• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to 'intensify and broaden' efforts to fight ISIS

stonewall50 said:
He won't win. Think about who gets polled. They use land lines. I've NEVER been polled ever. They don't call cell phones. Who uses landlines now? Old farts who might vote for trump. 40-50s and aren't at home and are at work. They are old enough to use cell phones and plenty don't. And they are a majority with 20s and so on right behinds
Click to expand...

Virtually every FAMILY has a landline as well as cell phones. Polling 20 year olds who don't vote makes no sense in an election contest.
 
clownboy said:
Virtually every FAMILY has a landline as well as cell phones. Polling 20 year olds who don't vote makes no sense in an election contest.
Click to expand...

Seriously?
 
clownboy said:
Virtually every FAMILY has a landline as well as cell phones. Polling 20 year olds who don't vote makes no sense in an election contest.
Click to expand...

Hence why your results are skewed. You honestly believe I won't be voting? They will most likely vote for democrats, sure, but then I know plenty of young republican voters who go out every time since they were 18.

And less and less people use that "landline." Or ignore it. I'm on the phone all the time for job man. I call people's landlines and never get them. Cell phones? Sure do.
 
stonewall50 said:
Hence why your results are skewed. You honestly believe I won't be voting? They will most likely vote for democrats, sure, but then I know plenty of young republican voters who go out every time since they were 18.

And less and less people use that "landline." Or ignore it. I'm on the phone all the time for job man. I call people's landlines and never get them. Cell phones? Sure do.
Click to expand...

According to USA today more than half of US homes do not have a land line. As of 2012
 
clownboy said:
Virtually every FAMILY has a landline as well as cell phones. Polling 20 year olds who don't vote makes no sense in an election contest.
Click to expand...

Most families don't have landlines. Not anymore. But listen...polling is an art form. There are tactics employed that can show 'unbiased' polling designed to get specific results. Want conservative results? Do poll landline homes in the evening when working men are likely to be home. Most of the homes that still have landlines are older adults. Want liberal results? Poll near colleges and universities especially during lunchtimes. Poll any time during the day and your results tend to be skewed. But poll everyone and your demographics show completely random polling. Polls simply cannot be trusted.
 
VanceMack said:
Most families don't have landlines. Not anymore. But listen...polling is an art form. There are tactics employed that can show 'unbiased' polling designed to get specific results. Want conservative results? Do poll landline homes in the evening when working men are likely to be home. Most of the homes that still have landlines are older adults. Want liberal results? Poll near colleges and universities especially during lunchtimes. Poll any time during the day and your results tend to be skewed. But poll everyone and your demographics show completely random polling. Polls simply cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

Well, that isn't exactly true. The more random a poll is and the larger the N, the more likley it is to reflect reality. But you are correct, true randomization is difficult.
 
mak2 said:
Well, that isn't exactly true. The more random a poll is and the larger the N, the more likley it is to reflect reality. But you are correct, true randomization is difficult.
Click to expand...

That supposes the pollster is interested in truly realistic results and not merely seeking confirmation bias.

Even product polling at the malls is influenced by inexperienced pollsters and their candidates. Many will target women because men have that '**** you get away' look even before they approach them.

Not arguing. I think we agree.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Where are the protesters then?

And don't tell me you won't vote for her if shes the nominee.
Click to expand...

Oh...I absolutely will vote for her if she is the nominee. I've made that abundantly clear. Still doesn't mean that she is my ideal candidate. Hell, Bill was never my ideal candidate for the same reasons. The Clinton's both have always been known for being moderate Democrats and both are war-hawkish...as evidenced by Bill in office and Hillary's positions today.

I would still vote for her because although I disagree with her on a number of positions, I still agree with her on the vast majority and she is definitely better than the alternative...especially with the balance of the Supreme Court in question.
 
Here's an idea, why not let the women and children in, hand the men a gun and fly them back to Syria and say, here, go take your country back..



Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Here's an idea, why not let the women and children in, hand the men a gun and fly them back to Syria and say, here, go take your country back..



Tim-
Click to expand...
I would like to see some reliable demographics of the refugees. If you listen to one side its all combat aged males looking for explosives, and the other side says they are old and sick or young children.
 
Hicup said:
Here's an idea, why not let the women and children in, hand the men a gun and fly them back to Syria and say, here, go take your country back..



Tim-
Click to expand...
I would like to see some reliable demographics of the refugees. If you listen to one side its all combat aged males looking for explosives, and the other side says they are old and sick or young children.
 
reinoe said:
Visiting a war zone doesn't mean anything. Was the federal response to Hurricane Katrina any less of a screw up just because Bush flew over it? Jeez...the excuses people from all stripes are making to justify Hillary. It's almost as if I've entered the twilight zone.
Click to expand...

I am not justifying her. My statement was out of the candidates, she has the most experience when working with the military. I didn't say she did it right. I did not say she did it wrong. I said she worked with the military giving her experience with the military.

I think she sucks. I don't like her, I don't trust her.
 
Hilary is such a fraud. I swear if she is the nominee.. And she is elected president.. One of two things, or both.. 1. The election is rigged 2. The people of this country are way more ignorant than I even imagined.
 
Hicup said:
Here's an idea, why not let the women and children in, hand the men a gun and fly them back to Syria and say, here, go take your country back..



Tim-
Click to expand...

Greetings, Hicup. :2wave:

That's one of the best suggestions I've heard so far! :thumbs:
 
SMTA said:
Because tepid is always better than overwhelming, right?
Click to expand...

Did you not read? We used "overwhelming force" to invade Iraq. The enemy scattered into the hills and fought us for 10 years killing and maiming 10's of thousands of Americans. They still had plenty of fight left when Maliki kicked us out too. Is that what you want again? Are you nuts? I say pound them from the air until there are enough natives who wish to fight for their homes. The ideology of ISIS will be strengthened by a large commitment of U.S. Troops and we will be stuck in a hopeless quagmire with no end in sight. Not to mention that ISIS will be n their way to their dream of a apocalyptic confrontation of Muslims and non-believers worldwide. Are they nuts? For sure but we can't be like them or give them what they want anyway.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Did you not read? We used "overwhelming force" to invade Iraq. The enemy scattered into the hills and fought us for 10 years killing and maiming 10's of thousands of Americans. They still had plenty of fight left when Maliki kicked us out too. Is that what you want again? Are you nuts?
Click to expand...
Only the 'shock and awe' part is true. The rest is false.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Do you agree with Hillary? Is this our fight? should we be sending our people and hardware over there?? Will she someday when politically convienent call this a "mistake" too? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
I wonder why she isn't advocating some of her trademark "smart power" where we "show respect" for ISIS and "empathize with their perspective and point of view."
 
Saucey said:
Hilary is such a fraud. I swear if she is the nominee.. And she is elected president.. One of two things, or both.. 1. The election is rigged 2. The people of this country are way more ignorant than I even imagined.
Click to expand...

Both things people said about the decider the second time around.
 
iguanaman said:
Did you not read? We used "overwhelming force" to invade Iraq. The enemy scattered into the hills and fought us for 10 years killing and maiming 10's of thousands of Americans. They still had plenty of fight left when Maliki kicked us out too. Is that what you want again? Are you nuts? I say pound them from the air until there are enough natives who wish to fight for their homes. The ideology of ISIS will be strengthened by a large commitment of U.S. Troops and we will be stuck in a hopeless quagmire with no end in sight. Not to mention that ISIS will be n their way to their dream of a apocalyptic confrontation of Muslims and non-believers worldwide. Are they nuts? For sure but we can't be like them or give them what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

All true!
 
Blue_State said:
I was saying she has more than the other candidates because she was the SoS and she was going to forward positions. During those visits she was exposed to the military and therefore I would say she has military experience. No, she did not hold a rank or go to basic training. But she has seen the leadership and the structure. She has also observed and been a part of making decisions.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to mention what she did as SoS? It isn't a positive.
 
Blue_State said:
What is your definition of military experience?
Click to expand...

Basic training. Do military stuff like use a weapon, learn tactics, employ that same training in some way successfully. Something more than watching movies, watching other people make decisions, storing classified information on a private server, losing 5 billion dollars in the State Dep budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom