Search Results for 'Trump'

The Media/Press are going full retard.

It has come out, that after the latest CNN poll shown Trump in the lead by two points, CNN tweaked/reweighed/rigged the poll to give Hillary a four point lead.

You can read about it here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-06/too-many-whites-msnbc-tweaks-cnn-poll-show-hillary-lead-not-trump

Their excuse is there were too many white men without college degrees surveyed for the poll.

As a white male, I find their actions offensive, sexist, and racist.

The amount of brownnosing the media/press are doing for Hillary is becoming beyond ridiculous. They have already throw out their standards and reputations for Hillary. And the media/press continue to sink deeper and deeper in their sycophantic quest to support Hillary.

And the media/press have become so open about their corruption.

The Media/Press are going full retard in this election, in their support of Hillary.

Tropic Thunder: “Never go full retard.”

[RusskyParticipant]

The worst part about Hillary’s health is that Trump cannot say anything about it, because Hitlary’s campaign will make it look like he’s taking advantage of a sick old lady. What an outrage, how dares he?!
Instead he should come out and express empathy for her health troubles and wish her to get better

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[FrankOneParticipant]

Joe: I agree with much of your post too. And it is undeniable, most Jews, are ‘progressives’. But, not all. Some of the greatest libertarians/free market advocates and theorists have been Jews! Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard. John Stossel (okay, maybe he’s not a great theorist, but certainly a great and popular ADVOCATE against Statism and for Liberty). And then, let us not forget, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. These two, certainly not libertarians, but great freedom advocates. Rand was an atheist of course, but her parents were non-observant Jews.

The New York Times is staffed with many Jews, but my point is, even if it weren’t, it would still be left-wing. That is the segment it caters to. When I used to read Newsweek years ago, most of it was progressive tripe, but even they had a one-page editorial by George Will (a conservative) to give the publication some balance. So even the biased outlets, give SOME voice to the opposition to maintain at least some illusion of ‘objectivity’. NPR runs some stories about Hillary’s e-mails. And interviews conservatives and Libertarians. But they definitely DON’T tend to play hardball with progressives. And of course, the coverage of any Republican scandals is intense and lengthy.

Just because MOST of a given group votes a certain way doesn’t mean they all do OR that there is some organized hidden system to make them vote that way. Most Blacks vote Democrat, but there is certainly a small minority of conservative and libertarian blacks.

I would say there are numerous celebrities that support Palestine and/or question Israeli policy: e.g. Christiano Renaldo of Real Madrid, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters, etc. And many who have canceled tours or shows in Israel to protest the Israeli war actions, e.g. Stevie Wonder.

Part of the reason you don’t see more support for Palestine is likely due to it not selling movies. Being AGAINST Israel gets labeled as being PRO-terrorism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; our support for Israel, has CAUSED much terrorism. But, that is the perception of Joe Public.

IGMOW writes: The term “filter bubble” is a label used for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

The Internet, which should be a source for greater information, ends up only amplifying these biases. One can, if they aren’t aware enough, and disciplined enough, end up buying into groupthink. You see it with social justice warriors, and other pockets, like the alt-right side.

Absolutely. And there is a commercial aspect; a cable network news station may find it can get more viewers if it caters to a partisan political viewpoint. Analytical, in-depth, moderately objective news publications like The Economist, do NOT enjoy high circulation AND are expensive. The public has little appetite for this; they want entertainment with a dash of biased news. Look at the popularity of Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly. There isn’t a lot of respect for objective news. I LOVE Wikipedia — though even IT is biased on extremely controversial subjects. Every once in a while, I read a copy of Mother Jones to counter my more frequent reading of Reason Magazine — talk about two polar opposites!

Steeb writes: I don’t rely on polls anymore they really aren’t accurate. I did drive about an hour and a half away from home over the weekend to ride my bike. I saw maybe 25-30 Trump/Pence signs, and 0 Hillary signs. I actually saw a Sanders sign someone made and next to it there was an H with a line through it.

It’s all about who you poll. EVERY single hourly MAN where I work, is anti-Hillary. The office staff is mixed, with most, pro-Shrillery. There aren’t many Hillary signs because most of her supporters aren’t that ‘enthused’ with her; in contrast, Trump excites his supporters. As I travel further away from the urban core where I reside, into the rural hinterlands, support for Trump increases as I move from ‘blue’ to ‘red’ territory. Where I reside, in the urban core, Hillary WILL win the majority just like Obama before her. And the demographics indicate it is becoming ever more progressive in this major US metro.

[SamsquanchParticipant]

I don’t rely on polls anymore they really aren’t accurate. I did drive about an hour and a half away from home over the weekend to ride my bike. I saw maybe 25-30 Trump/Pence signs, and 0 Hillary signs. I actually saw a Sanders sign someone made and next to it there was an H with a line through it.

It’s amazing how the media can portray something that is completely false, and people still buy into it 100%.

This one is great:

What ISIS Just Said About Trump Should TERRIFY Every American

[Knights Templar RisingParticipant]

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

Wild speculation-

I might be crazy, but I’m beginning to wonder if Obama may be around for a while. What if Hillary becomes medically unable to become POTUS? What if Obama declares Trump unfit to be POTUS? (I personally like Trump)
I could see Obama declaring some type of emergency. I hope I am wrong.

Obama trying to keep himself in office for another term, is the leading theory among speculators. But it could just be the criminal Democrats hoping to use the VP as a puppet, just like they did with LBJ after the JFK assassination. In the case of LBJ he was clearly in on the hit, if one looks at the swearing in on Airforce One, LBJ has a huge s~~~ eating grin on his face as opposed to sadness or shock.

Sovereignty above all else.

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant]

Wild speculation-

I might be crazy, but I’m beginning to wonder if Obama may be around for a while. What if Hillary becomes medically unable to become POTUS? What if Obama declares Trump unfit to be POTUS? (I personally like Trump)
I could see Obama declaring some type of emergency. I hope I am wrong.

[Anonymous]

FrankOne wrote:

Joe Bauers: Most US media is owned by multi-national corporations, rather than individuals. With the exception of Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Viacom, Disney, Comcast, and Time Warner, are not owned by Jews. Nor is even the New York Times!

Much of the discussion in this thread has been over Fox News and its bias. Murdoch is a practicing Christian married to a Catholic. But he supports Israel. Part of the reason is the overlap of interests between neocons and Zionists — Many neocons believe the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ.

Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.

Many Jews actually advocate a peace settlement; indeed, Jewish presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has criticized Israeli Policy and its PM.

I should also qualify my earlier comments about Fox being pro-Trump; BEFORE he was nominated, there was in my opinion a bias against him relative to other Republican nominees. AFTER he won, they’ve been behind him. But it also isn’t a MONOLITH in even biased media; for instance, many Jews, are very critical of Israeli policy relating to the Palestinians. And some Fox commentators despise Trump — though two leading ones, as I indicated earlier, have essentially endorsed him.

At the end of the day, the general public does not understand how much Israeli support has cost the US: If we never sent Israel money and hadn’t supported it since 1948, there would have been NO oil embargo in the 1970’s and no 9/11. There would have been no Gulf Wars. The US needs to stop meddling in foreign countries affairs and the military, focus on DEFENDING our country. While we’ve spent billions on direct aid, the real cost, trillions, has been in all these unintended consequences.

Great post. I agree with most of it but Jewish influence is undeniable in left wing media and movies. Also I am pretty sure the CEO’s of many of those companies you listed are Jewish as well. I am not going to comb through all of it right now, you clearly paint a little different picture than I do… Jews already knew they had the religious right on their side, that’s why they spent most their resources on the left. If you control both sides in a two party system, you can never lose.

I just looked up ONE, the one I knew had the most Jewish Influence, Disney, and here we have…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Iger

Jewish.

N.Y. Times? I am sure they staffed with tons of Jewish people.

Hollywood? S~~~, we don’t need to go there do we?

As far as your comment about many Jews being critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, I agree, these are people who I have learned from, …Israel Shahak, Noam Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, and my favorite, Rabbi Weiss.

The sad fact remains. Mainstream media is LOCKED DOWN on the issue of what Israel does. Both sides are team Zionist.

Let me know when some Hollywood star, Jewish or not, takes a stand against Israel/Zionism/Palestinian treatment. It doesn’t happen. Why? I think we all know why… I mean if something else were not in play how else can we account for every single Jewish person in Hollywood being a Zionist??? Not a single person in Hollywood, especially Jewish ones, will ever be heard taking a stance against Israel, why is this? Cosmic coincidence? I f~~~ing doubt it.

S~~~ is LOCKED DOWN. You will not work if you speak your mind.

Actually there have been very brief incidents of people speaking up, Penelope Cruz, Riana, and I think one or two others briefly said something about Israel/Palestine then redacted it within a day or two and then nothing more on the topic… They got SHUT THE F~~~ DOWN.

Tell me, how do you account for all of this? Why is it you have never seen a Palestinian on any MSN giving his side of the story? Yet we see Jewish faces in all forms of media all day all night for eternity giving their opinion. Also, why no movie about the modern history of Israel or Palestine?

Fact is, some things are off limits. And those things are criticism of Israel, Zionism, and War when it comes to Mainstream Media and what comes out of Hollywood.

[FrankOneParticipant]

Joe Bauers: Most US media is owned by multi-national corporations, rather than individuals. With the exception of Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Viacom, Disney, Comcast, and Time Warner, are not owned by Jews. Nor is even the New York Times!

Much of the discussion in this thread has been over Fox News and its bias. Murdoch is a practicing Christian married to a Catholic. But he supports Israel. Part of the reason is the overlap of interests between neocons and Zionists — Many neocons believe the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ.

Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.

Many Jews actually advocate a peace settlement; indeed, Jewish presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has criticized Israeli Policy and its PM.

I should also qualify my earlier comments about Fox being pro-Trump; BEFORE he was nominated, there was in my opinion a bias against him relative to other Republican nominees. AFTER he won, they’ve been behind him. But it also isn’t a MONOLITH in even biased media; for instance, many Jews, are very critical of Israeli policy relating to the Palestinians. And some Fox commentators despise Trump — though two leading ones, as I indicated earlier, have essentially endorsed him.

At the end of the day, the general public does not understand how much Israeli support has cost the US: If we never sent Israel money and hadn’t supported it since 1948, there would have been NO oil embargo in the 1970’s and no 9/11. There would have been no Gulf Wars. The US needs to stop meddling in foreign countries affairs and the military, focus on DEFENDING our country. While we’ve spent billions on direct aid, the real cost, trillions, has been in all these unintended consequences.

[ResidentEvil7Participant]

I’m surprised by this, because I always thought beer companies cater more to men than women. Besides, looking at that above commercial and the election commercial, it looks like Bud Light is a left-wing company. Fine, whatever. I don’t like Budweiser beer anyway. I prefer Coors Light.

Speaking of equal pay and equal cost, when does it end with them?! They get pretty good; they get free dates, free gifts, men hold doors open for them, they win the jackpot in divorce court (house, cars, kids, assets). Women don’t realize just how good they got it. Even my dad said Saturday at the family grill-out “I avoid women, because they want all this extra rights and privileges,” After my aunt and grandmother accused Trump of being a woman hater. No matter how good a woman has it, they always want more, and if they don’t get what they want, then they see themselves as victims. Women get paid pretty well in many forms, they just want more and more.

Besides, until I see women doing hard dangerous jobs like construction, utility jobs, sewage, I don’t want to hear them scream for equal pay. They usually go for the easier jobs, while men usually go for the hard dangerous grunt work jobs.

Here’s the thing, they want equal pay, then that should include equal pay when it comes to alimony and child support and schooling, and equal for the bills on the house and cars; then that would be equal. They don’t want it that way, because having to pay equal to what men pay doesn’t suit them. Yeah, they want everything equal until it comes to equal cost, and having to go through the same hardships as men, or enlisting in the military, then they don’t want it.

https://themanszone.webs.com/

[Mr. CrowleyParticipant]

This should’ve been a slam dunk election for Republicans.

I’m talking massive landslide. Get your talking points down, and slam her over and over. Keep pounding.

However, we have not seen that from trump. He keeps flopping around. Why? I have NO clue. Guy gets unbelievable airtime and coverage.

If trump cannot beat Hitlery, its because trump beat trump. Nothing else. Bitch hasn’t has a press conference in over 200 days. Was actively being investigated for treasonous acts of the highest degree.

Seriously? How is it even close?

Thanks, goober RNC. Thanks.

Punks- Not Feeling Lucky Since 1971

[FrankOneParticipant]

I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I confess to love NPP’s. But my view on it is, Governments shouldn’t dictate technology. Instead, let MARKET FORCES decide. For instance, we mandate a certain percent of power from un-economical alternative energy in the State I reside in, and in many others: Solar. Instead of government picking winners and losers, why not let the marketplace do so? Or simply make ALL technologies that don’t emit significant pollution TAX-FREE so it’s neutral or reduce the tax burden on them so as not to favor one company or sector? i.e. no more Solyndras.

Also, the REASON we have asanine corn ethanol in the US, actually goes back to our system of representation. All States get 2 senators. There are many farm States. So the agribusiness sector is over-represented and gets a disproportionate amount of representation and pork relative to the raw population these Senators represent in largely rural corn belt States. That, coupled with the ignorance of the general public on ‘gasahol’ or ethanol, make it an easy sell. Sure, ALL my engineer buddies think the subsidy was asanine; the general public, not so much. And technically, even if it isn’t subsidized, if you ban the other synthetic oxygenate (MTBE), you are implicitly forcing a market for corn ethanol. As a Chemical Engineer, I regarded BOTH the subsidies AND the mandates as irrational policy. I remember when MTBE was essentially banned for this use. I’ve used it in bulk quantities for other purposes — great solvent too. It had NO issues unless you spilled it into a waterway. Incidentally, Trump actually advocated for a HIGHER ethanol mandate when he was campaigning in Iowa 8 months ago. So he panders for votes just like Shrillery.

People do throw too much s~~~ away. Why not shop at the Goodwill? Why throw a TV out when usually the a capacitor can be fixed? I saw a huge flat screen in a dumpster today. When mine broke, I put it outside with a sign ‘Handy MAN special’. It probably got fixed or parceled out for parts. I DIDN’T throw it in a dumpster.

Why must alternative energy be subsidized? Did Edwin Drake go to the Department of Energy in 1859 to ask for a big subsidy (to drill the first oil well), or did he seek out private investors take the risk on this ‘petroleum oil’ alternative energy to whale oil and finance his drilling tests? Speaking of the Department of Energy, we of course, had no such Department in 1859, and wouldn’t all that money be better allocated by an accountable INVESTMENT process that considers risk/cost/benefit rather than a POLITICAL process (Congress, and lobbyist hooligans)? A great deal of technology was developed in industrial laboratories with NO subsidies. The light bulb, generator, and electric motor come to mind. Historically, the POLITICAL process of capital allocation, has not proven to be very effective at advancing technology. The MARKET process for capital allocation, in contrast, produces innovation. Evidence? Look at the amount of money spent on thermonuclear fusion by DOE over 50 years with zero results.

I actually work for a recycler. We burn a decent amount of natural gas. I don’t view the carbon dioxide as a problem (I realize this puts me in the minority of scientists/engineers). I view burning dirty fuels containing sulfur and that generate particulate, as MUCH more problematic from a pollution standpoint. Or VOC emissions, especially at ground level.

[FrankOneParticipant]

People generally want to listen to an echo chamber; that is why 78% of Rush Limbaugh’s viewers are conservatives and 57% of Rachel Maddox’s and liberals. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

As for the proof that most major polls aren’t faked, I’d refer you to 538 where they rank the pollsters objectively against percent of races correctly predicted: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Some of them are better than others, but the majors are over 75% with some up to 93% accuracy.

Faust writes: You do not understand. The media has worshiped Hillary for at least the last twenty-five years. The media never says a truly bad thing about her.

Hillary never receives negative coverage? Hillary has received plenty! Why do you think 66% of the public don’t trust her, according to the Fox poll I referenced?

Despite the Lamestream media’s liberal bias, they have covered the e-mail story, for instance. Even NPR! They have to, or they won’t have any credibility.

I would argue there is too much focus on the ‘horse race’ and not enough on actual POLICY issues. Too much focus on Trump’s personality.

One aspect of Trump I do like is he’s not afraid to attack the media.

Evidence Fox is pro-Trump? Sean Hannity has endorsed Trump, and Fox didn’t have any problem with it… His is probably one of their most popular shows… Same for O’Reilly:

“I’d rather have the straight talk of Donald Trump than the obfuscation of Hillary Clinton any day, at anytime.” – Bill O’Reilly

Seriously, even posing that question to me, it’s like asking me to justify that NPR is pro-Hillary. See first link. Just turn on NPR, see if they make a lot of pro-Trump statements! The percent viewership by partisans, of each outlet, will reveal its bias. The larger the difference in viewership between conservatives and liberals, the more biased the outlet is. Simple.

Reuters and other media groups have also weighted their polls 8 to 10 points for democrats. When it is shown that republican votes in the 2016 primaries increased and democrat votes in the 2016 primaries decreased.

No, they haven’t. The polls are weighted against the question ‘How likely are you to vote on November 2nd.’. Again, look at the link pertaining to poll accuracy — if the Left had been rigging polls, they wouldn’t have accuracies of typically 80-90%. Now, the Left used to rig elections (e.g. Chicago). Not so much these days.

But I concede turnout is critical, and one reason polls are off a couple percent. If one candidate’s supporters are a lot more dedicated, they’ll go out to vote… Regardless of rain, snow, etc. I would say Trump supporters are more ‘enthused’ with him, than most Hillary supporters are with her. I would also argue supporters were very enthused with Obama, at least for his first term, because the idiots comprising the American public bought into the ‘Hope and Change’ paradigm and so turned out in large numbers to elect him.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant]

FrankOne wrote:

Faust: Reuters simply removed the ‘Neither’ option.

Reuters and other media groups have also weighted their polls 8 to 10 points for democrats. When it is shown that republican votes in the 2016 primaries increased and democrat votes in the 2016 primaries decreased.

No matter how you state. This is poll rigging.

FrankOne wrote:

As for Fox having a liberal bias and being against Trump, that’s a tough one to sell… Just turn it on and watch!

I have posted my sources. It is time for you to post links to your sources.

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

Because of all this, Trump is one of the worst candidates to run against Hillary, if your idea is to have the media focus on Hillary and rip her apart for all the problems she has.

You do not understand. The media has worshiped Hillary for at least the last twenty-five years. The media never says a truly bad thing about her.

The only difference with Trump is that Trump fights back and he will attack the media for their hypocrisy, anti-American bias, and sycophant support towards Hillary. The American people love Trump for this, and this makes those in the media loath Trump even more.

Of course, let us take a look on the flip side. The media are acting like pussy chasers towards Hillary (I apologize for this mental image) and like any modern woman dealing with “nice guys”, she shows no respect for the media, she exploits the media, and she treats the media like crap.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant]

There is a whole pockets of identity groups that are just looking for a candidate to give them any material to justify going after them. Trump has done this with spades. With this then comes the media pandering to them. Throw in also Trump insistence on always being the lead story in the news, and you are going to get what you are seeing.

The media basis is a fusion of global corporatism (editor and the executives) and also progressive views (journalists are generally progressive in their views). So, what you get for news is this, and a candidate like Trump feeds fully into it, so that the media is all the time covering Trump, looking for anything that can cause the news cycle to lead with every single thing going on with Trump and a critique of this. Because of all this, Trump is one of the worst candidates to run against Hillary, if your idea is to have the media focus on Hillary and rip her apart for all the problems she has. A candidate like Trump is opposed to globalization, but also is appealing to normally traditionally white European values, mixed with a strong authoritarian message, which is going to cause the entire media to go off on him.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[FrankOneParticipant]

If you look at an aggregate of the polls, over time, you can get a clearer pictures, e.g. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html — Trump has actually had ‘crossovers’ where he is ahead of Shrillery; e.g. right after convention. Unfortunately, the site does not show the news events that cause the surges and declines, but it is still interesting.

Venom: Yes, most blacks hate Republicans. They call them ‘uncle Toms’ and other derogatory terms. Now, I don’t like Republicans either, because they’re too left-wing for me; I’m voting for Gary Johnson. But I think it’s racist to vote for somebody because they’re white OR black. I don’t give a rat’s ass what color the candidate is. Trump looks like he’s Orange and Shrillery looks wrinkly. Republicans have done a lot of damage to the urban underclass and blacks in particular, with the insane War on Drugs. Democrats have done even more damage with the Great Society and support for failed public education and Teacher’s Unions.

Fast Wries: No she is not. Three weeks ago Trump was in the lead, Reuters (the same company that those that cut the video feed in the top post works for) “tweaked” (rigged) their polls to given her a 10 point lead against Trump. And in that ten weeks Trump has claimed back another ten points.

Faust: Reuters simply removed the ‘Neither’ option. This has, at various times, favored one or the other candidate. It’s better to look at ‘aggregate’ polls, like the link above from Real Clear Politics — it represents an aggregate of many polls — rather than looking at one particular poll. ‘IS’ means ‘NOW’. Clinton is ahead by about 4% presently based on an aggregate of 10 polls. Even Fox’s most recent poll has her 6 points ahead. Trump WAS ahead, but it was FOUR weeks ago, not 3 — this was right after the convention. See aggregate poll chart, linked above.

Trump leading with 60-70% of the vote? If you really want to know what polls are RELIABLE, a publication devoted to such matters, 538, ranks them, based upon their reliability in predicting election winners. Again, if the polls are all ‘rigged’, why are the polls presumably run by Trump partisans, such as Fox News, not reporting different numbers than everybody else?

FrankOne wrote: As for Blacks supporting Trump, even Fox News has him polling at only 1% among blacks.

Faust responds: And where did this poll come from? The polls have been openly found to be rigged against Trump. Repeating a lie does not make that lie true.

Fox does its own polling. Where it came from? Real Clear politics links to it, but here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/08/31/fox-news-poll-aug-31-2016/

As for Fox having a liberal bias and being against Trump, that’s a tough one to sell… Just turn it on and watch!

Now one poll I like: 63% saying Trump was not ‘honest and Trustworthy’ and 66% saying Hillary was not honest and trustworthy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/01/fox-news-poll-voters-think-clinton-and-trump-will-do-anything-to-win.html There may be hope for the American people yet!

[FrankOneParticipant]

If you look at an aggregate of the polls, over time, you can get a clearer pictures, e.g. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html — Trump has actually had ‘crossovers’ where he is ahead of Shrillery; e.g. right after convention. Unfortunately, the site does not show the news events that cause the surges and declines, but it is still interesting.

Venom: Yes, most blacks hate Republicans. They call them ‘uncle Toms’ and other derogatory terms. Now, I don’t like Republicans either, because they’re too left-wing for me; I’m voting for Gary Johnson. But I think it’s racist to vote for somebody because they’re white OR black. I don’t give a rat’s ass what color the candidate is. Trump looks like he’s Orange and Shrillery looks wrinkly. Republicans have done a lot of damage to the urban underclass and blacks in particular, with the insane War on Drugs. Democrats have done even more damage with the Great Society and support for failed public education and Teacher’s Unions.

Fast Wries: No she is not. Three weeks ago Trump was in the lead, Reuters (the same company that those that cut the video feed in the top post works for) “tweaked” (rigged) their polls to given her a 10 point lead against Trump. And in that ten weeks Trump has claimed back another ten points.

Faust: Reuters simply removed the ‘Neither’ option. This has, at various times, favored one or the other candidate. It’s better to look at ‘aggregate’ polls, like the link above from Real Clear Politics — it represents an aggregate of many polls — rather than looking at one particular poll. ‘IS’ means ‘NOW’. Clinton is ahead by about 4% presently based on an aggregate of 10 polls. Even Fox’s most recent poll has her 6 points ahead. Trump WAS ahead, but it was FOUR weeks ago, not 3 — this was right after the convention. See aggregate poll chart, linked above.

Trump leading with 60-70% of the vote? If you really want to know what polls are RELIABLE, a publication devoted to such matters, 538, ranks them, based upon their reliability in predicting election winners. Again, if the polls are all ‘rigged’, why are the polls presumably run by Trump partisans, such as Fox News, not reporting different numbers than everybody else?

FrankOne wrote: As for Blacks supporting Trump, even Fox News has him polling at only 1% among blacks.

Faust responds: And where did this poll come from? The polls have been openly found to be rigged against Trump. Repeating a lie does not make that lie true.

Fox does its own polling. Where it came from? Real Clear politics links to it, but here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/08/31/fox-news-poll-aug-31-2016/

As for Fox having a liberal bias and being against Trump, that’s a tough one to sell… Just turn it on and watch!

Now one poll I like: 63% saying Trump was not ‘honest and Trustworthy’ and 66% saying Hillary was not honest and trustworthy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/01/fox-news-poll-voters-think-clinton-and-trump-will-do-anything-to-win.html There may be hope for the American people yet!

[Faust For ScienceParticipant]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

There you have it- the entire media and EVERYONE vilifies anyone who supports Trump. Its tantamount to a witch-hunt: “does anyone here support Trump?”. F~~~ off. Liberals are so infantile in their tactics. If anyone disagrees with ANY of their view points they just name-call- “your a RACIST. Your sexist” ad infinitum. Im so sick of it.

Let’s follow Trump’s lead and call these “liberals” what they are. Bigots.

I am not advocating violence. But, they need to be verbally deposed for what they are. Which are bigots.

[Chaff/FlareParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Well guys im from spain… soo is not of my busines, but… you have two monsters in town now you have to choose.
Die by godzila or king kong.

My advise… leave USA and move somewere else and fast

Yea good idea. Let’s go to Spain where the EU installed an unelected banker to head the country, the men have been disarmed, and the women are being raped by mussies. Tell you what, trump is a gamble, hill is sure bet

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[AncientwisdomParticipant]

I was out last night and this girl literally said – “does anyone here support Trump?”. I raised my hand. She said – “wait! I don’t know if we can be friends; were not on the same intellectual level”. Luckily, before I could even say a word a couple guys I knew chimed in and blasted her.

Not on the same “intellectual level”; damn straight were not c~~~.

There you have it- the entire media and EVERYONE vilifies anyone who supports Trump. Its tantamount to a witch-hunt: “does anyone here support Trump?”. F~~~ off. Liberals are so infantile in their tactics. If anyone disagrees with ANY of their view points they just name-call- “your a RACIST. Your sexist” ad infinitum. Im so sick of it.

Resident cynic.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

I haven’t gotten any heat from white people tho. Black people hate the fact that you go outside the box and think for yourself.

That is why so many black men are going MGTOW. Such as yourself. As you pointed out. You think outside of the box. And there is no room for such thinking in the welfare group-think.

They want to be slaves, while you are running for it at the first opportunity. And we respect you for this.

Anonymous wrote:

As a black conservative, I know you have caught more than your fair share of s~~~ from both blacks and whites. God knows we can’t have black people being shown being gracious to Trump. The idea might just spread.

From the videos of minorities come to Trump rallies and leaving after the Trump rallies are over. With their views mostly positive towards what Trump is saying. I believe word is spreading.

Anonymous wrote:

@Faust: I’m still seeing Bernie signs. My liberal aunt in California hates Hilary for what they did to Bernie to give Hilary California. She is sitting this election out. The only Hilary sticker I’ve seen was on an old white codger’s car and a Hilary sign in the yard of a female university professor.

Exactly. This is what I am talking about. Outside of the media and one percent, Hillary has not real support. It is all manufactured.

I do not see the enthusiasm for Hillary. She cannot even fill up a high school gymnasium for a rally. That is bad. She refuses to accept questions and attend most public events. Something is very wrong with her campaign.

“Waiting out the clock” is not a campaign strategy, it is an exit plan.

On the other hand, Trump and Bernie has that enthusiasm from voters.

This weekend it came out that Homeland Security is illegally taking over the elections. The leftists are so desperate they are working to openly rig the election for her. And that will cause this nation to fully collapse.