It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory

page: 20
93
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: xtradimensions

In every presidential election I've participated in the general had all parties on one ballot.

Primarily rules are for selecting a parties nominee. When the general election happens all nominees are on the ballot.
You don't have to declare a party in the general election.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I didn't say that a voter has to declare a party in a general election. I said that I understand why the person I was replying to doesn't like having to be registered for a party for a primary. I mentioned a general election because I was telling the person to whom I was replying that since I have often voted for both democrats and republicans--thus splitting my vote and not voting straight party-line--that I can understand why having to declare allegiance to one party or another and then having to switch registration to vote in a primary upsets that person. I also clearly said that in Missouri a voter only has to choose a party at the polling place in the primary--meaning you don't have to register as a republican or democrat and are open to choose without any paperwork other than registering to vote. My point was that people don't always vote for one party from election year to election year--whether in a primary or general election. Im afraid you misunderstood my post. Possibly I wasn't clear enough with my wording.
I have voted in every single election cycle for thirty years, so am well aware of how a General election works.
a reply to: Sillyolme


edit on 15/8/2016 by xtradimensions because: Typo

edit on 15/8/2016 by xtradimensions because: add

edit on 15/8/2016 by xtradimensions because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: xtradimensions

I didn't say you did. I was just stating it for the general membership reading the post.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
They advised him, for example, NOT to spend money in some states that were externally polling as close - and they were right as he ended up winning those particular states easily.

As always follow the money - which means Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania are all likely to be very close right now.


Yes, follow the money. The Clinton campaign stopped advertising in Virginia because they're so far ahead, same as Colorado.

They're just being cautious in Pennsylvania--there's no polling anywhere that shows PA as "very close." And it forces Trump to play defense; same reason Clinton is going into Georgia and Arizona.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: Aazadan

I would like to say that I am glad Bernie bought a house.

However I didn't want my money to end up in Hillary Clinton's bloodied hands. But now that the ship has sailed the only thing I can do is VOTW for the one man who gets on Hillary's nerves in retaliation.


My point was, what did you think you were spending money on? If Sanders lost the campaign, where do you think the money would have gone? It would go to the DNC, and by extension whoever they picked as President. I get being upset over how Bernie lost, but what happened to that money is 100% what was always claimed would happen to it. That's what you were donating for.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Bush/Cheney ripped the heart out of America and stomped it into the ground. If Trump wins, it will be stilled/flatlined.

The guy's a total idiot, who doesn't even read, and who has no interest in learning or growing. He articulates at about a grade four level (seriously).

Anyone who still supports him ought to give their head a shake.

And this is one of the major reasons I cannot take the left seriously. This is coming from a former socialist/democrat voter. Don't believe what the MSM tells you, do your own research.


I trust my evaluative skills, thank you very much. Trump would be an absolute disaster. I'm most concerned not just about foreign and domestic policy and economic issues, but about the heart and soul of America.

Tossing on a Yankees cap and claiming to have Always been a Yankees fan does not sound like the "heart and soul of America". But, your evaluative skills are on point, so you must have that head buried DEEP in the sand.
So tell me, HOW does Hillary make for a good president? And really try to sell her, not just deflect to "durr, she's better than Trump". What has she done to suggest quality presidential material.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: rollanotherone

I will give an answer to that. Absolutely nothing she has done, which is on record, says she will make a good president. As far as Trump goes there is no answer, he has never been in politics.With Trump we get somebody who is not programmed to pander to everybody and who doesn't know how to shut his mouth when told. Based on my two opinions which one would you rather vote for? Probably neither is the correct answer, but as far as I know, let me stress yet, Trump has not oversaw the death of American's and turned his charity into a slush fund for the elite.

Now back to this thread on social media polling or views. What I find funny is all these sites that were sampled or least the majority are left wing voter owned companies that have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation and DNC election(Facebook,Google,Twitter). If these are all false or true you would think we would get some adjusting for the brainwashing the media tries to pull off on us.

Lastly I will guarantee maybe not this election but future we will see that social media has more validity than any poll given by agenda created pollsters. People seem to forget the wave on social media for Obama that led the surge over Hillary for election or cast it aside due to it doesn't fir there narrative. I for one bought on to it in his Election and voted for Obama.

HOPE and YES WE CAN



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

First, this:
www.newyorker.com - Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All...

(Read that, so you'll understand what I'm going to say.)

If Trump wins, it'll be because people bought his lies. He's a master of conning people into bad deals. The book he "co-wrote" (didn't write a single paragraph) was a lie. I consider it plausible he could win and it'll be precisely how he's made so much money. Behind his lies he's an empty person with no talents to stand on, but people voting for him don't care because they love the illusion he crafts. Look at his reality shows for example. The same skills he uses there he used in business.

He's fake. See it. Don't vote for him.

I'm not just a conservative hater--extremist liberal--either. I would have seriously considered Rubio, Cruz, Kasich or Bush. Trump is a different piece of work. He's the biggest fool con-job e ver to run for president.
edit on 8/15/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Delts95
What I find funny is all these sites that were sampled or least the majority are left wing voter owned companies that have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation and DNC election(Facebook,Google,Twitter).

Lastly I will guarantee maybe not this election but future we will see that social media has more validity than any poll given by agenda created pollsters


Wait. So, the biggest social media companies are "left wing voter owned" but social media is still going to be more accurate in predicting results than "agenda created pollsters"?

We've got less than a hundred days to find out who is right.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Delts95
What I find funny is all these sites that were sampled or least the majority are left wing voter owned companies that have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation and DNC election(Facebook,Google,Twitter).

Lastly I will guarantee maybe not this election but future we will see that social media has more validity than any poll given by agenda created pollsters


Wait. So, the biggest social media companies are "left wing voter owned" but social media is still going to be more accurate in predicting results than "agenda created pollsters"?

We've got less than a hundred days to find out who is right.

I don't think you understand what you quoted. You find it hard to believe that a company can donate to the DNC, but the companies users are more in favor with the RNC? Facebook is not its users and its users are not Facebook. It's a platform Zuckerberg provides people to use. Twitter is a platform. Tumblr is a platform. Reddit is a platform. What the creators are, and what the user base are, are two entirely different things.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


The newyorker not a reputable paper though. its liek the times and is biased.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: jonnywhite


The newyorker not a reputable paper though. its liek the times and is biased.


Papers aren't biased. Owners, editors, and reporters are biased.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: jonnywhite


The newyorker not a reputable paper though. its liek the times and is biased.


Papers aren't biased. Owners, editors, and reporters are biased.


Wha?

'Papers' ARE the owners, editors, and reporters.

They sure aren't the 'printers' and 'delivery staff.'



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
But one tough question:
What is 88% of the population going to do when Hillary "wins"?


You know when you rubbed up against Karen Black in 'Easy Rider '
later on? Nothing like that, but the verbiage will probably apply.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: jonnywhite


The newyorker not a reputable paper though. its liek the times and is biased.


Papers aren't biased. Owners, editors, and reporters are biased.


Trying to be obtuse isnt very flattering you realize correct? To even reply as you did you KNEW what i was saying.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Wha?

'Papers' ARE the owners, editors, and reporters.

They sure aren't the 'printers' and 'delivery staff.'


Papers are a bundle of newspaper and ink, an inanimate object. It cannot be biased. The ideas they contain can be biased, but by that criteria everything that has ever or will ever present facts is biased.

Humans are incapable of removing bias, and even if it were possible we cannot recognize unbiased material, because our perception of it is altered by our own bias.

In other words. Who cares that it's biased? Literally nothing is unbiased.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

hope you are right.

I voted for trump in the primary, and will vote for him again in November.
I see Hillary and her crew of incompetents leading us to ww3.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I can prove something that is unbiased. DEATH. so see i found something that you said did not exist.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

I can prove something that is unbiased. DEATH. so see i found something that you said did not exist.


Really? Then why do wealthy people live on average 10-15 years longer than poor people? How long you have until death happens is greatly influenced by socioeconomic status.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

I can prove something that is unbiased. DEATH. so see i found something that you said did not exist.


Really? Then why do wealthy people live on average 10-15 years longer than poor people? How long you have until death happens is greatly influenced by socioeconomic status.


They Still DIE we all DIE so its not Unbiased. All humans die without exception. Therefore Unbiased.



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join