Show of HandsShow of Hands

polster2 December 18th, 2016 3:08pm

According to a new poll, 52% of American voters favor delaying the electoral college vote scheduled for Monday until the electors can be briefed by the intelligence community on Russia's role in meddling in the election. Agree with the majority?

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

auntiesamm Orange County CA
12/18/16 2:28 pm

52%? I think that is a "pie-in-the-sky" number.

commonsense Sniffin Joe
12/18/16 11:17 am

So because Dems didn't get their way....we need to stop the presidential election process.....idiots.

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 11:29 am

Common...who in the world said that?

commonsense Sniffin Joe
12/18/16 11:30 am

52% of American cry babies.

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:32 am

Common...can you provide a poll of said "crybabies" with which to back your assertion, or is your assertion completely baseless?

commonsense Sniffin Joe
12/18/16 11:34 am

It's based off your poll question. You're saying 52% want it.

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:36 am

Common..."crybabies" were not polled. American voters were. Please stop the dishonest tactics!

sd123 San Diego
12/18/16 2:41 pm

Republicans who can't accept the fact that their guy is Putin's puppet are the real crybabies.

commonsense Sniffin Joe
12/18/16 3:16 pm

SD, puppet or not, he's the next president.

mark1950 Columbia, South Carolina
12/18/16 10:52 am

Just another meaningless poll. 😎

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 10:53 am

Why is it "meaningless," in your view?

mark1950 Columbia, South Carolina
12/18/16 10:57 am

I have no knowledge about when, how, where, or with whom the poll was conducted. Saying it represents 52% of Americans doesn't convince me.

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:59 am

Read the methodology then.

mark1950 Columbia, South Carolina
12/18/16 11:02 am

There's no need. But, thanks anyway.

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:03 am

You're going to trash the poll without looking at how it was conducted?

DunkinFrunk Austin area, Texas
12/18/16 9:47 am

Just get it over with already.

Reply
ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 9:39 am

The same polls that showed Hillary at 350+?

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 9:42 am

Ike...No, those polls are no longer being conducted since the election already occurred.

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 9:44 am

Pollsters are notoriously unreliable. Trump won. It's over

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:46 am

Ike...2016 was an aberration in polling, but continue to cherry-pick! Besides, the electors haven't voted yet. They vote tomorrow.

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 9:49 am

There's been problems with polling for years. We knew this before the election

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 9:50 am

And the electoral process was amended years ago so the people decide

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:54 am

Ike...continue to spread your lies! There are only laws against faithless electors in 29 states, and fewer states than that even specify a punishment for violating such laws. In many of those 29 states, faithless electors only must pay a fine for violating the law. Get a clue!

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 9:57 am

I know more about the process than you. Trump will be sworn in in January. Trump is not gonna lose 36 people. And yes, polling is inaccurate as it has been for years

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:58 am

Ike...You do not have the ability to predict the future. If you believe that you do, please seek psychiatric help!

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 10:01 am

And if you're wrong?

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:03 am

Ike...At least I will not have made the ridiculous claim that I was able to predict the future.

ikeurban21 B L C
12/18/16 10:05 am

It's not that hard to state the obvious. If you think Trump won't be elected you're just flat out in denial

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:07 am

Ike...It's not that I think that Trump will not be elected. It's that I don't know whether he will be elected because the official electoral vote takes place tomorrow. Big difference!

ProudCentrist Chicago, Illinois
12/18/16 9:21 am

You mean WikiLeaks role?

Reply
SugarShaq
12/18/16 9:09 am

Sounds like more fake news.

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 9:11 am

Sugar...Check the poll results in the comments below. I assure you, there's nothing fake about it.

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 8:39 am

Yet another desperate attempt to overturn the will of the people. Mrs Clinton lost, it's time to get over it.

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 8:43 am

So you disagree with Alexander Hamilton when he wrote "the process of election affords a moral certainty, that of the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications?"

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 9:09 am

Polster ... keep digging.

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:10 am

Think...answer the question.

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 9:15 am

Polster ... I support the Electoral College. I do not support the Democrats and the derogates in attempting to steal this election.

You will never get your wish to call the corrupt Mrs Clinton "Madame President". Let's hope we all see justice served when she's called Madame Cell Block President!

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:16 am

Think...why don't you think that electors should have the freedom to vote for whomever they wish after receiving all relevant information on what took place during the campaign and election, in accordance with what Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1788?

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 9:19 am

Polster ... why are you so desperately trying to invent new ways to steal the election? Where -- in the constitution -- does it describe a process whereby Electora can call for an inquisition demand new information AFTER the popular election?

You nimrods on the left are desperately making this nonsense up as you go!

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:22 am

Think...check the Federalist Papers. Hamilton clearly wanted the electoral college to be a check on the will of the people. Stop the dishonesty! Your feeble attempt to obfuscate is pathetic!

www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 11:14 am

Polster ... I can see your passion. Your problem is that you've jumped the shark on this one, and are making a fool of yourself yet again.

Mr Hamilton, the new hero of the deluted left, didn't advocate for a judicial review to be conducted by the Electors, did he!

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:28 am

Think...how is that relevant at all to what we're discussing?

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 11:29 am

Polster ... you need a new frenzy within 24 hours as the College will be meeting and Mr Trump will be elected.

I suggest that you get hopping!

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:30 am

Think...you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the electoral college will elect Trump. Stop the dishonesty!

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 3:15 pm

Polster ... let's see ... you were wrong about the election in November. I'll be anxious for you to get the painful news that you're wrong again tomorrow.

Have you thrown your hapless self behind the impeachment faction of the rudderless Democrats?

polster2 US
12/18/16 3:17 pm

Think...continue to dodge the truth! You and I both know that you are unable to predict the future. Therefore, your pathetic attempt to do so is an utter failure of the highest order!

kscott516 Fact checker
12/18/16 8:17 am

No, the DNI said there's no proof they were meddling in the election.

Reply
polster2 US
12/18/16 8:21 am

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

kscott516 Fact checker
12/18/16 8:30 am

Ah, so they changed their story. This is what's known as political influence in our justice system. Same as when Loretta Lynch met with Bill C on her plane during an investigation into Hillary. If you don't seriously think our justice system is majorly tampered with, you're simply a damned fool.

polster2 US
12/18/16 8:33 am

That statement was released on October 7th of this year. It's been the position of the DNI for months. Where's your evidence that there's some broad, leftist conspiracy to fool people on Russia's role in politically-motivated hacking?

kscott516 Fact checker
12/18/16 9:17 am

The fact that they don't have any proof that Russia hacked them or that they were attempting to meddle in or election. If they have the proof they will release it. Otherwise it's simply conjecture. Why does the party of scientism accept something with proof?

The 2nd hand source has said it was leaked by a DNC person that was pissed that Hillary and the Dems rigged the primary and that she is so corrupt. That actually makes real sense.

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:21 am

KScott...the DNI released a statement months ago on this very topic. 17 US intelligence agencies and the FBI all are in agreement that Russian hacking was politically-motivated with the intention of assisting Donald Trump. Why do you continue to obfuscate? Why do you continue to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy by stating that there is some broad, leftist conspiracy to dupe the American people into believing that Russian hacking was politically motivated? Do you have evidence of your conspiracy theory yet?

kscott516 Fact checker
12/18/16 9:30 am

That's a political statement just like the "97% of climate scientists" claim you've touted in the past.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn’t-actually…a-f

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:32 am

KScott...Stop dodging the question! Where is your evidence of a broad, leftist conspiracy to misrepresent the facts on the politically-motivated Russian hacking meant to assist Donald Trump? Stop committing the argument from ignorance fallacy!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 9:39 am

Pol....where is your proof it was the Russians?

js132 Texas
12/18/16 9:44 am

I did. It says they are "confident" it was the Russians. Not there is proof it was the Russians. So, it seems one of two things are happening. You're drawing conclusions that aren't there, or you're spreading false information.

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:47 am

JS...why don't you believe the experts when it's inconvenient for you? Doesn't that demonstrate confirmation bias? Oh, wait, it does!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 9:58 am

If you're wanting to know which fallacies you're using confirmation bias-the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. See, you used that wrong. I'm not using confirmation bias because there is no evidence. Just that the agencies agree that they think it was Russia. So you're also using an inductive fallacy.

polster2 US
12/18/16 9:59 am

JS...continue to dodge the facts! The evidence is rapidly piling up against your position, yet you continue to ignore it. Get a clue!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 10:05 am

First, I have no position. Second, I'm just asking you to present some evidence. You are failing to do this simple task. I'm not asking for opinions. Don't tell us the agencies are confident it's the Russians. Show where it was the Russians. If you can't you're spreading your own conspiracies, and you're part of the problem not the solution.

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:09 am

JS...Unlike you, I believe the opinions of experts over conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Roger Stone who commit the "argument from ignorance" fallacy every single day to dupe conservative voters! Try living in reality sometime!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 10:19 am

So you admit they are just opinions, and not there are no facts?

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:20 am

JS...I believe that the DNI is more reputable than Breitbart and Infowars.

js132 Texas
12/18/16 10:45 am

I guess that's where we're different. I don't believe opinions. No matter the source.

polster2 US
12/18/16 10:47 am

JS...I don't believe you.

js132 Texas
12/18/16 11:02 am

It's a great thing I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Like you're trying to convince people it was the Russians using no evidence.

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:12 am

JS...Do you really think that the DNI issued this statement without examining any evidence?

js132 Texas
12/18/16 11:13 am

Where is the evidence?

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:28 am

JS...are you actually this stupid, or are you just trolling?

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 11:31 am

Polster ... if you follow the "opinions" of the intelligence "experts", where are you on WMDs in Iraq?

polster2 US
12/18/16 11:35 am

Think...the basis of invading Iraq cited by Mr. Bush was that Saddam Hussein was actively making weapons of mass destruction immediately before the invasion. The CIA released a report prior to the invasion, but the agency found no evidence to support Mr. Bush's claim. Silly you!

www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:12 pm

Resorting to ad hominem. Typical of someone who can't back up their opinions with facts.

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:18 pm

JS...whatever you do, don't believe the experts!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:19 pm

As soon as there is some evidence I will.

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:21 pm

Keep trying to push opinions like they're facts though. You're not good at it, but at least you're trying. I'll try and find you a participation ribbon.

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:22 pm

JS...do you have to personally witness something in order for you to believe it exists?

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:23 pm

Nope. I just want facts and not opinions when we're talking about changing our countries electoral process.

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:24 pm

Do you believe every unsupported opinion you come across?

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:40 pm

Hmm. Makes no sense. One opinion with no facts is no better than another. Not sure why you think they're different.

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:42 pm

Would you believe a mechanic's medical opinion on something, or would you trust your doctor?

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 12:47 pm

Polster ... what was the source of the evidence that convinced Mrs Clinton to enthusiastic support the war in Iraq?

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:49 pm

A doctor would give you the opinion that you have cancer, but still would perform tests to get the facts before any kind of treatment. To do treatments without facts would be a mistake. Nice try on trying to spin it. Just didn't work for you.

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:49 pm

Think...what does that have to do with what we're talking about here? Stop changing the subject! It's an incredibly dishonest and feeble attempt to obfuscate!

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:51 pm

JS...intelligence agencies didn't reach this conclusion without looking at the DNC and RNC computer systems and running tests, you nitwit!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 12:53 pm

Keep trying to spin. Where's the proof ill-bred moron?

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:54 pm

JS...you're completely unhinged! Do you really think that the DNI would release such a statement without proof? You need medication and therapy! You're delusional!

polster2 US
12/18/16 12:55 pm

JS...even if the DNI isn't releasing the proof to the public yet, that doesn't mean it isn't there!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 1:07 pm

Without proof it's just opinion, and holds no more weight than yours.

polster2 US
12/18/16 1:09 pm

JS...keep telling yourself that.

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 1:22 pm

Polster ... noted that you refuse to answer the question!

The answer is absolutely germane to this discussion because that too was intelligence generated by our intelligence agencies. The point is that you are cherry picking intelligence that fits your world view.

polster2 US
12/18/16 1:23 pm

Think...a bad decision made by Hillary Clinton over ten years ago has absolutely nothing to do with Russian hacking today, but keep trying to obfuscate!

js132 Texas
12/18/16 2:05 pm

Don't have to tell myself. I already know it.

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 2:10 pm

Polster ... I'm flattered that you've adopted my mannerisms so completely. Unfortunately, you have a position that simply makes using them laughable!

I like how your argument is that the trustworthiness of intelligence has a freshness date on it. Your feebly attempting to opine that the CIA intelligence that you reject is rejectable because it was given ten years ago and that intelligence given today is somehow better!

Thanks for the belly laughs!

polster2 US
12/18/16 2:15 pm

Think...you didn't read what I wrote. Either that or you're simply dense. The intelligence ten years ago was correct. Clinton incorrectly interpreted it when voting to invade Iraq.

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 3:12 pm

Polster ... ha ha ... it's precious that you think that! You're just totally wrong.

polster2 US
12/18/16 3:13 pm

Think...why am I wrong? Did you read the article I posted? Did you read any of my previous comments?

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 3:16 pm

Polster ... of course you're smarter than all the Democrats in Congress. Now, does your being wrong feel better?

polster2 US
12/18/16 3:19 pm

Think...what are you talking about? Not all Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War! Stop the lies!

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 3:32 pm

Polster ... it is so precious to watch you run around! Which Democrats -- besides the socialist Mr Sanders -- voted against the war?

Please give the names and total number of Democrats who voted for and against!

Think Lovin Life
12/18/16 3:35 pm

Polster ... once again you prove that following directions is impossible for leftists! Here, take a mulligan and try again to address it.

polster2 US
12/18/16 3:37 pm

Think...The link shows that several Democratic Senators opposed the war. Why are you denying facts?

rons screw politicians
12/18/16 8:16 am

No, it's a scam.

Reply