Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tugger · Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:30 pm

mham001 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
mham001 wrote:
Meanwhile the big kids can discuss why Hillary has not the commanding lead after spending all that money.

But why would you suggest that she should have a greater lead "after spending all that money"? Money does not make one successful, as Trump as proven.

Tugg
So why is Hillary spending all that money?

Because it is the needed and smart thing to do?

Tugg

LMP737 · Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:00 pm

mham001 wrote:

Evidence quite easily found, if one cared to look but I expect little from a screamer who does not even know the difference between a pedophile and child molester, much less ephebophiia.. You're simply not worth the time.

Before you call anyone out about not knowing the difference between a pedophile and a child molester you might want to educate yourself about the difference between gay and being a pedophile. There is a difference but I'm not sure you know that.

And yes, it was largely gay priests doing the young boys. Get over it, it happened.

That's your quote by the way.

kaitak · Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:13 pm

Francoflier wrote:
photopilot wrote:
And yet, for all the outrageous inadequacies of the latter, he is somehow propped up on the same level as his rival.
I just cannot fathom how people would be so blind to the truth and accepting of such behavior.

What possesses Americans to look for an entertainer as their leading figures? Are charisma and showmanship somehow more important to American voters than actual abilities and experience?
I understand that many will not like Hillary. But I don't understand that they think voting for Trump is an acceptable alternative.

It defies logic. I think we have collectively forgotten the price our ancestors paid for democracy and peace and we are now being whimsical and irresponsible with the privilege. I have good hope that sanity will prevail, but the proximity of a catastrophe is getting really unnerving.

This is what worries me. I find it so hard to believe that someone has come out with the clangers and gaffes (mostly intentional) that DT has come out with is still almost neck and neck with a woman streets ahead of him in terms of qualification for the role. I know the media are probably inured to his pronouncements by now, but still, how does he say these things when a political in another election might say just a fraction of these things and have to withdraw.

A part of me suspects that the media feels that although they realise HRC is a far better candidate, DT will sell far more papers. After all, who ever bought a paper with a headline saying "all flights landed safely today", when another one says "doom, disaster, spiralling in flame". HRC is the former - she'll be a safe pair of hands, possibly (as one poster put it) lacking in charisma, but DT is the latter; there'll never be a dull moment; think of the political skulduggery, the special prosecutors, the shenanigans that will go on in the White House, the type of people DT will appoint to (and fire from) his cabinet and his relationship with the rest of the world - not just Mexico and the Islamic world. Now, tell me, which do you think the media finds more enticing. Let's not forget that we're living in an age where the media is changing rapidly and within a generation, many well established newspapers will, er ...fold. The prospect of one candidate who will sell massively more papers than the duller, safer one ... which would you want to see win?

I do fear the prospect of waking up on the first Wednesday to hear that HRC has conceded. And what that will mean for America. Regardless of what the media might think or wish for, the prospect of DT as president is seriously scary.

bmacleod · Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:04 pm

My fears of a Trump win will trigger what is happening now in Charlotte NC - but on a much bigger national scenario sort of like Iraq when Saddam fell.

rfields5421 · Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:25 pm

bmacleod wrote:
My fears of a Trump win will trigger what is happening now in Charlotte NC - but on a much bigger national scenario sort of like Iraq when Saddam fell.

We've had massive civil unrest much worse than what we have seen recently in the past.

Remember the Watts Riots of 1965, Harlem and Philadelphia in 1964, Hough (Cleveland) in 1965, Newark, Plainfield (NJ), Detroit, Minneapolis of 1967, Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, Glenville (Cleveland) in 1968, Stonewall (NYC) and Omaha in 1969.

In 1992 the six day long Rodney King riots in Los Angeles left 53 people dead, 2,000+ injured and over 11,000 in jail. Along with 4,000 Cal National Guard troops, the US Army 7th Infantry Division and the USMC 1st Marine Division were mobilized to help end the riots. Of the 53 deaths - 35 were from gunfire. 8 were shot by law enforcement and 2 by CA NG troops. The other 25 were killed by rioters.

===============================================
On the main topic -

The governor of Texas now sees Texas as only leaning Republican or possibly a Toss-Up state. He has been talking publicly in recent days about the need to mobilize Republican voters to get to the polls. Several solid Republican congressional seats are now at risk - four rated as almost certainly changing to Democrat. Abbott has gone to the donors and county chairmen citing two recent polls - one by a Republican organization, one by a news organization. The Republican organization gives Donald a 2 point lead over Hillary in the Texas popular vote among likely voters. The news organization gives Hillary a 1 point lead over Donald among registered voters. Both polls have an error rating of +- 3 percent.

Hillis · Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:05 pm

[quote="rfields5421]
On the main topic -

The governor of Texas now sees Texas as only leaning Republican or possibly a Toss-Up state. He has been talking publicly in recent days about the need to mobilize Republican voters to get to the polls. Several solid Republican congressional seats are now at risk - four rated as almost certainly changing to Democrat. Abbott has gone to the donors and county chairmen citing two recent polls - one by a Republican organization, one by a news organization. The Republican organization gives Donald a 2 point lead over Hillary in the Texas popular vote among likely voters. The news organization gives Hillary a 1 point lead over Donald among registered voters. Both polls have an error rating of +- 3 percent.[/quote]

I don't think Texas will go for Clinton, although she is not hated down there by many. The only way Texas goes Blue is if Hispanic citizens come out in droves, and their fear of Donald Trump might just do that. I think Trump wins there by about 5 points.

But gawd dern, if Texas went Blue on Abbott's watch, I'd pay real money to see the hell he'll catch.

And an aside again, even with all his momentum, Trump has not been able to establish any appreciable lead in the polls, with one excepting being the LA Times/USC poll, and even there, Trump's lead is shrinking.

An new poll in Pennsylvania showed Hillary up by 8 in Pennsylvania. And if Trump can't swing Pennsylvania, his own people have said he cannot win.

rfields5421 · Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:45 pm

Hillis wrote:
But gawd dern, if Texas went Blue on Abbott's watch, I'd pay real money to see the hell he'll catch.

You and me both.

Abbot has his lapdog LtGov Patrick pounding the party to ensure that the Republican contenders like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush come out publicly and loudly supporting Trump for President.

Abbot and Patrick have basically told Cruz - support Trump publicly or we will ensure someone with a chance to win runs against your Senate reelection in the Republican Primary. If Trump loses the election, we will pin the blame on you in the primary.

Hillis · Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:54 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
But gawd dern, if Texas went Blue on Abbott's watch, I'd pay real money to see the hell he'll catch.

You and me both.

Abbot has his lapdog LtGov Patrick pounding the party to ensure that the Republican contenders like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush come out publicly and loudly supporting Trump for President.

Abbot and Patrick have basically told Cruz - support Trump publicly or we will ensure someone with a chance to win runs against your Senate reelection in the Republican Primary. If Trump loses the election, we will pin the blame on you in the primary.

But Cruz and Bush has not done so, and H.W. is apparently voting for Hillary. Who would have thought when you'd see the day when a Kennedy would announce that a Bush is supporting a Clinton. Hades must be in a cold snap.

Flighty · Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:43 pm

I don't know why people keep witch-hunting Hillary Clinton. She is right there; why are they hunting??

727LOVER · Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:46 pm

I wrote this in another thread:

How about this scenario?

If we start with the 2012 results, Obama 332 Romney 206

Assuming Trump holds all the Romney states.

Currently, I think Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania are out of reach for him.

But lets say he were to win these states

Florida 29
Ohio 18
Iowa 6
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4

add that to 206

that gets it to 269...that means Hillary would have 269...so its a tie. The 206 # includes that congressional district that surrounds Omaha, Nebraska. Romney won it, but Obama won it in 2008.
If Hillary were to win that district, then she would win with 270 to Trump's 268

I must admit though...that if Trump is winning these 5 states, I cant imagine, he'd lose that district in Nebraska

Granted, things can change, but as of now, Nate Silver has this at

Hillary 273
Trump 265

...with one state making the difference...that state being New Hampshire

Trump taking NH would make it 269-269

God knows what happens after that :shock:

NoTime · Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:08 pm

kaitak wrote:
I know the media are probably inured to his pronouncements by now, but still, how does he say these things when a political in another election might say just a fraction of these things and have to withdraw.

Likely because he recognizes most of the "outrage" for what it is - fake.

By and large, the majority of the population doesn't really care about most of the "outrageous" things he says. (Some of the perpetual bed-wetters on this site, notwithstanding.)

DLFREEBIRD · Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:29 pm

(. Recent polls have Trump getting about the same numbers as Romney in 2012.)

didn't he lose?

i predict it will be a tight race right down to the last minute. then reality will kick in and
people will vote for HRC , gut instinct FOR SELF PRESERVATION.

DLFREEBIRD · Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:33 pm

IT'S BEEN INTERESTING ELECTION, SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AIRING THEIR HATE LAUNDRY
IT SURPRISING AND SEEMS SO UNAMERICAN, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT BOTH PARTIES.

seb146 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:56 am

Flighty wrote:
I don't know why people keep witch-hunting Hillary Clinton. She is right there; why are they hunting??

They have no ideas of their own. Look at what they are proposing. Nothing. All they can do is say "well, look how bad she is!" instead of "look at all the good stuff we have."

casinterest · Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:22 am

A really good read of a bunch of reasons Trump should not be president.

http://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-don ... -olbermann

NoTime · Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:51 am

seb146 wrote:
All they can do is say "well, look how bad she is!" instead of "look at all the good stuff we have."

Is that not the case with both parties?

coolian2 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:00 am

It's funny how anyone who opposes Trump (and the GOP, a party I easily once could have voted for - and I'm 28) is automatically a Hillary supporter. Technically, yes.

I was all about Bernie Sanders. I'm about as much of left wing nutcase as you can get - by New Zealand standards, no less. But a vote that isn't for Hillary is seriously playing with fire.

seb146 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:38 am

NoTime wrote:
seb146 wrote:
All they can do is say "well, look how bad she is!" instead of "look at all the good stuff we have."

Is that not the case with both parties?

Don't deflect. This is not about "well, that's as bad as the other guy so let's just drop the subject." It is about the fact that Republicans just want to do nothing. They have been in control of both houses of Congress and have done nothing. It is not about "well they are as bad" but, rather, Republicans have proved they do not want to do anything and claim the system does not work.

zckls04 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:58 am

There's no doubting that the answer to this since day one has been that HRC is more likely to win. It's certainly possible for Trump to win, but state-wise he has to have all the stars align to do it.

In the end though I suspect the debates will be the end for Trump. Even if he dials it down and acts like a grown up, I don't see him being able to display anywhere near the same policy expertise as Clinton.

zckls04 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:20 am

afcjets wrote:
This seems to be the majority opinion of liberals who post comments online, that Trump is worse than ISIS. I just don't see a significant number of liberals leaving the US if Trump is elected President, however if ISIS took over this country I bet they would get out if they could.

He's not worse than ISIS, but he could conceivably be more dangerous to me than ISIS. ISIS are very evil people, but their capacity to negatively affect any of us in the USA is actually pretty low. Trump can make real decisions that will impact each of us every day.

And this isn't being an ISIS apologist- those people are total human sewage. They're just relatively powerless sewage.

727LOVER wrote:
Currently, I think Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania are out of reach for him.

Maybe Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania. New Hampshire will go Clinton. I don't see any chance of Trump winning there. However I think Colorado is definitely in reach for Trump.

The win is on right now for him. But the more Clinton says, the better she does in the polls, whilst the reverse is true of Trump. Thus I think the debates will give a good bump to Clinton.

NoTime · Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:41 pm

seb146 wrote:
NoTime wrote:
seb146 wrote:
All they can do is say "well, look how bad she is!" instead of "look at all the good stuff we have."

Is that not the case with both parties?

Don't deflect. This is not about "well, that's as bad as the other guy so let's just drop the subject." It is about the fact that Republicans just want to do nothing. They have been in control of both houses of Congress and have done nothing. It is not about "well they are as bad" but, rather, Republicans have proved they do not want to do anything and claim the system does not work.

Not deflecting at all. I mean, pretty much ALL you hear coming out of the DNC is how terrible Trump is, and what a disaster it will be if he gets elected. That's exactly what you're complaining about with the GOP in your earlier post.

Hillis · Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:19 pm

I believe the first debate will be the beginning of the end of Donald Trump. You can say all you want about Hillary Clinton, but if she can stand an 11-hour grilling from Republicans in the House, desperate to find SOMETHING to hand her with (and failing), she can handle 90 minutes or so with Donald Trump.

When they get to specifics on what each candidate plans to do, all you'll get from Trump is "we have a plan, and it's great!", but he has absolutely no real clue as to what his plans are, and that will become painfully apparent.

Remember the "kinder, gentler" Trump reboot about a month or so ago, where they tried to tone down his rhetoric? And it worked for a time, as Hillary struggled with the email server deal. But how long did that last? Not long. He's again gone after African-Americans, he's doubled-down on wanting to spy on every Muslim in America, he threw police officers under the bus, just days after the F.O.P. endorsed him. He'll go off. He'll either get asked a serious question by a moderator that needs a educated response, and try to demonize the moderator, or Hillary Clinton will set him off with a well-placed statement.

By the time it's over, I do believe Clinton will win most of the Swing states. I think the only ones he might take will be Ohio, Missouri and Iowa.

Hillis · Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:28 pm

NoTime wrote:
seb146 wrote:
NoTime wrote:

Is that not the case with both parties?

Don't deflect. This is not about "well, that's as bad as the other guy so let's just drop the subject." It is about the fact that Republicans just want to do nothing. They have been in control of both houses of Congress and have done nothing. It is not about "well they are as bad" but, rather, Republicans have proved they do not want to do anything and claim the system does not work.

Not deflecting at all. I mean, pretty much ALL you hear coming out of the DNC is how terrible Trump is, and what a disaster it will be if he gets elected. That's exactly what you're complaining about with the GOP in your earlier post.

Seb's got you there, NT. Question: what has the Republican-controlled Congress actually done in the last few years? All they've done is blocked anything that come forward. They haven't put up a single jobs bill; they still haven't come to terms with the Zika virus; they committed, in my mind, Sedition with a letter to Iran, undermining the President's talks with that nation, and also conspiring with a Foreign Head of State to sabotage that deal (I'll call him the Senior Senator from Tel Aviv); they have blocked dozens of judicial openings and lower-level federal positions that need to be filled; they keep voting to defund Obamacare, and they're absolutely obsessed with Planned Parenthood.

But what HAVE THEY OFFERED as a counter to what Obama or Clinton want? We've heard them say for SEVEN YEARS that they'll have plan to replace Obamacare, but non has ever come forward; they have no plans to deal with Zika, or rebuilding our roads and infrastructure; they don't have a jobs plan, save cutting taxes for the rich-ask Kansas and Louisiana how that one has worked; they have nothing to offer to deal with the crushing debt that college students and parents must face just to get a higher education; they have no plan on the environment, or in looking to renewable energy, just the usual Palinesque "Drill, baby, drill" garbage; their only idea to deal with world events is to issue threats to other nations that they don't like, and want to do away with diplomacy.

Post some real evidence that I'm wrong. It's all on the record. They offer NOTHING. And the reason is that a party that is constantly pining to take the nation back in time has nothing to say about the nation's future. They're looking in the wrong direction.

seb146 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:56 pm

NoTime wrote:
seb146 wrote:
NoTime wrote:

Is that not the case with both parties?

Don't deflect. This is not about "well, that's as bad as the other guy so let's just drop the subject." It is about the fact that Republicans just want to do nothing. They have been in control of both houses of Congress and have done nothing. It is not about "well they are as bad" but, rather, Republicans have proved they do not want to do anything and claim the system does not work.

Not deflecting at all. I mean, pretty much ALL you hear coming out of the DNC is how terrible Trump is, and what a disaster it will be if he gets elected. That's exactly what you're complaining about with the GOP in your earlier post.

There are literally thousands of examples as to why Trump is awful. Examples that to not take a PhD to understand. In years past, candidates would put out their proposals for various things and experts and scholars would debate why this plan is better than that plan. Very intellectual and insightful and we the people learn things. Republicans have simply given up. Their new strategy seems to be "vote for us because we are not Democrats."

LMP737 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:35 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
(. Recent polls have Trump getting about the same numbers as Romney in 2012.)

didn't he lose?

i predict it will be a tight race right down to the last minute. then reality will kick in and
people will vote for HRC , gut instinct FOR SELF PRESERVATION.

I wish I had your optimism. However I fear that there are enough scared white people in this country who have consumed enough Fox News, drudge.com, talk radio etc that they will pull the lever for Trump. Even though it's against their own self interest to do so.

Hillis · Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:48 pm

LMP737 wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:
(. Recent polls have Trump getting about the same numbers as Romney in 2012.)

didn't he lose?

i predict it will be a tight race right down to the last minute. then reality will kick in and
people will vote for HRC , gut instinct FOR SELF PRESERVATION.

I wish I had your optimism. However I fear that there are enough scared white people in this country who have consumed enough Fox News, drudge.com, talk radio etc that they will pull the lever for Trump. Even though it's against their own self interest to do so.

Problem is, scared white people can't tilt the election anymore. Trump probably won't get more than about 6% of the African-American vote; I doubt he'd get more than 15% of the Latino/Hispanic vote. And the number of whites are shrinking by the day. Hillary leads among white voters with college educations by a large margin.

You can bet, despite the efforts of the GOP that Democrats are working like hell to get the Hispanic vote out in places like Arizona, Florida and Texas, and will do the same to get the African-American vote out in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan.

And despite his surge, once again, he's still not close in Pennsylvania; he still trails by more then the margin of error, in some polls substantially, in Michigan and Wisconsin. The polls are almost even in Florida. He has a small lead in Ohio, just above the margin of error. But again, I suspect once the debates set in, everyone will get to see for themselves what a bigoted, ignorant fraud he really is, and I think those undecided and even a few of the "they're both bad" will fall away from him.

ER757 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:51 pm

Hillis wrote:
I believe the first debate will be the beginning of the end of Donald Trump. You can say all you want about Hillary Clinton, but if she can stand an 11-hour grilling from Republicans in the House, desperate to find SOMETHING to hand her with (and failing), she can handle 90 minutes or so with Donald Trump.

When they get to specifics on what each candidate plans to do, all you'll get from Trump is "we have a plan, and it's great!", but he has absolutely no real clue as to what his plans are, and that will become painfully apparent.

Remember the "kinder, gentler" Trump reboot about a month or so ago, where they tried to tone down his rhetoric? And it worked for a time, as Hillary struggled with the email server deal. But how long did that last? Not long. He's again gone after African-Americans, he's doubled-down on wanting to spy on every Muslim in America, he threw police officers under the bus, just days after the F.O.P. endorsed him. He'll go off. He'll either get asked a serious question by a moderator that needs a educated response, and try to demonize the moderator, or Hillary Clinton will set him off with a well-placed statement.

By the time it's over, I do believe Clinton will win most of the Swing states. I think the only ones he might take will be Ohio, Missouri and Iowa.

This.....the debates will be Trump's Waterloo. Hillary will eat him alive. Trump is an empty suit - zero foreign policy experience, zero real plans for anything domestically and he'll be exposed in the debates. HRC is not going to ever win miss congeniality and there's folks like me who just can't put her name down (I am choosing "none of the above" for POTUS) but any undecideds out there will fall to Clinton after the debates.

Tugger · Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:19 pm

ER757 wrote:
Hillis wrote:
I believe the first debate will be the beginning of the end of Donald Trump. You can say all you want about Hillary Clinton, but if she can stand an 11-hour grilling from Republicans in the House, desperate to find SOMETHING to hand her with (and failing), she can handle 90 minutes or so with Donald Trump.

When they get to specifics on what each candidate plans to do, all you'll get from Trump is "we have a plan, and it's great!", but he has absolutely no real clue as to what his plans are, and that will become painfully apparent.

Remember the "kinder, gentler" Trump reboot about a month or so ago, where they tried to tone down his rhetoric? And it worked for a time, as Hillary struggled with the email server deal. But how long did that last? Not long. He's again gone after African-Americans, he's doubled-down on wanting to spy on every Muslim in America, he threw police officers under the bus, just days after the F.O.P. endorsed him. He'll go off. He'll either get asked a serious question by a moderator that needs a educated response, and try to demonize the moderator, or Hillary Clinton will set him off with a well-placed statement.

By the time it's over, I do believe Clinton will win most of the Swing states. I think the only ones he might take will be Ohio, Missouri and Iowa.

This.....the debates will be Trump's Waterloo. Hillary will eat him alive. Trump is an empty suit - zero foreign policy experience, zero real plans for anything domestically and he'll be exposed in the debates. HRC is not going to ever win miss congeniality and there's folks like me who just can't put her name down (I am choosing "none of the above" for POTUS) but any undecideds out there will fall to Clinton after the debates.

One might point out that he was the same for the Republican debates.... and look what happened there.

Solid policy knowledge etc. do not necessarily translate to success in a "television show".

May you live in interesting times....

Tugg

casinterest · Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:33 pm

Looks like Lyin Ted and his insulted wife have decided to endorse Donald Trump.

His endorsement looks like the same crazy crap you would expect from a liar. I expect that it really means he is endorsing Hillary.

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/po ... 6728267464

DocLightning · Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:00 pm

casinterest wrote:
Looks like Lyin Ted and his insulted wife have decided to endorse Donald Trump.

Yanno, for a few months there I had the TEEEENSIEST shred of respect for Mr. Cruz, which horrified me.

So I guess I'm kinda glad to see this. The cognitive dissonance was damaging my calm.

casinterest · Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:14 pm

DocLightning wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like Lyin Ted and his insulted wife have decided to endorse Donald Trump.

Yanno, for a few months there I had the TEEEENSIEST shred of respect for Mr. Cruz, which horrified me.

So I guess I'm kinda glad to see this. The cognitive dissonance was damaging my calm.

Yeah. I still don't know how he can stomach endorsing a man that implicated his father was a part of the murder of JFK.

MaverickM11 · Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:46 pm

casinterest wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like Lyin Ted and his insulted wife have decided to endorse Donald Trump.

Yanno, for a few months there I had the TEEEENSIEST shred of respect for Mr. Cruz, which horrified me.

So I guess I'm kinda glad to see this. The cognitive dissonance was damaging my calm.

Yeah. I still don't know how he can stomach endorsing a man that implicated his father was a part of the murder of JFK.

Why is it that the loudest christians are reliably the most duplicitous, craven cowards known to man?

Hillis · Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:53 pm

casinterest wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like Lyin Ted and his insulted wife have decided to endorse Donald Trump.

Yanno, for a few months there I had the TEEEENSIEST shred of respect for Mr. Cruz, which horrified me.

So I guess I'm kinda glad to see this. The cognitive dissonance was damaging my calm.

Yeah. I still don't know how he can stomach endorsing a man that implicated his father was a part of the murder of JFK.

Probably because the Kennedy's themselves never leveled that charge.

DocLightning · Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:56 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Why is it that the loudest christians are reliably the most duplicitous, craven cowards known to man?

You could be forgiven for thinking that people like this loudly point to their superficial morality by declaring their religious proclivity to 1) self-justify their abhorrent behavior and 2) distract others from the same.

Hillis · Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:23 pm

DocLightning wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Why is it that the loudest christians are reliably the most duplicitous, craven cowards known to man?

You could be forgiven for thinking that people like this loudly point to their superficial morality by declaring their religious proclivity to 1) self-justify their abhorrent behavior and 2) distract others from the same.

I don't think any Gawd-fearin', gun-totin', real 'Murican could even understand that sentence you just put in. :lol:

afcjets · Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:06 am

Hillis wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Why is it that the loudest christians are reliably the most duplicitous, craven cowards known to man?

You could be forgiven for thinking that people like this loudly point to their superficial morality by declaring their religious proclivity to 1) self-justify their abhorrent behavior and 2) distract others from the same.

I don't think any Gawd-fearin', gun-totin', real 'Murican could even understand that sentence you just put in.

You might be right, while I don't own a gun and I don't fear God, I am a Christian American, and I had to read that twice because I didn't totally get the second part and still don't lol

PacificBeach88 · Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:41 am

afcjets wrote:
You might be right, while I don't own a gun and I don't fear God, I am a Christian American, and I had to read that twice because I didn't totally get the second part and still don't lol

Seriously???

DocLightning · Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:05 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Seriously???

Jesus, take the wheel.

PacificBeach88 · Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:12 am

DocLightning wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
Seriously???

Jesus, take the wheel.

coolian2 · Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:20 am

He means too many people think that by wasting an hour on Sunday, it justifies them being awful the rest of the week.

I've gone on this rant before, but my will not attend church ass, my left leaning, sex having (don't ask, I don't get it either!), practically a socialist agnostic ass lives more Christian values than most people in a church. I could go on but I just bit one fingernail too short and it's kinda ruined my touchtyping ability.

coolian2 · Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:26 am

To be fair, some churches and religious organisations do great work. It's a lesson a lot of their attendees could learn from. A good example is the Auckland City Mission - they get a $20 from me, no matter how broke my ass is. They'll feed a lot more people with that than me blowing it a few pies at the bakery.

DLFREEBIRD · Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:55 am

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dea ... -christian
THIS GUY NAILED HOW I FEEL AS A CHRISTIAN. AND YEA THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME OUT THERE.

rfields5421 · Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:21 am

Was at the Plano Balloon Festival today (Texas)

The Collin County Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians had booths.

The Democrats and Liberitarians were asking people "are you a US citizen, are you registered to vote". They had voter registration forms for people. The registrations deadline in Texas is Oct 11.

The Republican booth didn't have voter registration forms. They also had exactly zero information on Donald Trump. No banners, no materials, his name was not to be seen. Only local candidates up to the several congressional races.

Thought it was interesting the other two parties pushing their presidential candidates and the Republicans ignoring theirs.

seb146 · Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:50 am

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dear-offended-christian-from-9400109699938797274069a-very-tired-christian
THIS GUY NAILED HOW I FEEL AS A CHRISTIAN. AND YEA THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME OUT THERE.

Check the link. It did not work for me.

What I will say about Christians in the United States is that some of them are backward. They refuse to help the poor and sick and place all their hatred and legal knowledge on one Bible verse. They love death and love only cultures that make them feel safe. So many things about those Americans who call themselves Christian.

Dreadnought · Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:20 am

LittleFokker wrote:
You're conflating two seperate concepts. Yes, the public generally doesn't trust the media. However, Trump will only make media relations worse, not better. He's already banned certain media members from covering his rallies because he didn't like what they wrote about him. So Presidential.

The age of media that at least made a show of trying to be objective is over. The 24-hour news cycle, the internet and social media killed it. When you have what formerly passed as mainstream news organizations such as the NYT and CNN openly and unapologetically stating that they have no interest in being fair in their in their coverage of Trump - they hate his guts and will lie if they have to and bury any good news about him in order to see him defeated. At least they have the balls to admit it. A lot of new agencies do the same thing but like to pretend that they are being objective.

There are a few holdouts. Funny enough (considering I live in the US) 2 of my favorite news organizations in terms of being pretty balanced in the past couple of years are French, France 24 and AFP.

http://www.france24.com/en/
https://www.afp.com/en/home

casinterest · Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:55 am

Dreadnought wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
You're conflating two seperate concepts. Yes, the public generally doesn't trust the media. However, Trump will only make media relations worse, not better. He's already banned certain media members from covering his rallies because he didn't like what they wrote about him. So Presidential.

The age of media that at least made a show of trying to be objective is over. The 24-hour news cycle, the internet and social media killed it. When you have what formerly passed as mainstream news organizations such as the NYT and CNN openly and unapologetically stating that they have no interest in being fair in their in their coverage of Trump - they hate his guts and will lie if they have to and bury any good news about him in order to see him defeated. At least they have the balls to admit it.

There is no reason to be nice to him. He has banned news organizations from covering his campaign. He hasn't stepped foot in front of an objective journalist in months. He is a liar, coward, and a fraud amongst many other things, and at then end of the day he values very little of the constitution that everyone holds dear .

1st amendment? He would charge Journalists for reporting unfavorably . So much for freedom of the press. Freedom of speech? No he would want to sue for slander.

We could go on, but Trump is more about asserting power than upholding the constitution.

Dreadnought · Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:37 am

casinterest wrote:
There is no reason to be nice to her. Hillary has banned news organizations from covering his campaign. She hasn't stepped foot in front of an objective journalist in months. She is a liar, coward, and a fraud amongst many other things, and at then end of the day she values very little of the constitution that everyone holds dear .

There, corrected it for you. You don't remember Hillary booting journalists from the Daily Mail or Politico, and in just last month actually kicking out all white reporters (supposedly because it was an event for the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists? And Trump doesn't hold a candle to Hillary as far as being a liar and a fraud. Finally, the Democratic party in general has not had ANY respect for the Constitution in the past 100+ years, you expect Hillary to be different?

PacificBeach88 · Sun Sep 25, 2016 6:20 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Was at the Plano Balloon Festival today (Texas)

The Collin County Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians had booths.

The Democrats and Liberitarians were asking people "are you a US citizen, are you registered to vote". They had voter registration forms for people. The registrations deadline in Texas is Oct 11.

The Republican booth didn't have voter registration forms. They also had exactly zero information on Donald Trump. No banners, no materials, his name was not to be seen. Only local candidates up to the several congressional races.

Thought it was interesting the other two parties pushing their presidential candidates and the Republicans ignoring theirs.

Why would they? Trump is deplorable and is indefensible. Why bother trying, ya know?

bgm · Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:42 am

Dreadnought wrote:
casinterest wrote:
There is no reason to be nice to her. Hillary has banned news organizations from covering his campaign. She hasn't stepped foot in front of an objective journalist in months. She is a liar, coward, and a fraud amongst many other things, and at then end of the day she values very little of the constitution that everyone holds dear .

There, corrected it for you. You don't remember Hillary booting journalists from the Daily Mail or Politico, and in just last month actually kicking out all white reporters (supposedly because it was an event for the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists? And Trump doesn't hold a candle to Hillary as far as being a liar and a fraud. Finally, the Democratic party in general has not had ANY respect for the Constitution in the past 100+ years, you expect Hillary to be different?

What the hell are you smoking? Or is that dementia finally kicking in? :lol:

Boeing717200 · Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:45 pm

seb146 wrote:
blueflyer wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Unelectable? Because she handled her emails the way her predecessors did? Because she has been cleared of any wrongdoing in "BENGHAZI!!"? She has more qualifications to be POTUS than anyone else who was in the field this year-it isn't even close. The email server thing has been blown so out of proportion that it's mind-boggling. I don't remember this kind of consternation when the Bush White House "lost" 22 million emails.

Where to start...

Did I mention Benghazi? I know she has been cleared of Benghazi, and rightfully so. The Congress hearings were nothing but witch hunts by incapable politicians who have not had a single original or constructive idea to offer since "Obama must be a one-term president."

Since my first post didn't spell it clearly enough for you, let me try again. What her handling of her email (server) tells me is she is unable or unwilling to learn from her mistakes, at least not when it inconveniences her. Even if it was acceptable when she became SecState (it was not, StateDept would have stopped her if they had known), having her own email server controlled and secured by her and her contractor became an intolerable cybersecurity risk during her term! And unless China or Russia prove otherwise, we'll never know if it was indeed hacked because she ordered the server, and its logs, destroyed. She refuses to this day to acknowledge these issues, and back then she would not even tolerate discussions on that topic (I refer you to Huma Abedin's statements that her email server was not a topic for conversation at StateDept).

If more evidence is needed of her refusal to adapt to changing environments and learn from her mistakes, the Clinton foundation is there...

Finally, "he did it first" hasn't worked for me since kindergarten. We rightfully expect very little of politicians, but if that is your standard, perhaps it isn't just candidates who deserve to be disqualified.

She had one server. Not several over the course of decades, as you think. The Clinton Foundation has been found to be one of the most transparent charities. Guess why? The Clintons have been under constant scrutiny for decades.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-an ... dation/478

Colin Powell told her she could use a private server but to be careful.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... l-use.html

Clinton and transparent in one post. That's epic considering the entire purpose of the server was to circumvent FOIA requests.

Transparent my ass.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net