OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[Bob411]

I don't think that there is a way out for him where he wouldn't be viewed as either a loser by the general public, or as a conspirator by conspiracy theorists/GOP voters.

I'm a conspiraracy theorist lefty. Remeber the 2012 election? After every GOP debate there was a new front runner. Problem was, "vetting" took place in the media after they won the debate and they were all bat shit crazy so, next week a new front runner. This primary, nobody talked about the other wackadoos, it was all about The Donald. Think about that for a second. You had Ted Cruz running and not a peep about his psychosis. So, if Trump drops out at the last minute, I think it helps the GOP more

 

[VoidTerraFirma]

The Gettysburg Address and Abe's 2nd inaugural were, relatively, shit.

Not that the Republican Party of the 1860s is in any way comparable to the Republican Party of the 2010s. Republic vs Democrat is the wrong binary, one that's misleading and destructive. Better to go with Conservative vs Liberal or, through most of American history, North vs South.

"Party of Lincoln". Repeat as a mantra until your brain leaks out of your ear canals.

 

[Chad]

Completely disagree.



Clinton News Network goes at least back to the primary. CNN has been in the bag for Clinton since the beginning of the primary cycle. CNN and MSNBC were anti-Sanders and refused to cover him until they finally couldn't ignore him. That Trump is a terrible candidate doesn't preclude CNN from being staunchly pro-Clinton.

That's interesting. I haven't watched MSNBC is years, but Maddow was always a huge Bernie fan. She used to have him on all the time.

 

[Chad]

Who said it: Donald Trump or Frank Reynolds?

Freaking awesome.

 

[Kerouac]

I had never read Breitbart before.....


... wow. 5 minutes there and I see where many of the right wing pitch forks get their information.

I have a friend that used to post Fox News BS on Facebook until he discovered Breitbart and The Blaze... now his wall looks like the Alex Jones Conspiracy Hour.

 

[VoidTerraFirma]

 

[Beyer160]

Imagine hundreds of thousands of already angry Bubba Trump Second Amendment types becoming even more enraged when Cheeto Jesus pulls out of the election. He has to avoid becoming a dreaded loser. Maybe his "there will be rioting in the street" threat will become real.

Trump cannot lose. Either he wins, or Crooked Hillary cheated. Simple.

 

[GDSmithTX]

Where are getting your national polls on gun laws? CNN? USA Today?

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016.

"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
6/21-27/16
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 93 - 6 - 1
Democrats 90 - 9 - 1
Independents 98 - 1 - 1

"Do you believe that expanding background checks would be effective in reducing gun violence in the U.S., or not?"
Would be effective - Would not be effective - Unsure/No answer
62 - 35 - 3

"As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?"
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 86 - 12 - 2
Democrats 85 - 12 - 2
Independents 91 - 8 - 1
Overall 83 - 15 - 3
Much more available at the link.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016.

"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
6/21-27/16
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 93 - 6 - 1
Democrats 90 - 9 - 1
Independents 98 - 1 - 1

"Do you believe that expanding background checks would be effective in reducing gun violence in the U.S., or not?"
Would be effective - Would not be effective - Unsure/No answer
62 - 35 - 3

"As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?"
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 86 - 12 - 2
Democrats 85 - 12 - 2
Independents 91 - 8 - 1
Overall 83 - 15 - 3
Much more available at the link.

That last question speaks to the psychosis of a certain percentage of the 2nd amendment folks. They'll even support the right of potential terrorists to buy and have guns. It's un-fucking-believable. They can't separate limiting access to people being investigated for one of the worse forms of criminal activity from law abiding citizen being denied this (truly unnecessary) right.

Here:

 

[wagdog]

That last question speaks to the psychosis of a certain percentage of the 2nd amendment folks. They'll even support the right of potential terrorists to buy and have guns. It's un-fucking-believable. They can't separate limiting access to people being investigated for one of the worse forms of criminal activity from law abiding citizen being denied this (truly unnecessary) right.

Here:

Go back a few (several) pages. The reason using this list is a bad idea was discussed. No need to rehash it.

 

[wagdog]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016.

"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
6/21-27/16
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 93 - 6 - 1
Democrats 90 - 9 - 1
Independents 98 - 1 - 1

"Do you believe that expanding background checks would be effective in reducing gun violence in the U.S., or not?"
Would be effective - Would not be effective - Unsure/No answer
62 - 35 - 3

"As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?"
Support - Oppose - Unsure/No answer
Republicans 86 - 12 - 2
Democrats 85 - 12 - 2
Independents 91 - 8 - 1
Overall 83 - 15 - 3
Much more available at the link.

Quote the whole thing 'eh:
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016. N=1,610 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.

1,610 people?

FWIW, it'll be difficult, IMO, to get an accurate poll of these numbers. For example, when a research company calls my house, I hang up.

 

[Chicken Man]

Quote the whole thing 'eh:
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016. N=1,610 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.

1,610 people?

FWIW, it'll be difficult, IMO, to get an accurate poll of these numbers. For example, when a research company calls my house, I hang up.

Good polls have algorithms to compensate for these things. And a representative sample of over 1000 is generally regarded as reliable. Sometimes there's a thin line between academic diligence and just denying that an unpleasant truth exists, and I think you're there on this one.

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

Quote the whole thing 'eh:
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016. N=1,610 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.

1,610 people?

FWIW, it'll be difficult, IMO, to get an accurate poll of these numbers. For example, when a research company calls my house, I hang up.

Please answer the phone. The welfare recipients making the calls need to make their numbers so they get called back for another day of work.

 

[Chad]

That last question speaks to the psychosis of a certain percentage of the 2nd amendment folks. They'll even support the right of potential terrorists to buy and have guns. It's un-fucking-believable. They can't separate limiting access to people being investigated for one of the worse forms of criminal activity from law abiding citizen being denied this (truly unnecessary) right.

Here:

I watched that with my dad the other day. Spot on.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

Go back a few (several) pages. The reason using this list is a bad idea was discussed. No need to rehash it.

Don't know what list you're referring to, but this whole thread (like our pic threads) is at least 33% rehash...it's the nature of the beast. I haven't read anywhere near every single post and I have not intention of doing so. In this case I just posted what came to mind. Also, I freaking love the two most recent Jim Jefferies specials and would recommend them to anyone, even those that may disagree with some of his opinions. I don't agree with everything he says, just find him funny as shit.

 

[Flamencology]

Haven't seen it, but I enjoyed the recent David Cross special on Netflix.

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

Don't know what list you're referring to, but this whole thread (like our pic threads) is at least 33% rehash...it's the nature of the beast. I haven't read anywhere near every single post and I have not intention of doing so. In this case I just posted what came to mind. Also, I freaking love the two most recent Jim Jefferies specials and would recommend them to anyone, even those that may disagree with some of his opinions. I don't agree with everything he says, just find him funny as shit.

If everyone read the thread, there would be no need for a rehash. But willfully not reading the thread? That's as bad as the ignorance of the groups on the other side.

 

[335clone]

Don't know what list you're referring to, but this whole thread (like our pic threads) is at least 33% rehash...it's the nature of the beast. I haven't read anywhere near every single post and I have not intention of doing so. In this case I just posted what came to mind. Also, I freaking love the two most recent Jim Jefferies specials and would recommend them to anyone, even those that may disagree with some of his opinions. I don't agree with everything he says, just find him funny as shit.

He is referring to a discussion about the federal no-fly list and the NRA talking out of the side of their mouth. On one side they say 'of course we support keeping terrorists from being able to purchase guns' and then they complain that there is an apparent slew of good honest Americans who found themselves on the no fly list for no apparent reason, with no known way to be removed. Because of this, the NRA cannot support using the no fly list as a resource for denying a gun sale.

I argued that the only ones I know of who fits that bill are the Bundys (not Al, the Oregon/Nevada protestors) and their supporters and that their real issue with the no fly list is that the Americans in question have gone out of their way to appear to be domestic terrorists/PATRIOTS and that is why the NRA will not back keeping them from being able to buy guns, as they are the fiercest NRA supporters out there. Then I mentioned that the Orlando shooter was on the no fly list for a while, but was removed, proving that there IS A WAY for Americans on the list to be removed from it (but it's not a self-serve kind of deal).

I asked for, but am still waiting for, a list of American citizens wrongfully added to the no fly list that have the NRA so concerned for all of our sakes. Maybe if I hold my breath?

 

[Flamencology]

My contempt for 2nd amendment activists is well-documented. They should be ashamed of themselves, but since they aren't, they should be shamed in other ways.

 

[GDSmithTX]

Quote the whole thing 'eh:
Quinnipiac University. June 21-27, 2016. N=1,610 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.

1,610 people?

FWIW, it'll be difficult, IMO, to get an accurate poll of these numbers. For example, when a research company calls my house, I hang up.

Not in the least.

A: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

For a ± 3% margin of error, with a 95% level of confidence in a population of 300 million, your sample size need only be 1067 respondents. ± 2.5% margin of error, with a 95% level of confidence, the sample size must be 1537 people.

Quinnipiac's sample size significantly exceeds the requirements to extrapolate to the population at large.​

B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac_University_Polling_Institute

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute is a public opinion polling center based at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. It surveys public opinion in Connecticut, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio,Virginia, and nationally.[2]

It is considerably larger than other academic polling centers, including the Franklin & Marshall College Poll, which only surveys Pennsylvania.[1] The organization employs about 160 interviewers, generally drawing frompolitical science, communications, psychology, and sociology majors, as well as some interviewers that are not affiliated with the university.[1] The poll has a full-time staff of ten.[1] The university does not disclose the Institute's operating budget, and the poll does not accept clients or outside funding.[1] [snip]

The poll has been cited by major news outlets throughout North America and Europe, including The Washington Post,[5] Fox News,[6] USA Today,[7] The New York Times,[8] CNN,[9] and Reuters.[10] Quinnipiac's Polling Institute receives national recognition for its independent surveys of residents throughout the United States. It conducts public opinion polls on politics and public policy as a public service as well as for academic research.[1][3] Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the founder of the poll-analysis website Electoral-vote.com, compared major pollsters' performances in the 2010 midterm Senate elections and concluded that Quinnipiac was the most accurate, with a mean error of 2.0 percent.[11]​

This is not some ideologically suspect, rinky-dink operation; they are a major independent polling organization.