Posted on 09/28/2016 12:13:57 AM PDT by BlueStateRightist
This chart tracks our best estimate, over time, of how America plans to vote in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at cesrusc.org ...
In a sense, they may be right. But Trump was not playing the same game. He wanted most of all to become a safe choice. I think he did that.
Thanks for the info.
I heard Rush today and agree with his take. The pundits watch and score the debate differently than the ‘masses.’ They do it technically, point for this, point for that, whereas most of us just come away with a ‘feeling’ about who did better. And in this case who we’re more comfortable with sitting in the Oval Office (and listening to for four years .. honestly, could you listen to her for four years? I really no longer blame Ole Bill for looking elsewhere, just wish he had the guts to call it quitsm but they probably have too much dirt on each other for that to happen)
I did not know what FOAD meant and I suppose I could've googled it but thanks for the education.
I was a Ted Cruz guy but never a never Trump guy having declared long before Trump wrapped up the nomination that I would support him if he were nominated. I was zotted for defending Cruz when that defense necessarily contained a criticism of Trump which in my judgment infuriated influential members of the zot vigilante committee.
Your theory is correct. The writer tends to read what he (thought he) wrote. Professional writers -- in literature or in advertising -- never proofread their own work for that very reason. That's somebody else's job.
“Why would you recommend that anybody vote for Hillary Clinton, especially to save money?”
Not just to anybody, but to you. You dislike Trump so much, go vote for Hillary and see how much better you will do. I’m sick of your Trump bashing. It just seems to come so naturally to you. Your alternatives are don’t vote (which is the same as a vote for Hillary, or just vote for Hillary and get it over with. Or get off the thread(s) when you get the urge to bash Trump, which is almost all the time.
I'm sick of your paranoia. There is not one word of untruth in my reply, perhaps that is why you object to me rather than its contents.
And it sounds a lot like what I have been saying since long before Trump declared his candidacy and why I support him today and why I also support the Article V movement.
“I’m sick of your paranoia. There is not one word of untruth in my reply, perhaps that is why you object to me rather than its contents.”
I’ll narrow the word count. I’m sick of you. Period.
Can you cite a statement by Trump that even suggests he has any interest whatsoever in reducing spending? Or, for that matter, government. I certainly don't recall any.
And whyever would you believe that one who favored such actions would ever vote for Hillary?
All of which is to say that I found your response to #43 quite confusing.
Aren't you one of the jihadists, one of the vigilantes who stalk the threads of Free Republic seeking to zot the witches and the running dogs of conservatism and burn them at the stake?
That's what you're good at, but you're not any good at all at conservatism.
“That’s what you’re good at, but you’re not any good at all at conservatism.”
Your opinions aren’t worth much here anymore. We’re on to you.
That’s true. You have been very consistent. I always appreciate your posts
I like Nate. He’s wrong from time to time — who of us isn’t? — but he’s well-reasoned and adds to the forum.
Thanks for the explanation.
I oftentimes will have errors in posts due to dictating to my phone (and its software is nowhere near as sophisticated as Dragon’s), or due to the very small keys on the keyboard...and I don’t always check before posting (as I should). Yours was obviously an honest mistake - and I never viewed it otherwise.
I, too, was a Cruz guy...until about mid-summer last year. After having read Ann Coulter’s “Adios America,” immigration became my #1 issue, because the Dems have been scheming since at least 1965 to replace enough of the electorate to capture the Presidency (and, hence, the courts) FOR GOOD. They are very, very close to achieving their goal. Trump, without articulating it exactly that way, offered (and still offers) a solution to that problem. Cruz jumped on his bandwagon after it proved successful, and also supported TPP - which annoyed me. His behavior once he started losing was pretty low-class, and I had thought much better of him. He had a good shot at being named AG, and then to the Supreme Court (maybe to replace Roberts, who would be pressured behind the scenes to resign “to spend more time with his family”) - had he realized early enough (maybe right after Super Tuesday, or within 2-3 weeks of that point) that he could not win, and that he should support the only person who could possibly defeat Clinton. But he didn’t do that, and has hurt our chances of defeating the tyrannical Witch.
In any case, I have long held to the belief that intelligent people, of good and decent character, can look at the same facts or situation and have a good faith disagreement about what those facts mean, or about how a given situation should be handled. We all have to understand and tolerate that not everyone is going to agree with us all the time - and be civil about dealing with people when that happens. Lots of people obviously don’t take this approach.
Anyway, I do believe that a lot of people on FR are WAY too quick on the trigger, and WAY too severe in their criticism of others (yeah, I know, welcome to the Internet - that’s just the way things are). Sorry that some here chose to abuse you for pretty much nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.