TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 67 of 170

---

There is NOTHING Hillary can do to chase away the phantom Hillary haunting 1kiki's brain.

---

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking ... (an) attribute of the person making the argument, (ie the phantoms in my brain) or persons, associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

---

Yes, your post fits the definition very nicely.

---

From the 1kiki smoke I can only make out one word: California. Is that correct? And I have never been able to make out the first word. Is it Trump?

---

You've failed to answer the OT questions I ask you, no matter how many times I ask them. Instead you post lies about unrelated things. And when I refute your posts, rather than man-up and say 'I was wrong', you indulge in ad hominem attacks. So, no, I feel absolute NO obligation to answer your question. Especially when I've already answered it. All you have to do ... is find it. FETCH !!! Go girl! GO FETCH !!

---

Larry, the Republican next door ...

---

"Chanting anti-Donald screeds isn't going to change anything. The people who are for Hillary will read them and probably agree, and maybe even get foam-at-the-mouth-angry over them - but it's not like they get Hilliary EXTRA votes. Meanwhile, the people who are going to vote for Donald either know and don't care, or they don't care to know."

Strange, I already predicted Larry, the Republican next door.

The problem is how can Hillary avoid losing even more of her supporters? And how can she gain them from the pool of undecided/ independent ones?

---

---

---

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Don't bother asking sigkik who they are voting for. They won't put their neck out like that.
Such as when I asked them to come back here and stand up for their position against Hillary and for Drumph. Come back in four years and own up to their choice and what followed, either way the vote goes.
These trolls won't do it. Because they really are trolls and cowards at heart. Like Drumph, they cannot face the idea that they might be mistaken, and that reality will prove how very much wrong they are.
They are that insecure. Pure 100% cowards.
Here is the post with the challenge, in case they try to deny it:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60557&mid=1
014580#1014580

---

I've talked about who I'm going to vote for many times,

Here, all the way back in December

Quote:

---

Who I vote for depends on who's on the ticket. If Bernie Sanders doesn't make it on the ticket, I will NOT be voting for Hillary, that warmongering, lying neocon-bitch in a Democratic pantsuit! I guess my choices would be Trump (because he's so gorram rich he doesn't need to sell himself to the highest contributor) or Jill Stein (Green Party). But that needs more thought.

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60255

Here, when Bernie was still running

Quote:

---

Still, it depends on who's running...
Hillary v Trump > Trump
Hillary v any other Republican > Jill Stein
Sanders v any other Republican > Sanders
Sanders v Trump > ???

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60425

Here, before the conventions

Quote:

---

Who I vote for depends on who's on the ticket. If Bernie Sanders doesn't make it on the ticket, I will NOT be voting for Hillary, that warmongering, lying neocon-bitch in a Democratic pantsuit! I guess my choices would be Trump (because he's so gorram rich he doesn't need to sell himself to the highest contributor) or Jill Stein (Green Party). But that needs more thought.
Tulsi Gabbard deserves a campaign contribution. So does Russ Feingold, who is running again for Senate.

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60255

Here, after the Presidential nominees had been decided

Quote:

---

Basically, you don't like third-party votes? I use third-party votes strategically: I'd vote for Jill Stein, but ONLY if Hillary has a solid lock on CA.

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60678&mid=1
013565

Here in July

Quote:

---

Anybody but Hillary. It'll be like my vote for "not Obama" last election: it depends on how the polling shapes up. If Hillary is a slam-dunk in CA, then my vote REALLY doesn't count, and I'll vote for Jill Stein (Green) ... who is, by the way, the REAL first female Presidential nominee (2012), not Hillary. If OTOH Trumps stands a prayer of taking CA, I'll probably vote Trump.
I would have voted for Sanders if he'd been on the ticket. But since he isn't mine is a protest vote.

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60586

So MAL4, I'm sorry you can't read or can't comprehend or can't remember or whatever it is that prevented you from knowing what I was saying about my vote.

Maybe you just had a "Hillary moment" and blacked out ... for eight months?

Well, just in case you STILL haven't gotten it, if Trump is within about 10 percentage points of Hillary in CA, I'll vote for Trump. If he's so far behind Hillary that he doesn't stand a chance in CA, then I'll vote for Jill Stein.

Got it?



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Got it?

---

Trump California else Stein California. It is a five word answer but that is a typical, and tedious, 1kiki smokescreen. Why not make a powerful statement and write in your own name on the California ballot? 1kiki for President!
http://presidentials.mytimetovote.com/Write-In-Candidates-running-for-
president.html

For those who don't know, California will go as strongly for Hillary as Alabama will go for Trump.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/california/
#now


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Today, Chris Christie casually peddled the obvious lie that Donald Trump gave up on birtherism after President Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011. This is easily fact checkable. There are tweets. There's video. That does not stop Christie from lying for Trump:

This is why Americans hate politics. A sitting governor goes on national television and when he is called out for an obvious falsehood, he simply repeats the inaccurate talking points over and over.

....This is such bogus spin that we have to wonder how Christie manages to say it with a straight face. Clearly Christie is either lying or he is so misinformed that he has no business appearing on television.

If you want the evidence that what is wrong with Trump has rubbed off on Christie then the Trump's tweets and videos promoting Birtherism are here:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/18/christies-claim
-that-trump-did-not-on-a-regular-basis-spout-birther-nonsense-after-2011/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

---

Trump California else Stein California. It is a five word answer but that is a typical, and tedious, 1kiki smokescreen. Why not make a powerful statement and write in your own name on the California ballot? 1kiki for President!

---

second

That was Signy's answer, not mine. Am I to conclude that you're very confused? Or that you're lying?

And - MY answer is still out there! So, go get it!

---

---

---

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

MEANWHILE

The problem is how can Hillary avoid losing even more of her supporters? And how can she gain new supporters from the pool of undecided/ independent ones?

---

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-p
anic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/

Sep 16, 2016 at 5:03 PM
Election Update: Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week

Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls has been declining for several weeks, and now we’re at the point where it’s not much of a lead at all. National polls show Clinton only 1 or 2 percentage points ahead of Donald Trump, on average. And the state polling situation isn’t really any better for her. On Thursday alone, polls were released showing Clinton behind in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado — and with narrow, 3-point leads in Michigan and Virginia, two states once thought to be relatively safe for her.

It’s also become clearer that Clinton’s “bad weekend” — which included describing half of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” on Friday, and a health scare (followed by news that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia) on Sunday — has affected the polls. Prior to the weekend, Clinton’s decline had appeared to be leveling off, with the race settling into a Clinton lead of 3 or 4 percentage points. But over the past seven days, Clinton’s win probability has declined from 70 percent to 60 percent in our polls-only forecast and by a similar amount, from 68 percent to 59 percent, in our polls-plus forecast.

That’s not to imply the events of the weekend were necessarily catastrophic for Clinton: In the grand scheme of things, they might not matter all that much (although polling from YouGov suggests that Clinton’s health is in fact a concern to voters). But when you’re only ahead by 3 or 4 points, and when some sequence of events causes you to lose another 1 or 2 points, the Electoral College probabilities can shift pretty rapidly. A lot of light blue states on our map have turned pink, meaning that Trump is now a narrow favorite there instead of Clinton:



When a candidate has a rough stretch like this in the polls, you’ll sometimes see his or her supporters pass through the various stages of grief before accepting the results, beginning with a heavy dose of “unskewing” or cherry-picking of various polls. In this case, however, the shift in the race is apparent in a large number of high-quality surveys, and doesn’t depend much on the methodology one chooses. FiveThirtyEight, Real Clear Politics and Huffington Post Pollster all show similar results in their national polling averages, for example, with Clinton leading by only 1 to 3 percentage points over Trump.

This potentially ignores a more important question, however. Sure, Clinton might lead by only a percentage point or two right now — with a similarly perilous advantage in the Electoral College. But is that necessarily the best prediction for how things will turn out in November?

Our various models differ on this question. Polls-only assumes that there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the outcome. But it also mostly assumes1 that the current condition of the race — Clinton ahead by around 2 points — is a statistically unbiased prediction of the Nov. 8 outcome. In other words, it assumes that Clinton is as likely to continue losing ground as opposed to regaining ground from this point forward.

Polls-plus, by contrast, discounts short-term shifts in the polls by hedging them with an index based on economic conditions. Even at this fairly late stage of the campaign, about 30 percent of the polls-plus forecast is based on the economic index rather than the polls. But this year, the economic index assumes the election will be very close. Thus, the recent tightening of the race is not much of a surprise to polls-plus, and it doesn’t differ much from the polls-only forecast at this point.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME