POLL Who Will Win the Presidential Election?

Who Will Win the Presidential Election?

  • Darrell Lane Castle (Constitution Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party)

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Evan McMullin (Independent)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gloria Estela La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donald Trump (Republican Party)

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
LOL ... good one !
I laugh at other people's typos, because I make so many, oh so many, of my own. Sometimes I'll go back and read one of my posts and say to myself "What a retard." Then I make a bunch of edits to correct them. This is particularly the case when I post something using the phone. It's how Bret Baier's name becomes Bret Bayer. Sheesh.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
LOL ... good one !
I laugh at other people's typos, because I make so many, oh so many, of my own. Sometimes I'll go back and read one of my posts and say to myself "What a retard." Then I make a bunch of edits to correct them. This is particularly the case when I post something using the phone. It's how Bret Baier's name becomes Bret Bayer. Sheesh.
Take two ... and call me in the morning !

(I'd insert a smiley but they don't seem to work here on the desktop.)
 

ntimevan

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
These are (some of) the stars and celebrities who have said they will move if Trump wins the election (and there they say they'll nove to). I say that we hold them to it. :D

Lena Dunham (Canada)
Samuel L. Jackson (South Africa)
Miley Cyrus ("out da country")
Cher (Jupiter)
Jon Stewart (some other planet)
George Lopez (South of the Border)
Al Sharpton (reserved plane ticket for another country)
Neve Campbell (Canada (was born there, tho))
Chelsea Handler (already bought a house in Spain just in case)
Amy Schumer (Spain)
Barbara Streisand (Australia, or Canada if Australia won't let her in)
Bryan Cranston (somewhere in Europe)
Spike Lee (Republic of Brooklyn)
Natasha Lyonne (a mental hospital)
Whoopie Goldberg (another country)
Eddie Griffin (Africa)
Rosie O'Donnell (Canada)
Jennifer Lawrence (no point, since the world will end, anyway)
Ruth Bader Ginsberg (New Zealand)
acf0a29fd37e44df1031070806ab5f58.jpg


Sent from my SM-G900M using EO Forums mobile app
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Easy.

The people that can't comprehend the entirety of Obama's reply ... and are inclined to misconstrue it into something that it isn't,

Or mebbe just the ones that rely on disreputable sources who deliberately distort things to serve a partisan agenda ?:

Fox Deceptively Edits Obama Interview to Falsely Claim He Told Illegal Immigrants to Vote
Interesting link and unsurprising. You might have noticed I didn't say one word about Obama in the quote you responded to.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Easy.

The people that can't comprehend the entirety of Obama's reply ... and are inclined to misconstrue it into something that it isn't,

Or mebbe just the ones that rely on disreputable sources who deliberately distort things to serve a partisan agenda ?:

Fox Deceptively Edits Obama Interview to Falsely Claim He Told Illegal Immigrants to Vote
Interesting link and unsurprising. You might have noticed I didn't say one word about Obama in the quote you responded to.
Yes I did ... and your framing of the matter/question was accurate in that quote.

However, the most important point of the entire matter was not so much the question asked, but the response given - since the response is basis for the charge made.

Could the response have been better ?

They almost always can.

Are some folks going to see the response as something dark and devious ?

You betcha !

Reality of the matter is people can, and often do, talk past one another.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.

All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and Ftransit

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.

All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win. :D

It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:

Clinton = fairly typical politician, same baggage ... just on a greater scale because of who she is and has been

Trump = existential threat to the human species

Neither is good, however one poses a far greater danger than the other

Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the forest that you are standing in front of ...


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yowpuggy

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.

All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win. :D

It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:
Hey, it's my opinion. If I think it's enough of a reason, then it's enough of a reason.

If I think Trump mocking a handicapped reporter is enough of a reason to vote against him, then it's enough of a reason to vote against him.

If I think Hillary being corrupt is reason enough to vote against her, then it's enough of a reason to vote against her.

I'm not going to sit here and type all the possible reasons to vote for against both candidates. One, because we all already know what they are, and two, because there isn't enough time in the day to list them all.

Clinton = fairly typical politician, same baggage ... just on a greater scale because of who she is and has been

Trump = existential threat to the human species

Neither is good, however one poses a far greater danger than the other

Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the forest that you are standing in front of ...
Is that an existential tree or a theoretical tree?

Yes, yes, yes, one candidate is the harbinger of the 6th Mass Extinction (or Biff from Back the Future, depending on your point of view), and the other candidate is a robot from Westworld. Neither one is good, however both pose nowhere near the the danger that people want others to believe.

Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the metaphorical partisan tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the existential humor that you are standing in front of. Do you really believe that I think Wall Street is a town?

160227fpmccoy4319791551_t755_h12c1849e99423576cf7db1a8eeaf1f7529648d60.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moot

Ftransit

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.

All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win. :D

It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:

Clinton = fairly typical politician, same baggage ... just on a greater scale because of who she is and has been

Trump = existential threat to the human species

Neither is good, however one poses a far greater danger than the other

Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the forest that you are standing in front of ...


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
I agree Hillary has the knowledge and the muscle to do far more damage in the presidential office than Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:

Clinton = fairly typical politician, same baggage ... just on a greater scale because of who she is and has been

Trump = existential threat to the human species

Neither is good, however one poses a far greater danger than the other

Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the forest that you are standing in front of ...
confused 7.pngconfused 8.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
Funny thing alot of the Hispanics and Blacks I've talked with don't trust Hillary
But won't vote for Trump eather so maybe they will stay at home
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Hey, it's my opinion. If I think it's enough of a reason, then it's enough of a reason.

If I think Trump mocking a handicapped reporter is enough of a reason to vote against him, then it's enough of a reason to vote against him.

If I think Hillary being corrupt is reason enough to vote against her, then it's enough of a reason to vote against her.
No argument with that ... it's certainly enough of a reason for you ... others, well mebbe not so much ...

Shame on me for not making that clear.

Yes, yes, yes, one candidate is the harbinger of the 6th Mass Extinction (or Biff from Back the Future, depending on your point of view), and the other candidate is a robot from Westworld. Neither one is good, however both pose nowhere near the the danger that people want others to believe.
Logical fallacy isn't very becoming ... but could be said to be somewhat entertaining at least ...

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Can't believe no one is going for the entertainment value. Trump will be fun to watch. Can you imagine watching four years of Hillary? It will be brutal. A whole lot of channel changing. :D
We will have to hope old Bill gets back to his old shenanigins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and JohnWC

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Can't believe no one is going for the entertainment value. Trump will be fun to watch. Can you imagine watching four years of Hillary? It will be brutal. A whole lot of channel changing. :D
We will have to hope old Bill gets back to his old shenanigins.
It won't be dull, thats for sure
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yes, yes, yes, one candidate is the harbinger of the 6th Mass Extinction (or Biff from Back the Future, depending on your point of view), and the other candidate is a robot from Westworld. Neither one is good, however both pose nowhere near the the danger that people want others to believe.
Logical fallacy isn't very becoming ... but could be said to be somewhat entertaining at least ...

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia
Your characterization of Hillary was downplayed to the point of the absurd (or as it would be reported on CNN), as was your overblown characterization of Trump. Then, insinuated that I wasn't able to see your rational and objective forest for the irrational and subjective tree in front of my nose. All I did was illustrate absurdity with absurdity by making equally ridiculous characterizations.
 
Top