New Poll Shows Hillary Crushing Republitards

Utter baloney. You are confusing your notion of party loyalty with political ideology loyalty.

Most who participate in the PF say they are independent of any party. And I believe them. But no doubt, most of us hold strong loyalty to political ideas and principles - left, right, or libertarian, constitutional conservatives, progressives, etc.

To think of most people in the PF as being Democrat vs. Republican is ancient thinking. And dead wrong.

Demorat or repubtard does it really matter as they are two sides of the same coin. It amazes me that people by into this bullshit like its their football team winning. Both parties will fuck you. Obummers agenda is about the same as shrubs. The police state continues to advance, you loose you rights-but hey your sides winning right? Originally Posted by 30seconds

Had to give you props on one of the most adult statements to come out of the PF in years.



(You probably aughta throw in some creative insults and made up names if you wanna last here.) Originally Posted by Tetas

Utter baloney. You are confusing your notion of party loyalty with political ideology loyalty.

Most who participate in the PF say they are independent of any party. And I believe them. But no doubt, most of us hold strong loyalty to political ideas and principals - left, right, or libertarian, constitutional conservatives, progressives, etc.

To think of most people in the PF as being Democrat vs. Republican is ancient thinking. And dead wrong. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're confusing us for people who give a shit what you say. Conservatism is retrograde thinking. You're confused if you think the two are actually separate in today's political climate.

No, you are the one with reading disability and lack the critical thinking skills to follow threads in the PF.

The post was about everyone in the PF being either Republican or Democrat. I don't think that is the political division that happen here.

You claim you aren't a Democrat,,,you saying otherwise now?

Why are you such a dumb fuck? Enquiring minds want to know.

You're confusing us for people who give a shit what you say. Conservatism is retrograde thinking. You're confused if you think the two are actually separate in today's political climate. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're confusing us for people who give a shit what you say. Conservatism is retrograde thinking. You're confused if you think the two are actually separate in today's political climate. Originally Posted by WombRaider

ZanziSlaver global warming is rotting your brain...

No, you are the one with reading disability and lack the critical thinking skills to follow threads in the PF.

The post was about everyone in the PF being either Republican or Democrat. I don't think that is the political division that happen here.

You claim you aren't a Democrat,,,you saying otherwise now?

Why are you such a dumb fuck? Enquiring minds want to know. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Do inquiring minds also want to know

That wasn't what it was about at all. What political division do you think is happening here? It's certainly not liberal vs conservative. Modern liberals are not adhering to classical liberal ideology.

You're not too good at reading polls are you? Two important things; Hillary's name recognition is far higher than any GOP candidate...NOW. Remove that hardship from the GOP candidates and they all rise dramatically in the polls. The second thing is that Hillary never breaks OVER 50% of the vote and that is what is needed for a win. True, she has an advantage but that is also her disadvantage. People know who Hillary is and very few people will change their minds now. She is about where she is going to be now and next year. For the GOP candidates the direction is up, for Hillary the direction is down and she starts at less than 50%.

You're confusing us for people who give a shit what you say. Conservatism is retrograde thinking. You're confused if you think the two are actually separate in today's political climate. Originally Posted by WombRaider

As we all know modern conservatism is what liberalism was 200 years ago. So I guess you could say that modern liberalism is retrograde tory thinking. Power to the state and ruling monarch and all that crap. Today conservatism is pushback against the status quo, you know, the establishment. We are the rebels and you progressives are the man trying to keep everyone down.

You're not too good at reading polls are you? Two important things; Hillary's name recognition is far higher than any GOP candidate...NOW. Remove that hardship from the GOP candidates and they all rise dramatically in the polls. The second thing is that Hillary never breaks OVER 50% of the vote and that is what is needed for a win. True, she has an advantage but that is also her disadvantage. People know who Hillary is and very few people will change their minds now. She is about where she is going to be now and next year. For the GOP candidates the direction is up, for Hillary the direction is down and she starts at less than 50%. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Where are your numbers regarding this supposed rise in the polls for the republitard candidates once anyone knows who the fuck they are? I'm thinking you pulled that out of your ass, along with IB's buttplug.

Second highlighted portion: you have no way of knowing this.

I've posted cold, hard numbers and you've responded with your opinion about several things that MIGHT occur or might not. There's no guarantee that the GOP candidates' direction is up. Wait until they start debating and actually have to speak. Holy Shit. You'll wish that no one knew who they were at that point.

As we all know modern conservatism is what liberalism was 200 years ago. So I guess you could say that modern liberalism is retrograde tory thinking. Power to the state and ruling monarch and all that crap. Today conservatism is pushback against the status quo, you know, the establishment. We are the rebels and you progressives are the man trying to keep everyone down. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nobody knows that, mostly because it's bullshit. Conservatism, by definition as well as nature, is about preserving the status quo. It does not possess in its nature the possibility for radical or revolutionary change. How exactly are conservatives pushing back against the status quo? Is it the continued catering to wall street's every whim? Continuing to fill the coffers of big oil with tax breaks and incentives?

Power to the state and monarch? That was conservatives who bowed to the crown, not liberals. Liberals pushed back against the status quo. I know you wish it weren't so, but history has already defeated you better than I ever could.

Where are your numbers regarding this supposed rise in the polls for the republitard candidates once anyone knows who the fuck they are? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Therein lies one of your fatal flaws. If you aren't spoon fed, you don't know.

Of those polled who "selected" Clinton ... how many would you "speculate" decided "Clinton" thinking it was Bill, and how many "selected" her thinking they would "really" be getting Bill back in the White House to run things?

If you told the truth, you've never run a campaign, done any election "bean counting," and/or engaged in any voting trend analysis from polling information. But you want to get on here and ask for "numbers" ...

.. "numbers of what"? Then you regress to your 'butt plug" infatuation. You are STUPID.

At this stage of the 2016 election there is only one reason anyone would attempt to tout polling numbers, particularly given Hillary's historical decline in the 2008 failure, is to attempt to "demoralize" the opposition and continue raising money for her living expenses while running around the country pretending to know what she is doing.

She's been "on the trail" for a month and her numbers have dropped 3%!!!!

The tip of the corruption iceberg hasn't even been scratched.

Therein lies one of your fatal flaws. If you aren't spoon fed, you don't know.

Of those polled who "selected" Clinton ... how many would you "speculate" decided "Clinton" thinking it was Bill, and how many "selected" her thinking they would "really" be getting Bill back in the White House to run things?

If you told the truth, you've never run a campaign, done any election "bean counting," and/or engaged in any voting trend analysis from polling information. But you want to get on here and ask for "numbers" ...

.. "numbers of what"? Then you regress to your 'butt plug" infatuation. You are STUPID.

At this stage of the 2016 election there is only one reason anyone would attempt to tout polling numbers, particularly given Hillary's historical decline in the 2008 failure, is to attempt to "demoralize" the opposition and continue raising money for her living expenses while running around the country pretending to know what she is doing.

She's been "on the trail" for a month and her numbers have dropped 3%!!!!

The tip of the corruption iceberg hasn't even been scratched. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I wondered what that foul stench was. LL is among us. This is going to be fun.

You are stupid. You said I asked for numbers, numbers for what , you said.

Well, you goddamn fucktard, if you could read worth a fucking shit, you would KNOW numbers for what. Here's what I said:

"Where are your numbers regarding this supposed rise in the polls for the republitard candidates once anyone knows who the fuck they are?

Numbers for what? Numbers, or any other factual information to back up his claim that the numbers will rise for the republicans once name recognition has caught up.

As for touting numbers at this stage, if Hillary had a 20 percent approval and was getting soundly beaten by republican candidates, you wouldn't quit crowing about it, so shut the fuck up.

I'm not sure what running a campaign has to do with being able to read polling data. I've already illustrated that I clearly stated which numbers I wanted to see. You're too dumb to read, I guess. Have you run a campaign, other than the one for dogcatcher, that you lost?

And last, but certainly not least, how many selected her thinking it was Bill? Are you fucking serious. I know people are stupid, but I'm pretty sure they know it was Hillary and not Bill.

Here's a question for the panel: how many think LL is a fucking moron? I'm raising my hand.

Nobody knows that, mostly because it's bullshit. Conservatism, by definition as well as nature, is about preserving the status quo. It does not possess in its nature the possibility for radical or revolutionary change. How exactly are conservatives pushing back against the status quo? Is it the continued catering to wall street's every whim? Continuing to fill the coffers of big oil with tax breaks and incentives?

Power to the state and monarch? That was conservatives who bowed to the crown, not liberals. Liberals pushed back against the status quo. I know you wish it weren't so, but history has already defeated you better than I ever could. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The status quo is change for the sake of change to a progressive paradigm. Anyone who opposes such change is by definition the upstart rebel. That's us. We are unique though because we want to change back to something that works for the benefit of all the people. This progressive regime only wants change because it is textbook social engineering. Like I said, change for the sake of change. Go back and read your Marx, he (and Salinsky) proposed constant change not for the betterment of people but to confuse them about where the solid ground is. You are supporting Marxism.

FYI, you didn't post any solid numbers. You pasted something that you had nothing to do with and something that you don't fully understand. I can give you a name of an instructor at KU who will explain it all to you. That was his job before being forced into academia.

Therein lies one of your fatal flaws. If you aren't spoon fed, you don't know.


If you told the truth, you've never run a campaign, done any election "bean counting," and/or engaged in any voting trend analysis from polling information. But you want to get on here and ask for "numbers" ...

.. "numbers of what"? Then you regress to your 'butt plug" infatuation. You are STUPID. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I wondered what that foul stench was. LL is among us. This is going to be fun.

You are stupid. You said I asked for numbers, numbers for what , you said.

Well, you goddamn fucktard, if you could read worth a fucking shit, you would KNOW numbers for what. Here's what I said:

"Where are your numbers regarding this supposed rise in the polls for the republitard candidates once anyone knows who the fuck they are?

Numbers for what? Numbers, or any other factual information to back up his claim that the numbers will rise for the republicans once name recognition has caught up.

As for touting numbers at this stage, if Hillary had a 20 percent approval and was getting soundly beaten by republican candidates, you wouldn't quit crowing about it, so shut the fuck up.

I'm not sure what running a campaign has to do with being able to read polling data. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Apparently the answer to my statement is a ...

... resounding "NO"!

You are STUPID. Your stupidity assures your IGNORANCE.

You stated:
"I'm not sure what running a campaign has to do with being able to read polling data."

Like I have stated numerous times at your request:

YOU ARE STUPID.


If polling data has nothing to do with "running a campaign," then why did you post the polling data in the OP? Because ...

YOU ARE STUPID.


As a bit of information .... you might want to repeat it 50 or 60 times to etch it ...

In 2004 John Kerry's "handler" was given exit polling data in Ohio that was "interpreted" as concluding that Kerry was going to carry Ohio, and thereby win the general election, so Kerry was taken onto Boston to get ready for the "victory party" and his "victory speech," and skipped stops in Ohio to seal the deal.

And I think if you go back to 2000 you will see that Gore was "predicted" to carry Florida on "polling data," and you know how that turned out after several recounts... not to mention his spurious litigation to set aside the results in Florida.

No take your foul mouth and find something to pacify your urges.

I can give you a name of an instructor at KU who will explain it all to you. That was his job before being forced into academia. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Please don't unnecessarily frustrate an instructor.