One has to first commit a crime to be considered a criminal.This is what we get for not voting for Bernie Sanders. We get a criminal and an idiot fighting like little children.
One has to first commit a crime to be considered a criminal.This is what we get for not voting for Bernie Sanders. We get a criminal and an idiot fighting like little children.
And I respect you for that very much.Glad I didn't watch the debate, I'm not voting for either one for reasons that I will abstain elaborating for.
Eh... it would seem as though there's a video you need to watch, because as always John Oliver can say things so much better than I can:Unfortunately, that's where my opinion differs from yours. I was also a Sanders, but I kind of lean towards Trump. I understand, some of her negative stigma has been blown of proportion, but where did they come from? They came from the shady shit she has done. I didn't really want to support Trump, but I would rather take an idiot over a criminal.
How dare you don't support our führer, Hillary Clinton!
But John Oliver is stupid because he dared to say that Hillary made bad decisions in that video!
Hillary is perfect! She has never made any mistakes, and she never will!
Eh... it would seem as though there's a video you need to watch, because as always John Oliver can say things so much better than I can:
I'm glad that there are other options for other people, but honestly Clinton aligns most with my views anyway, particularly in terms of disability status and recognition. For instance, I'm not a fan of the fact that Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any formSad part is that describes lesser of the evils. Regardless I just hope people realize that they can vote for other options.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/I'm glad that there are other options for other people, but honestly Clinton aligns most with my views anyway, particularly in terms of disability status and recognition. For instance, I'm not a fan of the fact that Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any form
Not true.Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any form
... interesting. I guess I need to tune my news sources a bit finerhttp://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
But regardless if you most agree with Clinton and vote for her because of that then ok. I do however have a problem with people who act as if the big 2 are the ONLY canidates and that said candidates are entitled to your vote.
The lesser of two evils is still less evil, although I wouldn't call Clinton remotely analogous to evil.Sad part is that describes lesser of the evils. Regardless I just hope people realize that they can vote for other options.
She's still anti-vaccine to a degree. She had peddled some debunked nonsense about mercury in vaccines, she has advocated for parental choice with regard to childhood vaccinations, which is a terrible idea, and she consistently panders to the anti-vaccination crowd. Regardless of whether or not we want to call that anti-vaccine, it's enough to demonstrate poor judgment on her part.http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
But regardless if you most agree with Clinton and vote for her because of that then ok. I do however have a problem with people who act as if the big 2 are the ONLY canidates and that said candidates are entitled to your vote.
That sounds about right. My belief is that, in an effort to rise above the fray and not come off as hostile, Clinton allowed a lot of his nonsense by. She had several openings for some pretty good zingers that she didn't take (and some that she did), and it was sometimes frustrating to watch.Trump came out strong early on in the first half but clinton had the advantage in the second half.
It depends but in the terminology you could say if you think said candidate will do harm to your country then you could describe that as "evil" although it is subjectiveThe lesser of two evils is still less evil, although I wouldn't call Clinton remotely analogous to evil.
For what it is worth same for Clinton who previously stated they could be an environmental cause of autism although she changed positions and association with Mark Hyman.She's still anti-vaccine to a degree. She had peddled some debunked nonsense about mercury in vaccines, she has advocated for parental choice with regard to childhood vaccinations, which is a terrible idea, and she consistently panders to the anti-vaccination crowd. Regardless of whether or not we want to call that anti-vaccine, it's enough to demonstrate poor judgment on her part.
The CNN poll was overly Democrats but the numbers sound about right and it should help her or at least hurt Trump. Regardless I thought it was all in all an awful debate.That sounds about right. My belief is that, in an effort to rise above the fray and not come off as hostile, Clinton allowed a lot of his nonsense by. She had several openings for some pretty good zingers that she didn't take (and some that she did), and it was sometimes frustrating to watch.
Regardless though, after everything's said and done, Clinton appears to have come out the victor after the debate, with a CNN poll saying 62% of people thought she was the winner. These kinds of polls have historically been pretty accurate with regard to predicting immediate future bumps in the election polls, and she's apparently won by the third-largest margin since this kind of polling has existed. For context, Hillary's margin of victory here is comparable to but not as large as Romney's victory after his first debate with President Obama.
*Sees this*Gary Johnson. I greatly dislike both Trump and Clinton and not voting at all is the same as voting for them. So I will vote against them, even though one of them is going to win, just to say I lowered their chance at winning, even though it is only by a minuscule amount.
Regardless though, after everything's said and done, Clinton appears to have come out the victor after the debate, with a CNN poll saying 62% of people thought she was the winner. These kinds of polls have historically been pretty accurate with regard to predicting immediate future bumps in the election polls, and she's apparently won by the third-largest margin since this kind of polling has existed. For context, Hillary's margin of victory here is comparable to but not as large as Romney's victory after his first debate with President Obama.
Most of those sources are very biasedOf course she won when they sampled 15% more democrats than republicans
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/27/poll.pdf
Trump also won every other online poll but again none of these polls mean anything
Regardless, she's the only candidate now whom I would describe as pro-vaccine.For what it is worth same for Clinton who previously stated they could be an environmental cause of autism although she changed positions and association with Mark Hyman.
The CNN poll was overly Democrats but the numbers sound about right and it should help her or at least hurt Trump.
The CNN poll was, however, a representative sample of likely voters, so it doesn't matter. To make the polling group equally Democratic and equally Republican is to skew the data. That's not how polling works because you need a random sample. In other words, the respondents were disproportionately Democratic-identifying because the country is disproportionately Democratic-identifying. This is a non-issue.Of course she won when they sampled 15% more democrats than republicans