The reason Billary will not run away with h this election is simple

[texan]

The evangelicals hate her and this is without doubt the most motivated they have been in years. He already has 75% and will top 80% easy. This is why the mythical polling in Georgia and NC will falter for the Hillary Cheerleaders by mid September. More than normal real will come out too.

He will make headway into the black vote. He started last week and he is staying on his message about the dems failures with them. It will be affective over time. Hillary feared this immediately. As soon as he started they countered. Can't have him stating those facts. But the black vote isn't stupid, there will be many that will hear him out. Why the hell not its the unavoidable truth?

Then there is Assange. Oh yes the understated media watchdog. Not gonna be able to cover up what he releases. They attack him LOL for releasing truths. What a bastard! He has enough at the least embarrassing info to even this race up. Be prepared for releases just before debates especially the 3rd if it's a tight race. This will be done because it will give her no time to spin and she will have to answer questions on live tv with an opponent to call her out.

It is just getting started and the libs think its in the bag. Far from over my dear cocky friends.

I can't wait.

[Peter1469]

Despite the "media" cheerleading for her, other forces will report on the the truth about Hillary. It is going to get a lot worse for her.

[midcan5]

Two questions, show us something Assange has released that supports your position, and where are the Evangelicals who are going to support an adulterer, whose positions change daily? Like most posts from the right, very weak.

[birddog]

Two questions, show us something Assange has released that supports your position, and where are the Evangelicals who are going to support an adulterer, whose positions change daily? Like most posts from the right, very weak.

The answers are there and obvious, but "I shan't cast pearls before swine!" :rollseyes:

[Green Arrow]

I don't think evangelical support for Trump is going to be very high, I know a large number of evangelicals and they are all almost universally disgusted by both candidates and will either stay home or vote third party - leaning toward the former.

[birddog]

I don't think evangelical support for Trump is going to be very high, I know a large number of evangelicals and they are all almost universally disgusted by both candidates and will either stay home or vote third party - leaning toward the former.

I am an Evangelical, and most people I know who also are Evangelicals, are Trump supporters. Hillary, the corrupt liar and abortion lover, is not as attractive as Trump. There are some conservative purists who threaten to not vote for him, but in the end they will vote for Trump unless they are idiots. The debates should change the poll numbers, and I think the honest poll numbers have Trump very close to Hillary now.

[texan]

Two questions, show us something Assange has released that supports your position, and where are the Evangelicals who are going to support an adulterer, whose positions change daily? Like most posts from the right, very weak.

i guess you road the short bus to school sport? And your robot drone friend that thanked you as well.

i guess you missed the Assange interviews this week, not surprising it's not something MSNBC will cover. But th AP and others do report on it. So we will let that sink in for now. I guess you missed what Assange did to the DNC the night before the convention that caused the firing of about 8 staffers and Debbie Dumbass? Well the guy doesn't bluff you uninformed dim wit. Pay fing attention. The guy point blank stated he has 15000 emails and their parents is some embarrassing Inge in them. Remember he is always underselling what he has, that is the way he rolls.

That said 75% OF THE EVANS AR ALREADY POLLING TO HIM! Good god your post is uninformed. The others will com along according to R Reed who knows something about the largest voting block in America. The morman got 82% and they expect more to vote against Hillary.

Dont make make an ass out of yourself anymore. Have a coke and move onto something you know about.

[Bethere]

i guess you road the short bus to school sport? And your robot drone friend that thanked you as well.

i guess you missed the Assange interviews this week, not surprising it's not something MSNBC will cover. But th AP and others do report on it. So we will let that sink in for now. I guess you missed what Assange did to the DNC the night before the convention that caused the firing of about 8 staffers and Debbie Dumbass? Well the guy doesn't bluff you uninformed dim wit. Pay fing attention. The guy point blank stated he has 15000 emails and their parents is some embarrassing Inge in them. Remember he is always underselling what he has, that is the way he rolls.

That said 75% OF THE EVANS AR ALREADY POLLING TO HIM! Good god your post is uninformed. The others will com along according to R Reed who knows something about the largest voting block in America. The morman got 82% and they expect more to vote against Hillary.

Dont make make an ass out of yourself anymore. Have a coke and move onto something you know about.

Shame on you. There's nothing funny about retardation.

[Common]

I don't think evangelical support for Trump is going to be very high, I know a large number of evangelicals and they are all almost universally disgusted by both candidates and will either stay home or vote third party - leaning toward the former.

Im in fla and it "APPEARS" from my circle that evangelicals here are supporting trump. That doesnt speak for the entire evangelical bible belt though

[midcan5]

i guess you road the short bus to school sport? And your robot drone friend that thanked you as well.

i guess you missed the Assange interviews this week, not surprising it's not something MSNBC will cover. But th AP and others do report on it. So we will let that sink in for now. I guess you missed what Assange did to the DNC the night before the convention that caused the firing of about 8 staffers and Debbie Dumbass? Well the guy doesn't bluff you uninformed dim wit. Pay fing attention. The guy point blank stated he has 15000 emails and their parents is some embarrassing Inge in them. Remember he is always underselling what he has, that is the way he rolls.

That said 75% OF THE EVANS AR ALREADY POLLING TO HIM! Good god your post is uninformed. The others will com along according to R Reed who knows something about the largest voting block in America. The morman got 82% and they expect more to vote against Hillary.

Dont make make an ass out of yourself anymore. Have a coke and move onto something you know about.


I'm still waiting. What the Democratic staff did is not relevant to your assumptions. I would also not consider Mormons evangelical, they are a sect unto themselves. Waiting.

But I will concede evangelicals, whites especially, are generally republican, much of that is due to abortion and prayer in schools. But they were always voting republican, that they'd vote for Trump is a bit hypocritical but so it goes.

[CaveDog]

Two questions, show us something Assange has released that supports your position, and where are the Evangelicals who are going to support an adulterer, whose positions change daily? Like most posts from the right, very weak.

All Trump need do is remind Evangelicals that Hillary will probably stack the Supreme Court in favor of Roe V. Wade for the next 40 years.

[Bethere]

All Trump need do is remind Evangelicals that Hillary will probably stack the Supreme Court in favor of Roe V. Wade for the next 40 years.

Of course democrats had absolutely nothing to do with roe v wade making abortion a right in the first place.

The republicans did that.

[Docthehun]

The numbers after Trump's appearance at the Evangelical convention had Trump at roughly 62%. The head of the group admitted that Trump would probably need north of 80%, which was the same level of support that Mitt enjoyed. After reading how young Evangelicals felt that they were having their basic religious beliefs sold out by their elders supporting Trump, it seems highly unlikely he'll attain the required level.

[midcan5]

The SCOTUS before Scalia's death didn't overturn Roe, so why would anyone think they would now. Do we really want back alley butchers and quacks killing poor women while the rich find abortion affordable and simple? Not really.

And then there is Assange, now the right wing in America is taking the word of a wacko who is hiding from the Swedish authorities, a man who appears to be the typical libertarian immature child who has discovered wrong in the world, and now has personally selected those he, and he alone, finds responsible. What a joke. Maybe the right wing should ask Putin who he prefers? He could be a Trump Advisor. And our right wing republican congress already has Netanyahu standing by should they need help coming to a conclusion.

"What if, as the cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait asked last month in relation to the DNC emails, a source — like, say, a hacker working for a Russian intelligence agency — provided WikiLeaks with a cache of documents that was tampered with in order to smear a political candidate?


In a post on the blog Lawfare, Tait explained that he had spent some time looking through the DNC files for any signs of a fake email planted among the genuine ones:


The metadata analysis I did on the leaked documents that day was almost by accident. I was actually looking for evidence of something much more frightening and which still keeps me up at night: What if the documents were mostly real, but had been surgically doctored? How effective would a carefully planted paragraph in an otherwise valid document be at derailing a campaign? How easily could Russia remove or sidestep an inconvenient DNC official with a single doctored paragraph showing “proof” of dishonest, unethical or illegal practices? And how little credibility would the sheepish official have in asserting that “all of the rest of the emails are true, but just not the one paragraph or email that makes me look bad?”
[:]
Still, given that WikiLeaks is now unwilling or unable to closely scrutinize all of the documents it obtains, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where something like this could occur — and that possibility itself serves to diminish the group’s credibility as a source of unvarnished truth."

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/

[Peter1469]

The hard left is shitting their pants over Wikileaks. :wink:
The SCOTUS before Scalia's death didn't overturn Roe, so why would anyone think they would now. Do we really want back alley butchers and quacks killing poor women while the rich find abortion affordable and simple? Not really.

And then there is Assange, now the right wing in America is taking the word of a wacko who is hiding from the Swedish authorities, a man who appears to be the typical libertarian immature child who has discovered wrong in the world, and now has personally selected those he, and he alone, finds responsible. What a joke. Maybe the right wing should ask Putin who he prefers? He could be a Trump Advisor. And our right wing republican congress already has Netanyahu standing by should they need help coming to a conclusion.

"What if, as the cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait asked last month in relation to the DNC emails, a source — like, say, a hacker working for a Russian intelligence agency — provided WikiLeaks with a cache of documents that was tampered with in order to smear a political candidate?


In a post on the blog Lawfare, Tait explained that he had spent some time looking through the DNC files for any signs of a fake email planted among the genuine ones:


The metadata analysis I did on the leaked documents that day was almost by accident. I was actually looking for evidence of something much more frightening and which still keeps me up at night: What if the documents were mostly real, but had been surgically doctored? How effective would a carefully planted paragraph in an otherwise valid document be at derailing a campaign? How easily could Russia remove or sidestep an inconvenient DNC official with a single doctored paragraph showing “proof” of dishonest, unethical or illegal practices? And how little credibility would the sheepish official have in asserting that “all of the rest of the emails are true, but just not the one paragraph or email that makes me look bad?”
[:]
Still, given that WikiLeaks is now unwilling or unable to closely scrutinize all of the documents it obtains, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where something like this could occur — and that possibility itself serves to diminish the group’s credibility as a source of unvarnished truth."

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/

[texan]

I'm still waiting. What the Democratic staff did is not relevant to your assumptions. I would also not consider Mormons evangelical, they are a sect unto themselves. Waiting.

But I will concede evangelicals, whites especially, are generally republican, much of that is due to abortion and prayer in schools. But they were always voting republican, that they'd vote for Trump is a bit hypocritical but so it goes.

You can play this little BS game all day if you want I Don't Give A S........I gave you exactly what was needed you are tooling / trolling. Vote for the queen and king of crook and look the other way it speaks to your character.

The relevancy is Assange doing to Hillary what he did to the DNC. So play dumb all you want.....BTW the 2% Mormon vote holds no water bro. Maybe in Utah if that's what you think. This race is just warming up.

I assume you are saying she will run away with it?

[Docthehun]

The numbers after Trump's appearance at the Evangelical convention had Trump at roughly 62%. The head of the group admitted that Trump would probably need north of 80%, which was the same level of support that Mitt enjoyed. After reading how young Evangelicals felt that they were having their basic religious beliefs sold out by their elders supporting Trump, it seems highly unlikely he'll attain the required level.

Backing away from Trump: https://www.yahoo.com/news/evangelical-christian-group-seeks-distance-000000082.html

[midcan5]

You can play this little BS game all day if you want I Don't Give A S........I gave you exactly what was needed you are tooling / trolling. Vote for the queen and king of crook and look the other way it speaks to your character.

The relevancy is Assange doing to Hillary what he did to the DNC. So play dumb all you want.....BTW the 2% Mormon vote holds no water bro. Maybe in Utah if that's what you think. This race is just warming up.

I assume you are saying she will run away with it?

I'm still waiting for the beef? If there is something Assange or others have, let's see it. If not it's time you admitted you are simply a Hillary bigot. Nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to hate whomever you like but face up to the fact your position is not based on anything factual.

[texan]

I'm still waiting for the beef? If there is something Assange or others have, let's see it. If not it's time you admitted you are simply a Hillary bigot. Nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to hate whomever you like but face up to the fact your position is not based on anything factual.

What are you talking about? I guess reading with comprehension is too much to ask? BTW what is a Hillary Bigot? This is a new one......

1. Is it a fact the the night before the DNC opened that Assange released information that caused them to eliminate the chairwomen from speaking and then replace her?

Just yes or no will work.

2. Was it rumored that Assange would be doing this leading up to the convention and was he on TV advertising that he would?

Yes or no will work.

3. Would you concede this is considered his Method of Operation?

Yes or no will work.

4. Does he have a proven track record of releasing accurate info over the years?

Yes or no?

5. Is he threatening the same now?

Yes or no?

Okay, so trying to back this into "factual" information was never stated. I explained what he would be doing to impact the race based on realistic history. That is all I stated. So play this dem game they have been playing on TV about "facts," the fact is he will release information that will hurt Clinton in the eyes of the public. Why? Because he follows thru each and every time. That is all I stated you nit wit. God! Wow what a tool.

If you know anything about politics you know its what you say and the appearance of things that drive negatives not FACTS!

[texan]

Politics for Dummies
If you think that last statement isn't true just take a look at the Trump is the KKK ad..............Not accurate because you have NO FACTS that he supports the KKK. It drives negatives tho doesn't it?

[Common Sense]

I just can't see Evangelicals voting for Trump.

[birddog]

I just can't see Evangelicals voting for Trump.

I and many of my friends will. IMHO, Trump will do far better with evangelicals than Romney did.

[Common Sense]

I and many of my friends will. IMHO, Trump will do far better with evangelicals than Romney did.

It would be a vote against Hillary, not for Donald. He's certainly not a practicing Christian. At least it doesn't seem so.

Apparently there is a lot of division among Evangelicals.