(04-05-2016 09:08 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  More silver lining from the data, exit polls show that there is no gender difference (1-2 percent) in how people are voting. ie. currently 37 percent of male voters went with trump and 36 percent of female voters went with trump. So much for that whole "trump polls poorly with women" crap.

Just as you cannot extrapolate from WI to other states, you cannot extrapolate from M/F exit poll breakdown in WI to that "official" breakdown in other states. That's akin to coffee reading due to confounding variables & weakness of exit poll as predictors.

Just turned Fox off. I'm not watching MSM for 2 weeks.

Well, we should've known. Lyin' Ted's mantra is right in the name of the state.

Wisconsin

On to more voting!

(04-05-2016 09:13 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:08 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  More silver lining from the data, exit polls show that there is no gender difference (1-2 percent) in how people are voting. ie. currently 37 percent of male voters went with trump and 36 percent of female voters went with trump. So much for that whole "trump polls poorly with women" crap.

Just as you cannot extrapolate from WI to other states, you cannot extrapolate from M/F exit poll breakdown in WI to that "official" breakdown in other states. That's akin to coffee reading due to confounding variables & weakness of exit poll as predictors.

Earlier this week they were definitely showing those "Trump does poorly with women" specific to wisconsin. I stand by my analysis.

Sanders looks like a rotting corpse...GET HIM OUT!

The midwest is just awful.

This isn't unexpected though so people shouldn't be too surprised by this. Let's put it this way you can't expect conservatism to go through a serious reformation without the midwest waking up someday.

The biggest weakness in mainstream conservatism is the midwest.

Great, albeit terrifying article I read today:

The delegates at the convention also vote for Vice-President - and they're all unbound for that vote.

Quote:What makes the whole thing even more unpredictable is that, unlike the vote for the presidential nominee, delegates are completely unbound in voting for their candidates’ running mate, as Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus noted on Monday.

“I do think it’s curious that people aren’t talking about [it], they’re talking about an open convention and the votes for the nominees, but people aren’t talking about the vote for VP. It could be quite amazing if that were to happen,” Priebus told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

“Everyone’s unbound. I mean, that’s the other thing. There’s no binding. There’s no first and second ballot binding. It’s just a free vote,” he added.

Presumably, if the convention settled on a candidate squarely on the first or second ballot, the delegates would defer to their candidate’s decision for a running mate. But if multiple ballots take place with no clear resolution, the backlash could spill over into the vote for the vice presidential nominee. One could for instance foresee a scenario in which Trump wins the nomination, but establishment forces push for a more palatable choice as their vice presidential nominee as a check against Trump’s candidacy in the general election.

I know we've discussed before that there's no advantage to Cruz being Trump's VP, via an alliance between the two of them; but what if, with Cruz stacking the slate of delegates, they spurn whoever Trump's choice for VP is and vote en masse for Cruz?

I assume Cruz wouldn't want it, but still, that'd be something.

It's getting harder to reach that magic number if the rat fuckers can get away with this shit. Trump's worst polls were -10 in WI and now rato is winning by 20. The machines are rigged across the board. I hope Roger Stone and Stopthesteal will have a solid case for mass voter fraud.






They steal at the booth, at the delegate count, in the propaganda war and eventually at the convention. Trump better start going nuclear.

Cruzsexscandal must deliver to at least get attention off Trump's loss. National enquirer will be out tomorrow.

(04-05-2016 09:19 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Earlier this week they were definitely showing those "Trump does poorly with women" specific to wisconsin. I stand by my analysis.

I see. I never saw WI-specific woman stats. Were there any? I mostly saw "He is not doing well with women overall, so he won't do well in WI".

P.S. I wouldn't pay much attention to polls. They are highly ephemeral and have little relevance to the actual outcome.

Guys, there is no reason for all the gloom and doom. It's been clear for a while that Trump was going to lose Wisconsin. That's what happened. It doesn't change the basic state of the race.

Trump remains, in my opinion, the odds-on favorite to be the nominee. He will win NY on 4/19, likely with more than 50% of the vote, and then the Acela primaries on 4/26 by solid margins. By the end of April, he will very likely hold a wider delegate lead over Cruz than he did in the beginning of April.

That won't be the end of the race either, as it will shift to more contested ground again. As I've said a few times, the primary will be decided by Indiana and California. In my view -- to simplify things just a bit -- if Trump wins either Indy or Cali, he's the nominee. If he loses both, then he probably comes up short. I like his chances.

I understand that the cycle has its ups and downs but there is really no need to overreact to tonight's results. The media will try to spin a "turning point" narrative, which will last until exactly the moment when New York is called within seconds of the polling stations closing (and at that point I'll be telling everyone not to overreact to that and declare victory, LOL). All of that is pretty much irrelevant. This primary will be decided by voters in May and June, and Trump is still well ahead and likely to either get to 1237 or come close enough that he gets nominated on the first ballot. That's all that matters.

(04-05-2016 09:27 PM)Zaibatsu Wrote:  

How come I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only in states Trump didn't win (e.g. Iowa)?

   

(04-05-2016 09:08 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  Makes me wonder if Cruz could pull Indiana. Is that state more like Ohio/Michigan/Illinois, more like Kentucky/Tennessee or more like the beta states listed above?

Seems like one of those weird states like Missouri with no solid identity that could go either way.

Indiana is my home state. I've always described it as the southern state that got stuck up north. It's about a half and half mixture of Ohio/Michigan/Illinois and Kentucky/Tennessee cultures. There's definitely a heavy evangelical streak running through the state, but Hoosiers have a more libertarian, "take no shit" attitude, unlike the corn-husking beta cucks of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Indiana's been hit hard with manufacturing jobs going to Mexico and China, so trade issues will resonate highly there with the blue collar folks, similar to Michigan.

I predict Trump will take the Hoosier state.

EDIT: I already voted for Trump in one of the earlier primaries in my current state, but I just remembered I'm still registered to vote back home in Indiana, too. I know it's against federal law to vote twice in the same federal election, but does anybody know the legalities of voting in multiple states' primaries that occur on different days? Could I potentially vote thrice for Trump this year?

(04-05-2016 09:32 PM)A.S Wrote:  How come I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only in states Trump didn't win (e.g. Iowa)?

Iowa is a caucus. They cajole voters in a private room. Cruz has largely won caucus states as his ground people can use whatever guilt tactics to sell his vote. They also tend to be evangelical country sheeple. That's a separate issue. The voting fraud also accounts for voting machines. Many people have reported/taken picture of where they chose Trump on the ballot but registers Cruz or somebody else. It was also mentioned Microsoft provided the software for voting machines in some states. Many Utah votes were able to be case online from home. Other cases of ballots being photocopied and handed out like flyers, voters having them by the handful.

From Roger himself
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...ote-fraud/

Quote:Roger Stone: ‘They Ought to Put the Handcuffs On’ Ted Cruz for Vote Fraud

Saying Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz is more Nixon than Reagan, Donald Trump ally Roger Stone spoke with Breitbart News Saturday host Matthew Boyle.

“Having worked very hard to collect evidence of voter fraud and irregularities in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Hawaii and Texas, frankly, they ought to put the handcuffs on him,” said Stone, referring to Ted Cruz, “because the Trump people can go to credentials and challenge the seating of hundreds, literally hundreds of Ted Cruz’s delegates who were fraudulently elected.”

Asked to elaborate, Stone said, “Go to StopTheSteal.org. For over a month we have had an 800 number up, a toll free number. We have collected and documented with sworn affidavits thousands of claims of voter irregularities in the states where Ted Cruz has won. And we’re prepared to present them to the credentials committee.”

“If they want to fight, let’s fight,” Stone continued. “Ted Cruz’s delegates in Texas were fraudulently elected. There are thousands of examples of voter fraud. That means people voted for Donald Trump, but their vote was counted for Ted Cruz. Thou shalt not steal, Ted,” said Stone. “You’re a big bible man, Ted, read that one carefully. Thou shalt not steal. That’s why I call him tricky Ted,” concluded Stone.

The great Joe McCarthy is rolling over in his grave that his state voted for the greasy rat Lyin Ted.

(04-05-2016 09:49 PM)Zaibatsu Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:32 PM)A.S Wrote:  How come I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only in states Trump didn't win (e.g. Iowa)?

Iowa is a caucus. [...]
Many Utah votes were able to be case online from home [...]
evidence of voter fraud and irregularities in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Hawaii and Texas

You are skirting and reinforcing the question: Why do I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only when he loses a state? Trump lost 6 out of the 7 states you mentioned (if we include WI).

I think Trump will sweep April from here.

NY, Connecticut, Delaware,Maryland,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island. There's no reason to think Cruz or Kasich will compete much across these 6 states.

Then we head to Indiana on May 3, based on Shrodax post above and the geographic location, I see another Trump victory. 3 of 4 border states voted Trump, Ohio the exception.

May 10 until Cruz finally wins another state - Nebraska. West Virginia more likely to go to Trump than Cruz. Trump 8 states, Cruz 1 over the next 9 contests I hope.


That has Trump in a great position heading to the west coast.

(04-05-2016 09:57 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:49 PM)Zaibatsu Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:32 PM)A.S Wrote:  How come I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only in states Trump didn't win (e.g. Iowa)?

Iowa is a caucus. [...]
Many Utah votes were able to be case online from home.

You are skirting and reinforcing the question: Why do I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only when he loses a state?

(04-05-2016 09:57 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:49 PM)Zaibatsu Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 09:32 PM)A.S Wrote:  How come I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only in states Trump didn't win (e.g. Iowa)?

Iowa is a caucus. [...]
Many Utah votes were able to be case online from home [...]
Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Hawaii and Texas

You are skirting and reinforcing the question: Why do I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only when he loses a state? Trump lost 6 out of the 7 states mentioned (if we include WI).

Out. Get out.

Dont be disappointed. Human Biodiversity tells us Wisconsin was always an uphill battle for Trump.

https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/717545903045885953

Cruz is just a spoiler. Even if he lost Wisconsin that would not change.

(04-05-2016 09:57 PM)A.S Wrote:  You are skirting and reinforcing the question: Why do I hear of anti-Trump voter fraud only when he loses a state?

Because it's what you 'hear'. It's more pronounced when he loses a state for that exact reason. Roger stone also mentioned Hawaii which Trump won. You're insinuating people report after Trump loses. people are reporting fraud while they are voting. But obviously you're trolling so no further point.

(04-09-2016 05:26 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:15 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  Agreed. Most people vote for who they like the most, not who they think has the best prescriptions to solve problems. Here's a story, just happened: I have an employee to whom I just gave a raise to. However she owes the IRS 1000.00 because she had me withold too little tax . She also had her wonderful Obamacare insurance double in cost. So she's rightfully upset that her raise is going to get eaten up by these expenses.

Do you think this would turn her into a Trump supporter? No. Loves Bernie and STILL likes Obama. Why? Because she's supporting emotionally, not logically. Plus she's Eastern European which makes it even worse. I said all this to her and she even agreed with me. But she hates Trump so she won't support him despite agreeing that some of his policies make sense. Cognitive dissonance like this is going to destroy this country once and for all. This is what we're up against.

If she's really that emotional and blind to logic, you really shouldn't be giving her raises. Just make her feel good and be likable, treat her well etc.

Then pocket the cash.

No, she deserved the raise, her work is very good and she works her ass off for me without complaining. My point was that even people who are normally fine get caught up emotionally in who they support rather than basing their choices in reason and logic. That's the underlying problem with our system of voting and a big reason why civilizations eventually fall.

I mean sure, she deserved the raise.

My point being that she likely doesn't feel better with the raise compared to genuinely making her feel good emotionally. She already demonstrated how much she doesn't care about money compared to emotional wellbeing. So if money is important to you, then likely you want to reward her mainly in a non financial way, then it'll be win-win.

Edit: As WSP would say:

Quote:Once you realize most people are emotional... Give other people the credit keep the money. That is exactly how your boss thinks

https://twitter.com/WallStPlayboys/statu...1061337089

(04-09-2016 05:26 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:15 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  Agreed. Most people vote for who they like the most, not who they think has the best prescriptions to solve problems. Here's a story, just happened: I have an employee to whom I just gave a raise to. However she owes the IRS 1000.00 because she had me withold too little tax . She also had her wonderful Obamacare insurance double in cost. So she's rightfully upset that her raise is going to get eaten up by these expenses.

Do you think this would turn her into a Trump supporter? No. Loves Bernie and STILL likes Obama. Why? Because she's supporting emotionally, not logically. Plus she's Eastern European which makes it even worse. I said all this to her and she even agreed with me. But she hates Trump so she won't support him despite agreeing that some of his policies make sense. Cognitive dissonance like this is going to destroy this country once and for all. This is what we're up against.

If she's really that emotional and blind to logic, you really shouldn't be giving her raises. Just make her feel good and be likable, treat her well etc.

Then pocket the cash.

No, she deserved the raise, her work is very good and she works her ass off for me without complaining. My point was that even people who are normally fine get caught up emotionally in who they support rather than basing their choices in reason and logic. That's the underlying problem with our system of voting and a big reason why civilizations eventually fall.

I disagree with your (too) gentleman-like stance. A leftist boss would never give you a pay raise if he knew that you are pro-Trump, yet, here you are, raising pay for a woman who hurts society with her Bernie vote . I think you should instead raise the pay of some other efficient (and pro-Trump) employee...

Myself, I might be, in your position, very tempted to... fire this leftist' ass: I have seen so many conservative men fired from their jobs by SJW employers, that I personally think that we should now retaliate: no mercy for SJWish and ultra-feminist employees.

So, you are a gentleman indeed, but, given that we are at war with ultra-socialists (think Bernie) and SJWs, I sadly cannot congratulate you.

All this insane nation destroying bullshit is necessitating sedition laws. Trump is going to need to bring back a Sedition Act and hammer the shit out of all these shitlib wackos.