Trump goes on tear against media, not Clinton

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yeah. Like vote her out of office. Trump hates the media when they distort his words.

 

"vote her out of office" ....?

What office is she in, that she could be voted out of?   Perhaps Republican Attack Machine is already formulating impeachment procedures to start in January.   It wouldn't surprise me.   Instead of calling it the Grand Olde Party, they should call themselves the 'Sore Loser Party.'

 

[boomerangutang]

Trump fans won't want to watch this, but here's a recent debate on PBS by mature veteran journalists. The opening segment discusses Trump's psychology and how he contradicts himself, sometimes within the same sentence ("I was being sarcastic, .....well, maybe not that sarcastic.").  The middle section mentions the 'decency factor' and how Trump's crassness is turning off many middle-of-the-road voters.

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.   Continue and suspensions will be issued.  

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

At least you look at both sides re credibility but I would suggest you check out the so called normal people running the polls. You would find it very interesting to see who is actually behind many of them.  And no, if you want any links, I am not prepared to go back over them, suggest a little research would help you.

 

The Obama thing was four and again almost eight years ago, I think on this occasion the times are a changing.  A week in politics is a long time, just think how long three months will be.   I predict there will be quite a few changes coming over the horizon and maybe many that some on here will not like. 

Can you please tell me who is behind that lying Breitbart poll that had Clinton ahead by 5 points?  Breitbart.com is just another bunch of typical lying leftists. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/14/breitbartgravis-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-42-to-37/

[Si Thea01]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump fans won't want to watch this, but here's a recent debate on PBS by mature veteran journalists. The opening segment discusses Trump's psychology and how he contradicts himself, sometimes within the same sentence ("I was being sarcastic, .....well, maybe not that sarcastic.").  The middle section mentions the 'decency factor' and how Trump's crassness is turning off many middle-of-the-road voters.

 

 

Trump fans won't want to watch this, but here's a recent debate on PBS by mature veteran journalists. The opening segment discusses Trump's psychology and how he contradicts himself, sometimes within the same sentence ("I was being sarcastic, .....well, maybe not that sarcastic.").  The middle section mentions the 'decency factor' and how Trump's crassness is turning off many middle-of-the-road voters.

 

 

 

Although I have sympathy for Trump, given the way he is rag tagged by every man and his dog, I thought it would be interesting to listen to what these two had to say.  Now you call this a debate.  I don't think so,  there was no opposing argument put forward,  nor did anyone put forward any type of formal argument, there were just three people from the same news broadcaster putting forward their opinions on Trump, and to a much lesser degree, Clinton.

 

This journalist, Brooks, and that is all he is, starts off by analysing and putting forward his view on Trump's psychological and mental health.  This person has no qualifications whatsoever to enable him to analyse anyone in this way and what he stated is only his opinion.  If you don't believe me as to his qualifications then just check out his details via the following site.  I took time to view what you posted, maybe you should reciprocate and then tell us if this person has any qualifications to call things the way he is.  You will see all that he is, as I initially stated, a journalist, and one that does things that he accuses trump of doing, and has been caught out and called out for doing so. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)#Background

 

He proclaims to be a conservative (Republican) but takes every opportunity to rag tag Trump and also criticising Clinton, he tunes off by indicating he doesn't think she has done anything wrong.  In his background he even espouses his feelings for Obama, the signs of a true Republican, I think not.  He even works for the New York Times,  another unbiased publication , which has a history of denigrating Trump every chance it gets.  So a fair and even debate?  Wrong in all aspects.  He did try to make it look unbiased but when you listen to everything he had to say, he clearly wasn't and any reasonable person would not have the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

Now for E J Dionne.  Quite a well educated man, but again, he adopts a similar approach to his compatriot, however, does not goes in as heavy and tends to try and distance himself from the psychological  analysing parody his mate was into. He is what is known as an opinion writer and writes for the Washington Post, again another unbiased left wing publication.   Now you should give a few minutes of your time to read his background and some of his  blogs, which he so proudly displays on his site.  And guess what, he also worked for the Washington Times, for some fourteen years.  Can we all see the pattern. https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ej-dionne-jr.

 

Although he too spoke about Clinton, he tried to downplay any role she may have played with those dreaded emails and the clandestine goings on with the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.  Now he never brought this up but I will.  It is interesting to note that Bill Clinton, and we all know his background (sleaze) has given an undertaking that should Hilary win the Presidency, the foundation will be side lined and not take any donations from corporations of overseas governments or their cohorts whilst she is in office.  This is not made up, it was news on CNN today.

 

Funny about that, he wants to do it know, yet when she was Secretary of State, they didn't think this was necessary.  Back than it was probably let's make hay while the sun shines.  But should she win, oh goodness we could never have anyone thinking there was a perceived conflict of interest of a straight out conflict or heaven forbid, something criminal occurring.

 

Sorry for that little digression and back to Dionne.  When you check his site out, low and behold, there are ten blogs and gee, eight out of ten are against Trump and nothing about dear Hilary. Now I don't mind people being critical of another but do it fairly.  Hilary is no angel, she was severely criticised by the FBI Director for handling government information on her private web site and being passed through private servers.  There are many other things that I think you would be aware of so there is no need for me to rag tag her but in everyone who criticises trumps for his so called misdeeds there should be some fairness expressed and give it equally to Hilary, when and where it is justified.

 

But no, that cannot happen can it as reasonable people, who look at both sides can easily see the one side which is being proffered against Trump.  The only reason I can think of this occurring is that those in the democrats hierarchy, no a lot more than they would care to get out and are fearful that Trump may win n November, and there goes their gravy train. 

[boomerangutang]

re; the long post above....   yes, using the word 'discussion' rather than 'debate' would have been closer to the mark.

 

As for psychological assessment of Trump:   Perhaps a psychiatrist could put it in more scholastic terms (and many have spoken up), but it doesn't take a scholar to get a good idea of Trump's mental deficiencies.   

 

It's obvious, even to a little kid, that he's a braggart.  "I'm very rich"  "I have a great brain"   "I'm good with words.  I know a lot of words."

 

It's obvious Trump is denigrating to anyone who isn't praising him, including his trademark name-calling, which a 5 year old would be disciplined for doing.

 

His lies are bigger and more numerous than HRC's.

 

.....shall I go on?

[Si Thea01]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

re; the long post above....   yes, using the word 'discussion' rather than 'debate' would have been closer to the mark.

 

As for psychological assessment of Trump:   Perhaps a psychiatrist could put it in more scholastic terms (and many have spoken up), but it doesn't take a scholar to get a good idea of Trump's mental deficiencies.   

 

It's obvious, even to a little kid, that he's a braggart.  "I'm very rich"  "I have a great brain"   "I'm good with words.  I know a lot of words."

 

It's obvious Trump is denigrating to anyone who isn't praising him, including his trademark name-calling, which a 5 year old would be disciplined for doing.

 

His lies are bigger and more numerous than HRC's.

 

.....shall I go on?

 

Sorry about the length and no, there's no need to go on as you will only stay with the same train of thought that you have displayed throughout.  Given that is appears you did not look at the links then there is not much use in addressing the matter further.  Have a good day.  

 

[Chicog]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yeah. Like vote her out of office. Trump hates the media when they distort his words.

 

Trump hates the media because they report his words.

 

He has no idea that the rubbish he comes out with to get the torch and pitchfork mob baying at his rallies does quite the opposite to educated people.

 

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Can you please tell me who is behind that lying Breitbart poll that had Clinton ahead by 5 points?  Breitbart.com is just another bunch of typical lying leftists. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/14/breitbartgravis-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-42-to-37/

 

I have no idea who is financing this pollster but is aligned tto the conservative side.  It appears it was taken some 6 days ago, so things can change and they do with polls.  It looks no one can win, according to you, it showed that Hilary was ahead by 5 points, not enough for you so they're lying.  really.

[Boon Mee]

Meanwhile Trump is in Louisiana distributing food and aid himself while Barry and Hillary are 'indisposed'

Trump is looking more Presidential by the day!  

TRUMP TURNS PRESIDENT IN LOUISIANA AS OBAMA CHILLS... 

HE HELPS THE FLOODED...

'WE KNEW YOU'D BE HERE!'

 

 

 

[Chicog]

10 hours ago, Freakin Musashi said:

Maybe the average Yank is more qualified to comment on US politics than the average Brit.

 

Maybe they are more emotionally invested, but qualified?

I was having a conversation with an American fireman (Trump supporter) the other day that had absolutely no idea what the three branches of government are and how they work. He's not the first I've spoken to that thinks Obama has made hundreds of unconstitutional laws in the last eight years.

 

A lot of Americans actually believe the rubbish they watch on Fox, much as they believe the rubbish Trump spouts.

 

In fairness, similarly there are Brits who don't know how the UK government functions.

[Si Thea01]

25 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Maybe they are more emotionally invested, but qualified?

I was having a conversation with an American fireman (Trump supporter) the other day that had absolutely no idea what the three branches of government are and how they work. He's not the first I've spoken to that thinks Obama has made hundreds of unconstitutional laws in the last eight years.

 

A lot of Americans actually believe the rubbish they watch on Fox, much as they believe the rubbish Trump spouts.

 

In fairness, similarly there are Brits who don't know how the UK government functions.

 

 

It is really nice to see that the word, fairness, is in your vocabulary. Shame you don't use it more often.  And has Obama made any unconstitutional laws?  That last sentence can be and is applicable to many countries throughout the world.  Why do you think they are so many leftist socialist governments in power?  So what channels are you suggesting people should watch and newspapers to read in order to get unbiased reporting?

[ilostmypassword]

53 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I have no idea who is financing this pollster but is aligned tto the conservative side.  It appears it was taken some 6 days ago, so things can change and they do with polls.  It looks no one can win, according to you, it showed that Hilary was ahead by 5 points, not enough for you so they're lying.  really.

The point is it is more or less in agreement with other pollsters taken at that time. Pollsters whom you allege are skewing the results.

[Throatwobbler]

9 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

At least you look at both sides re credibility but I would suggest you check out the so called normal people running the polls. You would find it very interesting to see who is actually behind many of them.  And no, if you want any links, I am not prepared to go back over them, suggest a little research would help you.

 

The Obama thing was four and again almost eight years ago, I think on this occasion the times are a changing.  A week in politics is a long time, just think how long three months will be.   I predict there will be quite a few changes coming over the horizon and maybe many that some on here will not like. 

I am sure that the final results will make many people on here not happy. The polls may be slightly out but not that much. As it stands Hillary is going to win comfortably. Things may change before election day but follow the polls. Too big a gap at the moment for polling error.

[ilostmypassword]

She's probably going to outperform the polls for 2 reasons:

1)She has very professional turn-out-the-vote organization in all the states where she is even remotely competitive. In ordinary election years, so would the Republican candidate so she wouldn't have an advantage. But this year is different.

2)There's evidence to show that the Hispanic vote is being undercounted. Pollsters admit that they have a hard time contacting them. We saw the results of that in the California primary where the polls showed a tight race between Clinton and Sanders. But after the primary, there was a much larger turnout in Hispanic areas than was normal. And these areas went by a large margin to Clinton. In states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina.  And this year, they have a strong motivation to vote against Trump.

 

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

2 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

I am sure that the final results will make many people on here not happy. The polls may be slightly out but not that much. As it stands Hillary is going to win comfortably. Things may change before election day but follow the polls. Too big a gap at the moment for polling error.

I am sure that the final results will make many people on here not happy. The polls may be slightly out but not that much. As it stands Hillary is going to win comfortably. Things may change before election day but follow the polls. Too big a gap at the moment for polling error.

 

If she wins, good on her but she may not so let's wait and then those who want to can cry in their spilt milk, can, once the results are known. I, for one won't be, as whoever wins will not have any bearing on my life but it appears that it will to many on here given the manner in which they push their barrow, may.  But don't forget a lot can happen to either campaign in the 80 days that are left before the voters go to the polls. 

[Publicus]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

She's probably going to outperform the polls for 2 reasons:

1)She has very professional turn-out-the-vote organization in all the states where she is even remotely competitive. In ordinary election years, so would the Republican candidate so she wouldn't have an advantage. But this year is different.

2)There's evidence to show that the Hispanic vote is being undercounted. Pollsters admit that they have a hard time contacting them. We saw the results of that in the California primary where the polls showed a tight race between Clinton and Sanders. But after the primary, there was a much larger turnout in Hispanic areas than was normal. And these areas went by a large margin to Clinton. In states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina.  And this year, they have a strong motivation to vote against Trump.

 

 

Agreed about the Hispanic vote in particular. The Hispanic vote yet unknown in its exact raw numbers may turn out to be the 'silent' vote Trump keeps claiming exists but for him.  Another KO of Trump if so.

 

The real factor in HRC possibly running up the score is that the historical "battleground" states are presently blue. The battle is over on these grounds in this one. Too many to list here, but four are central: OH, PA, VA, FL. Clinton is leading by double digits in PA and VA, and is consistently outside the margin of polling variance in OH and FL (typically +5%). 

 

There are new 'battleground' states, however, as of this election. They are several red states in which HRC is ahead, literally tied, or statistically tied. It's remarkable. Specifically: North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona.  Trump can't lose one of the new 'battleground' red states as of this election, and still win. Losing 'em all or as many as two of 'em and Trump is a goner period.

 

Clinton campaign has pulled certain resources from the traditional battleground states to these new battleground red states. With organisation in each of these states, and with structure, bucks, lotsa motion and the like, the Clinton campaign could pile it on in both the electoral and the popular vote. Each of the four states is in the mid-range of electoral college votes, 11 to 16. Trump can't lose these states to win and he's losing 'em when each was won comfortably by Romney, McCain, GW and GHW, and RR (except for GA in 92 and AZ in 96 each of which voted for Bill).

 

(Long time "safe" Republican senators in these states have gone underwater since the conventions, to include McCain in AZ, Burr in NC, Blount in MO. These US Senate Republican incumbents had long been considered "safe." Nobody's counting chickens before they're hatched, but no one should be surprised if Mitch McConnell might start measuring the drapes to the Senate minority leader's office. Sen. Chuck "Bruiser" Schuemer of NY would be new majority leader and he's no Harry Reid.) 

 

With Clinton and Trump running for Potus no Republican is safe. 

[Chicog]

8 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

It is really nice to see that the word, fairness, is in your vocabulary. Shame you don't use it more often.  And has Obama made any unconstitutional laws?  That last sentence can be and is applicable to many countries throughout the world.  Why do you think they are so many leftist socialist governments in power?  So what channels are you suggesting people should watch and newspapers to read in order to get unbiased reporting?

 

I doubt there is one that is unbiased. Watch as many as possible, because sooner or later you can deduce the facts that they are trying to put their gloss on.

I have Fox and Sky on in the office, I watch BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, CCTV when I'm at home. I read a variety of online news sources because newspapers don't really add much these days.

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Chicog said:

I have Fox and Sky on in the office

 

 

Well you must not be paying any attention. Your "reports" about what is happening on Fox are always highly inaccurate.

[ilostmypassword]

22 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

At least you look at both sides re credibility but I would suggest you check out the so called normal people running the polls. You would find it very interesting to see who is actually behind many of them.  And no, if you want any links, I am not prepared to go back over them, suggest a little research would help you.

 

The Obama thing was four and again almost eight years ago, I think on this occasion the times are a changing.  A week in politics is a long time, just think how long three months will be.   I predict there will be quite a few changes coming over the horizon and maybe many that some on here will not like. 

If you're not prepared to offer evidence, then don't claim you have it.

[Boon Mee]

22 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yeah. Like vote her out of office. Trump hates the media when they distort his words.

Which is generally all the time.

Not easy picking the worst offender although NPR ranks pretty much at the top of the heap. 

[LomSak27]

Now those evil "left wing"  media people are distorting his business records .... Have they no shame! 

 

-Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties-

 

“If you take away all the fancy stuff and so on and so forth, and the five-star ratings, you are basically down to a closely held family-run business that is fundamentally different from IBM or Exxon,” Mr. Trump’s opaque portfolio of business ties makes him potentially vulnerable to the demands of banks, and to business people in the United States and abroad, said Professor Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer.

“The success of his empire depends on an ability to get credit, to get loans extended to his business entities,” he said. “And we simply don’t know a lot about his financial dealings, here or around the world.”

Edited August 20, 2016 by LomSak27

[Scotwight]

Media Shock

 

Trump Back In Lead

 

Headline

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[ilostmypassword]

You mean the left-wing Los Angeles Times and the liberal university of Southern California slipped up and showed Trump in the lead?  

Anyway, as people with a proven track record in predicting elections know, you can't rely on just one poll. It's the average that counts.  This poll has consistently shown Trump doing better than most other polls.

[mtls2005]

It seems odd that Senor Trump has not been tweeting about the U.S. athletes at the Rio Olympics? 

 

Why Trump Isn’t Tweeting About the Olympics

 

You’d think Donald Trump would love the Olympics: The flag-waving pageantry, the pure, unbridled patriotism—and, my god, the winning. So much winning you almost get tired of the winning.

But actually, Trump doesn’t seem to be interested in the Olympics at all: As Team USA shatters world records and scores win after historic win, Trump’s Twitter account, his favored megaphone, has been virtually mum. Since the one awkwardly worded meme he blasted out to his feed on August 5, with his own photo in front of an American flag, Trump has tweeted about the Olympics exactly zero times. He’s attacked the media, retweeted compliments to Donald Trump, pumped up his rallies. Not a word about the events that people are tuning into every night.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/donald-trump-olympics-twitter-214176

 

 

[boomerangutang]

17 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Meanwhile Trump is in Louisiana distributing food and aid himself while Barry and Hillary are 'indisposed'

Trump is looking more Presidential by the day!  

TRUMP TURNS PRESIDENT IN LOUISIANA AS OBAMA CHILLS... 
HE HELPS THE FLOODED...
'WE KNEW YOU'D BE HERE!'

 

Wow, Trump shows up in Louisiana.  How presidential!  Note:  Obama showed up there also.   Did Trump show up at every large forest fire on the west coast?   No, and neither should he be expected to.  If a president or presidential candidate was required to show up at every calamitous event in the US, that would fill his/her schedule 24/7.   In reality, Trump can't be presidential in real ways (knowledge, sageness, maturity, encouraging Americans to fulfil their potential) ....even if he tried mightily.   You can't get a manatee to soar like an eagle.

 

13 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

If she wins, good on her but she may not so let's wait and then those who want to can cry in their spilt milk, can, once the results are known. I, for one won't be, as whoever wins will not have any bearing on my life..... 

From your wording, it sounds like you're a Brit.  Either way, Trump WILL have an effect on everyone's life, if he's elected.   He will adversely affect trade agreements worldwide, he will enable fossil fuel corporations to further despoil the environment, thereby increasing impacts from GW, desertification and rising sea levels.  Most sobering of all, a Trump presidency will increase the risk of nukes being used.  That will affect everyone, even reindeer herders in northern Siberia.

 

A Trump fan opined; "Trump hates the media when they distort his words."

Closer to reality, allow Boomers to re-phrase it:  "Trump hates the media and anyone who doesn't lavish him in praise."

[Si Thea01]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you're not prepared to offer evidence, then don't claim you have it.

 

And what evidence to I claim I have?  Please point out what you are referring to.  If you too lazy to get off it and find out what you think you need to know, then that's not my problem.  I certainly don't take orders from anyone on here, least of all you. 

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Wow, Trump shows up in Louisiana.  How presidential!  Note:  Obama showed up there also.   Did Trump show up at every large forest fire on the west coast?   No, and neither should he be expected to.  If a president or presidential candidate was required to show up at every calamitous event in the US, that would fill his/her schedule 24/7.   In reality, Trump can't be presidential in real ways (knowledge, sageness, maturity, encouraging Americans to fulfil their potential) ....even if he tried mightily.   You can't get a manatee to soar like an eagle.

 

From your wording, it sounds like you're a Brit.  Either way, Trump WILL have an effect on everyone's life, if he's elected.   He will adversely affect trade agreements worldwide, he will enable fossil fuel corporations to further despoil the environment, thereby increasing impacts from GW, desertification and rising sea levels.  Most sobering of all, a Trump presidency will increase the risk of nukes being used.  That will affect everyone, even reindeer herders in northern Siberia.

 

A Trump fan opined; "Trump hates the media when they distort his words."

Closer to reality, allow Boomers to re-phrase it:  "Trump hates the media and anyone who doesn't lavish him in praise."

 

 

OMG.  There you go again, now assuming another's nationality.  Wrong, wrong, wrong. And if I was what is the relevance of making a play on that aspect.  Also, Obama has not shown up in Louisiana, he is holidaying and playing golf at Martha's Vineyard and will not be there until next Tuesday.  Hilary hasn't been there either. 

 

Did Hilary and Obama attend the fires? Geez you lot amaze me, no matter what Trump does, you go after him like the bull who has a red flag waved at him. Have to get your two bob's worth in, plain sarcasm or your poor effort in trying to criticise the guy at every corner.  Does it make your day?

 

Now given this post, you have shown your true colours, which we all knew any how, a greenie, no doubt from the far left given what you are on about.   I am not going to get in a debate with you over the GW rubbish and rising sea levels but if you want to believe that hocus pocus then more fool you.   As far as the free trade agreements, maybe you should listen to Hilary, she is going to change them also, or doesn't what she say matter?  Can't find it in  yourself to criticise the pin up girl?

 

And no, the free trade agreements will not have any effect on me and neither will Trump.  There you go again, assuming.  Can't help yourself can you?  And what evidence do you have in relation to the nukes.  Absolutely none, so please don't treat people as idiots with that rubbish you are proffering as it is only what has been put out by the democratic campaigners.  Given what you on about you would have to be in the camp of the ideologues, right. 

[Scotwight]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Wow, Trump shows up in Louisiana.  How presidential!  Note:  Obama showed up there also.   Did Trump show up at every large forest fire on the west coast?   No, and neither should he be expected to.  If a president or presidential candidate was required to show up at every calamitous event in the US, that would fill his/her schedule 24/7.   In reality, Trump can't be presidential in real ways (knowledge, sageness, maturity, encouraging Americans to fulfil their potential) ....even if he tried mightily.   You can't get a manatee to soar like an eagle.

 

From your wording, it sounds like you're a Brit.  Either way, Trump WILL have an effect on everyone's life, if he's elected.   He will adversely affect trade agreements worldwide, he will enable fossil fuel corporations to further despoil the environment, thereby increasing impacts from GW, desertification and rising sea levels.  Most sobering of all, a Trump presidency will increase the risk of nukes being used.  That will affect everyone, even reindeer herders in northern Siberia.

 

A Trump fan opined; "Trump hates the media when they distort his words."

Closer to reality, allow Boomers to re-phrase it:  "Trump hates the media and anyone who doesn't lavish him in praise."

You should not lie.  You wrote, " Obama showed up there also."  Not only did he now show up but he insulted them  "

Obama irks La. flood victims with memo warning them not to discriminate"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/19/obama-offends-louisiana-flood-victims-me/

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Scotwight
font

[ilostmypassword]

53 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

And what evidence to I claim I have?  Please point out what you are referring to.  If you too lazy to get off it and find out what you think you need to know, then that's not my problem.  I certainly don't take orders from anyone on here, least of all you. 

Did you write this?

At least you look at both sides re credibility but I would suggest you check out the so called normal people running the polls. You would find it very interesting to see who is actually behind many of them.  And no, if you want any links, I am not prepared to go back over them, suggest a little research would help you.