They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is absolutely NOT what I said. It is what your triggered brain wants me to say.

I said, "Completely untrue. In the last election, the national poll had Clinton ahead by almost the exact percent that she won by. In the battleground states, the last few weeks showed Trump surging and final polls had it too close to call, or Trump ahead. So, the polls absolutely were accurate.

I did not post "one poll" I posted RCP''s projection based on the various final polls prior to the election. Clinton was no where near winning. What I posted is absolutely true - it is a fact.

You claim "lie" this and that but you make shit up and reply to it and then say the shit you invent in your head is a lie.

If you doubted Hillary's electoral chances, then post the quote. Why is that so hard?

Statistically, Trump can't win. He has alienated himself from all minorities, including women. The Republican party can't win unless they get votes from both women and Hispanics. Trump loses on both of those demographics.

At this point, the Democrats can run Dukakis and win by 10pts.

I've known Clinton is going to win for about a year now.

Well, OK, he HAS all of the voters he can get by acting like an ass. But it's not enough....and he's screwed now - he CAN'T win.

Republicans are so screwed. They are so screwed that even if Hillary goes to jail, she could still win.

In fact, the Latino vote alone kills Trumps chances at being elected - regardless of who he runs against.

Nominated Trump, Carson, or even Cruz...and it won't matter who the Democrats nominate - they will win.

Trump isn't going to win...even he knows it. He is behind nationally. He is behind in ALL of the battleground states. He is behind in the states he wanted to 'flip'. He is not ahead in ANY state that he needs to win. He simply has no true path to victory.

I have simply said that Clinton will be the next President. You can keep pretending differently, but it won't change anything.

Clinton will win with an ever grater margin than when Obama was reelected.

That is why he is now trying to get "the blacks" and the raping Mexicans to vote for him. He can't win without them...and nearly everybody who follows this stuff knows that...including Hillary Clinton....Too bad Trump didn't know that from the moment he came down that escalator. Or, maybe it's a good thing he didn't...because he may have actually had a chance to win.

[RPM]

That is absolutely NOT what I said. It is what your triggered brain wants me to say.

I said, "Completely untrue. In the last election, the national poll had Clinton ahead by almost the exact percent that she won by. In the battleground states, the last few weeks showed Trump surging and final polls had it too close to call, or Trump ahead. So, the polls absolutely were accurate.

I did not post "one poll" I posted RCP''s projection based on the various final polls prior to the election. Clinton was no where near winning. What I posted is absolutely true - it is a fact.

You claim "lie" this and that but you make shit up and reply to it and then say the shit you invent in your head is a lie.

If you doubted Hillary's electoral chances, then post the quote. Why is that so hard?

Statistically, Trump can't win. He has alienated himself from all minorities, including women. The Republican party can't win unless they get votes from both women and Hispanics. Trump loses on both of those demographics.

At this point, the Democrats can run Dukakis and win by 10pts.

I've known Clinton is going to win for about a year now.

Well, OK, he HAS all of the voters he can get by acting like an ass. But it's not enough....and he's screwed now - he CAN'T win.

Republicans are so screwed. They are so screwed that even if Hillary goes to jail, she could still win.

In fact, the Latino vote alone kills Trumps chances at being elected - regardless of who he runs against.

Nominated Trump, Carson, or even Cruz...and it won't matter who the Democrats nominate - they will win.

Trump isn't going to win...even he knows it. He is behind nationally. He is behind in ALL of the battleground states. He is behind in the states he wanted to 'flip'. He is not ahead in ANY state that he needs to win. He simply has no true path to victory.

I have simply said that Clinton will be the next President. You can keep pretending differently, but it won't change anything.

Clinton will win with an ever grater margin than when Obama was reelected.

That is why he is now trying to get "the blacks" and the raping Mexicans to vote for him. He can't win without them...and nearly everybody who follows this stuff knows that...including Hillary Clinton....Too bad Trump didn't know that from the moment he came down that escalator. Or, maybe it's a good thing he didn't...because he may have actually had a chance to win.

Once again a total smack down showing the lies and idiocy of Monker the Charlatan in his own words.
Yeah you really had it figured out didn’t you wise guy? You didn’t know anything then and you don’t now.

[Monker]

That is absolutely NOT what I said. It is what your triggered brain wants me to say.

I said, "Completely untrue. In the last election, the national poll had Clinton ahead by almost the exact percent that she won by. In the battleground states, the last few weeks showed Trump surging and final polls had it too close to call, or Trump ahead. So, the polls absolutely were accurate.

I did not post "one poll" I posted RCP''s projection based on the various final polls prior to the election. Clinton was no where near winning. What I posted is absolutely true - it is a fact.

You claim "lie" this and that but you make shit up and reply to it and then say the shit you invent in your head is a lie.

If you doubted Hillary's electoral chances, then post the quote. Why is that so hard?

Because I wasn't on here posting AT ALL. Of course I made all kinds of posts prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Clinton's Emails. After that, I didn't post those things AT ALL. Find a quote, any quote, From the first week of November 2016. You won't find it.

And, this is old news, we have already discussed this. You can't deny the FACTS of those final polls showing the election was too close to call so now you move on to this...retreading meaningless bullshit. Clinton was no where close to winning the election by election day...it was a toss up. And, the polls the day before the election showed that - that is a fact.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Because I wasn't on here posting AT ALL. Of course I made all kinds of posts prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Clinton's Emails. After that, I didn't post those things AT ALL. Find a quote, any quote, From the first week of November 2016. You won't find it.

In other words, there is no proof AT ALL that you thought she wasn't going to win. In fact, nearly every 2016 election post you made claimed the exact opposite.

And, this is old news, we have already discussed this. You can't deny the FACTS of those final polls showing the election was too close to call so now you move on to this...retreading meaningless bullshit.

I posted several polls - some just weeks from election day - showing that Hillary still had an decisive electoral lead. Almost without exception, the polls were wrong. On election day, Trump had pretty much been written off by everybody. The RNC had even pleaded with him to drop out.

Clinton was no where close to winning the election by election day...it was a toss up. And, the polls the day before the election showed that - that is a fact.

If you really believed that at the time, post the quotes. Otherwise, you are just lying and trying to re-write history.

[Monker]

Because I wasn't on here posting AT ALL. Of course I made all kinds of posts prior to Comey reopening the investigation into Clinton's Emails. After that, I didn't post those things AT ALL. Find a quote, any quote, From the first week of November 2016. You won't find it.

In other words, there is no proof AT ALL that you thought she wasn't going to win.

That is NOT WHAT I SAID. I said, I had doubts.

You are the one on here making an accusation. You are the one on here needs to provide proof. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

The facts are these:

Yes, I posted MANY times that Clinton would win. I claimed that before the campaign even began. I do not dispute that AT ALL. I STOPPED POSTING after Comey reopened the investigation into Clinton's Emails.

I say I stopped posting because I had my doubts that Clinton would win. You say that is a lie, without ANY evidence at all.

With those facts, people can believe what they want. I really don't care beyond this post.

In fact, nearly every 2016 election post you made claimed the exact opposite.

Find one in the first week of November of 2016....then you will have proof.

And, this is old news, we have already discussed this. You can't deny the FACTS of those final polls showing the election was too close to call so now you move on to this...retreading meaningless bullshit.

I posted several polls

No, you didn't. You posted articles that referenced polls. Some of those articles based their statements on projections beyond the polls; like trends or past elections....which I said was irresponsible.

some just weeks from election day

EXACTLY. In 2016, two weeks before the election was an eternity due to all the crap going on.

I posted the last available polls prior to the election. THAT is what I am saying did NOT predict Clinton as a winner. It is a FACT that the election was too close to call on election day. Two weeks or more prior is irrelevant.

Almost without exception, the polls were wrong.

Of course your articles were wrong. They were using OLD DATA. In addition, they were adding other crap to that data in order to make a prediction.

On election day, Trump had pretty much been written off by everybody.

Maybe so, but the polls at that point in time did not indicate Clinton was going to win.

The RNC had even pleaded with him to drop out.

Irrelevant.

[RPM]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps- ... enna-ellis

152 Judges and counting. Promise kept.
Keep focusing on his maps and gaffes haters, soon there might even be enough
good Judges in Frisco that you wont need a map to avoid the human excrement
lining the sidewalks & streets. (there really is a map for this)

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is NOT WHAT I SAID. I said, I had doubts.

So post your doubts. Where are they?

You are the one on here making an accusation. You are the one on here needs to provide proof. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

Wrong. You said, quote, "The polls absolutely did not predict that Hillary would win the electoral college."

So post all of these polls. The onus is on you.

The facts are these:
Yes, I posted MANY times that Clinton would win. I claimed that before the campaign even began. I do not dispute that AT ALL. I STOPPED POSTING after Comey reopened the investigation into Clinton's Emails.

In other words, you have no proof AT ALL regarding your Hillary doubts. You are just trying to re-write and invent history.

Also, as I've already discussed, the idea that the Comey letter cost Hillary the election is dubious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upsh ... ffect.html

I say I stopped posting because I had my doubts that Clinton would win. You say that is a lie, without ANY evidence at all.

I don't care what your motives for not posting are.
For all I know, you were locked up after soliciting sex from an undercover Iowa cop posing as a teen boy.
Makes no difference to me.

The bottom line is, if you had doubts about Hillary, you didn't express them. As far as I am aware, they don't exist.

With those facts, people can believe what they want. I really don't care beyond this post.

So post the facts.

You say you had doubts, but you can't point to any.
You say you have multiple polls, but you can't cite them.
It's almost as if you are making the whole thing up.

The only person on here who said Hillary had no chance due to her high negatives was me - and maybe a few banned posters.

Find one in the first week of November of 2016....then you will have proof.

So just because you forgot to pay the internet bill one month out of the year, that is somehow proof that you had a political change of heart?
Find me ONE post where you expressed doubts about her winning. You can't. It doesn't exist. You are just a creepy little liar.

EXACTLY. In 2016, two weeks before the election was an eternity due to all the crap going on.

If polls aren't relevant until election day, then why were you on here discussing them months out?
Better question - why are you on here NOW discussing Democratic polls when the first primary is still months out?
According to your logic, you shouldn't discuss polls until election day.
Be consistent, hypocrite!

It is a FACT that the election was too close to call on election day.

So post the facts. Why is that so hard? I saw the polls change in real time on election eve. They all gave Hillary a decisive edge.

Two weeks or more prior is irrelevant.

Since the 2016 election didn't turn out the way you liked, you now want all pro-Hillary polls (and your relentless cheerleading of them) crossed from the record.
Doesn't work that way.

Maybe so, but the polls at that point in time did not indicate Clinton was going to win.

Yes, they did. Nobody expected Trump to win - including Trump. You are deeply delusional.

Irrelevant.

You've been exposed. Go Bazinga your ass, loser.

[Andrew]

Drumpy seems agitated about this whistleblower complaint.

If it is as serious as suggested, could the RWNJs actually accept he’s unfit for office?

[Monker]

Again, on election day, it was too close to call:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html

If you want to look at the last poll from ANY state, go to the link and click away. Clinton was no where close to winning.

You are such a whiny little baby when you are proven wrong. You whine, demand, call names, blah, blah, blah. None of that changes the FACTS in that link.

End of story.

That is NOT WHAT I SAID. I said, I had doubts.

So post your doubts. Where are they?

You are the one on here making an accusation. You are the one on here needs to provide proof. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

Wrong. You said, quote, "The polls absolutely did not predict that Hillary would win the electoral college."

So post all of these polls. The onus is on you.

The facts are these:
Yes, I posted MANY times that Clinton would win. I claimed that before the campaign even began. I do not dispute that AT ALL. I STOPPED POSTING after Comey reopened the investigation into Clinton's Emails.

In other words, you have no proof AT ALL regarding your Hillary doubts. You are just trying to re-write and invent history.

Also, as I've already discussed, the idea that the Comey letter cost Hillary the election is dubious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upsh ... ffect.html

I say I stopped posting because I had my doubts that Clinton would win. You say that is a lie, without ANY evidence at all.

I don't care what your motives for not posting are.
For all I know, you were locked up after soliciting sex from an undercover Iowa cop posing as a teen boy.
Makes no difference to me.

The bottom line is, if you had doubts about Hillary, you didn't express them. As far as I am aware, they don't exist.

With those facts, people can believe what they want. I really don't care beyond this post.

So post the facts.

You say you had doubts, but you can't point to any.
You say you have multiple polls, but you can't cite them.
It's almost as if you are making the whole thing up.

The only person on here who said Hillary had no chance due to her high negatives was me - and maybe a few banned posters.

Find one in the first week of November of 2016....then you will have proof.

So just because you forgot to pay the internet bill one month out of the year, that is somehow proof that you had a political change of heart?
Find me ONE post where you expressed doubts about her winning. You can't. It doesn't exist. You are just a creepy little liar.

EXACTLY. In 2016, two weeks before the election was an eternity due to all the crap going on.

If polls aren't relevant until election day, then why were you on here discussing them months out?
Better question - why are you on here NOW discussing Democratic polls when the first primary is still months out?
According to your logic, you shouldn't discuss polls until election day.
Be consistent, hypocrite!

It is a FACT that the election was too close to call on election day.

So post the facts. Why is that so hard? I saw the polls change in real time on election eve. They all gave Hillary a decisive edge.

Two weeks or more prior is irrelevant.

Since the 2016 election didn't turn out the way you liked, you now want all pro-Hillary polls (and your relentless cheerleading of them) crossed from the record.
Doesn't work that way.

Maybe so, but the polls at that point in time did not indicate Clinton was going to win.

Yes, they did. Nobody expected Trump to win - including Trump. You are deeply delusional.

Irrelevant.

You've been exposed. Go Bazinga your ass, loser.

[Memorex]

I haven't been following this thread on polls, but the morning of:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html

[Memorex]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5952.html

[Monker]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Yep, that's the national poll...which has Clinton ahead by almost the exact percent that she won by - as I said.

[Monker]

I haven't been following this thread on polls, but the morning of:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html

Again, this is not a poll but a "forecast"using all kinds of factors, with the latest poll being one of them. They are doing this to "guess" the states that are too close to call so they can predict a winner. THAT is what failed, not the polling data itself. Saying for example, State A is too close to call on polling data, but the last two elections had 60% voting for Obama, and the demographics fit the profile of 60% of the population that typically vote for the Democrat...and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, State A should easily be won by Clinton.

THAT is Forecasting, not polling data.

[Monker]

Drumpy seems agitated about this whistleblower complaint.

If it is as serious as suggested, could the RWNJs actually accept he’s unfit for office?

And, Rudy went nuts on Cuomo tonight.

If Trump did this...asking for dirt on the Biden family...you are right, you have to wonder if that will finally be too much. He simply thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he wants because "if the President does it, it can't be illegal."

[RPM]

Drumpy seems agitated about this whistleblower complaint.

If it is as serious as suggested, could the RWNJs actually accept he’s unfit for office?

You keep falling for the Fake news....over and over
Just like Monker is dumb enough to reply to TNC
So he can get spanked again.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Again, on election day, it was too close to call:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html

The entire media, pundit, and professional pollster class didn't say that - and neither did you. Nearly every major news organization from NBC to the WSJ called the 2016 results a massive upset or surprise victory. That is the reality.

In fact, even real clear politics on election eve said the following: "If every state voted according to its RCP average, she would win with 297 electoral votes to Trump’s 241, surpassing the needed 270."

While admitting that Trump still had some sort of weak path to victory, even RCP called it dead fucking wrong. Just like everyone else.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 32270.html

Clinton was no where close to winning.

You didn't say that. Nobody significant in the media said that. RCP didn't even say that. You are just trying to re-write history.

You are such a whiny little baby when you are proven wrong. You whine, demand, call names, blah, blah, blah. None of that changes the FACTS in that link.

End of story.

That link doesn't say what you think it means. And even if it did, you only posted it long after the election was already over.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You keep falling for the Fake news....over and over
Just like Monker is dumb enough to reply to TNC
So he can get spanked again.

The very same people who want leakers and whistleblowers, (like Assange/Snowden/Manning), hung for treason, are now relying on anonymous leaks to bring down Trump. As for the content of the leak....so? Hunter's dealings with Ukraine do seem shady and prolly do merit an investigation.

[Andrew]

Drumpy seems agitated about this whistleblower complaint.

If it is as serious as suggested, could the RWNJs actually accept he’s unfit for office?

You keep falling for the Fake news....over and over
Just like Monker is dumb enough to reply to TNC
So he can get spanked again.

Dear lord...what exactly is fake news about this new scandal?

[Andrew]

You keep falling for the Fake news....over and over
Just like Monker is dumb enough to reply to TNC
So he can get spanked again.

The very same people who want leakers and whistleblowers, (like Assange/Snowden/Manning), hung for treason, are now relying on anonymous leaks to bring down Trump. As for the content of the leak....so? Hunter's dealings with Ukraine do seem shady and prolly do merit an investigation.

It was investigated and I believe he had nothing to do with anything?

And seriously...you STILL side with Magadrumpf over US intel figures?

You DONT THINK THERES ANYTHING WRONG with the president withholding foreign aid to a country unless they dig for political muck on an opponent???!!!!!!!!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

It was investigated and I believe he had nothing to do with anything?

By who? Link?

And seriously...you STILL side with Magadrumpf over US intel figures?

With rare exceptions, I would never side with anonymous intel figures. JFK wanted to shatter the CIA and toss it into the wind. Ike warned of the military industrial complex. THAT'S how a patriot talks. You sound like an authoritarian bootlicker.

Here's a better question - after the humiliating implosion of Russiagate, why would anyone side with anonymous intel community sources again?

You DONT THINK THERES ANYTHING WRONG with the president withholding foreign aid to a country unless they dig for political muck on an opponent???!!!!!!!!!

I think a president's discussions with foreign leaders should be privileged to some extent. Otherwise, diplomacy cannot happen.

[RPM]

You keep falling for the Fake news....over and over
Just like Monker is dumb enough to reply to TNC
So he can get spanked again.

The very same people who want leakers and whistleblowers, (like Assange/Snowden/Manning), hung for treason, are now relying on anonymous leaks to bring down Trump. As for the content of the leak....so? Hunter's dealings with Ukraine do seem shady and prolly do merit an investigation.

It was investigated and I believe he had nothing to do with anything?

And seriously...you STILL side with Magadrumpf over US intel figures?

You DONT THINK THERES ANYTHING WRONG with the president withholding foreign aid to a country unless they dig for political muck on an opponent???!!!!!!!!!

The New York Times is now reporting there was no “ quid pro quo” Joe Biden is on tape bragging about
The threat he made to Ukraine regarding withholding money ( it worked ) But hey Andrew go all in with
Adam Shitfface

[RPM]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie ... dical-debt

This is an idea to me that has much more merit than the student loan debt.
They signed on the dotted line like we all do.
many of them to find out the $100,000 Philosophy degree will not
generate enough income to pay for the loan. As Bernie says no one ask to get cancer.
Would be a good bi-partisan bill that most people would support.

[The_Noble_Cause]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-plan-eliminate-medical-debt

This is an idea to me that has much more merit than the student loan debt.
They signed on the dotted line like we all do.
many of them to find out the $100,000 Philosophy degree will not
generate enough income to pay for the loan. As Bernie says no one ask to get cancer.
Would be a good bi-partisan bill that most people would support.

Sounds good to me. Go Bernie!

[Seven Wishes]

No quid pro quo?

The president of Ukraine told a US Senator that *he* believed Trump was tying US aid to the Biden investigation.

You troglodytes are as insufferable and unflappably ignorant as ever. Nothing has changed the past 15 years.

[Seven Wishes]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-plan-eliminate-medical-debt

This is an idea to me that has much more merit than the student loan debt.
They signed on the dotted line like we all do.
many of them to find out the $100,000 Philosophy degree will not
generate enough income to pay for the loan. As Bernie says no one ask to get cancer.
Would be a good bi-partisan bill that most people would support.

Sounds good to me. Go Bernie!

Completely agree with you here, TNC.

[RPM]

[quote="Seven Wishes"]No quid pro quo?

The president of Ukraine told a US Senator that *he* believed Trump was tying US aid to the Biden investigation.

You troglodytes are as insufferable and unflappably ignorant as ever. Nothing has changed the past 15 years

Did you read the transcript? Trump Never said that.
Also troglodytes do not have internet access.

[Seven Wishes]

Oh, good Lord.

Do you have the ability to see nuance? In this case it's as obvious as a being slapped with a dead fish.

After Zelensky mentions how desperately Ukraine needs the military aid funds, Trump’s very next comments deal with investigations he’d like to see.

“The United States has been very, very good to Ukraine, " Trump says. “I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good, but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine.”

Just wait until the entire whistleblower complaint comes out. I suspect this exchange is the tip of the iceberg.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Oh, good Lord.

Do you have the ability to see nuance? In this case it's as obvious as a being slapped with a dead fish.

After Zelensky mentions how desperately Ukraine needs the military aid funds, Trump’s very next comments deal with investigations he’d like to see.

“The United States has been very, very good to Ukraine, " Trump says. “I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good, but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine.”

Just wait until the entire whistleblower complaint comes out. I suspect this exchange is the tip of the iceberg.

Good to see you back, Seven Wishes.

With all due respect, the last time you posted, you thought Russiagate was a slam dunk. How did that work out?

[RPM]

No quid pro quo?

The president of Ukraine told a US Senator that *he* believed Trump was tying US aid to the Biden investigation.

You troglodytes are as insufferable and unflappably ignorant as ever. Nothing has changed the past 15 years.

"CBS anchor Gayle King wondered on Wednesday whether or not President Trump effectively put to rest legitimate concerns about his call with Ukraine in July by releasing a transcript.

Trump released the transcript as Democrats suspected he tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into influencing the 2020 election -- specifically, that he threatened to withhold foreign aid if Zelensky didn't investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's conduct.

The transcript, although incomplete, did not show an explicit quid pro quo on Trump's part but did show the two leaders discussing the controversy surrounding Biden. “There's not an explicit quid pro quo here... is this a big bowl of nothing or is there really something here?” King asked.

[Andrew]

Incomplete transcript. What’s he hiding? Everything as usual.

Crooked. Liar. Bullshit artist.