US presidential election, final poll

[RootsBooster 24]

you really what a third world war.

 

What are you talking about?

[blake 10]

Ridiculous that this thread has become a silly discussion about British politics when a realigning American presidential election will take place in about 60 hours.

Edited November 6, 2016 by blake

[tinfoilhat 11]

Ridiculous that this thread has become a silly discussion about British politics when a realigning American presidential election will take place in about 60 hours.

 

I disagree. If Clinton wins the senate and House of Representatives will end up with a such huge republican majority at the first available election she won't get enough support to allow her to do anything more than change the colour scheme at camp David.

 

If trump gets in though, that's a different matter. What says and what he does will be very very different.

[Anna B 1,414]

Anna B, why not just admit you were wrong?

 

Have you ever submitted a FOI request? I have. It isn't in the least bit hard. I received a prompt and courteous answer.

 

That depends on the question don't you think..?

[999tigger 10]

FOI is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

A recent documentary on TV showed how easy it is to block these requests altogether, or cloud the answers with total obfuscation, or make the process so difficult and tied in red tape that people give up. There's also the problem of files being sealed for 30+ years etc. If they don't want you to know something there are plenty of ways for them to achieve it, the most popular being an unjustified invoking of 'national security.'

 

And when I was watching a recent government enquiry by MPs (sorry can't remember what it was about, but that's not the point,) I was surprised to see how often those being questioned simply refused to answer and were allowed to get away with it. And that's with MPs asking the questions so what chance do we have?

 

Then there's the fact that some MPs have been trying to repeal the FOI law altogether.

 

Anna can you just stop posting stuff that is wrong.

You made a number of claims.

It was pointed out you were fundamentally wrong and posting falsehoods.

You arent big enough to admit it.

 

As for the election I cant say at the way which way its going to go. Polls are too close now following the FBI intervention. Going to be ironic if she loses and the e-mails do not come to anything.

Edited November 6, 2016 by 999tigger

[Robin-H 11]

Anna can you just stop posting stuff that is wrong.

You made a number of claims.

It was pointed out you were fundamentally wrong and posting falsehoods.

You arent big enough to admit it.

 

As for the election I cant say at the way which way its going to go. Polls are too close now following the FBI intervention. Going to be ironic if she loses and the e-mails do not come to anything.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Anna posted the absolutely ludicrous claim that the entire world's media was controlled by just 6 corporations or something, and despite it being pointed out that this was categorically and demonstrably false, refused to accept that she was wrong.

 

This article is claiming that voter analysis has revealed that Clinton has a 99% chance of winning the US election.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

 

However, I am pretty sure the Independent were running headlines the day before the Brexit vote that the result would be a large win for the remain side...

[Santo 10]

That depends on the question don't you think..?

 

Here's a few questions. Why is everything you write demonstrably false? Is it deliberate? Why do you persistently misquote? Why do you never back up anything you say with a credible source? Why do you change the subject when your errors are exposed rather than admitting at the very least you were wrong and at worst you outright lied?

[999tigger 10]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Anna posted the absolutely ludicrous claim that the entire world's media was controlled by just 6 corporations or something, and despite it being pointed out that this was categorically and demonstrably false, refused to accept that she was wrong.

 

This article is claiming that voter analysis has revealed that Clinton has a 99% chance of winning the US election.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

 

However, I am pretty sure the Independent were running headlines the day before the Brexit vote that the result would be a large win for the remain side...

 

On the one hand you can go with the polls and that Clinton has much larger campaign machine etc, but I definitley think Trump has a chance of he managed to get momentum. He needs a new news story in his favour. Think its like 65/ 35 at the moment. It matters more for Clinton whether she can get her vote out.

[Anna B 1,414]

Here's a few questions. Why is everything you write demonstrably false? Is it deliberate? Why do you persistently misquote? Why do you never back up anything you say with a credible source? Why do you change the subject when your errors are exposed rather than admitting at the very least you were wrong and at worst you outright lied?

 

1.It isn't.

2.It isn't.

3.I don't.

4.I do.

5.I don't.

6.I don't.

 

And I don't waste my time on people like you either who never read links or watch evidence anywy, and are quite happy to go through life with a closed mind. If you want evidence of that, just read some of your rude replies.

 

End of.

[Gamston 10]

On the one hand you can go with the polls and that Clinton has much larger campaign machine etc, but I definitley think Trump has a chance of he managed to get momentum. He needs a new news story in his favour. Think its like 65/ 35 at the moment. It matters more for Clinton whether she can get her vote out.

Yes, it will be very close. I think those who don't normally vote will make the difference and Donald Trump will be the next president.

[Santo 10]

1.It isn't.

2.It isn't.

3.I don't.

4.I do.

5.I don't.

6.I don't.

 

And I don't waste my time on people like you either who never read links or watch evidence anywy, and are quite happy to go through life with a closed mind. If you want evidence of that, just read some of your rude replies.

 

End of.

 

If you want evidence of what I described you doing then everyone should read your posts.

 

You claimed four companies owned all the media. You revised that to six companies owning 96%. You provided no proof.

 

You have claimed Tesla invented free energy. You provided no evidence. And he didn't, FYI. It's a myth.

 

You misquote Teresa May on the 'nasty party.' She didn't call her own party that as you claimed, she acknowledged others call them that.

 

You misquoted what Gordon Brown said to Gillian Duffy and removed all context.

 

You lied about the origin of the expenses story and won't admit it. Instead you go on a ramble about how FOI isn't perfect. Why? It's irrelevant to what you had claimed.

 

Etc etc etc etc.

 

I'm not closed minded. Nor am I gullible.

 

And you have now lied about me. I do read links. I just refused to read links that Rinzwind provided on this thread.

 

Back up what you say or don't say it. Certainly don't expect not to be challenged by those capable of rational thought.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Santo

[unbeliever 10]

If you want evidence of what I described you doing then everyone should read your posts.

 

You claimed four companies owned all the media. You revised that to six companies owning 96%. You provided no proof.

 

You have claimed Tesla invented free energy. You provided no evidence. And he didn't, FYI. It's a myth.

 

You misquote Teresa May on the 'nasty party.' She didn't call her own party that as you claimed, she acknowledged others call them that.

 

You misquoted what Gordon Brown said to Gillian Duffy and removed all context.

 

You lied about the expenses story and won't admit it.

 

Etc etc etc etc.

 

I'm not closed minded. Nor am I gullible.

 

Back up what you say or don't say it. Certainly don't expect not to be challenged by those capable of rational thought.

 

 

You're quite right, but Anna is not an unreasonable person just a fundamentalist socialist. Be nice and you can persuade her to see reality.