Well, it's happening, Trump is starting to lose bad in the polls..

[truckboattruck]

It is all in how you frame it. Globalism nor Nationalism should be how you look at it, but rather history, and progress.

We are more connected now than ever before. Progress is accelerating. Going back to something that can never be again is irrational.

So hearing stuff that makes you feel good, for either side is a kind of delusion; just because someone promise you something, does not mean they will get it done. Mostly because business is a "globalized" prospect now, especially if you want to succeed and stay competitive.

If you want to see what an ultranationalist society looks like, look no further than North Korea. I doubt the "nationalists" in the US want to emulate them.

ah, so you're a globalist....you should have just said so

[Orbitus]

Stuff you are me consider dumb is loved by others. Trump is Crazy, Hillary is a Crook either way we're fucked thanks to the 2 party system

Of the 2 people there that you mentioned, which one is actively being sued for RICO Fraud and has a criminal case going against them? Oh yeah, that is TRUMP. So Trump is crazy AND a possible criminal. Hillary is neither. That is unless you have proof of Hillary being a "crook", other than what Trump says when he calls her "Crooked Hillary".

[Edge-]

I recommend you read this explanation as to why Trump isn't a dangerous man. It's written by the guy who does Dilbert, so at the very least it shouldn't bore you.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1461570...d-anti-trumper

You hurt my feelings with that biting insult : (

Here's the tl;dr - it's fine if you don't like Trump's policies or ideas. But a lot of the commonly-espoused reasons for not supporting Trump are a load of bunk.

I skimmed it and I don't find his arguments compelling in the slightest. I like his comics (and even the cartoon, believe it or not) but disagree with him when it comes to Trump. Oh well.

[zenkai]

Of the 2 people there that you mentioned, which one is actively being sued for RICO Fraud and has a criminal case going against them? Oh yeah, that is TRUMP. So Trump is crazy AND a possible criminal. Hillary is neither. That is unless you have proof of Hillary being a "crook", other than what Trump says when he calls her "Crooked Hillary".

I like how you attack Trump like it's hurting my feelings. Fuck Trump, fuck his crazy ass trying to ban all Muslims like that would actually fucking work. Happy? We agree Trump sucks? But like a crazy X you probably still want to argue

[Luxxor]

The man behind the trump university scam is a good man?
The man who uses his financial clout to threaten people into silence is a good man?
The man who has sued contractors into bankruptcy to avoid paying them is a good man?
The man who has outright lied on government forms to evade taxes is a good man?
The man applying 'guilty until proven innocent' to every Muslim in the world is a good man?
Even if you put the racism aside claiming trump is anything but a scumbag is a joke lmfao

Sweet opinions bro, got any proof?

[hachidori]

Of the 2 people there that you mentioned, which one is actively being sued for RICO Fraud and has a criminal case going against them? Oh yeah, that is TRUMP. So Trump is crazy AND a possible criminal. Hillary is neither. That is unless you have proof of Hillary being a "crook", other than what Trump says when he calls her "Crooked Hillary".

Hillary's not a possible criminal, she's an actual criminal. It has been confirmed that she breached federal policy and enabled the leak of secret government documents.

Trump is guilty of putting his name (essentially a brand) on a university that ended up being pretty shabby. These are also lawsuits, not convictions; whether or not the claims made against the school are true remain to be seen.

[Garnier Fructis]

I recommend you read this explanation as to why Trump isn't a dangerous man. It's written by the guy who does Dilbert, so at the very least it shouldn't bore you.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1461570...d-anti-trumper

Here's the tl;dr - it's fine if you don't like Trump's policies or ideas. But a lot of the commonly-espoused reasons for not supporting Trump are a load of bunk.

If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.

Well, I didn't have to get very far to realize his article doesn't apply to me.

[Orbitus]

I corrected my mistake, it's funny how you people want to go back 10 pages but refuse to go back 9 pages to follow the conversation. Trying hard much?

Sorry you lost. You didn't correct your mistake, you doubled down on it for a while because you didn't know what unfavorability was.

[Edge-]

Hillary's not a possible criminal, she's an actual criminal. It has been confirmed that she breached federal policy and enabled the leak of secret government documents.

Those are rules that she broke, not laws. The FBI is currently investigating to see if any laws were broken, they have not concluded their investigation yet and no charges have been pressed.

Trump is guilty of putting his name (essentially a brand) on a university that ended up being pretty shabby. These are also lawsuits, not convictions; whether or not the claims made against the school are true remain to be seen.

Yep, I don't like folks calling him guilty before a verdict is rendered either.

[jdbond592]

Sweet opinions bro, got any proof?

Got any proof that Obama is a moselm, working with ISIS...etc. etc.? Remarkably, Trump is actually fighting in court over Trump university fraud. Then again, what passes for proof nowadays!

[Pangean]

You hurt my feelings with that biting insult : (



I skimmed it and I don't find his arguments compelling in the slightest. I like his comics (and even the cartoon, believe it or not) but disagree with him when it comes to Trump. Oh well.

Not sure why he thinks Adams has anymore validity to his arguments because he draws a cartoon. Weird.

[Orbitus]

Way to derail the thread, believe what you want to believe, I don't give a shit what you read on Liberal Blog post.

I didn't read it from a "liberal blog post". Trey Gowdy said it him fucking self. Same with the dumbass Republicans that have said that these investigations were to hurt her numbers.


Listen to that short 1 minute 12 second video, and you can clearly hear him say that there was no way they could save them.

[hachidori]

Got any proof that Obama is a moselm, working with ISIS...etc. etc.?

Sure, have a look. (Before you scoff at the source bear in mind the actual source of this info is an official IAR intelligence report.)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...port-for-isis/

[upirlikhyi]

Could you go ahead and actually demonstrate that with real world evidence. Thanks.,

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Response rates have been declining, and are down to about 10% in recent years.[13] Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze

Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients

Use of the plurality voting system (select only one candidate) in a poll puts an unintentional bias into the poll, since people who favor more than one candidate cannot indicate this. The fact that they must choose only one candidate biases the poll, causing it to favor the candidate most different from the others while it disfavors candidates who are similar to other candidates. The plurality voting system also biases elections in the same way.

And then if you read the actual poll most times it will say that it was taken with registered whoever.

Need more?

[Felya]

No, there was way more other replies than that and none of them are in context, you fail to mention that because you have no argument.

Where? Show me the replies I omitted between you questioning the validity of unfavorable rating and mentioning Hilary. Just one will prove you right... Until then, you are a liar...

[hachidori]

Not sure why he thinks Adams has anymore validity to his arguments because he draws a cartoon. Weird.

He's a fairly famous cartoonist and published author. If we're delving into accreditations, what qualifies you to speak on this topic? Or anyone on this forum?

[Orbitus]

Hillary was what we call "tech illiterate" and could rarely get her government secure device to function. She ordered her colleagues to take government documents marked as Secret, remove this Secret label and send them to her unsecured personal e-mail server. This is very illegal. So illegal that if she wasn't Hillary Clinton it's likely she would be convicted of treason.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-de...ed-classified/
If you are talking about this where they say to send with no "identifying heading", doesn't mean she took off the "secret" part. Unless you have some sort of unbiased source that says that. Because this: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...l-and-r/204913 Says NOTHING was sent as secret or classified when it was sent. It was retroactively classified sure, but not when it was sent. You are just trying to stuff your own narrative so that you can say she is a criminal. Hell she isn't even being fucking investigated.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how you attack Trump like it's hurting my feelings. Fuck Trump, fuck his crazy ass trying to ban all Muslims like that would actually fucking work. Happy? We agree Trump sucks? But like a crazy X you probably still want to argue

You are defending him rather rabidly for someone that claims they don't support him.

[Pangean]

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Response rates have been declining, and are down to about 10% in recent years.[13] Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze

Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients

Use of the plurality voting system (select only one candidate) in a poll puts an unintentional bias into the poll, since people who favor more than one candidate cannot indicate this. The fact that they must choose only one candidate biases the poll, causing it to favor the candidate most different from the others while it disfavors candidates who are similar to other candidates. The plurality voting system also biases elections in the same way.

And then if you read the actual poll most times it will say that it was taken with registered whoever.

Need more?

Yeah actual real world evidence of: "Funny thing about polls...they only use certain people...if its the dems asking they only ask dems. Same for republicans." Your excerpt from Wikipedia does not show that nor actually talk about that.

[Orbitus]

Hillary's not a possible criminal, she's an actual criminal. It has been confirmed that she breached federal policy and enabled the leak of secret government documents.

Trump is guilty of putting his name (essentially a brand) on a university that ended up being pretty shabby. These are also lawsuits, not convictions; whether or not the claims made against the school are true remain to be seen.

ORLY? She was convicted of a crime? She breached a POLICY, you said it yourself. A policy isn't a law. What is the punishment for breaching a policy? Possibly being forced to resign, that is about it. There is no jail time for it. Also what leak of secret government documents? Are you trying to say that you believe the hack of her server? Even though the FBI can't find any breach, AND Guccifer won't release anything that he said he downloaded from her. That's it. That isn't evidence that anything leaked, that is just you and other Republicans believing people because you are gullible.

[hachidori]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-de...ed-classified/
If you are talking about this where they say to send with no "identifying heading", doesn't mean she took off the "secret" part. Unless you have some sort of unbiased source that says that. Because this: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...l-and-r/204913 Says NOTHING was sent as secret or classified when it was sent. It was retroactively classified sure, but not when it was sent. You are just trying to stuff your own narrative so that you can say she is a criminal. Hell she isn't even being fucking investigated.

Whether or not stripping classified documents of their "classified" status is acceptable (that's for the courts to decide) she still used a private server to route classified government information, which is illegal. It puts said documents at risk, as pretty much any FBI official will tell you, and considering various e-mails and documents addressed to her have been leaked it's obvious Hillary did demonstratably damage government facilities. Snowden was ran out of the entire western world for this same thing.