2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#7,876
#7,876
1972 Grad said:
The colored font made it easier to avoid your posts.
Click to expand...

105048-Nicholas-Cage-pointing-gif-Img-62eY.gif



200.gif
 
#7,878
#7,878
JVol76 said:
You almost have to wonder if they're for real, the ignorance is amazing.
Click to expand...
There are a couple other posters who get under my skin occasionally, but I try not to engage them unless I can't help myself. Some seem to get pleasure out of being annoying.
 
#7,881
#7,881
Grand Vol said:
Right, of course.

If it's anti-Trump, it's a garbage poll. If it's pro-Trump, it's gospel.

You think the numbers are going to drastically change with higher numbers? What's the magic number you are looking for? 1,000 people? 10,000? A million?
Click to expand...

Most polls have 1000+ people in them. So you are jumping for joy over a poll of 8 people in each state
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,883
#7,883
UTCVol said:
I managed to get to a computer. :)

Poll: Sanders has slight edge over Clinton in matchups with GOP opponents
Click to expand...

Democrats are too stupid to see this. They are so afraid of the socialist label, they don't realise the Hillary Clinton one is even worse.

If the dems nominate Hillary she will lose. She's unlikeable. And the dumb dems are too stupid to realise that is the most important attribute for a president. People may not agree with Bernie's policies but he's likeable. Plus most don't even vote on policies they vote on guy feel.
 
#7,884
#7,884
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Most polls have 1000+ people in them. So you are jumping for joy over a poll of 8 people in each state
Click to expand...

If there's a problem with the poll, it isn't the sample size - any discrepancies with that would be represented within the margin of error.

It's much more difficult to account for the criteria by which participants are selected - predicting turnout via age group, ideology, etc. I'm not sure if the methodology of this particular poll differed from the others in any meaningful way.
 
#7,885
#7,885
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Democrats are too stupid to see this. They are so afraid of the socialist label, they don't realise the Hillary Clinton one is even worse.

If the dems nominate Hillary she will lose. She's unlikeable. And the dumb dems are too stupid to realise that is the most important attribute for a president. People may not agree with Bernie's policies but he's likeable. Plus most don't even vote on policies they vote on guy feel.
Click to expand...

I think the Democrats are in just as bad of shape as the GOP. Hillary inspires very few people. Bernie rallies his base more than any other candidate, but he's such a hard-liner that others may be turned off. He's doing better in polls right now but he has barely been attacked at all. If the GOP mud-slinging machine gets rolling against him, I'm not sure he can overcome it with older voters, and at the end of the day he's relying on a base that has a very sketchy history in terms of showing up to the polls.

It's a delicate balance you have to consider when it comes to nominating non-moderates.
 
Last edited:
#7,886
#7,886
UTCVol said:
If there's a problem with the poll, it isn't the sample size - any discrepancies with that would be represented within the margin of error.

It's much more difficult to account for the criteria by which participants are selected - predicting turnout via age group, ideology, etc. I'm not sure if the methodology of this particular poll differed from the others in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

The problem with the poll is the fact it doesn't show his chosen one on top.

For as much whining he does about Obama, he sure does act the same way his supporters did in 2008 when he was running.
 
#7,888
#7,888
Grand Vol said:
So what does that make you when you start labeling all gun owners the way you have in the other thread?

Man, what an intellectually mature badazz you must be.
Click to expand...

Never told people they shouldn't procreate or should have never been born. That's an entirely different level from calling someone a "Rambo".
 
#7,889
#7,889
bnhunt said:
Never told people they shouldn't procreate or should have never been born. That's an entirely different level from calling someone a "Rambo".
Click to expand...

There's something wrong with this? I used to tell people they shouldn't have dodged the coat hanger while still in the womb.

Don't be such a Sensitive Sally. It's the internet and words on a screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,893
#7,893
Grand Vol said:
There's something wrong with this? I used to tell people they shouldn't have dodged the coat hanger while still in the womb.

Don't be such a Sensitive Sally. It's the internet and words on a screen.
Click to expand...

My wife just had a baby a few weeks ago, so I admit that his statement about me not procreating probably pissed me off more than it should have as normally I ignore message board tough guys and blowhards like him.
 
#7,897
#7,897
#7,899
#7,899
Good Lord (no pun) - now the Pope is weighing in on Trump.

I don't recall any Pope ever weighing in like this.

The circus continues...
 
#7,900
#7,900
The Pope is criticizing a man that wants to build a wall for immigration management. While the Vatican, where he lives, sits behind a a wall on all sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top