(October 30, 2016 at 4:18 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Also, the Lichtman video was from September, before all three debates, before the sexual assault admission video and subsequent slew of accusations. I would have told you that I thought Trump was going to win at that time. Nate Silver had Trump ahead or too close to call during that time.

Lichtman doesn't care about those things. His model is based on the premise that Presidential elections are primarily a referendum on the performance of the previous term of Presidency.

(October 30, 2016 at 4:18 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: But you are parroting Trump. This is Trump's campaign line, crafted after he got caught encouraging a foreign government to tamper with our election. His only recourse was to obfuscate and claim that "we don't know who it was."

I don't care if it is his line or not, we do not know who supplied the emails to Wikileaks. It could have been the Russians. Or for all we know the Russians may have hacked the email server, and someone else like India also hacked it separately and they're the ones that leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There's no compelling evidence that it was the Russians that is public knowledge.

And besides - why would the Russians want to help Trump over Clinton? What are they going to gain by doing that?

What you're doing FYI is parroting Clinton's line. She made it a political tactic to blame the Russians for the leaked hacked emails.

(October 30, 2016 at 4:18 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: You are now doing the same obfuscation. No one is claiming to know that it was for sure the Russian government. We know a lot of things that point in that direction, and we know of zero things that point to China, or India for that matter, chucklefuck. All of the US Intelligence entities =/= "some CIA spoof." Most non-government cybersecurity experts who have examined the hack have the same conclusion. The only ones who aren't sure are merely skeptical. This whole "we don't know for sure but it could be the Indians" gambit is right out of the Trump playbook. Congrats.

Again, SC, if they had real evidence they would say what it is. These are the same assholes that told the world they were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - do you remember that?

(October 30, 2016 at 1:54 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 1:40 am)Minimalist Wrote: Actually we do.

Where is this supposed evidence, Min? [...] The Clinton server was probably hacked multiple times [...]

Speaking of evidence, whatcha got for this?

The fingerprints of the Russians are on the leaks.

(October 30, 2016 at 6:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Speaking of evidence, whatcha got for this?

The fingerprints of the Russians are on the leaks.

There's no compelling evidence in there. It's based on the assumption that Guccifer 2.0 is a front for the Russian government, because he probably lied about being Romanian. He's a hacker though, of course he lied.

If Hillary is anti-catholic that just makes me want to vote for her more. Fuck the Catholic Church.

(October 30, 2016 at 10:07 am)Divinity Wrote: If Hillary is anti-catholic that just makes me want to vote for her more.  Fuck the Catholic Church.

Change the words "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" to "Muslim" and "Islam," and otherwise keep this post exactly the same. I'm assuming you'd get a very different response from the left.

(October 30, 2016 at 2:08 am)Jesster Wrote: I don't care anymore. I just want this horrible election to be over.

That's about how I feel too actually. It's just sad to see good, decent people putting aside everything they stand for to support and defend either one of those 2 clowns.

(October 30, 2016 at 10:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 2:08 am)Jesster Wrote: I don't care anymore. I just want this horrible election to be over.

That's about how I feel too actually. It's just sad to see good, decent people putting aside everything they stand for to support and defend either one of those 2 clowns.

I respect this, but I don't have to put anything aside to support my candidate of choice. Strongly. Not everything in the press is correct.

(October 30, 2016 at 10:38 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Change the words "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" to "Muslim" and "Islam," and otherwise keep this post exactly the same. I'm assuming you'd get a very different response from the left.

From some people, sure.  Just as I'd get a different response from the right for saying what I did, yet would be praised for saying fuck Islam.

I have no love for Islam or the Catholic Church.  The people part of those churches are okay by me, but the churches themselves? They can go fuck themselves..  

(BTW: It was Catholics who made those anti-catholic comments)

(October 30, 2016 at 5:24 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(October 29, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I actually don't consider Trump to be pro life at all. I know he claims to be, but I am hard pressed to believe him. I think the only person he cares about is himself quite honestly.

Two things for you:
1) Anti abortion =/= pro life. Firstly you're prvileging a group of cells over a living breathing woman. Second you are forcing that same woman into a course of action which she doesn't want to take and which will radically change her life.
2) Very few republican pols are anti abortion. They simply don't care about having anti abortion laws where they are, because they can afford to travel to where abortion is legal, and poor people don't count in their eyes.

I don't agree that a human fetus is a "group of cells" any less than we are all groups of cells. But that's a discussion for the different thread. As far as your assertion that being anti abortion doesn't necessarily make someone pro life, I agree with that 100%. I don't think Trump is actually anti abortion, much less prolife. But he claims to be and that's a pile of poop I don't believe in for a second. 

There's a good article about it actually:  http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/20/trum...n-hillary/

(October 30, 2016 at 10:51 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 5:24 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Two things for you:
1) Anti abortion =/= pro life. Firstly you're prvileging a group of cells over a living breathing woman. Second you are forcing that same woman into a course of action which she doesn't want to take and which will radically change her life.
2) Very few republican pols are anti abortion. They simply don't care about having anti abortion laws where they are, because they can afford to travel to where abortion is legal, and poor people don't count in their eyes.

I don't agree that a human fetus is a "group of cells" any less than we are all groups of cells. But that's a discussion for the different thread. As far as your assertion that being anti abortion doesn't necessarily make someone pro life, I agree with that 100%. I don't think Trump is actually anti abortion, much less prolife. But he claims to be and that's a pile of poop I don't believe in for a second. 

There's a good article about it actually:  http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/20/trum...n-hillary/

If he's elected as Commander in Chief though, who will be appoint to the SCOTUS? Remember, the next sitting president will appoint at least one justice, which will tip the scale either left or right. I am pretty sure Trump would not select a pro-choice justice. His chosen running mate has dedicated his life and his career to the destruction of Planned Parenthood.