Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

[Meathead]

That's because she hasn't done anything actionable. Republicans keep making shit up, saying she did stuff, but there's never any evidence, or witnesses, or truth to their allegations. And then, when she's investigated, and nothing is found, they continue to say she did it and got away with it.

If you didn't have lies against Hillary, you'd have nothing.

The classified emails on her home server were made up? Take it easy on the commas and stop being such a hack.

 

[HUGGY]

Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

You can't have both. If Clinton successfully stole 6 billion dollars and got away with it she is the most genius thief in world history.

You believe she stole twice Trumps worth in just a few months? And got away with it? I would like to see your evidence. The hyperbole won't convict her of anything.

 

[Skylar]

Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

You can't have both. If Clinton successfully stole 6 billion dollars and got away with it she is the most genius thief in world history.

You believe she stole twice Trumps worth in just a few months? And got away with it? I would like to see your evidence. The hyperbole won't convict her of anything.

The republicans have been going after her for decades and spent about half a billion in investigations. Turning up....jack shit. Not one thing.

So either she's corrupt....and the most diabolical competent genius to ever walk the face of the earth. Or she didn't do the shit that they're accusing her of.

Or she's both competent AND didn't do the shit they're accusing her of.

 

[HUGGY]

Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

You can't have both. If Clinton successfully stole 6 billion dollars and got away with it she is the most genius thief in world history.

You believe she stole twice Trumps worth in just a few months? And got away with it? I would like to see your evidence. The hyperbole won't convict her of anything.

The republicans have been going after her for decades and spent about half a billion in investigations. Turning up....jack shit. Not one thing.

So either she's corrupt....and the most diabolical competent genius to ever walk the face of the earth. Or she didn't do the shit that they're accusing her of.

Or she's both competent AND didn't do the shit they're accusing her of.

I'm not especially fond of the Clintons BUT the crazy RWers keep ratcheting up the charges against her beyond all reason. I remember huge amounts of cash being throw around during the Iraq war with zero regard for accountability. Did Hillary do something like THAT?

It is just getting harder and harder to take these people seriously. Is EVERY problem the direct fault of Obama and Mrs Clinton? The constant over reach is getting tiresome.

 

[Skylar]

Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

You can't have both. If Clinton successfully stole 6 billion dollars and got away with it she is the most genius thief in world history.

You believe she stole twice Trumps worth in just a few months? And got away with it? I would like to see your evidence. The hyperbole won't convict her of anything.

The republicans have been going after her for decades and spent about half a billion in investigations. Turning up....jack shit. Not one thing.

So either she's corrupt....and the most diabolical competent genius to ever walk the face of the earth. Or she didn't do the shit that they're accusing her of.

Or she's both competent AND didn't do the shit they're accusing her of.

I'm not especially fond of the Clintons BUT the crazy RWers keep ratcheting up the charges against her beyond all reason. I remember huge amounts of cash being throw around during the Iraq war with zero regard for accountability. Did Hillary do something like THAT?

It is just getting harder and harder to take these people seriously. Is EVERY problem the direct fault of Obama and Mrs Clinton? The constant over reach is getting tiresome.

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago.

What you're seeing is the culmination of about 15 years of careful cultivation by the GOP of emotion being placed above reason. Where desire trumps evidence. And confirmation bias is essentially a party plank.

And those chickens are coming home to roost like a motherfucker.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

This is true regardless if a bunch of losers made stupid arguments from 2012.

BTW, the polls in that election WERE off by about 3%, IN FAVOR OF ROMNEY in 2012. The polls showed a close race but Romney lost by 3% MORE than the polls suggested. The man was a stupid establishment pick.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's because she hasn't done anything actionable. Republicans keep making shit up, saying she did stuff, but there's never any evidence, or witnesses, or truth to their allegations. And then, when she's investigated, and nothing is found, they continue to say she did it and got away with it.

If you didn't have lies against Hillary, you'd have nothing.

The classified emails on her home server were made up? Take it easy on the commas and stop being such a hack.

They're not actionable according to the head of the FBI.

 

[jillian]

You people will throw anybody under the bus in order to win an election

Paul Eaton, a retired major general in the U.S. Army, said Trump's "smear" against American troops and veterans should disqualify him as a presidential candidate.

The remarks stand as "testimony to why Mr. Trump is unqualified to serve as Commander in Chief of the finest troops on the planet," Eaton said in a statement released through VoteVets.org, where he serves as a senior adviser.

During a speech on Tuesday evening in Greensboro, North Carolina, Trump criticized U.S. policy during the Iraq war to send millions of dollars in cash to Iraq, which he called "a corrupt country," with no supervision.

"Millions and millions of dollars, and handing it out," the presumptive Republican nominee said. "I want to know, who were the soldiers that had that job? [Because] I think they're living very well right now, wherever they may be."

Vets Group Blasts Trump for Suggesting Troops Stole Money for Iraq | Military.com

How does that address the OP? He was talking about a particular theft, and a huge one. Do you know where that money went?

Do you know where the State Dept money went?

Who is saying that the money was stolen? Not the article that OP is citing. Not the Office of the Inspector General.

So what are you talking about?

I didn't say it was stolen. The bozo before you brought up the money stolen in Iraq during the invasion.

you're not disputing that, are you?

 

[Skylar]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

The polls are not only off for the reasons I have given, but Hillary is going to lose because Americans finally realize what a dangerous criminal she is and she should not be allowed within 100 miles of the White House.

 

[Skylar]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

The circumstances you're describing about 'who takes the polls' were the same in 2012 as they are in 2016. Your argument was tested.

It failed epically and completely.

You're ignoring the perfect record of failure of your own theory. And ignoring the solid track record of predicting elections in polling. Then imagining, based on no evidence, that your theory works.

That's just Confirmation Bias.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

Quote me 'misrepresenting' them. You've claimed that based on who is taking the polls, the information is untrustworthy.

That theory was tested in 2012, 2008 and 2004. It failed every time. Meanwhile, poll analysists like Nate Silver called the election with near perfection.

So you ignore history, ignore the perfect record of failure of your own theory, ignore your complete lack of evidence, ignore polling calling elections.....and imagine what you wish.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear. Citing your imagination doesn't make it reality. You're doubling down on fallacies of logic.

Its not going to end well for you. And come November...I'm going to remind you of this. Of how it was your systematic failure of process, of how you knowingly embraced logical fallacies, and how you ignored overwhelming evidence that could have helped you accurately forecast the results.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

I'm saying what the polls indicate: that Hillary has a strong lead nationally and an enormous lead in key battle ground states that Trump must win.

But isn't.

And I'm saying that you're ignoring overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That what you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. And that Confirmation Bias has a notoriously poor record of accuracy.

Generally worse than guessing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

The circumstances you're describing about 'who takes the polls' were the same in 2012 as they are in 2016. Your argument was tested.

It failed epically and completely.

You're ignoring the perfect record of failure of your own theory. And ignoring the solid track record of predicting elections in polling. Then imagining, based on no evidence, that your theory works.

That's just Confirmation Bias.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

Quote me 'misrepresenting' them. You've claimed that based on who is taking the polls, the information is untrustworthy.

That theory was tested in 2012, 2008 and 2004. It failed every time. Meanwhile, poll analysists like Nate Silver called the election with near perfection.

So you ignore history, ignore the perfect record of failure of your own theory, ignore your complete lack of evidence, ignore polling calling elections.....and imagine what you wish.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear. Citing your imagination doesn't make it reality. You're doubling down on fallacies of logic.

Its not going to end well for you. And come November...I'm going to remind you of this. Of how it was your systematic failure of process, of how you knowingly embraced logical fallacies, and how you ignored overwhelming evidence that could have helped you accurately forecast the results.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

I'm saying what the polls indicate: that Hillary has a strong lead nationally and an enormous lead in key battle ground states that Trump must win.

But isn't.

And I'm saying that you're ignoring overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That what you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. And that Confirmation Bias has a notoriously poor record of accuracy.

Generally worse than guessing.

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

 

[Skylar]

This is the same hapless group of corn-fed morons that is using the 2012 'the polls are rigged' batshit in 2016.....despite the fact that it was proven to be meaningless conspiracy jibber-jabber 4 years ago..

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

The circumstances you're describing about 'who takes the polls' were the same in 2012 as they are in 2016. Your argument was tested.

It failed epically and completely.

You're ignoring the perfect record of failure of your own theory. And ignoring the solid track record of predicting elections in polling. Then imagining, based on no evidence, that your theory works.

That's just Confirmation Bias.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

Quote me 'misrepresenting' them. You've claimed that based on who is taking the polls, the information is untrustworthy.

That theory was tested in 2012, 2008 and 2004. It failed every time. Meanwhile, poll analysists like Nate Silver called the election with near perfection.

So you ignore history, ignore the perfect record of failure of your own theory, ignore your complete lack of evidence, ignore polling calling elections.....and imagine what you wish.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear. Citing your imagination doesn't make it reality. You're doubling down on fallacies of logic.

Its not going to end well for you. And come November...I'm going to remind you of this. Of how it was your systematic failure of process, of how you knowingly embraced logical fallacies, and how you ignored overwhelming evidence that could have helped you accurately forecast the results.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

I'm saying what the polls indicate: that Hillary has a strong lead nationally and an enormous lead in key battle ground states that Trump must win.

But isn't.

And I'm saying that you're ignoring overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That what you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. And that Confirmation Bias has a notoriously poor record of accuracy.

Generally worse than guessing.

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

No one in 2012 made the claim that WHO was taking the polls would result in inaccurate results skewed against Romney?

Really?

There was a website called 'unskewedpolls.com' in 2012. Shall I quote its founder after the election?

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

The circumstances you're describing about 'who takes the polls' were the same in 2012 as they are in 2016. Your argument was tested.

It failed epically and completely.

You're ignoring the perfect record of failure of your own theory. And ignoring the solid track record of predicting elections in polling. Then imagining, based on no evidence, that your theory works.

That's just Confirmation Bias.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

Quote me 'misrepresenting' them. You've claimed that based on who is taking the polls, the information is untrustworthy.

That theory was tested in 2012, 2008 and 2004. It failed every time. Meanwhile, poll analysists like Nate Silver called the election with near perfection.

So you ignore history, ignore the perfect record of failure of your own theory, ignore your complete lack of evidence, ignore polling calling elections.....and imagine what you wish.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear. Citing your imagination doesn't make it reality. You're doubling down on fallacies of logic.

Its not going to end well for you. And come November...I'm going to remind you of this. Of how it was your systematic failure of process, of how you knowingly embraced logical fallacies, and how you ignored overwhelming evidence that could have helped you accurately forecast the results.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

I'm saying what the polls indicate: that Hillary has a strong lead nationally and an enormous lead in key battle ground states that Trump must win.

But isn't.

And I'm saying that you're ignoring overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That what you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. And that Confirmation Bias has a notoriously poor record of accuracy.

Generally worse than guessing.

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

No one in 2012 made the claim that WHO was taking the polls would result in inaccurate results skewed against Romney?

Really?

There was a website called 'unskewedpolls.com' in 2012. Shall I quote its founder after the election?

That is not what I said, dickweed.

When you can rephrase my arguments accurately maybe you will understand them, shit4brains.

Trump and Romney are different types of candidate, Romney being an elitist prick and Trump being a populist amateur.

That has a totally different impact on the polling, dude, and I am not assplaining it to you again.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yep.....she either stole it or lost it....

Clinton’s State Department Blew $6 Billion In Contracts, And We’re About To Learn Why

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may soon have to answer questions about an estimated $6 billion in contract mismanagement, fraud and incompetence that happened under her watch at the Department of State.

Non-profit government watchdog Cause of Action Institute (CofA) filed a Freedom of Information Act request Friday for records related to a March 2014 management alert issued by the department’s Inspector General (IG).

“The total value of the contracts the [IG] reviewed exceeded $6 billion,” the CofA’s FOIA request said. “Many of these cases arose during the tenure of Secretary Hillary Clinton.” Clinton was the country’s top diplomat from January 2009 to February 2013.

The IG alert that unveiled the mismanagement was based on three investigations and two contract-related audits.



Read more: Clinton’s State Department Blew $6 Billion In Contracts, And We’re About To Learn Why

When was she convicted?

 

[Skylar]

You're making the *exact* same empty accusations that were made in 2012. Verbatim. For someone who wants to highlight how 'different' the elections are, you're recycling the same exact debunked nonsense.

Your conspiracy has been weight and tested. It failed. Polling was weighed and tested. And it was reasonably accurate. With polling analysts like Nate Silver calling the 2012 election with stunning accuracy.

All polls have a margin of error. Which is why we use polling aggregates for the most reliable results. The polls AND the polling aggregates show Clinton is ahead.

For your theory to be true, all the margin of error for *all* polls would have to be breaking in the exact same direction AND there would have to be widespread and intentional skewing of polls.

Either of which is ludicrously unlikely. Both together being a virtual impossibility.

And your theory has been tested. It failed miserably.

Conservative pundits made the exact same accusations you did today in 2012. They claimed that polling was skewed for democrats and against republicans for the exact same reasons you did. And when the election was finally concluded......

......the opposite was true. 19 of 23 polls were biased FOR republicans. By as many as 7 points.

With similar claims made in 2008 by republicans...and 2004 by Democrats. Both were wrong.

Your claims have a perfect track record of failure. Making your faith in them irrational.

Trump is losing in virtually every poll of likely voters. You're simply ignoring any result that doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

That's Confirmation Bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic that has a proven track record of inaccuracy and misinformation.

Just like your accusations.

No matter how many times you say that my argument is the exact same as what Romneys supporters gave in 2012:
1. it is irrelevant since we have two different candidates and a new election. The past election record does not determine future elections, dude.

The circumstances you're describing about 'who takes the polls' were the same in 2012 as they are in 2016. Your argument was tested.

It failed epically and completely.

You're ignoring the perfect record of failure of your own theory. And ignoring the solid track record of predicting elections in polling. Then imagining, based on no evidence, that your theory works.

That's just Confirmation Bias.

2. My arguments are different and that you misrepressent them proves you are not grasping them, not at all.

Quote me 'misrepresenting' them. You've claimed that based on who is taking the polls, the information is untrustworthy.

That theory was tested in 2012, 2008 and 2004. It failed every time. Meanwhile, poll analysists like Nate Silver called the election with near perfection.

So you ignore history, ignore the perfect record of failure of your own theory, ignore your complete lack of evidence, ignore polling calling elections.....and imagine what you wish.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear. Citing your imagination doesn't make it reality. You're doubling down on fallacies of logic.

Its not going to end well for you. And come November...I'm going to remind you of this. Of how it was your systematic failure of process, of how you knowingly embraced logical fallacies, and how you ignored overwhelming evidence that could have helped you accurately forecast the results.

You are trying to make this bullshit argument that Hillary's election is inevitable, and it is not, but that is about the last argument she has left, as ridiculous as it is.

I'm saying what the polls indicate: that Hillary has a strong lead nationally and an enormous lead in key battle ground states that Trump must win.

But isn't.

And I'm saying that you're ignoring overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That what you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. And that Confirmation Bias has a notoriously poor record of accuracy.

Generally worse than guessing.

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

No one in 2012 made the claim that WHO was taking the polls would result in inaccurate results skewed against Romney?

Really?

There was a website called 'unskewedpolls.com' in 2012. Shall I quote its founder after the election?

That is not what I said, dickweed.

When you can rephrase my arguments accurately maybe you will understand them, shit4brains.

Trump and Romney are different types of candidate, Romney being an elitist prick and Trump being a populist amateur.

That has a totally different impact on the polling, dude, and I am not assplaining it to you again.

Your argument isn't about the candidates...its about those who are conducting the polls. Which hasn't changed since 2012.

You've got jack shit to back up your conspiracy. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. With your theory sporting a perfect record of failure. Its never panned out.

Why then would you put your faith in a provably false conspiracy based on absolutey nothing, contradicted by overwhelming evidence?

Its irrational. As demonstrated by the fact that whenever I bring up poll analysts like Nate Silver to demonstrate the utility of polling......you refuse to discuss him and try and change the topic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.

 

[Skylar]

Yep.....she either stole it or lost it....

Clinton’s State Department Blew $6 Billion In Contracts, And We’re About To Learn Why

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may soon have to answer questions about an estimated $6 billion in contract mismanagement, fraud and incompetence that happened under her watch at the Department of State.

Non-profit government watchdog Cause of Action Institute (CofA) filed a Freedom of Information Act request Friday for records related to a March 2014 management alert issued by the department’s Inspector General (IG).

“The total value of the contracts the [IG] reviewed exceeded $6 billion,” the CofA’s FOIA request said. “Many of these cases arose during the tenure of Secretary Hillary Clinton.” Clinton was the country’s top diplomat from January 2009 to February 2013.

The IG alert that unveiled the mismanagement was based on three investigations and two contract-related audits.



Read more: Clinton’s State Department Blew $6 Billion In Contracts, And We’re About To Learn Why

When was she convicted?

Guy couldn't even read his own OP. As the Office of the Inspector General hasn't accused anyone in the State Department of stealing so much as a dime. The issue at hand is filing management systems and protocol.

They haven't been able to find copies of some of the contracts that the State Department has signed. Which leaves them open to significant financial risk if those contracts are challenged.

Which the Opening Poster magically morphed into 6 billion dollars being stolen. Because, you know, reasons.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your argument isn't about the candidates...its about those who are conducting the polls. Which hasn't changed since 2012.

You've got jack shit to back up your conspiracy. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. With your theory sporting a perfect record of failure. Its never panned out.

Why then would you put your faith in a provably false conspiracy based on absolutey nothing, contradicted by overwhelming evidence?

Its irrational. As demonstrated by the fact that whenever I bring up poll analysts like Nate Silver to demonstrate the utility of polling......you refuse to discuss him and try and change the topic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.

Again, you are simply lying your ass off. I have NEVER claimed that the polls are being deliberately rigged, jackass

Here is a small collection of my posts on the polls and how they are off right now.

I claimed that no two elections are identical and you cannot project for one by basing your analysis exclusively on another election and made 5 other points none of which were the people who did the poll are rigging them against Trump, in fact I made a rebuttal to that claim.
Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

I claimed the break down on the independents and conservatives dont add up
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy

I argue against the reliability of these polls when there is such a wild swing from one poll to thenext, a 14% change in two days.
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy

I argued that the polls are inaccurate because of the wild swings, the removal of the Neither category and use of registered voters when much of Trumps support is heavily new voters.
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy

I argued that Romneys polling was off in his favor, Trumps new voters are overlooked andthe discussion is driven by party functionaries.
Why I think That Trump Will Win the General Election

But I never said that these people are deliberately skewering the polls, you blithering fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

No one in 2012 made the claim that WHO was taking the polls would result in inaccurate results skewed against Romney?

This is one case of you deliberately twisting what I said and getting it exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said.

I said no one in 2012 made the critiques I am am now making, because they are based on the nature of the Trump campaign, and you turn that around to the exact opposite of what I said, into a claim that I am saying no one in 2012 argued the pollsters were biased, lol.

roflmao, you are such a fucking retard

 

[Skylar]

No one made my arguments in 2012, dumbass, because they center on Trump and the kind of candidate he is, so you are kinda looking stooooooopid again.

No one in 2012 made the claim that WHO was taking the polls would result in inaccurate results skewed against Romney?

This is one case of you deliberately twisting what I said and getting it exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said.

I said no one in 2012 made the critiques I am am now making, because they are based on the nature of the Trump campaign, and you turn that around to the exact opposite of what I said, into a claim that I am saying no one in 2012 argued the pollsters were biased, lol.

roflmao, you are such a fucking retard

Sorry, Jim.....but folks did claim that the polls were biased in 2012 based on who was taking the polls. And they were wrong. YOur theory has been tested.

It failed utterly and laughably.

Meanwhile, polling analysts like Nate Silver absolutely nailed the 2012 election. So you cling to nonsense that is provably false and ignore what actually worked.....because you don't want the polls to be right.

Um....that just Confirmation Bias.