So Trump revealed his witness today. Let's look at his history:

Private Eye Street Of Shame: Mr Gilberthorpe’s Tory paedo files

Also, he was 17 at the time, and flying in first class? This is a bad joke.

I'd guess it's for the same reason that no one teases Obama for having tiny hands.


When after two days it's the best evidence in your favor you can come up with you may as well go for it.

The group behind those signs is off-the-walls crazy. The guy who leads it is a black man who believes Obama is a figure from the Bible sent here to kill the world. He also considers child support to be a form of slavery.

Here's one of his old websites.

Latin Black & White Must Unite!!!! | Just another WordPress.com site

And he's probably more credible than the guy they just announced as a witness to refute the airplane allegations.

Yeah, we all vividly remember those flights with photographic memory from 30 years ago where nothing extraordinary happened... :rolleyes:

Wasn't planning on voting for HRC but if I see trump thugs at my polling place I may consider it.

CBC ran an interview this evening with a journalism professor who indicated the People reporter had told him about her Trump encounter within hours of it happening. He advised her at the time not to pursue it as Trump would likely try try to ruin her career. Seems he was right.

A bit of a detour...

Down the street from me last weekend a couple, wife 7 months pregnant, lost everything in a fire hours after they moved in the last box to their new place. The fire was started next door from an illegal kitchen.

Anyway, there is a gofund me. It's been an amazing thing to behold in this particularly awful political month. Without asking who they are voting for, if they are legal, etc. the neighborhood has rallied around them. Most donations are anonymous. And the comments are: I have baby clothes for you, we have a spare room, we can bring you food, etc.

I really hope in 24 days we can once again use the light we all have in us to show the good we do and not as torch just exposing the monsters we think are in town.

end of rant.

Private Eye Street Of Shame: Mr Gilberthorpe’s Tory paedo files


EXTREME VETTING

Pedophilia accusations seem to be popping up way too frequently these days. Maybe Eyes Wide Shut was more truthful than I thought and Donald Trump is to this what Jose Canseco was to steroids. (This is the claim that I'm suspicious of, on both sides, though it is clear that both men ran in the same circle as Epstein before he went to jail.)

Donald Trump will face child rape charges in court, says lawyer for alleged victim | The Independent

Bill Clinton jumped aboard 'Lolita Express' for junkets along with Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

This popped up on my FB feed. It's from someone in my home town, and it's very representative of the "support" I've seen for Trump and the tribalism that we were recently discussing. I think for the liberals on the board in particular, this is worth a read for the instructional value, if nothing else. I think this is precisely the sort of thinking that is behind the comments that Carson made yesterday. While he didn't address the sexual assault allegations directly, it's pretty clear that to this guy (and to Carson,) it's not about who Trump is or what he does, and as such, it appears to be completely immaterial to him if Trump committed sexual assault. So, yeah, if you think that liberal Supreme Court justices are about the worst thing that could happen to this country, "it doesn't matter if she's telling the truth" about the allegations.

Honest question - is there a left-wing counterpart to this sort of stuff?
Things that the left is saying that Trump (or the too-conservative-for-them flavor of the month) would do if elected, that are pretty demonstrably both not being argued for, and obviously not politically viable?

The back-to-the-coat-hanger-abortion trope is about the best I can conjure off the top of my head, but even that at least fits with a position taken by many on the other side (it just fails the viability test).

I suspect I'm just missing things... there's plenty of despicability on both side of the aisle.

What's interesting is that there's no indication that this guy is some way-out-there uneducated conspiracy theorist. I don't know him (it showed up on my feed because one of our many mutual friends re-posted,) but based on his job title and the recent renaming of the business, it's obvious that he replaced one of my very good friends and mentors (who was a groomsman at my wedding) as one of the partners in a very successful real estate firm when my friend retired (my friend's last name was recently replaced with this guy's last name.) I know the other three partners as well, and I am quite confident that they wouldn't share partnership with a nutjob or a nitwit. And beyond that, here's a quick capsule of a few of the people I know who "liked", responded positively, or re-posted the above:

1. Another one of my groomsmen. He's a bank exec in his early 50s. (I related the story here back in July of having lunch with five other guys in Columbus, four of whom were all planning to hold their nose and vote for Trump. He was one of the guys at that lunch and clearly he's still a nose-holder.)
2. One of the smartest people I knew in Junior High. He's a year older than me. We were in the gifted program together. He's an Aerospace Engineering grad from GT.
3. A Mortgage company VP Liked it. High school friend. Have hung out with her/her family multiple times in adulthood. Perfectly pleasant/normal folks.
4. Georgia State Senator Seth Harp gave it a Like.

Of course, that's not the suggest that the "Likes" indicate 100% agreement with the most out-there stuff, but clearly there's *something* causing otherwise-reasonable people to stick with Trump regardless of what he says/does and with eyes wide open to what a scumbag he is. We're that divided, folks.

Well, it's the internet. I'm sure you can find some liberal somewhere spouting off something roughly equivalent, though I'm not sure exactly what it would be. Probably something along the lines of Trump will suspend the Constitution, invoke martial law, and start rounding people up into deportation camps like the Nazis did.

If one is absolutely terrified that replacing Antonin Scalia with Merrick Garland will result in a Court that forces the States to allow first trimester abortions without exception then yes, I kinda-sorta get the "hold my nose" vote for Trump.

Anyone who thinks that a barely-left-of-center Clinton Presidency with a likely 50/50 Senate and a probable GOP House is going to run roughshod over 1st and 2nd amendment rights, raise taxes by double-digits, to say nothing of the things posted by the guy you quote are simply products of the GOP's normalization of the conspiracy theory wing of the party for the purpose of driving out votes. There is simply no similar movement on the left. The Occupiers and the Bernie Bros were the only things that came remotely close, and it was pretty weak at that.

I mean, can you fix that kind of stupid? Kill old people, allow after birth abortions (that may be the dumbest thing I've heard). For a group of religious people so hell bent on controlling a pregnant woman's body, I find it deplorable that they mostly oppose all the things that could help prevent it. Look a Colorado's free IUD program and birth control, drastically reduced unwanted pregnancy levels, abortions, and saved the state money. But we can't do that because ABSTINENCE!

When my wife and I were having issues getting pregnant, we saw an adoption counselor who told us it could take over $50k, over 3 years, and we still may not get a baby. Maybe turn the focus off of a supreme court that decided something 40 years ago and has held despite conservative appointments, and actually focus on the cause. Oh, because then they could not scare dopey people like that guy in your facebook feed to vote for them.

It's a toxic combination of elements.

--Angry supporters who distrust "the system" in general
--Hated opponent
--Candidate possibly too insecure to accept defeat

Awesome. Headed over to Twitter after making that post. First thing to pop up in my feed?

What Trump is fomenting at his rallies. https://t.co/IVeplKh9Cs pic.twitter.com/xcmh90eIFC

— Mike Signorile (@MSignorile) October 15, 2016

Gracious. Just checked *his* account, all from this morning.

100% fabricated and made-up charges, pushed strongly by the media and the Clinton Campaign, may poison the minds of the American Voter. FIX!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2016

This election is being rigged by the media pushing false and unsubstantiated charges, and outright lies, in order to elect Crooked Hillary!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2016

Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and should be in jail. Instead she is running for president in what looks like a rigged election

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2016

I highly doubt that.

Also, I can't help but wonder what he thinks Syrians look like. My guess is anyone who isn't white that doesn't look Mexican to him. And if speaking proper "American" were a prerequisite to voting no way this guy gets to cast a ballot.

Any chance Elon Musk can convince him to go to Mars ? And move up the timetable ?

I've started up a blog where I've been discussing "controversial" topics. Just posted an entry about this stuff:

Concerns About Violence November 8 And Beyond – Uncomfortable Places

The thing is what do Trump's followers think is going to happen if Clinton is assassinated? Trump is going to roll down Penn. Ave in a tank, and take over? Pretty sure he will be arrested and/or killed shortly after such an event. And take over from a Democratic President just like that? I think not.

Maybe they also plan to take out Kaine, which would make the President.... Paul Ryan. That might piss them off even more.

.@realDonaldTrump: "We should take a drug test" before debates, because "I don't know what's going on" with Clinton. https://t.co/Ddqt0LuJBa

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 15, 2016

Given Trump's typical projection this should just about confirm his pre-debate cocaine use.

SNIFF

You are assuming that people who rant about people who don't "speak American" understand the order of succession. ;) And that's not to mention that Mr. Bowman wasn't merely talking about assassinating HRC. He said "coup" with "a lot of bloodshed."Delusions of grandeur? Sure.

Then try this quote from Trump advisor Roger Stone for a little more "action" @Muurits pic.twitter.com/3NrbW73xro

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) October 15, 2016

Roger Stone clarified that it would be a non-violent bloodbath though.

Paul Ryan just tweeted that women aren't paid enough and the House is going to get to work on that. Meanwhile, he still hasn't withdrawn his Trump endorsement.

The Trump campaign announced that they are cutting ties with the GOP chairman in Ohio.

Yeah, I don't understand.

With their non-existent ground game they don't need the help of the state GOP organization to win a crucial swing state.

Trump also went with the claim that all the women accusing him of sexual assault are liars because no one respects women more than he does. Because even if he is completely innocent noting says respect for women more than explaining how some of them are just too darn ugly for you to have sexually violated them.

He had the "audacity" to criticize Trump after the Access Hollywood tape and other things. He's apparently an ally of John Kasich:

Trump campaign splits with top GOP official in Ohio - POLITICO

Do these idiots understand how elections work in this country? State and local officials are in charge of the elections. So if this is "rigged", it would require a rather large undertaking and involve both Democrats and Republicans working together.

This election cycle has been entertaining. The Supreme Court is something that folks are not paying attention too. Ginsberg should have retired two years ago and allowed Obama to appoint someone in her place who was young enough to serve for 20 years.

It's the same campaign that thinks the nation's fire marshals are conspiring against them, of course they don't know how elections work.

Let's not forget Donald's reaction to the last presidential election.

Wouldn't have been ideologically comparable to Ginsburg. Not unless Reid had gone full nuclear option, with all of the long-term ramifications thereof.

Any replacement would have been stonewalled and filibustered to infinity and beyond. Best Obama would have been able to hope for is a moderate, same as the Scalia opening. His ability to appoint anybody to the left of Garland died with the 2010 elections.

A left leaning moderate ain't bad

I shouldn't be concerned at all, given how local law enforcement officers are helping to calm things down.

It's incredible that our institutions of gov, WH, Congress, DOJ, and big media are corrupt & all we do is bitch. Pitchforks and torches time pic.twitter.com/8G5G0daGVN

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) October 15, 2016

Honestly, I thought this election was funny for a while.

Then I worried that the polls were skewed because people were slightly ashamed of voting Trump.

But now, America, you've jumped the shark. Just can't take this shit seriously any more.

To be fair mate, most of the rest of the world feels the same about Brexit.

That being said, yeah this is pretty pathetic.

:) fair point. I would also add that despite anyone's view on Brexit, the maddest personality was Boris, and while on the surface he is a bit like Trump without the rapey stuff and the violent rhetoric, the important part of that phrase is 'without the rapey stuff and the violent rhetoric'

Dola, both Brexit and POTUS have been abysmal adverts for democracy.
HRC - MO seems to be 'give em enough rope'...
Leave / Remain - both sides ran terrible campaigns and seemingly tried to out-do the other in the brazen lies and fearmongering stakes
Trump. Just no.

Between one of the oldest democracies and one of the greatest countries in the world, we haven't done ourselves any favours in the last six months.

Of course, if you look at Trump's behavior over the past two weeks differently, playing devil's advocate here, you see someone who logically knows the election is lost, but is looking to get the best possible start to his own cable television channel possible. And, to go further, he'll use that platform to either continue to re-make the GOP (becoming a Kingmaker, which he's definitely prefer to being POTUS) or create a replacement for the GOP.

There, QuikSand, I've created the left-wing version of the conspiracies Ben posted. :D

Went to a Catholic Church in fort Walton, FL tonight while on vacation. The priest went on for 20 minutes about how Marxist Communists have infiltrated American politics to erode liberties of Christians.

I dont think the election is lost. You guys see the polls, but who do they call? Rural voters or do they concentrate on urban voters.

I see an election a lot closer then you think. And those tweets by Trump are going to fire people up.

Liberals continue to underestimate Trump. Big mistake. You are so out of touch with rural America.

You should really take a look at 538 and how they measure polls. As of right now this election isn't close and a Trump win would be unprecedented in an American Presidential election.

Trump doesn't need people fired up right now. He needs a miracle.

and about 5 light blue states to turn red, not to mention keeping all of the red states red.

Or, demographics more likely to support Trump are also demographics more likely to respond to polling. Pollsters aren't so stupid to only call people in NYC and LA.

Trump may win. The polls may be wrong. But at this point, the overwhelming likelihood is that Trump will lose.

I can see both those things happening.

EDIT: Before JPhillips post.

I dunno with this "you people" talk started but it just reads really fucking weird in this thread. You're so angry at everyone, but "us liberals" underestimating trump is the way for you to get what you want, isn't this a good thing?

I just don't understand what you want.

Im not sure how polling works. But I bet they call area codes where its esiest to get a bunch of answers. Thus big cities. Which I think with will fall into HRC support.
I cant imagine they are calling an area code where joe blow who is alone ina county

I may be wrong. As I have been once or twice in my life, but I think it will be closer than what the polls say.

And back at you.

You don't say?

It's hard to find rural Americans to call, but at the same time there are enough of them that we are underestimating them.

This being my point. Liberals beware. Your overconfidence is fun.

Leave it to a liberal to take things out of context.

Here is the full statement you made:


You just made up, in your head, how you think polling might work, without doing any research, and decided it unfairly benefits HRC, and are using it to get angry at "us liberals". You don't know how polling works.

It was conjecture. I have been called once. And I live just outside of a large Metropolitan area.

I have family in smaller population areas and they havent been called.

While I dont know the exact routine, from personal experience I can guess. While it may be wrong, it is what I go by. And I may be wrong.

You take that and put me down. Typical Liberal response.

I will vote for the candidate who takes away all Internet privileges from people from Missouri. Good grief.

Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying - Vox


I think as a board we are willing to put Trump supporters down because we don't have the same concerns the media does here, and we're more willing to cut through the bullshit and call things as we see them.

Now, do we think you personally are of this mindset? No, not necessarily. But if you're arguing on the behalf of folks who we are likely to perceive to be of that mindset (Trump supporters), yeah -- we might be a little critical of you.

Wow. Free speech sucks doesnt it. Especially when you disagree with it. Another typical liberal response.

And "real America" is going to flock to the polls. There is a real resentment towards HRC and what she represents. What I haeve been saying in here is "real America" and the liberals put me down and ignore what I say.

There are 10s of millions that feel the way that i am talking. And they will vote.

Lol

tarcone, I don't care who you support or why. What the fuck does this have to do with free speech? What does it have to do with "you liberals"? You are just making shit up (you're calling it conjecture) about how polling works.

We're not arguing about policy. We're not arguing about right vs left, liberal vs conservative. You're getting called out for making factually incorrect and irresponsible statements. There's no politics here. I don't need to know a thing about you to call you out for being factually wrong and basing all of your points on a factually wrong statement.

My tone while doing so, by the way, has nothing to do with politics either. You were making shit up and being a condescending dickbag about it while doing so. That's how you get this tone in response, not by being a Trump supporter.

This is making me wish there was an IQ test for voting privileges.

I live in rural southern Indiana, and I can say I'm very worried about a Trump win in the election. I recently drove from my home to north of Cincinnati, about a 2 hour drive. I bet the sign count was 100-1 for Trump. I'm a vast minority on Facebook now where pretty much everyday I get an endless string of WTF posts ranging from Trump as a profit to why Hillary is the anti-Christ. I'll continue to fight the good fight :) I didn't stand a chance anyway, being a Bernie fan.

Free speech doesn't mean we have to credit you with a rational opinion when you're putting the tinfoil on your head and the pencils up your nose.

And Im saying the polls are incorrect and being called an idiot for it.

Look at what Coltcrazy just posted. This is what Im talking about.

I think the polls are incorrect. And every time I point it out. A liberal speaks up and puts me down. " I hope they take voting away from MO", "There should ne an IQ test for voters".

And, yet, Im the piece of shit. You liberals in this circle jerk of a thread, need to pull your heads our of you asses. HRC is not a sure thing, regardless of what your left leaning press tells you. I live in the rural Midwest. I know what I see. And you may be surprised.

Sop get off your high horses and lets discuss politics and policy. And not name call and put down.

And, yes, I said "you liberals" because this board is full of the "Im better than you, lets laugh at the common man on the right" type of libertals and its too bad.

Given the intellectual power of this board the close-mindness of it is sad.

Dola:

And before you launch into your latest conspiracy theory, let me save the time and effort for you by googling "How Does Polling work?"

Briefing: How polls work

And continually insulting people is a typical response. And a dangerous one.

And statistics can say whatever you want them to. McMullen leads in Utah. Is that really accurate?

I will give you a conspiracy theory. HRC rigged the primaries, so she will rig the national to win. Pay off the electoral college, despite the votes in the state. And there you go.

How is that for a conspiracy theory? Or will it be reality?

Dangerous?

Let's put it this way. You are a low-information voter about polls. But that is because you are a low EFFORT to get information voter. I spent 60 seconds googling, and I found two major pages that explain polling, and cross tabs.

You couldn't be assed to do that. Maybe because you're lazy, or maybe because you believe that you can't trust anything you read on the internet except that which agrees with your preconceptions.

so you make shit up, and then attack others based on the shit you've just pulled out of your ass.

So when you refuse to put in the effort to download reality, yes, people are going to not credit you and ignore you.

There's no denying that this election has really divided this nation. Spend 5 minutes on Twitter reading comments and you'll see how vile humans can be.

What interests me is that many of the support staff in my school are pro-Trump, yet Trump has made it clear he's a backer of charter schools. This would likely cut my budget meaning the first people to go would be those same support staff.

He doesn't lead in a single poll. Not one single poll.

So again, you're making up shit as you go along.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/utah/

The vocal minority can be very loud when they are backed into a corner. Thankfully many of the facebook messages backing Trump have slowed. I think many of the Trump supporters have either lost faith or are embarrassed by continuing to show support for him and his act.

In todays technology age I really doubt the polls are that far off.

So your reality is based on what you pulled off the internet, which you just insulted me for believing what I read on the internet?

Yep. Keep grasping.

No he doesn't. The latest polls have him at 22%, 4 points behind Clinton and Trump. Please learn how to read numbers.

... The only thing that's grasping here, is your hand on your intellectual pecker here.

I'm providing links to peer-reviewed information and places such as Cornell University.

(case in point, how crosstabs show the breakdown of who they polled, which reputable pollsters do)

Polling Fundamentals - Roper Center

You are making shit up as you go along.

Im not sure about this. My feed is the same as before. The liberals are pumping HRC and the Trump supporters are just as vocal.

I truly believe there is a segment mising from the poling. And I think the vote will be much closer that the polls say. Will Trump win? I dont know. But, it will be closer than anyone on this board thinks.

... and family. There's difference of opinion in my family (still trying to figure this out)

Sent in my absentee ballot today. Glad its done.

And oh btw, Nate Silver admitted he was wrong about Trump's rise in the GOP primary, but um.. using the formula he's used in 2008 and 2012, he called 99 out of 100 states right.

And he gets his information from polls.

And, again, you are pointing to my point exactly. Why call an area where you may get one response? I can call this area code and get 100 responses. Jees, lets see where the typical type of voter will be? In the area where you may get one response or 100?

Your holier than thou attitude is typical and the reason Trump is doing as well as he is. Keep being elitist and watch your candidate lose because of people sick of the liberal elitist attitude.

Oh, and he was wrong about Trump. You make this easy.

Show your work. What's your rationale? Beyond "I feel it in my gut and/or really really want that to be true."


But you've literally said you don't know how polling works and posited that they probably just call phone numbers in a metro area because they're more likely to get answers and thus it somehow means LA and NYC are skewing the results and ignoring "real America" or "real Americans." I mean, you're literally asserting that the people being polled aren't "real Americans."

Yes, the above statements are kind of jerky, but your assertion to this point has been that the polls aren't wrong because you don't believe they're actually polling "real Americans" and that that silent majority is going to sweep Trump to power despite the toxic-waste meltdown he's been having for the last two weeks. Surely you can understand why they might be burying their face in their palms over your statements right now.


1) Yes, you kind of are. Sorry, but as long as we're calling it like we see it...

2) No, she isn't. The polls don't tell the story of what will absolutely definitely no question happen. The polls tell the story of what a (hopefully) representative sample of the population support. If you look at 538, they've still got Trump with, last I checked, about a 16% chance of victory. That's Russian Roulette odds. Would you load a revolver with a single bullet, spin the chamber, put the gun to your head, and confidently say "there's no chance I'm about to blow my own brains out"? Of course not. You'd be reasonably sure you're probably not about to die, but those ain't the kind of odds you take on faith unless you're shitfaced drunk.

3) Personal experience is personal experience. Nothing more. People tend to aggregate around other people of like mind. If you see Trump/Pence signs all over the place in Missouri, that's an indication that your neighborhood in Missouri is pro-Trump. It doesn't mean the entire state is pro-Trump - though the polls currently suggest he'll win Missouri - and even if the entire Midwest is as reliably Republican as it usually is, there aren't enough electoral votes there to carry Trump to victory.

3a) You live in the "rural Midwest." Yes. You know what that means? The Midwest gets denigrated as "flyover country" for a reason. There's about 33 electoral votes in the entire Midwest generally available to a Republican candidate for President. I mean, I guess you could designate Oklahoma and Texas as Midwest instead of the South, but that still only gets you to 78. And those are electoral votes that, with the recent'ish exception of Missouri, are full of people who for the last 30 years or more would rather die than vote Democratic. To the extent any of those states are in play, it's because of the personal failings of Donald Trump. To the extent that they're behind Donald Trump, you aren't seeing anything different this year than you would have seen in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, ad infinitum. You might see MORE of it, but it doesn't matter whether Trump wins Missouri by 10 points, 30 points, or 70 points - it still only counts for 10 electoral votes. The electoral map on the evening of November 8 could be so red in the Midwest that it's literally dripping blood, and it wouldn't matter. That's not any kind of a change from years past.

The issue Trump is having right now is that he's struggling in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and even Georgia seems to be on the cusp. Texas probably isn't in play, but it's closer than it's been in a long damn time. And those outcomes matter probably about 1000% more to the outcome of the election than whether you see Trump/Pence signs in Missouri.


Except that's the first thing you, and your ideological cohorts, reach for when you're arguing politics. "Liberal" gets wielded as a weapon, and anybody ideologically opposed to a conservative Republican must therefore be a liberal. It's conservative language for "you're bad people who should feel bad."

If you think trump is doing well, then good luck to you, you're beyond help.

All we can go by is what the polls say (which has proven broadly correct in the past in aggregate. Some pollers, like Rasmussen Reports, missed heavily), and other empirical information, such as voter registration numbers.

People thought that the "hidden electorate" would show up in 2008.

They didn't.

People thought the "hidden Romney supporters" would show up in 2012. Guess what? Despite the fervent wishes of folks like Unskewed Polls, they didn't show up.

Even the site run by people who RUN Trump's campaign (Breitbart) have Clinton ahead.

But if you think that, more power to you. Just hope that you come back to reality November 9th, but more likely you'll just scream "Rigged Chicago Machine Blah Blah Blah multiple voters blah blah blah international globalist conspiracy". And that's a shame.

Because the calls are not done by people, they are done by a computer, and it can keep trying to find rural respondents until it finds enough. There are nearly 60 million people living in rural areas in the US. They don't have any trouble finding enough people in rural areas to conduct their phone surveys.

1) most states have laws against "faithless electors."

2) the electors who cast their ballots tend to be selected by the winner of the states. When you vote for Trump in Missouri next month, you aren't voting for Trump, you're voting for the Trump-sympathetic electors who will cast their vote for him in the Electoral College.

3) THEREFORE: any conspiracy on Clinton's part to buy off the electors "despite the votes in the state" means that...carry the one...you don't think Trump supporters can be counted on to support Trump over Clinton if money gets flashed in their face.

4) If you think Trump's electors are as disloyal as that, Trump's electors getting bought off would be fundamentally indistinguishable from Trump's electors going "oh FUCK no I'm waking up from a horrible nightmare. CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON MUSHROOM MUSHROOM" Those two things are about equally likely.

Just stop. In five of the last six presidential elections "real" America has fewer votes that not "real" America. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that you're ignoring real America because you refuse to break out of your elitist bubble and see the real resentment towards Trump.

I don't think she's a sure thing, not when forecasts still give Trump a 15-20% chance of winning. Nothing is sure until it's finalized.

But...yes, you live in the rural Midwest. 538 has NE, KS, MO all going to Trump. WY, ND, SD, MT, OK, AR, IN if we want to extend a little further. Where else are you seeing that we might be surprised about?


Pay off the electoral college. How does that happen exactly? She's going to find Trump electors and flip them?

(Also, yes, HRC had the DNC behind her in the primaries. Favored != Rigged. Rigged implies that she won some state where Bernie actually had more votes. In which state specifically was this the case? Or not even state, considering the D primary delegates were proportional. Is there evidence of specific precincts? And don't give me superdelegates.)

Oh, and btw, you know why Nate was wrong? He didn't trust his own numbers. He STILL called 92% of the primaries with his data, just that he fell into his own trap.

In a comparison of prediction success published by Bloomberg News after the primary season was completed, FiveThirtyEight's prediction success tied for the highest percentage of correct primary poll winners, at 92%;

You equate Romney and 2008 to Trump?

You go by your polls. And good for you. But they are missing a large section of America. Think what you want.

I think stats can be used how you want. And I see a misjudgement here.

Yes, I use liberal as a "weapon". I do so because of the fantasy the liberals live in. What a waste of intelligence. It could be used for actual good. Yet it is used for fantasy. What a waste.

Oh, health care and making sure that corporations don't take whatever's left of America is fantasy?

And I shouldn't equate Romney and McCain to Trump..

they were polling much better than him.

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Healthcare should be free (My liberal weak spot)

And China is taking whats left of America. GO TPP. Make it easier.

yeah, this pretty much sums it up, you're in your own reality. Have a nice life.

So we do have something to agree on. So let's start from there..

Tell ya what, since neither of us will get the other to agree, why don't we settle this in a time honored manner?

No, not pistols at dawn. (I'm a horrible shot)

How about a signature bet or a charity donation bet?

For example, we could say that if Trump wins, I have to make a $50 donation to say, RAINN:

RAINN | The nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization

If Clinton wins, you'd have to make a similar donation, I'll let you choose (nothing overtly political?)

Then, no matter who wins, and who is "right", charity wins?

Just a thought.

Im down. I will donate to American Diabetes Association.

We wont change each others minds. What I think is what I believe. No matter what stat you throw at me, I dont think it is valid.

I truly believe, just like in the primaries, there is a vote out there being ignored or under polled.

Lets look at this

#WomenWhoVoteTrump: These are the women who support Trump | FOX2now.com

Suburban Moms, first time women voters, Well educated women stepping up for Trump.

Another stereotype shot down.

I think one thing we can all agree on.. the "Game Change" book about this election will be interesting reading :)