Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,956 posts, read 17,896,841 times
Reputation: 10376

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69Charger View Post
This is a very simple question that baffles me. She has so much blood and scandal on her hands, yet is still eligible for the highest office in the land? And people WANT her???
Because Hillary supporters, like Obama supporters, don't care about morals and ethics. All they care about is party over policy. Truth doesn't matter one iota. Successful policies don't matter either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:46 AM
 
2,218 posts, read 1,947,961 times
Reputation: 1909
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
yeah, exit polling data which disprove Democratic lies are meaningless, but the lies themselves, should be taken at face value..

I dont need your approval to help with my self-esteem.. the new Porsche I just paid cash for 2 weeks ago, and the Mustang 2 weeks before that, has done wonders, but I'm the dumb poor one.

Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, and many, many more, were horrible at spelling/grammar..

If thats all you have, then I feel just as sorry for you as I do for MTQ for taking and repeating lies he keeps posting..
OK.. here's a very quick explanation answering why your article is irrelevant:

Voters in primary elections tend to skew toward the higher educated and higher income demographics. We are now in the general election, and the numbers have changed, as multiple polls demonstrate.

(Here's an example: Education Level Emerges as Sharp Dividing Line in Clinton-Trump Race - Bloomberg Politics)

Now why might this be?

Perhaps it is because the higher-educated voters are able to see through the con easier, but it takes time to negotiate the rhetoric. At first, Trump's message may have resonated with highly educated voters, but as Trump's campaign progressed, an increasing number among that demographic realized that Trump didn't maintain many substantive policy positions... and they began to migrate to third party candidates. That's one possible explanation for the general election polling data.

But enough about what I think. Why do you think his support base has been increasingly less educated as a group?


PS: If you measure your esteem by the number of automobiles you are able to purchase within a month, well.. that speaks volumes about your common sense (let alone your education).

PPS: You are certainly no Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Einstein, or Churchill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:48 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverikv View Post
You're right, Sara Palins never ran for anything
note the s on "palins", meaning its not her personally, but her children, as noted by the rest of the sentence..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:49 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merge View Post
OK.. here's a very quick explanation answering why your article is irrelevant:

Voters in primary elections tend to skew toward the higher educated and higher income demographics
And they supported Trump, thereby disproving the notion that Trump supporters are dumb and poor..

You dont need to go any further than that, to know the talking point by the DNC is a lie..

Once you hit the general election, Trump voters are supporting the party, not the candidate for the most part, for the same reason so many Democrats back Clinton..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:51 AM
 
2,218 posts, read 1,947,961 times
Reputation: 1909
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And they supported Trump, thereby disproving the notion that Trump supporters are dumb and poor..

You dont need to go any further than that, to know the talking point by the DNC is a lie..

Once you hit the general election, Trump voters are supporting the party, not the candidate for the most part, for the same reason so many Democrats back Clinton..
I know that I don't need to go further than that. I am doing so for your benefit. If you don't value education though... that's on you. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:51 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic View Post
How can Donald Trump say crazy **** every other day and still be in the election?.
Clearly someone doesnt understand the difference between saying crazy ****, and breaking the law..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:53 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merge View Post
I know that I don't need to go further than that. I am doing so for your benefit. If you don't value education though... that's on you. Take care.
You arent doing it for "my benefit" you said the link was irrelevant and then went on to prove that it was..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 09:54 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,588,793 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Setting up a private server is a deliberate act by a woman who spoke with previous secretaries of state as well as other executive department heads and who thought it was right and proper, as well as convenient to do so. Her "minions" should have advised her otherwise. It was a bad decision on her part.
Once again, I ask all of us to read the law. In short, merely and willfully having the classified information on the private server is in violation of the law. I don't know how much more clear it can be.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 10:01 AM
 
17,403 posts, read 11,992,702 times
Reputation: 16161
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
NO, she did not compromise national security. A compromise of national security would require that an unauthorized party actually obtained confidential information. Like Petraeus's mistress did. That's a compromise of national security. The FBI's very thorough investigation didn't find any unauthorized person obtaining confidential information through Secretary Clinton's actions.

But absolutely she should not have used a private server.

And government servers aren't all that secure. Which branch of the federal government hasn't had their servers hacked?
I don't think so, but if that is the case, I'd like to see the proof of that.

Again, I highly doubt that. Everything I have found mentions "actual and potential". The fact that she got lucky that nothing was compromised doesn't change the fact that there was the potential.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2016, 10:04 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,588,793 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
I don't think so, but if that is the case, I'd like to see the proof of that.

Again, I highly doubt that. Everything I have found mentions "actual and potential". The fact that she got lucky that nothing was compromised doesn't change the fact that there was the potential.
See Post 155. The law is crystal clear but my English may not be as good as the liberals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top