patrick.net

Funny, I was reading this thread enjoying the sunset with the dog. He hobbled around the side of the house and started barking. Odd

So i go up to the driveway, and see a whole bunch of state police. Yikes. What are they doing here? Then i saw the MAGA cavalcade lol. Must have been Pence coming to Lancaster. WHere Trump was just here on Saturday. They love their Amish Lancastrians! Lol

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

She will always do Saudi Arabia's bidding in the Middle East. She'll moan that a city being liberated from Al Qaeda and ISIS incurs civilian casualties

The US always talk like the 'rebels' in Syria are not ISIS and Al nusra. My guess is very little of the Syrian opposition is not made of Sunni jihadists of one sort or an other.
For example the Free Syrian Army got a lot of training/equipment provided by the US and Saudis and they later directly joined ISIS.

This means the #1 goal of the US under Obama remains to remove Assad - rather than dealing with ISIS. This makes the US and ISIS allies at least implicitly. The only goal of fighting them in Iraq is to block them and push them to Syria.

Unlikely to change under Hillary.

turtledove is deplorable says

This is exactly what you said. Now you want to pretend it's something else. Roughly half the country supports Trump... and you want to believe that all the college educated people are on your side.

I've already admitted that vast majority was overstating the case. Here you are again equating vast majority with all. I don't really get what you're point is.

It was Pence. He was scheduled for Grantville at 7pm. Thats Penn National Horse Track. Hope they don't mind him showing up an hour late. Thats after Trump was 90 minutes late on Saturday night here. He looked like he needed some sleep...he was imitating Hilldog collapsing from pneumonia .

Heraclitusstudent says

And anyway we really don't what he wants/ can do......he is a sleazy salesman......he really has no idea what he is getting into.

Well why didn't ya say so, with credentials like that it would be deplorable not to vote for the guy!

YesYNot says

I've already admitted that vast majority was overstating the case.

Didn't see that. My response was really to all the people who claimed that you didn't say (mean) what you said. That said, this is exactly my point. I know what you meant. But it's kind of annoying when I go on and on about your exact words. There's been a lot of that this election cycle.

turtledove is deplorable says

But it's kind of annoying when I go on and on about your exact words.

Fair enough. I think that Trump is unique among Republicans though in losing big to educated voters, particular women. Romney did much better in that demographic. Trump OTOH is doing much better than Romney among uneducated people.
I cited actual poll numbers in one post to quantify things instead of using vague terms.

This gives an idea what Kaine was up to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-debate-prep-is-focused-on-what-happens-once-the-debate-is-done/2016/10/05/26914f92-8b16-11e6-b24f-a7f89eb68887_story.html

turtledove is deplorable says

and you want to believe that all the college educated people are on your side

Is this the third or fourth time ? I lost count. She thinks "the vast majority of educated folks," is the same as "all educated folks."

I would never say all educated folks or anything close to it are for CLinton. We all know that there are plenty of educated folks that are so married to the red team, and who have been programmed for decades by the spewing ignorance, hate and Koch brothers talking points from the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio that they haven't been able to think straight for years. A very small percentage of people in science, computer science, Mathematics, Logic, or philosophy would be tolerant of Trump. Although I'm sure there are some MDs, the kind that were always in it for the money, that can never see beyond the tax consequences of their vote, that would be for Trump.

Do you people have no fucking shame ?

Do you teachers have no fucking grammar?
Or did TD just trigger you?
LOLOL FIFY

Time for your lesson, teach.
Pronouns are commonly used to refer familiarly to people present; however, it can be a sign of animosity to refer to someone you know well by a pronoun rather than their name; in the so-called 'Squidgy' tape from late December 1989 Princess Diana consistently refers to Prince Charles as he. This is comparable to the (mock?) dismissiveness in Arthur Daley's use of Her Indoors to refer to his wife in the television series Minder.

marcus says

turtledove is deplorable says

and you want to believe that all the college educated people are on your side

Is this the third or fourth time ? I lost count. She TD thinks "the vast majority of educated folks," is the same as "all educated folks."

marcus says

Do you people have no fucking shame ?

marcus says

turtledove is deplorable says

and you want to believe that all the college educated people are on your side

Is this the third or fourth time ? I lost count. She thinks "the vast majority of educated folks," is the same as "all educated folks."

No, it's easier to try to manufacture insult rather than admit error.

marcus says

Do you people have no fucking shame ?

Shame doesn't motivate conservatives; #butthurt works way better.

neplusultra57 says

No, it's easier to try to manufacture insult rather than admit error.

Surely your reading comprehension level isn't that low. Are you saying that "vast majority" is any more true than the word "all?" The point of my post was that some of us are obsessing over a word despite the fact that we understand what the person meant. All you are doing is proving my point. So thank you for that.

Vast majority, is a stupid term.
Majority = 50.1%
Therefore vast majority is MOST of the majority, which is a percentage less than 50%

Majority = greater than 50%. Vast means of very great extent or quantity; immense.

When I first used the term vast majority, I figured it just meant very large majority. In the context of elections, where these things are very close, education is a very good indicator of who people are going to vote for. Those leads are bigger when you look only at white people, and huge if you look at white women. Her leads that I found cited above were 15-25% and sometimes over 30% for white women. That's why people keep commenting that Trump is doing nothing to win over the suburban woman vote, which is going to sink him in PA. Although I thought that vast majority was apt in this context. However, I looked it up and a couple of the top hits indicated that it should be used for 75% or more or 90% or more. So, 60%/40%, which is a 20 pts lead would not qualify by that definition even though it is huge in political elections..

See my edit... My stupid iPad cut off my last point because I used less-than symbol. DoH!

Is what I meant...

Vast majority, is a stupid term.
Majority = 50.1%
Therefore vast majority is MOST of the majority, which is a percentage less than 50%

Vague term at best.

(Whatever my last post got so mauled, I'm almost giving up trying to make the point.)

junkmail says

Therefore vast majority is MOST of the majority, which is a percentage less than 50%

What you are describing is the vast majority of a majority. But nobody used that term. A vast majority is just something much greater than a 50% majority.

turtledove is deplorable says

All you are doing is proving my point. So thank you for that.

LOL. Yes described a broad set of voters which you tried to counter by describing a narrower set of voters. That fails, by definition, whether if comes from his “beloved source” or not. You moved on to word substitution in order to manufacture insult and succeeded in insulting yourself, so I guess we can count that as somewhat of a victory. Then you pretended he didn’t mean what he said, used word substitution again to try and introduce yet another set of voters different than the one he brought up in the first place, and called him smug. Presumably this grows the insult….by whom is a question you might ask yourself. It appears you’ve annoyed yourself enough.
I’m pleased you can manage to be grateful and continue to be wrong about what you and I and he said as well as the very underlying words all at the same time. That’s some feat.

There is no “more truth” inhering in the difference between a term denoting an absolute and a colloquialism effectively meaning ‘’more by great degree” unless one is determined to be insulted by the use in the first place.

turtledove is deplorable says

despite the fact that we understand what the person meant.

I understood it to mean vast majority. Which I would usually interpret to mean somewhere in the range of 65 to 90%.

If I were trying to convey nearly all, I would say nearly all, or "virtually every well educated person," something along those lines.

I think you're defensive, about liking Trump, for some reason. Maybe it's becasue you are getting in touch with your not deplorable side.

It is true Liberals lie like a rug.

If Satan himself were the republican candidate and Jesus was the democrat candidate, you would still have at least 40% of the republicans and even a significant number of educated republicans voting for Satan.

That's just politics. Man, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming Jesus so badly. TPB would be having the time of his life getting all excited about the wonderful changes Satan was going to be bringing to America.

Btw, all kidding aside, do you think Trump could be the antiChrist ?

marcus says

Trump could be the antiChrist ?

Trump is the second coming...
Cheeto edition.

marcus says

If Satan himself were the republican candidate and Jesus was the democrat candidate

it'd be the first time I'd ever vote for a GOP presidential candidate.

marcus says

do you think Trump could be the antiChrist ?

No, he's just a garden-variety #DoucheBag

What was all this about Wikileaks being fake?

Today's leaks so far, now the third big doc drop since Friday:

* Aides worried her Iowa Campaign will false start (which it did) if Hillary doesn't drop 'hatred for everyday Americans' --- according to HER OWN AIDES. https://t.co/LagLTjONrW
* Hillary got veto power over NYT Quotes in Article
* Came up with a Catholic Conspiracy Theory ( https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4364 )
* Pushed Donald, Carson and Cruz as early as April 2015. If Hillary loses to Trump, blame her campaign, brought it on themselves.
* Sandberg of Facebook shared research with Clinton Campaign in Early 2015 (unclear if Facebook or Personal Research - why Facebook came out publicly yesterday for Hillary, to get ahead of email leaks). Remember that Facebook employees claimed they were encouraged to downgrade certain stories.

... and Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress is a complete non-progressive.

It doesn't matter November 9th is National uninstall Facebook and Twitter day.

They'll have their day in stock market hell.

Bwahahahahahaha

I'm seeing more and more Trump yard signs here ... hearing the same from friends in Florida, NY, California. Unbiased sources report huge early-voting and absentee advantage for Trump.

Best guess: Trump at 480+ electoral votes - maybe loses Rhode Island & Connecticut or Massachusetts.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

* Aides worried her Iowa Campaign will false start (which it did) if Hillary doesn't drop 'hatred for everyday Americans' --- according to HER OWN AIDES

It is very clear that the aid is referring to the phrase 'everyday Americans.' These are writers talking about what words to use in a sentence. Here's the full quote:

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

The quote makes sense if 'it' in 'use it' refers to the phrase 'everyday Americans.' It's a trite phrase, and I hate it too.

Are you misrepresenting the quote on purpose or do you hate Hillary so much that you are blinded and can no longer see what is plainly sitting in front of you?