Trump

[Treetop]

Here is another thought. When I was younger and I heard "you get the government you deserve". I would get angry!! Of course we dont get the government we deserve, look how corrupt it is!! Sadly I have read much more since then and I cant disagree with that anymore. Honestly? In this context Trump is close to as good as it can get for many issues I value that could be elected in the current paradigm.

Look at some of our conversation above. Talk of jobs americans wont do for instance even though so many are out of work. Hard to pinpoint the exact unempoyment rate but its much higher then the official stance. Many live either directly on the dole or indirectly through industries supported by unsustainable spending. We cant sustain this but it seems perfectly reasonable to many that this exists even though mathematically its impossible to exist longterm. This was once a nation proud of its work ethic. This is largely not the case.

The candidate Id truly fully support? They cant win because most americans dont have values anything like mine. That said I have no problem with voting third party knowing they will loose, until this election all my votes went that way.

In the current paradigm though I see trump as the best potential out of what "we deserve". A scale back of globalism, and attempt to rebuild industry here. If trump fails at it and has time Id expect him to try something else if he can pull it off. Plus right leaning justices so we might retain our bill of rights. If you see the options as the same I honestly cant fathom how, but its your call. We get the government we deserve afterall. The globalists types? They dont see it as the same at all, and are freaking out. Even becoming more open about their overall drive over the years, through a range of sources. They are telling us they built "wealth" through their actions ignoring that the wealth of the west currently is leaning way to heavy into being debt based and where does that lead given a few more years or a generation or two? If not through this debt based spending we couldnt afford even the slave made gods anywhere close to what we do nationwide anyway. Sure we cant change the global market but we could retain ourselves more in the face of it.

[natsb88]

I figured if I brought up racists voting for Trump I would be accused of painting with a broad brush. Likewise it's really easy to dismiss Trump opposition as politically correct liberals or people who think everyone is racist or whatever. Just serves to further polarize both sides. You can have a substantive conversation about specific policies or you can just accuse each other of being a racist or a hippie or whatever and see who can yell the loudest. This election cycle has been a lot of the latter and very little of the former. The media (and social media) has seen to that. I'd like to see a third voice on the debate stage so more actual policy comes to light. Otherwise the Trump-Hillary debates are just going to be wiener-measuring contests (and Hillary will win those too )

Lots of pot heads vote libertarian. That's a fair statement. Lots of racists/bigots/xenophobics are supporting Trump. That's also a fair statement. I don't like how much Gary Johnson is courting pot heads or how much Trump is courting racists. But enthusiastic burnouts don't concern me that much. Enthusiastic racists/bigots/xenophobics do concern me. I don't like the idea of voting out of fear (which is the whole basis of the "lesser of two evils" mantra) but I really do think a Trump presidency would guarantee that no true small government candidate could get anywhere close to the GOP presidential ticket for many years to come. That certainly doesn't mean that a Clinton presidency would be better (in fact I think it would be worse), but rewarding the GOP for choosing a candidate like Trump has long-term consequences in what the GOP offers going forward (fewer voices against socialized healthcare, an assault weapons ban, government spying, etc etc etc). So far in my lifetime the best voices for liberty have run on the GOP ticket and I feel pretty strongly that a Trump presidency would shut the door on that avenue for a long time to come.

Hillary is more globalist and Trump is more protectionist, but they are both highly authoritarian. From my perspective it's like asking if you want to get shot in the eye socket with a .45 or a 9mm. Technically one would do less damage than the other, but the ultimate result is the same. Given those options I'm choosing the third door. It may not stop what's coming, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing I didn't vote to get shot in the eye socket.

My views have evolved in some areas. I was strictly anti-drug when I graduated high school. I am still personally opposed to using mind-altering substances but recognize the utter failure of prohibition as a government policy and the right of people to do what they want with their own bodies (so long as they don't interfere with my life or demand I pay to fix their health consequences). So I don't have a problem with a politician improving their positions over time. The problem with Trump is that I don't believe him. I do not think he is being truthful. I think his policy changes are strictly what his campaign advisors tell him are mostly likely to get him elected and are not any genuine change in philosophy. I do not have any confidence that he would hold to his current stances if elected. I think once in office he would quickly revert to where he was just a year ago and give us mostly the same as we expect from Clinton. I don't think he particularly cares about a second term, and it's pretty hard to lose a re-election campaign anyway. With his past affiliations and actions and his phony public persona, I don't trust Trump as far as I can throw him. I think he's a snake and I doubt there's anything he could do or say at this point to convince me otherwise. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I'll end up going through an entire bucket of "I told you so's" if he wins. I haven't ordered it yet because I still don't think he'll win

[68Camaro]

Got it; you don't believe him and I understand why, and in your position nothing anyone says is going to change that opinion. I'm not quite in your shoes, but I see hopeful evidence that he has grown (and is growing even as we watch him) out of much of his apparent self-centered behavior in his old age.

That said, even if the risks of Trump were as high as you suggest, Trump is still a question who might positively surprise, whereas the other candidate is one that I already know based on past performance is willing to screw the country and anyone/everyone in it for personal benefit, without even a flinch. So based on what we know as of today - there is no question who I would vote for. And I am someone who 6 months ago did not care for him.

One of his most endearing qualities is his ability to speak his mind with minimal filter. It is so anti-establishment. I don't always like what results from his lack of filter, but I would get some real insight into what he is really thinking than hear pablum from a professional politician who is polished about telling me what they think I want to hear (while behind the scenes it is all "House of Cards" manipulation going on).

[Treetop]

Hillary is more globalist and Trump is more protectionist, but they are both highly authoritarian. From my perspective it's like asking if you want to get shot in the eye socket with a .45 or a 9mm. Technically one would do less damage than the other, but the ultimate result is the same. Given those options I'm choosing the third door. It may not stop what's coming, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing I didn't vote to get shot in the eye socket.

For me its whether or not the gun is targeted at our middle class and bill of rights or towards atleast trying to rebuild production and step back from mindsets that lead solely to dead ends. Trump is hardly a true hero of a politician but atleast hed try imo.

I dont agree trump is supported by racists anymore then any past republican or libertarian. The left sure implies this, and it is an easy claim when you can claim opposing illegal immigration or vetting muslims before we let them immigrate is racist. The actual racists all liked, bush, romney, dole, and of course even ron paul and gary johnson eons more then any democrat. If gary johnson had won the republican nomination hed have all the racists behind him as well. Keep in mind gary was a republican back when he was governor of my state. Ron paul was also a republican, as is his son. If any of these guys won theyd have 100% equal support from the same racists trump does.

If trump did revert to all old views, then wed still have an anti globalist who wants to rebuild our economy. I dont agree though because hed never win a second term like that and the dude wants to leave a legacy. He wants 8 years. He wants to shock and awe. He never would have gotten where he did if he wasnt part snake and I wouldnt have someone to vote for that can win that will reverse what I see as the most damaging trends in our society. Honest people get NOWHERE in politics today, well past the state level but even that is rare. Globalism is setting us up for failure and Ill reverse course any way I can.

I fail to see how if trump is a moderate on some things how this would make it so we cannot be in atleast of a good of position as currently in regards to voting back in liberty. In fact Id wager wed be more likely because if trumps pulls off few of his stances I expect wed be doing a bit better and it might cause more people from the younger generation to give an honest look at such issues.

[justoneguy]

. From my perspective it's like asking if you want to get shot in the eye socket with a .45 or a 9mm. Technically one would do less damage than the other, but the ultimate result is the same. Given those options I'm choosing the third door. It may not stop what's coming, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing I didn't vote to get shot in the eye socket.

This is the most common thought process that I've heard about this election.
Hard core dems who NEVER missed an election,
repubs who always voted the party line.
young and old both saying "I won't vote for either one."
even my wife is saying she won't vote for either,
although she has sworn me to secrecy, She is going to vote trump.
only to keep that @#$ out of our top office.
How pathetic it is that We aren't allowed to have many good options for our leadership.
There are still so many people with good business and moral values,
but no one knows how to overcome what the "system" has grown into

[Treetop]

Also since we brought it up Ill go ahead and say the taboo thing. We were talking white skinned racist who generally vote seemingly mainly over gun rights. When we go to minority racist which imo far out number white skinned ones, they all vote democrat and hillary and democrats have not only coveted these voters but they feed the flames. Sure white skin racist might like trumps blocking illegal immigrant plans or vetting muslim immigrants but he hasnt in any way directly flamed the fire of racism as the democrats and hillary do.

[Treetop]

I feel a bit weird about this post because Im not a christian, but I happened upon something today I thought a few of you might be interested in. I knw its a taboo subject even among those who believe in prophesy because of false prophets etc. But there was a guy back in 2011 who claimed trump would win. The major flaw here being he thought it was 2012 hed win, but then he never ran then either. If you look at youtube there are a bunch of christians debating this in the last few months but I spent awhile and verified it was around in 2011.

This first link has a bunch of stuff including apparently the actual prophesy. Likely better sources I dunno, I just wanted to find it in its original form.

http://countdowntozerotime.com/2016/05/ ... -prophecy/

This link was what I found showing he had said this years ago. The video was posted in 2011.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHemE8qm7Rg

I do find it interesting the said this... "They will say things about this man (the enemy), but it will not affect him, and they shall say it rolls off of him like the duck, for as the feathers of a duck protect it, so shall my feathers protect this next president." Only a tiny fraction of the things trump has said stuck at all. Mostly it does nothing. Might also be interesting to note that this isnt a well known thing, and trump isnt exactly the poster boy for the religion but has always had strong christians support in some sectors. It goes on to say even the media will start siding with him, and heck with wikileaks planning another release, depending on the nature of it that just might happen.

Im not actually holding this up as true of course, not even sure I believe such things are possible even though Ive had some dreams that seemed so for myself. But I thought a few of the christians here might want to check it out.

[NHsorter]

Yup, there will be a heck of a lot more racists voting for Hillary then voting for Trump. Guaranteed.

[natsb88]

Lots and lots of source links if you read the article on their website:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ing-badly/

The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly

We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.

Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are “using” more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans. They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.

But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.

The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.

A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.

Here’s the margin that Democrats have had in self-identification since 1952, according to the American National Elections Studies and, starting in 1972, exit polls.



And it’s not crazy to think Democrats will have an advantage in party identification in 2016. With a controversial nominee, many Republicans might not want to identify with the GOP, and may be calling themselves independents.

You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.

Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?

Of course, unskewing is simply one of many ways of pretending Clinton hasn’t jumped out to a large post-convention lead against Donald Trump. You could also ask us to imagine a world without polls. You could allege, without any evidence, that outright election fraud will take place. Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.

People, though, should stick to reality. Right now, Clinton is leading in almost every single national poll. She leads in both our polls-plus and polls-only forecasts. That doesn’t mean she will win. The polls have been off before, but no one knows by how much beforehand, or in which direction they’ll miss. For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.

538 had Trump and Hillary pretty much 50/50 a few weeks ago. Not looking so good for Trump now. Still time to turn it around (if he actually wants to...).

538-8-9-16.JPG (90.02 KiB) Viewed 1868 times

[Treetop]

Not sure it means anything atm. Several recently highly biased polls were both provably and admittedly highly biased even moved in trumps favor in the light of admitting their bias recently like the rueters ipsos and others. Plus five thirty five is run by a rather biased fellow which was why it was so interesting to me trump was ever winning it at all. Reagon was loosing by more then 8 at this point and won in a landslide and didnt have what wikileaks still insists, (we will see) is the most incriminating tidbit in her career coming out yet. For a libertarian you sure seem to react well to corporate media memes there nate lol. Several of the mainline polling places recently and provably changed their algorithms for the first time Im aware of to make trump look bad, and even in those hes now within 2-3 points atm. (less than margin of error) The way five thirty works this doesnt show up yet.

[Treetop]

I was curious what diebold was doing recently being that so many shady things happened with them in the past. As it turns out it seems a Soros connected company has bought up all the voting related companies in the last few years. disconcerting to say the least if you know this guys past.

[natsb88]

For a libertarian you sure seem to react well to corporate media memes there nate lol

I get called a right-wing extremest / conspiracy theorist / racist on Facebook, but I get accused of playing the racist card and don't believe in enough conspiracy theories to make people happy here and at Bullionstacker. That makes me think my position may actually be quite reasonable

The losing side always dismisses polls as inaccurate and comes up with reasons the results are actually the opposite of what the polls show. Occasionally the polls get it wrong (like Brexit, which was much closer than the current Hillary/Trump numbers). But way more often the polls get it right. Same with FiveThirtyEight.

I expected Rand to do much better in Iowa than the polls were predicting, based on the crowds at his events and college being in session and people changing parties at the caucuses. Turned out he finished pretty much where the polls put him, there was no game-changing boost from those "x-factors."

There's still plenty of time for the numbers to change, but if Trump actually wants to win, he needs to stop running his mouth. He doesn't have to be "politically correct," he just needs to stop being a blathering buffoon for a few months. If he is presidential material, surely he has enough self control to do that. Unless he's really that much of a loose cannon, or he's intentionally tanking his campaign.

I was curious what diebold was doing recently being that so many shady things happened with them in the past. As it turns out it seems a Soros connected company has bought up all the voting related companies in the last few years. disconcerting to say the least if you know this guys past.

Another factor that, if it's really a factor, supports my belief (stated here long ago) that Trump will lose against Hillary.

[Treetop]

Polls for hillary vs. trump are actually 2-3 points difference. Within the margin of error. This only includes "likely" voters as well and lots of trump people are not considered likely voters because lots of them didnt vote lat time. So not sure why youd say the polls are showing a clear hillary win. Nothing to do with the "loosing" side or any bias.

LOL, I seem to piss off most on the left and right myself about anywhere I speak so I can relate to that. Always have. We probably agree more then you might think on most things politically in most past political discussions here Ive agreed with you in particular more then about anyone else here I can think of. Seem to agree with engineer and john brickner alot as well.

That said I do find it interesting we disagree so much in this particular election cycle. Baffles me you see it as less of a difference in candidates stances when I see it the first time the differences werent token differences.

[natsb88]

I also frequently find myself thinking along the lines of you, Engineer, and Bricks. This election cycle seems to be shaking things up on all sides though. Former GOP voters leaving the party because of Trump, others joining the party because of Trump, lots of Bernie supporters bailing on the democrats because of Hillary, but Hillary picking up some anti-Trumpers, libertarians going in both directions because Johnson isn't libertarian enough, but lots of former blue and some red voters flocking to Johnson because they can't stand their own parties' candidates. I find myself opposed to Trump but disagreeing with a lot of the anti-Trumpers on why he's bad. I find it fascinating that so many liberals hate Hillary but are voting for her because they hate Trump even more. I find it very telling that there is so much in-fighting among libertarians about how terrible a candidate Johnson is, despite him doing better in the national polls than any previous LP candidate. And I see a lot of good people on all sides conflating positions, misunderstanding platforms, and unable to answer why they want their choice to win, other than saying that the other choice is evil.

I'm content to watch this flusterfluff unfold from a safe distance, knowing I can't change the outcome, and vote for the only candidate out of the three I would actually like to see in the white house, even if he has less than a 1% chance of getting there. I'm not playing the "lesser of two evils" game and even if I squint really hard that's the best I can see Trump as, and not by a big margin.

[Treetop]

Sooooo apparently part of trumps economic plan is to try to renegotiate debt to lower levels? That was my understanding of an article I was reading last night. PFFFT. Probably the silliest thing Ive seen him say yet. Will still get my vote, but geez.

[Treetop]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/leaked ... il-unrest/

Also saw this this morning on drudge. Emails showing hillary was contact by Soros, directed on a curse of action and she followed it.

[hobo finds]

Did he not call for 2nd amendment folks to fix this problem for him...

[Treetop]

Some say so, but youd have to watch the speech. He seemed to be saying second amendment folks could fix it by voting for him to me. Others disagree and think he meant by shooting hillary if she got in office which frankly makes no sense because youd still have a dem pick the supreme court justices anyway so wouldnt change anything. The way I interpret it since he was in fact saying even if you dont like me vote for me for the supreme court makes sense because the gun folks would then make she supreme court flipped to the right instead of left. Talked to my brothers about it today one of which thought as I did the other thinks he told people to use their guns. Would have to make up your own mind.

[natsb88]

It was pretty ambiguous. That's a common problem (maybe by design) with Trump statements and speeches. Sometimes I think he's intentionally ambiguous to make it easier for people to hear what they want to hear while leaving enough wiggle room to spin it into something else later. Other times I think maybe I'm giving him too much credit and he's really just that scatterbrained and/or ignorant on the subject.

He can read/recite planned and rehearsed statements, but when it comes to answering real questions, there's a lot of rambling and interrupting himself. Lots of started-and-never-finished thoughts and big picture rhetoric, but really short on specifics. I have a hard time listening to the guy. C'mon Donald, finish one sentence before you start the next one.

[Treetop]

I guess it is ambiguous since so many see it so differently then I do, but I really dont get how because why would someone suggest you can stop the left from controlling the supreme court with guns when using them as some suggest he meant wouldnt do that in any vague way because her VP would simply put lefty justices in after she was gone. Trump is alot of things but not so dense he doesnt get that. Shooting her wouldnt stop democrats from tilting the supreme court left at all. This in the middle of a speech where he was already trying to say people need to vote for him over that one issue if nothing else to in fact stop her from tilting the supreme court left in a way that would actually work. Its like they took a single sentence completely out of the conversation and focused on that when it had an actual context. Similar to how some pretend he would lock people up if they performed abortions when in reality he had just been asked if it was illegal if he would punish them in some way.

My wife and I watched the same speech it was in and never for a second thought he was suggesting anyone shoot someone. Only later when we saw the headlines and video clips with like 14 seconds did we realize it was a speech we had already seen.

[68Camaro]

The media is deliberately looking for every crazy rabbit trail they can latch onto. It is clearly a planned strategy and it is working (at least for now) but it is starting to become really obvious (at least to me).

[Treetop]

I had always known the clintons were corrupt, but my gosh, had no idea the level of depravity. No wonder some conspiracy theorists dont think TPTB are human. Anyone who isnt sure who to vote for if any such folks exist here you might want to check out "clinton cash" a recent documentary. Wife and I are only half through it and I cant even fathom how more of this isnt well known. Touches on how hillary lead the clean up in haiti for instance through the state department and how groups donating to the clinton foundation (only 10% of the clinton foundation funds goes to charity) benefited while most of the cash the world sent there in their time of need ended up in others pockets. Lots of other things covered as well. Shady dealings in nigeria for instance, where she appears to have affected our foreign policy to uphold dictators whom had made billions keeping locals on their knees a donor to the clintons to the tune of 100million. Wife had to go do other things and I spent time verifying various points in the movie and it all looks real thus far.

Anyone on the fence of voting for the lesser evil in trump should watch this. (of course I dont mean you nate lol) Its undeniably clear who the lesser evil is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

[Treetop]

ITs a bit over an hour but worth the watch if any of you have the time. Theres technically no "smoking gun" but a consistent pattern. What sticks out most is she changes long held positions after companies donate heavily to their foundation and pay bill massive amounts for speeches. If she didnt change her positions because of the money but consistently changed positions as soon as money showed up wth is the other explanation? Also it sticks out (this part isnt in the movie but easy to verify) that her "foundation" spends about as much on fundraisers as it actually gives to charity, the vast bulk goes to pay the foundations employees. Any other charity like this would be hated by everyone. What is the foundations actual goals when such a tiny percentage goes to actual charities? It sure benefits friends of the clintons, but not so much any charity. Also as covered in the movie the amounts Bill was paid for speeches was drastically higher during a period hillary was in a position to affect policy, and again was going against previous stances she held. So many sources claim no smoking gun here, but I disagree.

Also keep in mind wikileaks tells us the next batch of emails they will give us here soon will show illegal activity involving the clinton foundation. Keep in mind all this IS highly illegal if she changed policy FOR this money and donations. So the missing smoking gun as Im seeing so many in media call it potentially will be here soon.

So we are on the verge of potentially electing a women who has both been seemingly selling policy and had a private server that was potentially hacked and could potentially be blackmailed over. Two separate issues here. If she wasnt selling policy then why did stances change as soon as money came into it?

[Treetop]

I found this interesting, especially in light of the fact that several of the major polling places both admittedly changed the questions in a way that favored hillary and switched to including much more democrats, and trump is still closing the gap. One insider in this insisted they had to because it "couldnt" be right that hillary was loosing that bad. That said this app isnt considered scientific either no idea what the demographics of its user base are, but according to an app called zip, trump is the clear winner even in california. Which frankly fits what we see on social media, youtube etc. Trump gets multiples more views, his rallies are massive and hers tiny. Also find it interesting that the guy from this app insists people can be more honest there, and talking to my mom my brothers both hate trump. (ohio) Talking to both my brothers individually and both are voting for him. Guess we will see on nov 8.

64% to 36%

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016 ... /88640044/

[johnbrickner]

No wonder some conspiracy theorists dont think TPTB are human.

Demon possession is the one I hear most often regarding the one who (shall not me named) would be called madam President.

64% to 36%

Joseph Goebbels is credited with having said "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the . . . consequences of the lie."

With the complete faith, credit, and power the administration can muster she (who shall not be named) will use the media to tell the "big lie". Fortunately, for her the people have very short memories and so only need to be shielded 'til they either forget or can be told another lie to cover for the consequences of the first.