General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

IMO it's not that people are switching sides over the most recent email leaks, it's that the polls are adjusting their numbers as they a) try to maintain some sort of credibility going forward by getting closer to actual expected results and b) try to take into account assumptions they used that are turning out not to be true (based on early voting), such as black voter turnout.
 
just-in-james-comey-died-in-a-car-accident-tomorrow-5647154.png
 
Phil Elliott said:
IMO it's not that people are switching sides over the most recent email leaks, it's that the polls are adjusting their numbers as they a) try to maintain some sort of credibility going forward by getting closer to actual expected results and b) try to take into account assumptions they used that are turning out not to be true (based on early voting), such as black voter turnout.
Click to expand...
Also, likely easier to find a Trump voter since voting for Trump is now seen cool as it can be labelled as an anti-corruption vote vs a racist vote.
 
Glad I'm not the only one who notices this. I've clicked on far too many of these absurd "articles." Hope it drops sharply after the election.
 
Joe Fan said:
I've always suspected that you post while drinking
Click to expand...

Joe, you post some good links, but this one is ridiculous. If an article or blog post suggests something outrageous but has no specific sources, you shouldn't post it for your own sake. It hurts your credibility.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Glad I'm not the only one who notices this. I've clicked on far too many of these absurd "articles." Hope it drops sharply after the election.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading Huffington Post years ago for the same reason. I skip right over articles in Facebook with headlines that border on "sensational" then make a mental note if a friend is posting it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Joe, you post some good links, but this one is ridiculous. If an article or blog post suggests something outrageous but has no specific sources, you shouldn't post it for your own sake. It hurts your credibility.
Click to expand...

You seem to be operating under the false idea that you can open and even change posters minds, if you only write long posts full of empathy for them.
But these Hillary people are voting for her not matter what.
If they do not care about corruption, lying, perjury, subversion of democracy and pay for play, then they would not care about kiddie porn either. If they do not care about the ridiculous crime and assault being imported into Europe that will be brought here too, then they would not care about money laundering either. Hillary could murder someone at a rally in front of everyone and they would still goosestep to the voting booth for her.
Makes no difference. They have closed minds.

The reason I post is so that in 10 years, when it has gone to hell, I can say that I at least tried.
 
Joe Fan said:
You seem to be operating under the false idea that you can open and even change posters minds, if you only write long posts full of empathy for them.
But these Hillary people are voting for her not matter what.
If they do not care about corruption, lying, perjury, subversion of democracy and pay for play, then they would not care about kiddie porn either. If they do not care about the ridiculous crime and assault being imported into Europe that will be brought here too, then they would not care about money laundering either. Hillary could murder someone at a rally in front of everyone and they would still goosestep to the voting booth for her.
Makes no difference. They have closed minds.

The reason I post is so that in 10 years, when it has gone to hell, I can say that I at least tried.
Click to expand...

Glass houses...oh nevermind.
 
Joe Fan said:
You are the local king of the non-sequitur
The only way your replies ever make any sense, is to imagine you are sitting there drunk while typing.
Click to expand...

We get it...SH is "drunk" and had "reading comprehension" issues. Surprised you haven't reverted to "fat" and "bald" too. A word of advice...you may be taking the Trump persona a tad too far.

I do have one thing over you though, I'm not 100% partisan thus am blind to opposing views and learning from others. Have a wonderful day.
 
Joe Fan said:
You seem to be operating under the false idea that you can open and even change posters minds, if you only write long posts full of empathy for them.
But these Hillary people are voting for her not matter what.
If they do not care about corruption, lying, perjury, subversion of democracy and pay for play, then they would not care about kiddie porn either. If they do not care about the ridiculous crime and assault being imported into Europe that will be brought here too, then they would not care about money laundering either. Hillary could murder someone at a rally in front of everyone and they would still goosestep to the voting booth for her.
Makes no difference. They have closed minds.

The reason I post is so that in 10 years, when it has gone to hell, I can say that I at least tried.
Click to expand...

Joe, what does any of this have to do with your post? If you post stuff that is obviously nonsense or at best, groundless sensationalism, that hurts YOUR credibility, not the credibility of Hillary supporters. In fact, it makes everybody question the legitimacy of what you say in general, even when it's right.
 
Mr. Deez said:
And just glancing at this depo, it looks like some of the lawyers involved have the same bad habit that I had - saying "okay" before asking a question.
Click to expand...

Had to smile at this because my daughter has done the exact same thing when I've witnessed her questioning in court and depo's. Drives me crazy, but it do like to watch her in actin.
 
nashhorn said:
Had to smile at this because my daughter has done the exact same thing when I've witnessed her questioning in court and depo's. Drives me crazy, but it do like to watch her in actin.
Click to expand...

Nash, it's just part of normal conversation. We all do it in all sorts of contexts. However, you don't realize how often even lawyers (who are thought to be skilled communicators) do it until you see it in a transcript. Honestly, I was embarrassed the first time I looked at a key-work index of my own depositions and noticed just how often I do it. I thought, "damn, I hope my clients (who ultimately pay for the deposition costs, which are based on the page count) never notice how many pages of this depo is just me saying "okay."

And I'm glad you watch your daughter in court. Only one time has a family member of mine seen me in court even for a hearing. I had a hearing in Dallas County (rare since I practiced in Austin), and when my dad (lives in Plano) heard about it, he dropped everything and showed up. It wasn't even a trial - just a contested hearing and on a pretty boring procedural issue (whether extracontractual claims against an insurer should be severed and abated from the contractual claims and therefore litigated in a separate case and delayed pending the outcome of the contractual claims - blah, blah, blah), so he did see me in oral argument. Fortunately, I won that hearing and impressed my old man.
 
Her first court ever I happened to be in Nashville for company's Annual Sales Conference same week. Guess who skipped every meeting? Had to be one of my most proud moments when jury came back with 'not guilty' verdict. Little girl did good, but the "okay" when questioning I did think was unnecessary and sounded unprofessional to my public speaking ear. She definitely does it more in deposition than in court, I guess because so many more routine questions.
 
nashhorn said:
Her first court ever I happened to be in Nashville for company's Annual Sales Conference same week. Guess who skipped every meeting? Had to be one of my most proud moments when jury came back with 'not guilty' verdict. Little girl did good, but the "okay" when questioning I did think was unnecessary and sounded unprofessional to my public speaking ear. She definitely does it more in deposition than in court, I guess because so many more routine questions.
Click to expand...

If the jury went her way, then they must not have minded it too much. And I definitely did it more in deposition than in court (though I'm sure I did it at least some even in court). I think the reason for the disparity is the inherent formality that goes with trying a case. Obviously I never "winged it" for a deposition, but I'll readily admit that when I asked questions in trial, I was much more careful about how they were asked and how they sounded.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like she had three present.......
Click to expand...

There were 4 plaintiffs lawyers present, plus these 9 either representing her directly or with a shared interest. I may even know one of them

CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON
MARCIA BERMAN
STEVEN A. MYERS
JOHN R. GRIFFITHS
SARAH E. PROSSER
ALISON R. WELCHER
MICHAEL BRILLE
MARTHA L. GOODMAN
MIGUEL E. RODRIGUEZ
 
Seattle Husker said:
We get it...SH is "drunk" and had "reading comprehension" issues. Surprised you haven't reverted to "fat" and "bald" too. .....
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you look like.
What I do know is that when someone says to you that it "looks like rain," you will respond by arguing what is the best breed of dog.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Joe, what does any of this have to do with your post? If you post stuff that is obviously nonsense or at best, groundless sensationalism, that hurts YOUR credibility, not the credibility of Hillary supporters. In fact, it makes everybody question the legitimacy of what you say in general, even when it's right.
Click to expand...

OK, here is one recent example from today. I gave good information about Kadzik. Enough that should have generated some outrage. From someone. The fact that this BFF of Podesta, a political-hire AAG was assigned by Lynch to be in charge of examining the Huma Weiner laptop emails is outrageous. This guy has a clear conflict of interest, which is something the vast majority of DOJ takes very seriously. He should not be within 2 miles of this material.

This is the sort of behavior by our Government that should tick everyone off. On both sides. It is great example what is wrong with DC. This is a dramatization of how it works there, and why it stinks.

Yet not one of you discussed it or otherwise responded. Not a single one of you. Nothing.

What were you drawn to instead? The salacious. The meaningless. The crap post that meant nothing.

What is going on with Kadzik is real and is meaningful. It is corruption at the highest levels exposed. It is a good example of why Wikileaks should be required reading. Yet no one here cares. This was my point.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
There were 4 plaintiffs lawyers present, plus these 9 either representing her directly or with a shared interest. I may even know one of them

CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON
MARCIA BERMAN
STEVEN A. MYERS
JOHN R. GRIFFITHS
SARAH E. PROSSER
ALISON R. WELCHER
MICHAEL BRILLE
MARTHA L. GOODMAN
MIGUEL E. RODRIGUEZ
Click to expand...

You must be counting the DOJ lawyers.
 
Joe Fan said:
Yet not one of you discussed it or otherwise responded. Not a single one of you. Nothing.
Click to expand...

I'd been all over this development since checking Wiki's new dump this morn.

I was outraged too although it's come to a point of nearly being desensitized since blatant corruption is uncovered now on a daily basis.

But yes I was disgusted and thought the reopened investigation is now doomed again as this conflict of interest won't get the consideration it deserves.

Then I felt better an hour or so later when Trump covered it strongly within the first few minutes of his Florida rally this morn.

Figured since Trump already spouted it out front and center, voicing my outrage and disapproval was already taken care of at the highest level. :smile1:
 
Joe Fan said:
OK, here is one recent example from today. I gave good information about Kadzik. Enough that should have generated some outrage. From someone. The fact that this BFF of Podesta, a political-hire AAG was assigned by Lynch to be in charge of examining the Huma Weiner laptop emails is outrageous. This guy has a clear conflict of interest, which is something the vast majority of DOJ takes very seriously. He should not be within 2 miles of this material.

This is the sort of behavior by our Government that should tick everyone off. On both sides. It is great example what is wrong with DC. This is a dramatization of how it works there, and why it stinks.

Yet not one of you discussed it or otherwise responded. Not a single one of you. Nothing.

What were you drawn to instead? The salacious. The meaningless. The crap post that meant nothing.

What is going on with Kadzik is real and is meaningful. It is corruption at the highest levels exposed. It is a good example of why Wikileaks should be required reading. Yet no one here cares. This was my point.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you expect me to say? DOJ is sleazy and has conflicts all over the place. That's why I've been calling for a special persecutor for months.

Nevertheless, I don't follow your logic. What does any of this have to do with posting the unsupported rumor-mongering child sex blog post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top