absentee voting is to over come this “problem”.

  13. avatar SteveInCO says:

    I agree, Hillary is evil.

    I will be voting for Trump. I’ve even done a tiny amount of work for him.

    But I don’t expect he will win the election. The rape allegations and some of his own erratic recent behavior (engaging in pointless feuds with the Khan family and the Venezuelan beauty queen), echoed by the mainstream media, have all but ensured that.

    Note that I didn’t say the rape allegations are true. But the sheer quantity of them and the fact that the media have harped on nothing else for quite some time (burying truly damaging revelations about Hitlary) have served to knock Trump down in the polls. The actual truth of the matter doesn’t make a difference. It’s what people THINK is true as they mark their ballots, that matters.

    “Oh,” you say, “The polls. Well, the polls are a lie.”

    Really? What’s your evidence for that? And more importantly, what is your actual positive evidence that Trump is ahead?

    Note Please: “Everyone I know is planning to vote for Trump” is NOT evidence. It’s an anecdote from an exceedingly small proportion of the electorate. I personally know precious few Hitlary supporters, but I know I could just drive up to Denver and find shitloads of them. My friends are my friends precisely because they think a lot like me. And I realize that.

    And also Note Please: Your belief that the polls are a lie (even if it is justified) is, logically speaking, NOT evidence that Trump is in fact ahead at this time.

    I’ve been following the site that called 50/51 states-plus-DC correct in 2012. Right now they show Clinton with 322 electoral votes and Trump with 216, once they ignore statistical ties. And the betting odds are currently 85/15 Klinton, worse than they’ve been since I started paying attention. At one point right before the first debate, with emails and pneumonia hurting Klinton, she was still 65-35 favored to win.

    So it looks pretty grim right now. I will vote Trump. I don’t realistically think he’s going to win, and I’ve seen no argument that he will beyond bare, unsupported assertions that the polls are lying.

    Some bright spots in this picture: Some states are presently moving in a more Trumpward direction, so it’s *possible* we will see a pro-Trump trend. I sure hope so. I of course can only speak to what I see happening right now. If he actually manages to spit out a killer line at the debate tomorrow, then he could pull it off. But that debate is literally the LAST CHANCE he has to speak to a lot of people who get all their information from the Yellow Stream Media without them filtering it. He’s got to knock it out of the park tomorrow. And even then…it may be too little, too late.

    Oh, and let me take care of some unfinished business: Someone, the other day, posted the same tripe, over and over again (it was a simple copy and paste about five times), about how the polls were lies because they polled 5-8 percent more democrats than republicans. I pointed out that his reasoning was flawed, that they reason they polled more dems than republicans is because there ARE more dems than republicans.

    He kept posting that nonsense even after I had posted my replies, everywhere he’d said it. (If he can spam this site, so can I.) I have to apologize, I lost my temper and called it bullshit (in all caps). I noticed just now that someone responded to that response, claiming that the democratic edge over republicans is only 3-4 percentage points, thus five to eight percent is too much.

    Unfortunately, it looks like someone is confusing percent, with percentage points. I poked around a bit, and saw the following numbers: 32 percent dem, 23 percent republican, 39 percent independent (a nine percentage point difference, which would make poling eight extra percentage POINTS of democrats too little, much less eight percent more democrats). Here’s another set of numbers. 33 percent dem, 29 percent rep, 34 percent unaffiliated/independent. That sounds more like what my respondent would have been thinking of. What that means is a fair poll of a thousand people would talk to 330 democrats, 290 republicans, and 340 unaffiliated. Let’s see though, 330/290 = 1.137, indicating there are almost fourteen percent more Democrats than Republicans! If you didn’t see it before, do you now understand the difference between a percentage difference and a percentage point difference?

    The same poll that came up with those numbers also came up with 48% basically agreeing with Democrats even if they don’t register as such, versus 44% Republican. Again, a four percentage point difference, but this time, there are nine percent more Democrats than Republicans.

    My conclusion is that a poll, if it’s going to be accurate, had BETTER survey five percent, preferably eight percent, more Democrats than republicans. Until someone wants to demonstrate that they are polling five to eight percentage POINTS more Ds than Rs, my opinion stands…this attack on the validity of polls is bullshit.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      I’m not going to give you a huge, long reply here because you’ve already seen my post above and responded to it.

      Let me tell you a couple things. “5-8 percent more democrats” is an unexplained over sample. At best Democrats have a 4% edge (I said this to you the other day). That means this is a 25-100% over sample. When “leaners” are considered the GOP actually has a (IRRC, sorry math exam today, too many numbers in my head) 2% edge. I gave you the links to this from reputable organizations.

      Also, your numbers in your math are off. If your original numbers were OP (they’re not), 32/23 (320/230, same thing) for a 1.391 or 39.1% edge for Democrats. You then say it’s 330 to 290 (33/29) which is 13.8 (gotta round using that next 9 or go another sig fig).

      No, the edge is 4% you can look it up and like I said, once the leaners get in the GOP has the edge.

      The question is: Who shows up to vote? not what these statistics for each party say. The over sampling has no rational explanation. It simply doesn’t. It also weights the poll improperly because not every Democrat is hot to trot to get out and vote for HRC. In fact recent polling suggests she’s lost 35% Bernie supporters for sure. If that’s the case and her numbers are as impressive as BHO’s she would win the election by AT BEST around 200K votes nationwide.

      This is a damn close election.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Let me tell you a couple things. “5-8 percent more democrats” is an unexplained over sample. At best Democrats have a 4% edge (I said this to you the other day). That means this is a 25-100% over sample. When “leaners” are considered the GOP actually has a (IRRC, sorry math exam today, too many numbers in my head) 2% edge. I gave you the links to this from reputable organizations.

        We have got to clarify one or two things here. When you say 5-8 percent, do you perhaps really mean 5-8 percentage points? If so, your complaint is legitimate. Because I’m pretty sure the four percent registration edge cited is percentage points. I.e., 33 percent of the total is democrat, 29 percent of the total is republican, leading to a four percent of the total, i.e., a four percentage point edge.

        If it’s only a complaint that they interviewed 5-8 percent more democrats than republicans, then you’re not talking percentage points, and the division I did is entirely appropriate, 33/29 = 113.7%, there are 13.7 percent (not percentage points) more Rs than Ds, and it looks like they may be *undersampling* democrats. I ran the same calculation with the 48/44 numbers (adding independents who are really de facto Ds and Rs to the D and R numbers) and still came up with a nine percent greater population of democrats and republicans (again, percent, not percentage points). (The first group of numbers I cited showed a MUCH more lopsided 9 percentage point registration edge, which is counter to anything you said, so I basically discussed it in one sentence then threw it out.)

        I really can’t understand what you think the problem is with what I did, until we get on the same page and identify the distinction between a percentage point differenc and a percentage difference.

        The problem is, I’m STILL unclear on whether that 5-8 percent greater sampling of democrats over republicans that you mention is really a 5-8 percentage point figure. You still haven’t said it is. And that’s a very important distinction here.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          You have understood the argument though I wrote it poorly.

          At this point I want to start throwing √ and i at everything.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      BULLSHIT. The “independents”/no party have grown substantially in the last 6 (or more) years due to fed up Republicans (and demtards). The 40% right wingers will break for Trump because 1.) his is not a RINO and 2.) He is not freaking Hellery. The 30% leftist “independents”/Bernites will split “hold nose vote Witch” and stay home/smoke a joint. The other 30% of the confused wishy-washy moderates will stay home as Trump makes them wet themselves and they can’t stand the Dowager Empress. Add it up.

      Stop parroting the MSM with their save the election BS.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Stop emoting and realize that I’m telling you what you want to hear…. maybe using reading comprehension and basic math to understand that what I’m saying is that all those +x polls for HRC are likely wrong.

  14. avatar jwm says:

    I’m voting for Trump. I’m in the heart of liberal heaven and see no support for hillary.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I see little *enthusiasm* for her as well.

      That doesn’t translate into them not voting for her when faced with ( )Hillary Clinton and ( )Donald Trump on their ballot. A vote is a vote, no matter how enthusiastically (or unenthusiastically) it is given.

      Now, if they fail to vote at all because they’re so unenthused, THEN it becomes interesting. But even then, if they don’t care about her, but loathe Donald Trump, they’ll still turn out, to vote against him. Or…in some states, there may be a very interesting item on the ballot, that gets people to the polls anyway, and while they’re there, they say “oh, I might as well vote for her, better her than Drumpf” (as they like to call Trump for some inexplicable reason).

      This is going to be very, very interesting.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Another thought just occurred to me.

        The rape allegations may be a device not primarily to dig into Trump’s support (though if it does, bonus for them), but rather a device to get women unenthused about Hillary mad enough at Trump to get them to go vote against him. Since they consume the Yellow Stream Media, and can’t get enthused about Hitlary, then getting them mad at Trump by using the big lie is the next best thing, from their point of view.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          More likely it’s designed to detract from the WikiLeaks (something else to talk about) and to detract from what’s going on with Russia under Obama (again, something else to talk about).

  15. avatar The Hot Sheet says:

    Notice the difference : Propaganda 102 , Amplify & Minimize.

    Trump said …. ‘ xyz ‘…. gets 24 hour coverage , ” The science IS settled .” such as they would make you believe.

    Brave and Wonderful Hitlery said …’ xyz ‘ …… but we can’t confirm it , sooooo ,, moving on …..

    Look SQuewerrell……..

  16. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Holy sheet, this thread.

    All I hope, is that Hillary’s fear of guns comes true.

  17. avatar Mark Lee says:

    We are in a real mess here folks. It is past due that we try to salvage our country from certain doom – which not only includes The Beast that is Hillary Clinton, but now also Donald Trump because, at this point he has self-destructed and alienated way too many people, and now Republican leaders are recommending voting for Hillary – or not voting at all, for God’s sake. That would give Clinton a free pass she doesn’t deserve and one our country cannot afford. There is an alternative worthy of consideration, and please indulge me for 3 minutes while I postulate what may be the only alternative that we could live with.

    Let me ask an honest question about alternatives. We all know that Gary Johnson is pretty much a poster boy of an ex-stoner, and that he’s demonstrated ignorance of international issues and leaders. Moreover, he tossed a replica flintlock into a trashcan after being gifted with it at some Libertarian function. But, he is the only other candidate on the ballot, and by virtue of this alone, I believe he deserves consideration.

    We also know that Johnson is for less government, repealing stupid laws and he supports the constitution; he intends to consolidate and eliminate several agencies to make government more effective and efficient. My informed opinion is that he’s pretty much harmless compared to the other candidates and he could accomplish a lot of good just by simplifying our government operations alone. He will not do this in a vacuum, and he will certainly employ expert cabinet members and real people to implement practical solutions that follow his agenda, which will mean improving personal freedoms and privacy. Along with his running mate, ex-governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld, they both did pretty good jobs running their respective states, listened to their expert advisors and accomplish good things. No one is perfect, but these guys are plain-spoken, are not controversial and represent the only REAL alternative we have. Moreover, they might introduce a three-party system that might be a very good start to bringing effective change to our broken two-party system.

    Is there anyone out there that seriously believes that Trump will have a positive effect on our country as opposed to how much potential damage he can do?

    I’m simply suggesting that we consider giving Gary Johnson and Bill Weld the opportunity to govern our country to give us all some breathing room, get away from the 20-year dogfight we’ve been in since the Bork confirmation hearings started this whole mess and try to move forward with an agenda that is hard to argue with from either side. We are in desperate times and I see this as a highly likely opportunity to “reset” our country so we can see what will happen when the warring parties are deprived of the battle – isn’t that the successful strategy of Sun Tzu in “The Art of War”? To win by denying anyone from fighting?

    What do you think – is this worth consideration? If so, how can we spread the word to make a difference? Remember, Republican leaders are recommending voting for Hillary – or not voting at all for God’s sake.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I don’t think I’ve seen more than one or two people say they WON’T vote for Trump (though plenty have wished they didn’t have to), so what you’ve said, though certainly true, is moot, at least here it is. What’s going on is an argument over whether Trump WILL win, rather than whether he SHOULD win.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Never mind, I quit reading your post early. I thought it was another “You’ve got to vote for Trump or Hillary will win” post.

        Please disregard what I wrote.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      No. It may be to late but get involve in the political system. If you can stomach it you’ll learn a lot. 1.) there is NOTHING new.

    3. avatar Horacemann says:

      Actually there is a gay zoo keeper running for pres. might write in his name. Or my dog since all we have is a couple of dogs anyway. Besides she’s cuter than either of them. However, she’s black which could be a problem for a lot of people.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Now that’s PROJECTION !!!

        like IMAX man, with surround sound.and reclining seats.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      It’s a binary choice.
      Wise up.
      If you normally vote R then any vote except Trump means that you are voting for Hildabeast.

  18. avatar AJ187 says:

    Trump supporters will never own their failure to elect a decent conservative, let alone a decent person for this election. I can’t imagine the whining that will ensue when Hilary wins this election. It’ll be a sea of butthurt and blame when it should only lay on the shoulders of his supporters…

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      The core Trumpers are not Conservatives not even Republicans. But they are also not RINOs they are never before involved and the fed up with GOP.

  19. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Bring back the Articles of Confederation. Modernize them, tweek them.

    I’m voting for Trump, not because I like Trump but because he has all the right enemies. He is an authoritarian collectivist. However, he wants to help the country in certain other ways. Bush, McCain, Romney, Hitlery, Obungo, they’re all cut from the same cloth. Trump is different, and that alone is worth it. For those who are paying attention, particularly on foreign policy, Trump is acting and talking like a statesman. Hillary is saber rattling with Russia? Russia, with thousands of nukes, and for what? And the guns, of course the guns. After the next mass shooting, Hitlery will be all in for “gun control”. WIth Trump we have a better shot at the HPA and national reciprocity.

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

      The reason the we have the Constitution is because the Articles of Confederation failed. Faux Libertarians claim they were working but that is just their fantasy. Murray Rothbard liked them because they were leading to a breakdown in governing institutions. Like his his reimagined Confederacy, it was just a dux ex machima for the withering away of the state.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

        Gary Johhnson and his Libertarian Party is the furthest left in race. He doesn’t want limited government. He is an anarchist who wants to abolish government. There is more to freedom then drugs, gay sex and abortion. Freedom requires a legal system that protects property rights. Without property rights you have nothing. These Libertarians are just Marxian end staters who want to go from a market economy to utopia.

        1. avatar Stateisevil says:

          DId you miss the part where I said I’m voting for Trump. You are correct about Johnson, but have taken the “powers that be view” of the Articles “failing”. Begin reading, starting with “Hamilton’s Curse” by Thomas Dilorenzo.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

          I am familiar with Dilorenzo and it is exactly the sort of nonsense I was talking about. The nation has reached the point of currency collapse and individual states going to war. Has nothing been done to strenghen the central government the Union, such as it was would have come apart. We would have been back under the Crown in short order.

        3. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin). says:

          I am a little more clear headed so I want to elaborate. DiLorenzo’s argument rests on a fallacy that I pointed out a couple of days ago, The individual 13 States were not independent sovereign entities. They are political divsions that were created by the British Crown. Their royal charters granted them self government, not sovereignty. The Articles of Confederation were written as the governing document to replace British sovereigny with a new national entity. The individual States did not become indpendent nations. They retained their status as self governing entities. It only took four years for the flaws in the National government to reveal themselves.

          If you want to argue that Constitution is illegitimate then you are arguing that the Revolution itself is illegitimate. The proximate cause of the Revolution was taxes levied by Parliament without the consent of the Colonies. Those taxes were levied to pay for the Colonies defense and to defer the cost of the French and Indian Wars. That war triggered the very costly Seven Years war in Europe. The Colonists wanted a free lunch and the Crown was not about to give it. The Crown could have answered “No taxation without representation” with “no protection without taxation.” The conventional wisdom is that had the Colonies been given representation then the Revolution would have not taken place. A surer and smarter way for the Crown to head off Revolution was to give into their demands and withdrawn the troops. After a few years of fighting the French, Spanish and Indians on their own the colonists would have caved.

          And your name is a fiction. The State is not evil. The State is made up of men and it is the men who are evil. It doesn’t matter if the governing authority is in Washington or in your small town. Eliminating the state only unleashed men from constraints on the evil they wish to do. The Framers understood this and wrote the Constitution.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Wat?

          titweena you are so not from here. The only thing that matters is that we Declared Independence, we said why, we recited where we derived our Souls, we recited the things that we would kill for and over. We later codified how we would do that that in a Constitution, in simple general terms that are not living-breathing, not shapeable except through extensive means, the SCOTUS to sacrifice its scrotum in protection of it by remanding Unconstitutional law, not amending Constitutional interpretation to match later law.. We are essentially on our 3rd version of one. If it goes away, I’ll still execute my sovereign authority to derive what we promised to protect in the Constitution.

          I pray that any threats to the U.S. Constitution only occur when each U.S. Citizen is young and of the vigor to send all threats to meat their GOD.

  20. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Echhh…what a long pointless thread. I’m voting Trump even though it makes no difference in Illinois. I hope we keep the Senate & house. May GOD help us…we on the very edge of the apocalypse.

  21. avatar Tom in PA says:

    Either way, the elites are in control of our Oligarchy, and the entire system serves them. We are the unwashed, feculent serfs and our only importance lies wholly in how we can serve them. The chances of them being felled by their hubris is slim, and the very institutions that we’ve relied on to be inviolable and objective have been corrupted to serve their political masters. When we can no longer trust the rule of law in the Department of Justice and the FBI, the very definition of justice and rule of law is defunct. Perhaps there will be no renewal, and from the time of America’s greatest substance and achievements we have been dying – debasing her soul with each fraud, with each graft, with each desecration. It may be that the best days are behind us, and so begins the slow death over the coming centuries, a quiet neglect that erodes our very essence, until we are no more than a shell of our past glory.

  22. avatar AL says:

    Let’s see, 3 people died on FOREIGN soil under a liberal, but 3,000 died on OUR soil in 2001 under a POS Republican and Benghazi is a thing, really????????

    1. avatar Horacemann says:

      During the bush/cheney reign there were 13 attacks on embassies/consulates and 96 people died. That’s 12 per year. It was during that time that republicans were instrumental in cutting funding for embassy security. And no I’m not going to give citations. Do your own homework.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Most would have mourned the loss of OUR Ambassador WITH Hillary (sh-t happens in sh_tty places, we understand the risk and are greatful for the takers of it), instead, she knelt before Ohole and his radical minions, and his attempt to rid the Middle East of secular rule and create a heavily armed singular caliphate [a/k/a Al Anus].

      Instead, we, and the families of the dead, were told that it was due to a “protest” and Hillary had a mohammed filmmaker jailed so she could keep up the wag-the-dog bs scenario” but she told Chelsea 8 hours before jailing the poor bastard that it was a terrorist attack.

      We don’t blame our politicians for what they honestly have no control over. Hillary, however, is a liberal_progressive_communist_POS (D) and she should have known what lying about sh_t was going to get her because of the way she soiled herself and her law license going after Richard Nixon.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Al, the last time the Clinton’s left the WH and the Washington, D.C. offices of the US Federal government occupied by executive cabinet and staff, it was nearly unusable (before extensive clean up and repairs were made). The evil (D) are POS dirty folk and the are fing thieves. Hillary herself had to return nearly $250,000 worth of items stolen from just the Whitehouse.

      Jamie Gorelick – @ the Urban Institute (3rd party fckstain group assigned by the IRS to screw with conservative, tea party or pro-America not-for-profits) Chairman of the failed Fannie Mae, and (UNDER CLINTON) DIVIDER OF ALL INTELLIGENCE SHARING TO PROTECT BILL CLINTON FROM THE WOMEN HE WAS USING ON THE JOB AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

      GW Bush entered THAT Whitehouse, and after a few short months of working to sort that out 9/11 happened. GW Bush went to town on Afghanistan, Iraq (who was illegally fing with the forces tasked with enforcing the no-fly zones as part of the ARMISTICE after the first Gulf War – you don’t need any WMDs except to bolster public opinion guided by liberal-progressive_communist_globalist POS (D) mf’s that need to eat sh_t and live).

      Ohole and Hillary have reversed all of our (Ohole and Hillary admitted) gains from that, and they have profited from it. They are in the bag for the rest of the World and not the US, and it sounds like you’re a fan.
      #NaCL

      If you

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        . . . popped your head out you’ll have easier respiration and nicer breath. Plus you could read this:
        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/

  23. avatar FedUp says:

    Don’t worry, Hillary isn’t anti-gun, just ask the gate-keepers on newsworthy information.

    All the fact-checkers and media elite are carrying her water on this one, and they’ll shout down any ‘conspiracy kooks’ who claim that Hillary saying she’ll appoint judges to do away with the 2A means Hillary is anti-2A.

  24. avatar commonwealth109 says:

    The problem with comparing this election to Brexit is this – poll trends. Brexit was -11 but had (relatively quickly) trended down to -4 just before the vote. Trump is trending the exact opposite. There is still time to turn the trend, but it ain’t looking good at the moment.
    I agree that Trump may have a % of people who aren’t disclosing our support, but is it enough to overcome a double digit deficit? Unfortunately I don’t think so, he probably doesn’t need to lead in the polls to pull off an upset – but he needs to turn the trend around ASAP & cut this poll deficit (roughly, IMO) in half.

  25. avatar Dave says:

    Benghazi Libya over 600 phone calls were made to the US Embassy for help that they were being overrun and slaughtered now mind you American soldiers CIA were involved in this and Hillary just refuse to take the phone calls. I saw footage of men women and young children being drug through the streets and hung in the streets because she refused to honor her promise to send in our troops to help the Freedom Fighters. She is a murderer. She is a liar along with her adulterous husband Bill Clinton rapist even. These two are the crookedest politicians I laugh because crookedness and politicians are almost the same word nowadays but they are the most crookedest politicians that have ever been in the United States of America. When this country was started in the very beginning, the presidency was an office that was occupied by leaders who had full-time careers or jobs AZ military landowners farmers and so on. Serving as the presidency was an honor and an obligation to your country when you completed your obligation you went back to your full-time job. Nowadays we have these lifelong politicians that basically learn how to work the system because they’re in it for so long and overthrow the checks and balances that is supposed to keep them honest and make political promises to these campaign contributions, and then Wendy’s people who donate all this money need a favor they just pick up the old phone dial Direct to the White House and get whatever they want. This is absolute bull s***. And so is Hillary Clinton. Please vote this November for mr. Donald Trump.

  26. avatar Kyle says:

    Let us hope the People of the Gun remain a force yet in American politics for the Presidential race.

  27. avatar Carl says:

    Joe Stalin had it right when he said, it doesn’t matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.

  28. avatar Joatmon says:

    I absolutely hate Hillary but I do think she’s the next president. Think Obama was the greatest gun salesman ever? Not quite.
    I have no facts, this is pure gut instinct and it makes me sick.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email