Hillary has "medical episode" at 9/11 Memorial

[Jeff '79]

CNN reported on their website that Hildebag told Anderson Cooper that she did not faint.
Thank God ! I was worried there for a minute.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Because when I'm done hitting it she needs medical attention.
That's why.

I was going to say that

Originally Posted by Jeff '79

CNN reported on their website that Hildebag told Anderson Cooper that she did not faint.
Thank God ! I was worried there for a minute.

She's lying, again.

Did she have issues withthe heat or did she have pneumonia or whats the stry gong to be next?

And Why is her Doctor traveling with her? Did Anderson Cooper ask why the Doctor was standing with her at teh 9/11 memorial? Walking with her to the car or holding her up?

I am fairly certain Anderson who have been all over Trump for having his Doctor with him even if he had no issues.

[Jeff '79]

Originally Posted by VITE1

I was going to say that



She's lying, again.

Did she have issues withthe heat or did she have pneumonia or whats the stry gong to be next?

And Why is her Doctor traveling with her? Did Anderson Cooper ask why the Doctor was standing with her at teh 9/11 memorial? Walking with her to the car or holding her up?

I am fairly certain Anderson who have been all over Trump for having his Doctor with him even if he had no issues.

You know, it's not just the fact that she is sick with whatever she has.. That alone affects her ability to govern.
The meds that she is taking can't be good for ones judgement, and have to make one think that they must preoccupy her thought process, or at least affect it.

[boracayjohnny]

Originally Posted by Jeff '79

CNN reported on their website that Hildebag told Anderson Cooper that she did not faint.
Thank God ! I was worried there for a minute.

Thank goodness there isn't a video of her feet going completely limp and dragging as if she's being held up by folks around her.

[Jeff '79]

Originally Posted by boracayjohnny

Thank goodness there isn't a video of her feet going completely limp and dragging as if she's being held up by folks around her.

I hear that !

[Cybercowboy]

Any polls that suggest Hillary draws more negative votes from third party candidates than Trump are just 100% psyops from your friendly neighborhood MSM.

[Cybercowboy]

Don't care TxAg, the truth hurts but it's healing too. i sound like a liberal? OK. The #NT crowd sounds like petulant manchilds.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

Voter registration records, they vary somewhat depending where you get them, but they average-out in 2014 to:

40% registered Democrats
37% registered Republicans
13% Libertarian (independant)
9% other (independant)

(22% independant all together)


If these percentages carry over for 2016,

the democrats don't need any registered Republican to cross the aisle for an assured clear (%51) win, all they need for an assured victory is 45% of the total independents to vote for them. Democrats already have a "vote total victory" (51% is not required to win). If all the independants do indeed vote independant, and all registered republicans vote republican.... the Democrats will win.

As well, the Republicans don't need any registered Democrats to cross the aisle for an assured clear (%51) win, all they need for an assured victory is 60 % of the total independents to vote for them; or just 16% of the independant voters to have a vote-total win.

The Libertarian party needs 230% of the total independants to vote for them to gain a clear vote majority. Or, for a vote-total-victory over Hillary, the Libertarians would need all 9% of the "other" catagory, plus 48% of registered Republicans to vote Libertarian.

Historical data shows that those who register to a certain political party - once election day arrives - will vote party lines in the national offices (regardless of what they say beforehand)... with no more than 1.5 % variance of their listed registered party (again., talking about how they voted for the national offices). There are two noteable exceptions to this for first time running candidates, Nixon and Reagan... who had the largest crossovers in modern times (again, this being for their first term elections).

Many voters this election want a simple outcome; a Hillary loss; period. They have looked for the best route to accomplish this. For those wanting a sure Hillary defeat... the numbers show the closest route is to help one of the other parties, one that already has a large number of votes under their hat; just needing a tipping-of-the-hat to triumph against her.

For these voters, it looks like a lost cause to attempt to land 100% of the independant votes - and half of the registered republican voters - for the Libertarian candidate to defeat Hillary.

It's been seen as a much easier path to defeating Hillary by just adding 4% of independants to the Rebublican candidate for a vote total win; or 14% to get a clear win (51%).

I am intentionally not mentioning electoral votes in this; because if you zero in on that, 3rd party candidates haven't been on the map, except for one election in 1968.

You've just outlined why Trump won't win. Yes, many just want a Hillary defeat, but even more just want a Trump defeat (based on the unfavorable polling for both).

And you bring up the electoral map, the D's start out with an advantage, all things being even, so given the percentages at the top of your post, Trump loses that way too.

This is why a year ago I was saying, "don't do this, Trump can't win." And that was before he worked so hard to insult the Republican base, and minorities, both of whose votes he needed.

So, I figure I can vote for the losing candidate who I agree with, and who is actually qualified to hold the office...or I can waste my vote for the losing candidate that I have little regard for and isn't qualified to hold the office.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Any polls that suggest Hillary draws more negative votes from third party candidates than Trump are just 100% psyops from your friendly neighborhood MSM.

Like the past trends have documented, a right leaning independant siphons more votes away from Republicans than democrats (and vice-versa). Johnson is to much to the right for any registered democrat to vote for; too big of a leap to take. They would more likely to vote for the Green party (Jill Stein, A. Baraka).

Originally Posted by Craig

So, I figure I can vote for the losing candidate who I agree with, and who is actually qualified to hold the office...or I can waste my vote for the losing candidate that I have little regard for and isn't qualified to hold the office.

I look up to those that have convictions, and understand the realities that's there.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Just proved my point. Thanks.




Sorry it hurts the Trump kool-aiders that others down bow down at their messiah's feet.

Sling all the false accusations you want it, it only reflects badly on you and "your guy".

Like I said, if this is the way the die-hard Trump supporters plan on getting people to vote for him, then they can take pride in knowing they helped with his defeat.

Actually I hold out no hope for those upset about the hostile takeover of their super awesome party. There is no way you will vote for the destroyer of all that is Beohner and Lindsey Ghramn.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Any polls that suggest Hillary draws more negative votes from third party candidates than Trump are just 100% psyops from your friendly neighborhood MSM.

As I understand it, when Ventura entered the Governor's race, it was expected that he would pull votes from the R; it turned out not to be the case...by a lot.

Kind of a moot point given the electoral map.

[Cybercowboy]

And Craig, your electoral analysis is as meaningful to the current situation as my cat's pick for POTUS (rhymes with skwirl)

[Jeff '79]

Man!!
Tough crowd today.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Actually I hold out no hope for those upset about the hostile takeover of their super awesome party. There is no way you will vote for the destroyer of all that is Beohner and Lindsey Ghramn.

...and helped elect Billary...congrats, I guess...

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Jeff '79

Man!!
Tough crowd today.

...a bunch of old men arguing politics, what'd you expect..?

...now, get off my lawn..!

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

...and helped elect Billary...congrats, I guess...

You incorporate no new knowledge. You are literally spewing absolute outdated information that, even when presented, was obviously a typical construct of the MSM. But you are consistent, I'll give you that. It's as if I showed you 200 times that the integral of the natural log of x is the same as its derivative, but you adhered to doctrine that no such function can exist. Yet, it does. Trump is up 4 in the latest poll in FL, and that's before deplorable one shoe thing.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Craig

As I understand it, when Ventura entered the Governor's race, it was expected that he would pull votes from the R; it turned out not to be the case...by a lot.

Kind of a moot point given the electoral map.

there are exceptions... that happen around exceptional people. Jesse was one of those (well... back then he was).



It's difficult to realize this, but George Wallace (1968) was the last one to get this "exceptional" turn of events during a Presidential election. G Wallace was a democrat, that after realizing he would not be the nominee... went independant. Him being in a high level elected office (Governor, elected more than once) already gave him the national exposure that a 3rd party candidate sorely needs.

Perot, Nadar, and John Anderson were both known nationally... and well before the election, but neither landed even one electoral vote.

For a 3rd party to become prominent, voters can't be looking at them as a third choice... "in case the other two are duds". The party need to be well known, with more than 25% of the voters already married to them. Then the percentage needed from other lines isn't such an obstical to overcome.

If Hillary wins, this has to help the Libertarian party; I think you'll see voters then seeking another party to join (emphasis for a reason). They need long term members, and not a bunch of drive-by voters who on-occasion may look over there to see what else is available.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You incorporate no new knowledge. You are literally spewing absolute outdated information that, even when presented, was obviously a typical construct of the MSM. But you are consistent, I'll give you that. It's as if I showed you 200 times that the integral of the natural log of x is the same as its derivative, but you adhered to doctrine that no such function can exist. Yet, it does. Trump is up 4 in the latest poll in FL, and that's before deplorable one shoe thing.

I'm offering nothing new, because nothing significant has changed; and neither have you, so yes, we're both consistent. And yes, she seems to be doing everything she can to lose, just like he has; they both suck. Her base is bigger and more loyal (and she hasn't called them losers, that's got to help). His polls have improved a tiny bit lately, I have no doubt he'll say something stupid soon to reverse that. Even if he doesn't, the electoral numbers require him to "run the table", she doesn't need that; you don't need a knowledge of calculus to determine that. By the way, has anyone used calculus since their second year in college?

[Cybercowboy]

Absolutely if Hillary wins it helps the Libertarian Party! They will go from single digit support to very large single digit support. Bordering on 8.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm offering nothing new, because nothing significant has changed; and neither have you, so yes, we're both consistent. And yes, she seems to be doing everything she can to lose, just like he has; they both suck. Her base is bigger and more loyal (and she hasn't called them losers, that's got to help). His polls have improved a tiny bit lately, I have no doubt he'll say something stupid soon to reverse that. Even if he doesn't, the electoral numbers require him to "run the table", she doesn't need that; you don't need a knowledge of calculus to determine that. By the way, has anyone used calculus since their second year in college?

Craig you fallen prey to their propaganda. Hillary is to toast as tar is to sticky. As lemons are to puckered lips. As Chelsey is to having a secret medical clinic in her $11 million apartment.