Hillary Clinton boasts double-digit lead as support for Trump plunges: poll

[MaxYakov]

Response to previous post:

"Max Yakov" (why do you even care I don't think you are American aye)

"My, my it's the grumpyoldman again with his BS "standup up in a movie theatre and yell fire" analogy.

Is that an image of you in your younger, even grumpier days?

Time to change your BS-filled diaper, isn't it?"

No mister, it's trying to get through your head that there are limitations to "freedom of speech" which certain right whingers stand upon when their panties get in a bunch over people who say no to racism, misogyny, nazi-esque deportations and all the other garbage that Trump and his white supremacist backers stand for.

Brush up on your American history, Selma to Montgomery, we're not going back, we're marching forward.

I nominate this for the most self-defeating, internally contradictory post in ThaiVisa history.

You are advocating and supporting the very same "repression and violence" that the Selma to Montgomery marchers (wiki) endured.

You are not "marching forward".

Instead, you are trapped in a foolish, self-perpetuating loop of repression and violence.

Senility is the probable diagnosis.

In spite of this:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Edited June 28, 2016 by MaxYakov

[ilostmypassword]

Response to previous post:

"Max Yakov" (why do you even care I don't think you are American aye)

"My, my it's the grumpyoldman again with his BS "standup up in a movie theatre and yell fire" analogy.

Is that an image of you in your younger, even grumpier days?

Time to change your BS-filled diaper, isn't it?"

No mister, it's trying to get through your head that there are limitations to "freedom of speech" which certain right whingers stand upon when their panties get in a bunch over people who say no to racism, misogyny, nazi-esque deportations and all the other garbage that Trump and his white supremacist backers stand for.

Brush up on your American history, Selma to Montgomery, we're not going back, we're marching forward.

I nominate this for the most self-defeating, internally contradictory post in ThaiVisa history.

You are advocating and supporting the very same "repression and violence" that the Selma to Montgomery marchers (wiki) endured.

You are not "marching forward".

Instead you are trapped in a foolish, self-perpetuating loop. Senility is the probable diagnosis.

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

[mopar71]

No mister, it's trying to get through your head that there are limitations to "freedom of speech" which certain right whingers stand upon when their panties get in a bunch over people who say no to racism, misogyny, nazi-esque deportations and all the other garbage that Trump and his white supremacist backers stand for.

Brush up on your American history, Selma to Montgomery, we're not going back, we're marching forward.

There are limitations to free speech...you can't attack someone physically because you disagree with something they said.

ANYONE who supports the violent "protester" mob attacking and intimidating Trump supporters as they leave a rally really need to take a step back and think about what they are supporting..."I don't approve of what the man you support says, I think it is offensive, so me and my friends will beat and kick you".

Any member here who agrees with that quote, please out yourself here publicly so that everyone else will know for certain you are a true fascist.

[Pinot]

Who do I want to win? I can't decide which scenario will be more entertaining.

Bernie. I would vote for him just to see Larry David on Saturday Night Live each week.

But between Trump & Hillary, Trump is a more fun, quotable character.

Hillary - nothing entertaining about her unless they frog march her off to prison on live TV.

Well, there is one way Hillary could provide endless entertainment. Congress won't stop its investigations and there will surely be new "irregularities" from a Clinton presidency to investigate. If she escapes the email crimes she has committed then she will certainly believe herself invulnerable. So if people find political scandals entertaining, President Hillary will be a non-stop roller coaster rides of thrills, chills, laughs and crimes. Oh, what fun.

Yeah elect Trump, he's be more fun...fun like funhouse fun.

It's going to be the non-stop HRC is a crook on Fox, that's for sure. No one believes anything from the Republicans anymore, except those sipping the Kool Aid. The sham Benghazi investigation, the email server nonsense, it's almost time for the next Hillary conspiracy.

Crimes? Vetted more than any other candidate in history. Delusional ramblings. When you ain't got nothing...make something up.

Trump is a different story. Press hasn't even begun to nail this guy down. Mafia connections, Trump University, multiple bankruptcies, the way he conducts business, and he won't release his taxes. I wonder why?

At least, It's good to see President Hillary used in a sentence. Funny, I don't remember other Presidents being addressed like that. President Barack? President George? Doesn't matter. It's progress.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Pinot

[mopar71]

There is a None of the Above option - don't vote

If don't vote equates to None of the Above, then it comes close to winning every US election, and certainly scores higher than any candidate. In the home of democracy 30% is a resounding win.

But wait, there's more. Not only are US presidents elected by amazingly small percentages, most of those are the LEAST educated people in the country. The higher the education level, the less likely citizens are to vote.

The higher the education level, the less likely citizens are to vote.

More likely the reverse is true.

People with higher levels of education and income are far more likely to cast ballots. Less educated are more likely not aware of the different policies favored by candidates and parties; thus see no benefit in voting for any candidate. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/unequal-voter-turnout-u-s-presidential-elections

Yes I read that table wrong, my apologies. Would it be fair to say they are elected by the "elite"?

No comment about the 30% being enough to win?

30% of what? The total population? The total # of registered voters? The total # of votes cast?

[ilostmypassword]

No mister, it's trying to get through your head that there are limitations to "freedom of speech" which certain right whingers stand upon when their panties get in a bunch over people who say no to racism, misogyny, nazi-esque deportations and all the other garbage that Trump and his white supremacist backers stand for.

Brush up on your American history, Selma to Montgomery, we're not going back, we're marching forward.

There are limitations to free speech...you can't attack someone physically because you disagree with something they said.

ANYONE who supports the violent "protester" mob attacking and intimidating Trump supporters as they leave a rally really need to take a step back and think about what they are supporting..."I don't approve of what the man you support says, I think it is offensive, so me and my friends will beat and kick you".

Any member here who agrees with that quote, please out yourself here publicly so that everyone else will know for certain you are a true fascist.

Here's a nice audio compendium of Trump expressing his appreciation of violence. I guess that makes him a "true fascist."

[MaxYakov]

Response to previous post:

"Max Yakov" (why do you even care I don't think you are American aye)

"My, my it's the grumpyoldman again with his BS "standup up in a movie theatre and yell fire" analogy.

Is that an image of you in your younger, even grumpier days?

Time to change your BS-filled diaper, isn't it?"

No mister, it's trying to get through your head that there are limitations to "freedom of speech" which certain right whingers stand upon when their panties get in a bunch over people who say no to racism, misogyny, nazi-esque deportations and all the other garbage that Trump and his white supremacist backers stand for.

Brush up on your American history, Selma to Montgomery, we're not going back, we're marching forward.

I nominate this for the most self-defeating, internally contradictory post in ThaiVisa history.

You are advocating and supporting the very same "repression and violence" that the Selma to Montgomery marchers (wiki) endured.

You are not "marching forward".

Instead you are trapped in a foolish, self-perpetuating loop. Senility is the probable diagnosis.

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

Good point, although I'm not so sure the in the case of the Sacramento violence and the severity of the injuries and the few, and highly out-numbered, so-called "White Nationalist" protestors.

Sacramento is the headquarters for a state-wide, left-wing, virtual one-party Democrat regime.

The regime is quite capable of ordering a "passive regressive" strategy", [im]plausibly justified by any number of rationalizations.

The Democrat regime's "hands off" orders to law enforcement in the Baltimore riots are good example of this.

Edited June 28, 2016 by MaxYakov

[ilostmypassword]

I nominate this for the most self-defeating, internally contradictory post in ThaiVisa history.

You are advocating and supporting the very same "repression and violence" that the Selma to Montgomery marchers (wiki) endured.

You are not "marching forward".

Instead you are trapped in a foolish, self-perpetuating loop. Senility is the probable diagnosis.

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

Good point, although I'm not so sure the in the case of the Sacramento violence and the severity of the injuries and the few, and highly out-numbered, so-called "White Nationalist" protestors.

Sacramento is the headquarters for a state-wide, left-wing, virtual one-party Democrat regime.

The regime is quite capable of ordering a "passive regressive" strategy", [im]plausibly justified by any number of rationalizations.

The regime's orders to law enforcement in the Baltimore riots are good example of this.

If you can produce facts to support your insinuations, fine. Otherwise, this kind of speculation is just evasive and cowardly.

[MaxYakov]

I nominate this for the most self-defeating, internally contradictory post in ThaiVisa history.

You are advocating and supporting the very same "repression and violence" that the Selma to Montgomery marchers (wiki) endured.

You are not "marching forward".

Instead you are trapped in a foolish, self-perpetuating loop. Senility is the probable diagnosis.

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

Good point, although I'm not so sure the in the case of the Sacramento violence and the severity of the injuries and the few, and highly out-numbered, so-called "White Nationalist" protestors.

Sacramento is the headquarters for a state-wide, left-wing, virtual one-party Democrat regime.

The regime is quite capable of ordering a "passive regressive" strategy", [im]plausibly justified by any number of rationalizations.

The regime's orders to law enforcement in the Baltimore riots are good example of this.

If you can produce facts to support your insinuations, fine. Otherwise, this kind of speculation is just evasive and cowardly.

Relax, it's only a hypothesis or are we still suppressing freedom of speech here here with ad hominem attacks?

What is indisputable is that there are two protestors in the hospital with life-threatening injuries from stab wounds and, last I checked, the police had not arrested or charged anyone. They were not able to handle the situation and the big question is "why not?".

It's true, though, that I wouldn't attempt to make such statements anywhere near the Sacramento City Hall on a bright sunny day, and even with an assembly permit - out of cowardice and evasiveness. I'm also adverse to hospitals and mortuaries.

BTW, the "suppression" of law enforcement actions against the Baltimore riots is a well-documented fact, as well as the overcharging of the prosecutor and her subsequent loss of her cases against the police officers.

Edited June 28, 2016 by MaxYakov

[ilostmypassword]

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

Good point, although I'm not so sure the in the case of the Sacramento violence and the severity of the injuries and the few, and highly out-numbered, so-called "White Nationalist" protestors.

Sacramento is the headquarters for a state-wide, left-wing, virtual one-party Democrat regime.

The regime is quite capable of ordering a "passive regressive" strategy", [im]plausibly justified by any number of rationalizations.

The regime's orders to law enforcement in the Baltimore riots are good example of this.

If you can produce facts to support your insinuations, fine. Otherwise, this kind of speculation is just evasive and cowardly.

Relax, it's only a hypothesis or are we still suppressing freedom of speech here here with ad hominem attacks?

It's true, though, that I wouldn't attempt to make such statements anywhere near the Sacramento City Hall on a bright sunny day, and even with an assembly permit - out of cowardice and evasiveness. I'm also adverse to hospitals and mortuaries.

BTW, the "suppression" of law enforcement actions against the Baltimore riots is a well-documented fact, as well as the overcharging of the prosecutor and her subsequent loss of her cases against the police officers.

I got news for you there are over 3000 miles separating Baltimore from Sacramento. When the governor of Maryland starts calling the shots in California, then you'll be making a relevant point. Until then, all you're doing is casting baseless innuendos.

[MaxYakov]

No it's not the same. It's bad -in fact - it's really, really bad but not as bad as Selma Montgomery. As you may recall, in Alabama it was agents of the state who were committing the violence. In California, it was agents of the state who put a stop to it.

Good point, although I'm not so sure the in the case of the Sacramento violence and the severity of the injuries and the few, and highly out-numbered, so-called "White Nationalist" protestors.

Sacramento is the headquarters for a state-wide, left-wing, virtual one-party Democrat regime.

The regime is quite capable of ordering a "passive regressive" strategy", [im]plausibly justified by any number of rationalizations.

The regime's orders to law enforcement in the Baltimore riots are good example of this.

If you can produce facts to support your insinuations, fine. Otherwise, this kind of speculation is just evasive and cowardly.

Relax, it's only a hypothesis or are we still suppressing freedom of speech here here with ad hominem attacks?

It's true, though, that I wouldn't attempt to make such statements anywhere near the Sacramento City Hall on a bright sunny day, and even with an assembly permit - out of cowardice and evasiveness. I'm also adverse to hospitals and mortuaries.

BTW, the "suppression" of law enforcement actions against the Baltimore riots is a well-documented fact, as well as the overcharging of the prosecutor and her subsequent loss of her cases against the police officers.

I got news for you there are over 3000 miles separating Baltimore from Sacramento. When the governor of Maryland starts calling the shots in California, then you'll be making a relevant point. Until then, all you're doing is casting baseless innuendos.

I've got news for you:

There is just about 0* distance between the the mindsets, agendas and tactics of left-wing politicians, worldwide.

* = Allowing for a little latitude for local creativity, chiefly in the tactics department.

Edited June 28, 2016 by MaxYakov

[slipperylobster]

Who do I want to win? I can't decide which scenario will be more entertaining.

Bernie. I would vote for him just to see Larry David on Saturday Night Live each week.

But between Trump & Hillary, Trump is a more fun, quotable character.

Hillary - nothing entertaining about her unless they frog march her off to prison on live TV.

Well, there is one way Hillary could provide endless entertainment. Congress won't stop its investigations and there will surely be new "irregularities" from a Clinton presidency to investigate. If she escapes the email crimes she has committed then she will certainly believe herself invulnerable. So if people find political scandals entertaining, President Hillary will be a non-stop roller coaster rides of thrills, chills, laughs and crimes. Oh, what fun.

Yeah elect Trump, he's be more fun...fun like funhouse fun.

It's going to be the non-stop HRC is a crook on Fox, that's for sure. No one believes anything from the Republicans anymore, except those sipping the Kool Aid. The sham Benghazi investigation, the email server nonsense, it's almost time for the next Hillary conspiracy.

Crimes? Vetted more than any other candidate in history. Delusional ramblings. When you ain't got nothing...make something up.

Trump is a different story. Press hasn't even begun to nail this guy down. Mafia connections, Trump University, multiple bankruptcies, the way he conducts business, and he won't release his taxes. I wonder why?

At least, It's good to see President Hillary used in a sentence. Funny, I don't remember other Presidents being addressed like that. President Barack? President George? Doesn't matter. It's progress.

lol at you and your lot.

Hillary has now been crowned "Queen of the Funhouse Clowns"

White house has just declared her activities as "Criminal"

Your game is over.

Your goddess....Hillary the lying, cheating criminal that she is, has just been deflowered.

loosers.

Edited June 28, 2016 by slipperylobster

[halloween]

Yes I read that table wrong, my apologies. Would it be fair to say they are elected by the "elite"?

No comment about the 30% being enough to win?

30% of what? The total population? The total # of registered voters? The total # of votes cast?

30% of registered voters' votes. It is rare for registered voters turnout to exceed 60%. As a percentage of the population, it would be much lower.

[Buzzz]

Those wacky Trump supporters. This poor guy is in deep with FOX and the conspiracy nut shows.

These programs have him so wound up, looks like he is going to have a stoke soon. I think we all have lost friends or relatives to the right wing news. Sad.

https://youtu.be/FjyODopUiNc

I do like the 'baby jesus christmas manger scene' he keeps on the shelf in the background. LOL

Edited June 28, 2016 by Buzzz

[Buzzz]

Read this and weep Trump supporters.

Illinois senator Kirk, up for reelection, became the first Republican senator to run a campaign ad condemning the New York billionaire.

With $200,000-plus behind it, the ad told Illinois voters that "Donald Trump is not fit to be commander in chief"

LOL This is pure comedy. Not often I laugh so hard I get tears.

[Berkshire]

Who do I want to win? I can't decide which scenario will be more entertaining.

Bernie. I would vote for him just to see Larry David on Saturday Night Live each week.

But between Trump & Hillary, Trump is a more fun, quotable character.

Hillary - nothing entertaining about her unless they frog march her off to prison on live TV.

Well, there is one way Hillary could provide endless entertainment. Congress won't stop its investigations and there will surely be new "irregularities" from a Clinton presidency to investigate. If she escapes the email crimes she has committed then she will certainly believe herself invulnerable. So if people find political scandals entertaining, President Hillary will be a non-stop roller coaster rides of thrills, chills, laughs and crimes. Oh, what fun.

Yeah elect Trump, he's be more fun...fun like funhouse fun.

It's going to be the non-stop HRC is a crook on Fox, that's for sure. No one believes anything from the Republicans anymore, except those sipping the Kool Aid. The sham Benghazi investigation, the email server nonsense, it's almost time for the next Hillary conspiracy.

Crimes? Vetted more than any other candidate in history. Delusional ramblings. When you ain't got nothing...make something up.

Trump is a different story. Press hasn't even begun to nail this guy down. Mafia connections, Trump University, multiple bankruptcies, the way he conducts business, and he won't release his taxes. I wonder why?

At least, It's good to see President Hillary used in a sentence. Funny, I don't remember other Presidents being addressed like that. President Barack? President George? Doesn't matter. It's progress.

Agree. The Republicans have been at it about e-mails and Benghazi forever. Most informed voters really don't care about that stuff. Especially since we know it was all made-up conspiracy theories. And Fox News was the instigator throughout....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/27/select-committee-democrats-identify-fox-news-vector-benghazi-misinformation/211224

[slipperylobster]

Who do I want to win? I can't decide which scenario will be more entertaining.

Bernie. I would vote for him just to see Larry David on Saturday Night Live each week.

But between Trump & Hillary, Trump is a more fun, quotable character.

Hillary - nothing entertaining about her unless they frog march her off to prison on live TV.

Well, there is one way Hillary could provide endless entertainment. Congress won't stop its investigations and there will surely be new "irregularities" from a Clinton presidency to investigate. If she escapes the email crimes she has committed then she will certainly believe herself invulnerable. So if people find political scandals entertaining, President Hillary will be a non-stop roller coaster rides of thrills, chills, laughs and crimes. Oh, what fun.

Yeah elect Trump, he's be more fun...fun like funhouse fun.

It's going to be the non-stop HRC is a crook on Fox, that's for sure. No one believes anything from the Republicans anymore, except those sipping the Kool Aid. The sham Benghazi investigation, the email server nonsense, it's almost time for the next Hillary conspiracy.

Crimes? Vetted more than any other candidate in history. Delusional ramblings. When you ain't got nothing...make something up.

Trump is a different story. Press hasn't even begun to nail this guy down. Mafia connections, Trump University, multiple bankruptcies, the way he conducts business, and he won't release his taxes. I wonder why?

At least, It's good to see President Hillary used in a sentence. Funny, I don't remember other Presidents being addressed like that. President Barack? President George? Doesn't matter. It's progress.

Agree. The Republicans have been at it about e-mails and Benghazi forever. Most informed voters really don't care about that stuff. Especially since we know it was all made-up conspiracy theories. And Fox News was the instigator throughout....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/27/select-committee-democrats-identify-fox-news-vector-benghazi-misinformation/211224

Exactly right. Most informed (democratic) voters don't care about important headlines, FBI criminal investigations, corruption, lying..... Especially anything related to the fat cow....their goddess, Hillary.

That is why democrats should not be tolerated. They enable crooks like Hillary.

Perhaps it is not stupidity....but rather....arrogance.

To me....one is as bad as the other.

Edited June 28, 2016 by slipperylobster

[Berkshire]

Yeah elect Trump, he's be more fun...fun like funhouse fun.

It's going to be the non-stop HRC is a crook on Fox, that's for sure. No one believes anything from the Republicans anymore, except those sipping the Kool Aid. The sham Benghazi investigation, the email server nonsense, it's almost time for the next Hillary conspiracy.

Crimes? Vetted more than any other candidate in history. Delusional ramblings. When you ain't got nothing...make something up.

Trump is a different story. Press hasn't even begun to nail this guy down. Mafia connections, Trump University, multiple bankruptcies, the way he conducts business, and he won't release his taxes. I wonder why?

At least, It's good to see President Hillary used in a sentence. Funny, I don't remember other Presidents being addressed like that. President Barack? President George? Doesn't matter. It's progress.

Agree. The Republicans have been at it about e-mails and Benghazi forever. Most informed voters really don't care about that stuff. Especially since we know it was all made-up conspiracy theories. And Fox News was the instigator throughout....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/27/select-committee-democrats-identify-fox-news-vector-benghazi-misinformation/211224

Exactly right. Most informed (democratic) voters don't care about important headlines, FBI criminal investigations, corruption, lying..... Especially anything related to the fat cow....their goddess, Hillary.

That is why democrats should not be tolerated. They enable crooks like Hillary.

Perhaps it is not stupidity....but rather....arrogance.

To me....one is as bad as the other.

You see, you keep repeating the same tired lines from debunked conspiracy theories because that's all you got. At the same time, you accept the words of pathological liar Trump like it's gospel. Trump doesn't really stand for anything, except himself. All I know is Trump can do much more damage to the country than Clinton. That's a certainty. Everything else is just noise.

[Buzzz]

Sorry. Reasonable people got tired of all the fake scandals in the 1990s when the Reoublicans spent $60 million tax payer dollars on attorney fees, investigating the Clintons.

Just a few years ago the full senate again vetted Hillary 94-2 as Secretary of State.

One of the republicans on that witch hunt is now rotting in jail because he was caught sucking little boys.

[Srikcir]

Yes I read that table wrong, my apologies. Would it be fair to say they are elected by the "elite"?

No comment about the 30% being enough to win?

30% of what? The total population? The total # of registered voters? The total # of votes cast?

30% of registered voters' votes. It is rare for registered voters turnout to exceed 60%. As a percentage of the population, it would be much lower.

Is your cited 30% a hypothetical example?

Since 1908-2012 the lowest turnout for POTUS election was about 49% for 1920 and 1924. Low voter turnput in 1920 might have been affected by relocation of the population for new economic opportunities resulting from the end of WW1 in 1918.

From 1908-2012 there were 27 POTUS elections with 9 having voter turnout exceeding 60% or about one-third. Hardly rare. From 1972 to 2012 voter turnout has been consistently below 60%.¹ So yes, rare from 1972-2012.

Still your reference to 30% of voter turnout remains unclear since the POTUS is not elected by popular vote. The USA uses an electoral college system based on electoral votes assigned to states and territories as per the USA Constitution. In fact four POTUS elected did not represent the majority of the national vote but received a majority of the electoral votes.

¹http://www.statista.com/statistics/262915/voter-turnout-in-the-us-presidential-elections/

[Chicog]

Sorry. Reasonable people got tired of all the fake scandals in the 1990s when the Reoublicans spent $60 million tax payer dollars on attorney fees, investigating the Clintons.

Just a few years ago the full senate again vetted Hillary 94-2 as Secretary of State.

One of the republicans on that witch hunt is now rotting in jail because he was caught sucking little boys.

Funny how "Judicial Watch" didn't want to touch that one, did they?

[puck2]

Here we go. The Donald Trump dumpster fire of a campaign is starting to show up in the numbers. He doesn't have a prayer and the calvary is staying in at Fort Apache, riding this one out. Even if the GOP was able to screw Trump out of the nomination, who is going to take over? Mitt? Bush? Cruz? Rubio? Palin? Seriously, the GOP is history.

Bernie will dramatically support, calling for the annihilation of the Republicans and everything they stand for. The Democratic party will be united in opposition.

There is nobody who could rally the troops at this point. Trump has his low-info lemmings and that's it.

The party's over.

Yes, Madam President. Get used to it, boys.

For me it is much more important that the Dems win the majority in either chamber of the House. Otherwise you'll have the same destructice NO-policy of the Reps to all reasonabale laws as happened within the last 6 years.

Because of hopeless chances for Trump the Reps are alternatively working in this direction.

Edited June 28, 2016 by puck2

[Chicog]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

[halloween]

30% of registered voters' votes. It is rare for registered voters turnout to exceed 60%. As a percentage of the population, it would be much lower.

Is your cited 30% a hypothetical example?

Since 1908-2012 the lowest turnout for POTUS election was about 49% for 1920 and 1924. Low voter turnput in 1920 might have been affected by relocation of the population for new economic opportunities resulting from the end of WW1 in 1918.

From 1908-2012 there were 27 POTUS elections with 9 having voter turnout exceeding 60% or about one-third. Hardly rare. From 1972 to 2012 voter turnout has been consistently below 60%.¹ So yes, rare from 1972-2012.

Still your reference to 30% of voter turnout remains unclear since the POTUS is not elected by popular vote. The USA uses an electoral college system based on electoral votes assigned to states and territories as per the USA Constitution. In fact four POTUS elected did not represent the majority of the national vote but received a majority of the electoral votes.

¹http://www.statista.com/statistics/262915/voter-turnout-in-the-us-presidential-elections/

So only rare from 1972 -2012. Pardon me for not including ancient history. Now forgive me for being logical, but you are saying that 4 presidents were elected with LESS THAN 30% of the vote, while the others may have scraped it. And is that meant to refute my claim that your democratic president is endorsed by ~30% of eligible voters?

And all this because you think my 'None of the Above' vote suggestion equates to not voting. If that were so, hasn't 'nota' got a higher vote than any president in recent history?

[ilostmypassword]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

It just came out and the committee has come forward with a massive and irrefutable indictment of ....nobody. If you think nothing new is exciting, then you'll find the committee's report thrilling.

[Chicog]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

It just came out and the committee has come forward with a massive and irrefutable indictment of ....nobody. If you think nothing new is exciting, then you'll find the committee's report thrilling.

But... But.... Those "Fox News Alerts"..... surely it means something important!?

[NovaBlue05]

Read this and weep Trump supporters.

Illinois senator Kirk, up for reelection, became the first Republican senator to run a campaign ad condemning the New York billionaire.

With $200,000-plus behind it, the ad told Illinois voters that "Donald Trump is not fit to be commander in chief"

LOL This is pure comedy. Not often I laugh so hard I get tears.

Well...I'll be damned! I was wondering what happened to him after Star Trek went off the air.

And who knew there were any Republicans in Illinois

Edited June 28, 2016 by NovaBlue05

[NovaBlue05]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

It just came out and the committee has come forward with a massive and irrefutable indictment of ....nobody. If you think nothing new is exciting, then you'll find the committee's report thrilling.

Congressional investigative Committees are dog and pony shows designed to give the bovine masses the illusion that "their side" is doing something important.

If you want a real investigation, you don't get a committee full of politicians' to run it. They use it as a grandstanding event.

Make no mistake...There isn't a person on that committee who wouldn't be happier with Clinton in the Oval Office than Trump as they know that ensures that their personal gravy train continues unabated.

[ilostmypassword]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

It just came out and the committee has come forward with a massive and irrefutable indictment of ....nobody. If you think nothing new is exciting, then you'll find the committee's report thrilling.

Congressional investigative Committees are dog and pony shows designed to give the bovine masses the illusion that "their side" is doing something important.

If you want a real investigation, you don't get a committee full of politicians' to run it. They use it as a grandstanding event.

Make no mistake...There isn't a person on that committee who wouldn't be happier with Clinton in the Oval Office than Trump as they know that ensures that their personal gravy train continues unabated.

What has Trump proposed that would in any way derail their "personal gravy train?"

[NovaBlue05]

It seems Trey Gowdy and his laughable kangaroo court are about to issue the report into the EIGHTH Benghazi show trial.

Guess we know what's going to be on Fox non-stop for the next few days then.

It just came out and the committee has come forward with a massive and irrefutable indictment of ....nobody. If you think nothing new is exciting, then you'll find the committee's report thrilling.

Congressional investigative Committees are dog and pony shows designed to give the bovine masses the illusion that "their side" is doing something important.

If you want a real investigation, you don't get a committee full of politicians' to run it. They use it as a grandstanding event.

Make no mistake...There isn't a person on that committee who wouldn't be happier with Clinton in the Oval Office than Trump as they know that ensures that their personal gravy train continues unabated.

What has Trump proposed that would in any way derail their "personal gravy train?"

If I am one of the Congressional pigs at the trough, I am not looking for specifics just simple risk management. I see Trump as an unknown quantity versus Hillary who is a sure thing.

If you are looking for specifics, you need to query one of the posters on this forum who follows Trumps positions much more closely than I

Edited June 28, 2016 by NovaBlue05