http://teachinghistory.org/history-c...istorian/20431
And, anyway, this is the answer. I just don't see it happening.
Printable View
http://teachinghistory.org/history-c...istorian/20431
And, anyway, this is the answer. I just don't see it happening.
Im just saying... no matter who they replace him with, the line vs Hillary is going to be too juicy to pass up.
The only limitation is the voting laws in each state. In most states you can get an absentee ballot a month before the election, some maybe earlier, and they have everything printed by that time. There's nothing stopping the Republicans from choosing a candidate and asking people to write him in, or from Trump doing the same even if he is replaced, but in some states you have to declare a write-in candidacy by a deadline.Quote:
Originally Posted by big dick
I worry that some outside person or group liek Adelson or the koch brothers pay him to quit. 250 million cash im sure Trump will say ok fuck it I quit, not gonna win ayways.
The fact remains, Trump is only 5 points down, and he is still in very close in OH, FL, NC, IA, NV, VA and in striking distance in NH and PA. This is after a month of tremendous gaffes and an uninspired convention. That has to keep the Clinton campaign nervous, she really should be up 20 right now, say 50-30.
I think its a tremendous risk the entire establishment, Wall Street and billionaires piling on Trump and backing Clinton. It actually can have a reverse effect. You have a society where the delta between the haves, and have nots expanding at an alarming rate.
Trump is not as big of a long shot as Brexit was this far out. If he can stay away from controversy, and Wikileaks drops a bomb in the coming weeks, you could very well see Trump and Clinton tied going into the debates.
The bottom line is Trump vanquished 16 opponents, and Clinton was weaker than a lot of them. You cannot discount that.
You understand that is illegal, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by big dick
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraymondYou understand that is illegal, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by big dick
This is not necessarily true. It could take the guise of a loan to 'cover expenses associated with the campaign' with zero interest, for example. Or they could simply give him consultancy fees, or any one of a vast number of other weird gigs to compensate him for bowing out before he finishes what he started.
You are not taking into account this would never, ever happen. Even if it were legal, there is no way Trump would completely destroy his legacy and acting like a monumental pussy and running away. He is one of two people that can be President right now, and there is no way he is going to walk away from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
This is not necessarily true. It could take the guise of a loan to 'cover expenses associated with the campaign' with zero interest, for example. Or they could simply give him constancy fees, or any one of a vast number of other weird gigs to compensate him for bowing out before he finishes what he started.
People are acting like Clinton is unbeatable, but that is mostly CNN which only 500,000 people daily watch. The next Wikileaks bomb could sink her candidacy. They have already said they are going to stagger the releases in the next several months. When that happens, nobody is going to remember Kahn or any of this other shit. It's all going to come down to the debates, and in my opinion Wikileaks.
Clinton has tons of negatives, but she's personally stronger than all 17 candidates the Republicans had. There is no chance that Trump rattles her in the way that he broke JEB!, lil Marco, Lyin Ted and others. Clinton has been under attack for 25 straight years. She's hard as nails. Trump's path to victory does not include crushing Clinton's spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
My original theory, that all of this is a 24/7 publicity campaign for Trump Media's cable network/merch empire, suggests its not as out of character as your scenario would imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by DraymondYou are not taking into account this would never, ever happen. Even if it were legal, there is no way Trump would completely destroy his legacy and acting like a monumental pussy and running away. He is one of two people that can be President right now, and there is no way he is going to walk away from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
People are acting like Clinton is unbeatable, but that is mostly CNN which only 500,000 people daily watch. The next Wikileaks bomb could sink her candidacy. They have already said they are going to stagger the releases in the next several months. When that happens, nobody is going to remember Kahn or any of this other shit. It's all going to come down to the debates, and in my opinion Wikileaks.
She barely beat a 75 year old Socialist. That is hardly an intimidating opponent. Like I said, Julian says there is going to be massive dumps in the next couple months, it would not surprise me if they come the day before the debate, and then the first 20 questions will be about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenClinton has tons of negatives, but she's personally stronger than all 17 candidates the Republicans had. There is no chance that Trump rattles her in the way that he broke JEB!, lil Marco, Lyin Ted and others. Clinton has been under attack for 25 straight years. She's hard as nails. Trump's path to victory does not include crushing Clinton's spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
Could be. Trump is 70 so he is all about his legacy. Let's fact it, outside a couple Presidents the last 50 years (really Kennedy and Reagan), nobody really gives a shit about past Presidents, and neither of those two are in the Lincoln, FDR or Washington league anyway. But ABC, NBC and CBS are generational brands. So you may be right, but either way he is not going anywhere as his brand has never been stronger. You don't quit on top, and he is on top. Everyone thought the Stones were finished at age 40, and they actually become stronger the next 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineMy original theory, that all of this is a 24/7 publicity campaign for Trump Media's cable network/merch empire, suggests its not as out of character as your scenario would imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
you're right about this, but what should keep republicans up at night is the fact that we will never eeeeeevvvver see a democratic candidate this weak again (the definition of a political insider at a time when the country hates the government and wants change, is distrusted by everyone, ties to wall street, benghazi, investigated by the fbi, etc.).
the demographics in this country are already tilting heavy to democratic rule for the forseeable future. this is likely the best chance the republicans will have had to take back the white house in decades and they completely blew it by nominating the most disliked presidential candidate ever (not an exaggeration) who will literally get zero black or hispanic votes. i think if they nominated anyone other than trump (or cruz), hillary would probably have lost
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraymondShe barely beat a 75 year old Socialist. That is hardly an intimidating opponent. Like I said, Julian says there is going to be massive dumps in the next couple months, it would not surprise me if they come the day before the debate, and then the first 20 questions will be about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
If you think she barely beat Bernie, I guess that explains why you think Trump is close. Right, there's going to be a huge oppo dump because Trump is so disciplined that he will hold his cards close for maximum effect. Do you guys even believe your own nonsense or are you all trying to make yourselves feel better? I hope it's the latter for your sake.
Well, keep in mind I only make $70K a year, so I am poor and was never able to afford the expensive education like someone like yourself. I am quite stupid now that I think about it. I'm a really a dumb guy after listening to someone like you all these months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenQuote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
If you think she barely beat Bernie, I guess that explains why you think Trump is close. Right, there's going to be a huge oppo dump because Trump is so disciplined that he will hold his cards close for maximum effect. Do you guys even believe your own nonsense or are you all trying to make yourselves feel better? I hope it's the latter for your sake.
If the Republicans nominated Ted Cruz, exactly what state would he have won over Obama? The answer is none. You can make a case the only guy who can motivate the lunch pail democrat who is facing or faced a job loss is Trump to the Republicans. You are correct, the demographic of the US is going much less white as people die. I doubt we will ever see a Republican President in the next 50 years. The good thing is the system will collapse under entitlements, and will be reset. So there is that. I don't care either way, I got "mine" already so I really don't give a shit. Life is all about nice things, pussy and great food and booze. All I care about, I am not looking to help anyone but myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Draymond
you're right about this, but what should keep republicans up at night is the fact that we will never eeeeeevvvver see a democratic candidate this weak again (the definition of a political insider at a time when the country hates the government and wants change, is distrusted by everyone, ties to wall street, benghazi, investigated by the fbi, etc.).
the demographics in this country are already tilting heavy to democratic rule for the forseeable future. this is likely the best chance the republicans will have had to take back the white house in decades and they completely blew it by nominating the most disliked presidential candidate ever (not an exaggeration) who will literally get zero black or hispanic votes. i think if they nominated anyone other than trump (or cruz), hillary would probably have lost
You bragged about making 70k a year. That has nothing to do with me. To be fair, you seem smarter than the other Trump supporters on here, but then, that's like being the leper with the most fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DraymondWell, keep in mind I only make $70K a year, so I am poor and was never able to afford the expensive education like someone like yourself. I am quite stupid now that I think about it. I'm a really a dumb guy after listening to someone like you all these months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
to be fair, i specifically said cruz wouldn't have done better and, you're right, he may even have done worse than trumpQuote:
Originally Posted by DraymondIf the Republicans nominated Ted Cruz, exactly what state would he have won over Obama? The answer is none. You can make a case the only guy who can motivate the lunch pail democrat who is facing or faced a job loss is Trump to the Republicans. You are correct, the demographic of the US is going much less white as people die. I doubt we will ever see a Republican President in the next 50 years. The good thing is the system will collapse under entitlements, and will be reset. So there is that. I don't care either way, I got "mine" already so I really don't give a shit. Life is all about nice things, pussy and great food and booze. All I care about, I am not looking to help anyone but myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
That must be Jill Stein's? I think the Koch's would like to know which one of their brothers gave to Hillary so they can disown him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatire
stein is rabidly anti-vacc and also thinks wifi gives kids cancer etc etc.
shes what happened to the green party when the stable people grew out of it and the wackjobs became the majority.
hey you two ligtards, why dont you let some other people respond
"Safe" fracking rofl thank you for that I needed a laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatire
http://youtu.be/n_SYCrJK6xg
Trump acts like a monumental pussy every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by DraymondYou are not taking into account this would never, ever happen. Even if it were legal, there is no way Trump would completely destroy his legacy and acting like a monumental pussy and running away. He is one of two people that can be President right now, and there is no way he is going to walk away from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
People are acting like Clinton is unbeatable, but that is mostly CNN which only 500,000 people daily watch. The next Wikileaks bomb could sink her candidacy. They have already said they are going to stagger the releases in the next several months. When that happens, nobody is going to remember Kahn or any of this other shit. It's all going to come down to the debates, and in my opinion Wikileaks.
http://media2.fdncms.com/arktimes/im...?cb=1463865304
Un.....comfortable with the hand placement.
https://lettersofrejection.files.wor...-450.jpg?w=490
In this shot, she seems to agree with me. Her hands saying "that's far enough" to his.
http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/fi...t_-_h_2015.jpg
Eyes all like "save me!" yall.
the latest left wing publication to bash trump. . . fox newsQuote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Fox News Poll: Clinton leads Trump by 10 points, both seen as flawed
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...as-flawed.html
roflQuote:
Sixty-one percent of voters think Hillary Clinton is dishonest, yet she’s opened up a big lead over Donald Trump in the latest Fox News Poll.
Here’s why: majorities think Clinton is nevertheless qualified to be president, and has the temperament and knowledge to serve effectively. It’s the opposite for Trump: over half feel he is not qualified, and lacks the temperament or knowledge to lead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Guarantee that sonatine has jerked off to ivanka teenage pics
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/21...h-polling.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Quote:
OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?
Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.
In terms of speed, the growth of cellphones is like few innovations in our history. About 10 years ago, opinion researchers began taking seriously the threat that the advent of cellphones posed to our established practice of polling people by calling landline phone numbers generated at random. At that time, the National Health Interview Survey, a high-quality government survey conducted through in-home interviews, estimated that about 6 percent of the public used only cellphones. The N.H.I.S. estimate for the first half of 2014 found that this had grown to 43 percent, with another 17 percent “mostly” using cellphones. In other words, a landline-only sample conducted for the 2014 elections would miss about three-fifths of the American public, almost three times as many as it would have missed in 2008.
Since cellphones generally have separate exchanges from landlines, statisticians have solved the problem of finding them for our samples by using what we call “dual sampling frames” — separate random samples of cell and landline exchanges. The problem is that the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act has been interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit the calling of cellphones through automatic dialers, in which calls are passed to live interviewers only after a person picks up the phone. To complete a 1,000-person survey, it’s not unusual to have to dial more than 20,000 random numbers, most of which do not go to actual working telephone numbers. Dialing manually for cellphones takes a great deal of paid interviewer time, and pollsters also compensate cellphone respondents with as much as $10 for their lost minutes.
THE best survey organizations, like the Pew Research Center, complete about two of the more expensive cellphone interviews for every one on a landline. For many organizations, this is a budget buster that leads to compromises in sampling and interviewing.
The second unsettling trend is the rapidly declining response rate. When I first started doing telephone surveys in New Jersey in the late 1970s, we considered an 80 percent response rate acceptable, and even then we worried if the 20 percent we missed were different in attitudes and behaviors than the 80 percent we got. Enter answering machines and other technologies. By 1997, Pew’s response rate was 36 percent, and the decline has accelerated. By 2014 the response rate had fallen to 8 percent. As Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com recently observed, “The problem is simple but daunting. The foundation of opinion research has historically been the ability to draw a random sample of the population. That’s become much harder to do.”
This decline is worrisome for two reasons. First, of course, is representativeness. Strangely, for some reason that no one really understands, well-done probability samples seem to have retained their representative character despite the meager response rate. We know this because we can compare the results we get from our surveys to government gold-standard benchmarks like the census’ American Community Survey, where participation is mandated. Even so, Robert M. Groves, the provost of Georgetown and a former director of the Census Bureau, cautions, “The risk of failures of surveys to reflect the facts increases with falling response rates. The risk is not always realized, but with the very low response rates now common, we should expect more failed predictions based on surveys.”
So yea....
lol at you thinking he likes girlsQuote:
Originally Posted by MintjewlipsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Guarantee that sonatine has jerked off to ivanka teenage pics
He has to be straight trolling at this point
just a common man eating fried chicken with a knife and fork
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3isX0LS0YQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/6...4dea18e685f4b2
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo.../afp-dg78y.jpg
Trump likes to inappropriately touch women including his children.
Clint Eastwood Rips ‘Pussy Generation,’ Says He’ll Vote For Donald Trump
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...443d?section=&
Quote:
“You know, he’s a racist now because he’s talked about this judge. And yeah, it’s a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”
Quote:
“(S)ecretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.’”
http://8482-presscdn-0-13.pagely.net...hael-moore.jpg
DeliciousQuote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
This was an esquire article, i guess you don't read anything other then libtard hack journalism, proves my point about libtards only looking for confirmation bias. Tight job of selectively picking quotes to misconstrued and take this whole article out of context. At least post the interview in full done by the actual magazine, not some blogging website that has a leftwing agenda. If anyone thinks huffpost is legit then you are retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Clint is a fucking legend, put some respek on his name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
A reporter that had been on Trump's plane during the primary said that they had KFC and Trump ate 5 pieces with his hands. So, I think he actually likes KFC, even though this pic looks like he's pretending.
LOL, Clinton Eastwood gave an interview to Esquire with his son...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Clint and Scott Eastwood: No Holds Barred in Their First Interview Together
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment...c=socialflowTW
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/31/980...-september.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM
We're fucking up by letting a private bank lend the govt money so they can turn around and charge us interest on the national debt. The govt could just skip the fed res and issue it themselves. FR the greatest hustle ever.
We're paying all that interest for nothing and they know it. That's why they named it the Fed. Reserve, so people would assume it's part of the fed govt.
This isn't some pro Ron Paul, gold backed currency bs. Gold backed currency is the nut low.
Most people don't even want their water supply privatized but the FR is puling this shit, swh.