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.

 

NPR Battleground Map: Hillary Clinton Solidifies Lead Against Donald Trump

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well until Trump's support falls under Gary Johnson's he will be getting my vote. I will do anything to keep Hillary out of office based on my stance against corruption.

Since we're all talking sources, did any of the Hillary supporters find that source proving the Russians are sabotaging her campaign?




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd
Since we're all talking sources, did any of the Hillary supporters find that source proving the Russians are sabotaging her campaign?

Please point out which one of us in this thread made this claim that would warrant us to produce this source. Talk about a red herring...
edit on 16-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: amicktd
Since we're all talking sources, did any of the Hillary supporters find that source proving the Russians are sabotaging her campaign?

Please point out which one of us in this thread made this claim that would warrant us to produce this source. Talk about a red herring...


Many people have claimed that the media is covering for the DNC in this thread. It was also shown in the DNC leaks that the media works with the DNC. The only rebuttal to this has been it's all Russian propaganda, so I want to see the source to that info.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The 270towin site has her ahead 412 to 126... Either way, I think we may have a historical landslide election in our future... And 538 gives Hillary an 88% chance of winning, with Don at 11%.



Source

fivethirtyeight



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?


Basically, I asked a legitimate question in regard to the topic. If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated. Oh and how do I source something I believe Hillary supporters made up?
edit on 16-8-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?


Basically, I asked a legitimate question in regard to the topic. If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated.


Do you know what a leading question is? Because you are guilty of asking one in your first reply to the thread and now you are showing your true colors by jumping on it. "Well they didn't deny the question, therefore its leading premise is true." WRONG.

Like I said, go post some sources. Don't ask us to post sources of something you are assuming is true than declare it true when no one posts anything. Go do your own research.
edit on 16-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?


Basically, I asked a legitimate question in regard to the topic. If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated.


Do you know what a leading question is? Because you are guilty of asking one in your first reply to the thread and now you are showing your true colors by jumping on it. "Well they didn't deny the question, therefore its leading premise is true." WRONG.

Like I said, go post some sources. Don't ask us to post sources of something you are assuming is true than declare it true when no one posts anything. Go do your own research.


Sure I know what a leading question is but your just deflecting so what's the difference my question applied to the topic. Sorry it didn't align with the threads intention. I won't bothernasking hard questions anymore.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?


Basically, I asked a legitimate question in regard to the topic. If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated.


Do you know what a leading question is? Because you are guilty of asking one in your first reply to the thread and now you are showing your true colors by jumping on it. "Well they didn't deny the question, therefore its leading premise is true." WRONG.

Like I said, go post some sources. Don't ask us to post sources of something you are assuming is true than declare it true when no one posts anything. Go do your own research.


Sure I know what a leading question is but your just deflecting so what's the difference my question applied to the topic. Sorry it didn't align with the threads intention. I won't bothernasking hard questions anymore.


Still no evidence. Just whining that you got called out for asking a leading question.


did any of the Hillary supporters find that source proving the Russians are sabotaging her campaign?

This is two questions:
Is Russia sabotaging Clinton's campaign?
and
Are Hillary's supporters looking for a source proving this?

You are assuming the first question is true by asking what you asked. Hence it is a leading question. Go restudy logical fallacies.
edit on 16-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well it's just NPR's data. It's not like the data is consistent across every poll undertaken, but the general idea of what is going on should be the same. I've also heard that Texas has a possibility of becoming a battleground state, but I'll believe that when I see it.


I'll be surprised if Hillary takes Texas, but it's starting to look like it's possible.

If Texas is in danger of flipping, Trump is basically done.
edit on 16-8-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd



If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated.


What?

What does one have to do with the other? A lack of proof that the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda is proof these polls could be manipulated?




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well it's just NPR's data. It's not like the data is consistent across every poll undertaken, but the general idea of what is going on should be the same. I've also heard that Texas has a possibility of becoming a battleground state, but I'll believe that when I see it.


I'll be surprised if Hillary takes Texas, but it's starting to look like it's possible.

If Texas is in danger of flipping, Trump is basically done.


Utah is in danger of flipping right now too.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: amicktd

So basically, you strung together two narratives then asked a leading question expecting Liberals to have followed along with you by being a mind reader.

No, no one has to post any sources you are asking for. In fact, YOU are making these insinuations, how about YOU post the sources instead?


Basically, I asked a legitimate question in regard to the topic. If you don't have a source to prove the DNC leaks were Russian propaganda then I guess so far it's just proof that these polls could be manipulated.


Do you know what a leading question is? Because you are guilty of asking one in your first reply to the thread and now you are showing your true colors by jumping on it. "Well they didn't deny the question, therefore its leading premise is true." WRONG.

Like I said, go post some sources. Don't ask us to post sources of something you are assuming is true than declare it true when no one posts anything. Go do your own research.


Sure I know what a leading question is but your just deflecting so what's the difference my question applied to the topic. Sorry it didn't align with the threads intention. I won't bothernasking hard questions anymore.


Still no evidence. Just whining that you got called out for asking a leading question.


did any of the Hillary supporters find that source proving the Russians are sabotaging her campaign?

This is two questions:
Is Russia sabogaing Clinton's campaign
and
Are Hillary's supporters looking for a source proving this.

You are assuming the first question is true by asking what you asked. Hence it is a leading question. Go restudy logical fallacies.


Ok so revert to insults when you have nothing. I asked for the source that shows the DNC leaks is Russian propaganda, which was the proof the media and the DNC was colluding. How is that not applicable to the topic? How am I suppose to source a claim that as far as I know is made up? Plus, I didn't assume anything. Everything I have stated is fact.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Utah is in danger of flipping right now too.


Utah is a bit more understandable, I don't think Trump ever had a realistic shot at taking Utah honestly... the demographics just don't line up with his rhetoric.

Texas though is full of straight Republican ticket voters. These are the people who are instead switching to Hillary. That speaks volumes about the state of his campaign.

Cruz is a really smart guy though, he could have seen this coming. Perhaps that's why he withheld his endorsement. It could really help Trump carry Texas, which means getting some concessions from Trump in exchange for it.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Utah is in danger of flipping right now too.


Arizona already has.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Just remember Dukakis was up by eight points nationally in August of '88.


Yeah, and Dewey was up big in '48. Two instances in seventy years. Anything could happen, of course, but I wouldn't bet real money on it.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I like the willful ignorance from Trump supporters here.



a reply to: Krazysh0t

Willful ignorance is believing this NPR bs, and thinking it's a good idea to share this crap as if it has any credibility. After reading this "fact-filled" eye opener I think it's fair to say we can just skip the election and anoint the queen of the damned. MSM collusion in the DNC emails should hammer it home to even the thickest of skulls that any poll or predictions produced from them is equal to bs. NPR is just another bought and paid for tool they use to "dispense" the propaganda. Great job Goebbels jr. and nice try, but once again, I'm not buying it.

I see psychiatrists getting a HUGE uptick in patients after Trump wins.

edit on 16-8-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Just remember Dukakis was up by eight points nationally in August of '88.


Another variable here is that Dukakis was a relative unknown in '88 so there was a greater possibility of voters changing their minds as they saw more of him.

Clinton and Trump have been well known national figures/celebrities for years. Far less chance of people changing their minds at this point. One of his only hopes is that a large number of those being polled aren't being honest because they are embarrassed to tell strangers they are for Trump.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
NPR. Nuff said Rigged. moving on.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Utah is in danger of flipping right now too.


Utah is a bit more understandable, I don't think Trump ever had a realistic shot at taking Utah honestly... the demographics just don't line up with his rhetoric.

Texas though is full of straight Republican ticket voters. These are the people who are instead switching to Hillary. That speaks volumes about the state of his campaign.

Cruz is a really smart guy though, he could have seen this coming. Perhaps that's why he withheld his endorsement. It could really help Trump carry Texas, which means getting some concessions from Trump in exchange for it.


Well in any case, it's all turning out to be quite a situation for the Trumpet.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join