Remember how you said Donnie would destroy Hillary in a debate? I do. Just a friendly reminder. [laughing]
Bornaneer
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
I didn't watch it but according to polls from
Time, CNBC, Brietbart, and Variety posted in the Trump Propoganda thread, it would seem most people thought he won.
Those are anonymous online polls. Those are pretty bad even if some folks aren't actively trying to influence them. Some folks are posting that some group was sending links to all of the polls where Trump was trailing, asking followers to vote for Trump in those polls. That muddies the water even more.
Clinton had a good night. I think she probably energized her base to some degree. She probably caught a few undecideds, maybe swayed a few folks who were a Trump lean. That could impact some of the early voting states. Colorado does mail-in ballots, but I usually wait until near the end to submit mine. Not everyone does that though.
I get how they work and can be influenced. It's all we have to go on currently though until we see the scientific polling. I guess I could have been more clear.
To be honest, he could have wiped the floor with her and it wouldn't be acknowledged because "Trump". Ditto with Clinton. I read through Moe's thread and it was pretty clear those who have dug in toed the line they were predisposed to toe
The guy bragged about not paying taxes, for phuck's sake.
The guy lied about the constitutionality of stop and frisk and attacked the moderator for calling him out.
The guy tried to say his best attribute is his temperament. The same guy that said he wanted to punch people in the face and they should carry them out on a stretcher at his rallies. Geez!
If someone wants to call that "winning", so be it.
Another bad reaction by him was when HC said that he said he was hoping for a real estate crash so he could buy more property. His response was that it was smart business. I don't disagree that it is smart business, but you are also trying to gain the votes of people who were negatively impacted by that crash - some were people who had purchased more than they could afford. Others were people who did nothing wrong but were upside down on their houses because of the crash. It came off as cold, and it was a moment that could sway some folks. he could have given that answer in a better way, one that didn't make him look as bad.
I agree, but he also needs to paint the picture of "You've had 25+ years and done nothing... the country needs someone with the ability to run a business... you're a career politician out of touch.... etc."
"Call Sean Hannity!" She wiped the floor with him.
The only thing Trump proved for certain last night is that he's batshit crazy.
The only thing Trump proved for certain last night is that he's batshit crazy.
I made that comment very early in the game.....I think way before he won the nomination and before he let his mouth get ahead of his brain. The fact is that IF he would have kept his ego in check and also taken the advice of his one time supporter Mark Cuban, he could have turned this election into a slam dunk. I won't lose one second of sleep if the ***** wins.....life will still go on......I learned that lesson many years ago.
How in the hell does any reasonable person doesn't just roll their eyes when they hear embellished crap like he says "30 years " and you say "25 years "? Anyone with a clue and is honest know she became a politician in 2000 and ended in 2012.
Bru.....just when I was starting to give you some credit for honesty and thoughtful insight.......you come up with this?
Where am i wrong? Tell me when she ran for office for the first time. Btw, i couldn't care less what you think of me. You can't even be a man and admit you are wrong once again when called out on this thread. You are scum and everyone knows it. You prove it time and time again.
Called out...and I'm now scum? I did not watch last nights debate so I can't say who destroyed who. If Country wants to claim that Trump lost it's ok with me.
And some folks are posting that some folks are posting that some group was sending links to all of the polls where Trump was trailing, asking followers to vote for Trump in those polls. That muddies the water even more muddier. Not mentioning any names posters here, just a post I saw.
You may have missed my comments a few months back about I'm crying "uncle". Do you know what that means?
Yes, I didn't see any comments of you calling uncle. But on this thread you are attempting to save face by deflecting and then saying I made an incorrect comment. If you are going to make an accusation that i have a fact wrong, be a man and show it.
Formally running for public office aside, was she not fired from the Watergate investigation.
Carole Fader
Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?
Comments
7K Share
Pat Carter Associated Press Hillary Rodham Clinton was criticized for her conduct during the Watergate investigation.
Times-Union readers want to know:
An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true?
The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.
Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”
On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”
Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president.
Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”
Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules.
Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.
Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”
Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.
In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents.
After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.
According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.
So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.
In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.
Carole Fader: (904) 359-4635
In my opinion the ***** has been a defacto politician since Bill Clinton ran in his first election. I do think your timeline on her is wrong. Even though I think you are wrong....I've never called you scum.
In your mind? Lmao. Who cares about your or any other idiot' s mind? Your mind is not entitled to make up your own facts to fit your agenda. Now just go away.
It was me, and you don't see the issue with that? Online polls give questionable results. They always have. When people start a campaign to sway the poll, that makes the results worse. If you want accurate poll results, you have to select from a representative group, not have the same 1000 people vote 17 times each. Having said that, I doubt there are many, if any, accurate poll results about the outcome of the debate yet.
I don't put any stock in online polls and even less about posts posted by posters about said polls. We all *ahem* win if we even have open debates. I don't want to discuss 3rd, 4th or 5th parties; a line has to be drawn somewhere.
You two need to get together for a beer at the tailgate...you might actually get along chatting Mountaineers. 'Scum' is a bit much don't you think Bru?
Some polls are more accurate than others. It's a relative thing, but things like online polls give unreliable results because the pollsters have no control over the sample.
There are no accurate polls. Sample is simply the assumptions pollsters decide are relative to the outcome of whatever the polling is predicting. Since there is no international debate champion vote and there are no objective definitions of what winning is any scientific or unscientific result is just a mishmash of useless information.
Probably. But when idiots like him and Dvl come in here and make posts that are so dishonest disputing a fact, not even an opinion, at the same time of attempting to discredit another poster that they have an idealogical problem with (they do it to others as well), that behavior is unacceptable. If you are going to dispute a fact or argue an opinion, then do it. We have enough lying cowards like dave around here, others need to attempt to have a conversation and not just flame throw a personal attack out of the blue. There was no need for his initial post and every subsequent post was just attempting to save face. He has yet to make a legitimate comment, other than calling me a dick. And obviously, that is acceptable as no one else calls him out on it.
This place never changes but it does get old.
Why are you dragging me into this you crazy old bastard? Keep your senility and impotency to yourself looney tune.
There is always a margin of error but polls can be accurate particularly with larger sample sizes.
http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/election-polling/
http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/polling-and-public-opinion.html
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml
You have some real issues you need to deal with. Even my liberal friends on this board agree.
In the real world everything has a margin of error. That clock on the wall has some error in how it keeps time. In fact no 2 seconds it measures are exactly the same length. Your location on the earth is determined within a margin of error. A tape measure you use is built to within a certain spec, namely they have it correct within a certain margin of error.
The reason you poll to see who voters think won a debate is to add to the discussion regarding the campaigns. It's a snapshot in time of reactions to events in the campaign. Maybe you aren't interested. That's fine, but it doesn't make it crap.