brett05

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 23, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) Thing is ... Trump just went on stage at the debates and blew them away with insults and saying how great he was and how he'd be the only one who could beat Hillary. He single handedly pared the field and turned Cruz into what was perceived as an idiot/clown. Had Trump not run, just think, one of the real politicians would have been the republican candidate, assuming Cruz or Bush beat out Carson or Fiorina. So with Trump out of the running maybe Cruz would have caught on or Fabio. You are correct. IIRC polls ahd Hillary losing to every single candidate but one....Donald Trump.

Wallace was outstanding. The previous moderators should have been taking notes. Hillary revealing our time to react concerning nukes isn't getting serious play. Sad.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) He just said "bigly" twice. And is mad about Obama....deporting millions...in the shadows? He said "Big League"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 08:47 AM) I think they go hand in hand, but Limbaugh laying out his lack of understanding or even rejection of consent- based ethics to borrow a phrase from crimson just highlights the underlying problem so well. Mike pence has been on the morning shows defending Trump and claiming that Trump has proof that the accusations against him are lies. Pence was outstanding this morning showing by far he's the best of the four folks involved in this race (Sorry Johnson and Stein, you ain't part of the four). That said, how do you have proof of a negative? That puzzled me. I wish the hosts would have told Pence that we don't care at all about policies, we only want to hear about Trump allegations and whether or not you can handle them correctly. They were quite rude.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 07:51 AM) posting a meme that means "i looked at your post, and closed my computer after shaking my head" isnt insulting you or pushing your buttons. Complaint denied, back to rigging claims It was the second or third time, yes it was egging. But it's your site and you'll enforce your rules however you want.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) Um... you haven't given me anything to deny. Do you think the Democrats are miscounting votes? Do you think the Democrats are having people vote multiple times? If the answer to that is no, then they aren't "rigging" the election. If the answer is yes, then where is your evidence. The simple reality is that Trump is committing more gaffes than any candidate in my lifetime. Every day a new scandal comes out that would be the biggest scandal against a candidate in any prior election during that time. That's why every poll shows Trump down. He is absolutely unfit to hold the highest office in this country. But go ahead - keep your head in the sand on this stuff... I stated what has ben rigged. You keep denying it as I have said is your right.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) how is that meme breaking rules of the forum? 1 and 3 in the acknowledge thread

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) The global Mod breaking the rules of the forum...shocking.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:52 PM) "Rigging" means fraud. The DNC hoping Clinton beat Sanders does not mean that Sanders got more votes than Clinton, but the DNC prevented him from winning the primary. None of the behavior you have cited comes close to "rigging"... Deny it all you wish

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:46 PM) If it's rigged, why is Genius Donald running? I never said it was all rigged, I said there has been rigging in this election cycle.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) Better off just ignoring the clown Personal attacks. What you're best at. Why Liberals almost always succumb to this I'll never know.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) First of all, the election has just started, with the main day a few weeks away. But more importantly, what evidence do you have of "rigging in this election"? Really? With the leak of questions by CNN, the DNC doing what they could to make sure Bernie failed. you're right, no rigging at all.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) you're very predictable

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) He still will lose. It's rigged. Are you denying that there has been rigging in this election?

Another poll out post Debate with Trump leading the election by two points. (Rasmussen)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:55 PM) Ok, you've got one national experimental poll on one hand, every other normal national poll plus all of the state polls on the other hand. I really kinda doubt that the LA Times managed to invent a new style of polling that just happens to be accurate while every other polling firm in the country is off massively. 1) Majority does not make right 2) Lots of news coming out about the corruption of...the news.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) The LA Times is a tracker poll which isn't really comparable to 'standard' polls. They've been polling a sample of 800 people or so every day from a larger sample of 3000 people for the entire race. Other polls poll 800-2000 random new people every time. The issue with the LA Time's method is that any potential bias in that original 3000 person sample is baked in from day 1 and unfixable. However it could be accurate.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) you should have a talk with them about seeing kids as paychecks. that's an extremely reckless way to live! You'll get no argument from me on that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. Except the LA Times which has him as a 2 point favorite

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) do you know of people personally? genuinely curious Unfortunately I have family members that have done this.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) LOL, you seriously think people would have kids to get a $1,000 TAX credit and ultimately lose money in the process?..... And yet it happens and it's naive to think otherwise.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) For the record it is a relief and kind of exciting to have arguments over whether social programs increase or decrease likelihood of moving people out of poverty cycle. I'd much rather have that discussion than worrying about an insane man will get elected president. you misspelled 'woman'

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:57 AM) LOL, seriously? Do you personally know anyone that is milking the poverty system? Yes, I am serious.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) Why I support Hillary Clinton: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...hild-tax-credit I wanted family and childcare to be the primary focus but I'd rather that be second place to this. How is this not encouraging the desperately poor to have more and more kids?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) Marriage as a social construct makes sense though, whatever name you decide to give that construct. It allows the government to tax households rather than individuals. It sets up an easy mechanism for group health insurance. It makes the process by which property transfers from a decedent's estate much simpler. It makes a simple mechanism for pooling and discharging debt. Not to mention the fact that the marriage industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which is good for the economy. So, let me ask you this - do you have an issue with the government being involved in co-habitation? Do you have an issue with people who are not religious making civil commitments to one another? If the answer to both those questions is "no," then your issue is exclusively with the name that the state attaches to that contract. I have an issue with any special benefits applied to committed one to one, one to many, many to many relationships that those on their own cannot have as well. Its favoritism and it's wrong.