• 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!

MSNBC's Poll -- Will you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Josie said:
Poll: Hillary 2016 | MSNBC

A whopping 87% (last I checked) say no. What do you think is behind these numbers?
Click to expand...



Poll?

I just voted. I live in Canada.

How many of those "polled" are eligible to vote? No idea.

How many of those polled in the US are eligible? No idea.

How many of those eligible intend to exercise their franchise? No idea.

Of those who will exercise their franchise truly intend to vote for her? No idea.

This is on line mental masturbation
 
OrphanSlug said:
You may want to try reading my post again.
Click to expand...

I was kind of replying to a combination of the OP showing that a low number of people wanting to vote for her and your post showing polling that currently she is the favorite.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Poll?

I just voted. I live in Canada.

How many of those "polled" are eligible to vote? No idea.

How many of those polled in the US are eligible? No idea.

How many of those eligible intend to exercise their franchise? No idea.

Of those who will exercise their franchise truly intend to vote for her? No idea.

This is on line mental masturbation
Click to expand...

What was your vote?
 
Lutherf said:
87% won't vote for her in public but get them in the booth and 114% will.

If next Nov ends up a Bush v Clinton vote I'm just going to write in Sara Palin.

Come to think of it I may end up doing that anyway.
Click to expand...

Would seem that Palin has more integrity and honesty.
 
I voted yes, but only because I had an overwhelming urge to **** up the results. I wouldn't vote for her if you paid me to.
 
If you can recall the behavior of Ron Paul online groups, they would circulate online opinion polls from mainstream outlets. If the poll included Ron Paul, they were encouraged to vote for him. This dramatically over-inflated Paul's numbers, but the online folks considered it a victory on two fronts. First they got their message out there. Second, they could make the erroneous claim that everyone likes Ron Paul.

It was a vicious circle of internet stupidity.
 
eohrnberger said:
Would seem that Palin has more integrity and honesty.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a shred of integrity or honesty out of either of them. Palin's just as full of **** as Hillary is.
 
Kobie said:
I've never seen a shred of integrity or honesty out of either of them. Palin's just as full of **** as Hillary is.
Click to expand...

Short of a tit for tat comparison, a long and exhausting exercise with questionable results, it's left up to the impression either of them leaves.

I'll admit that I have more of a favorable impression of Palin (although I can't stand her voice or her choice of words) WRT to honesty and integrity than I do of Hillary.
 
eohrnberger said:
Short of a tit for tat comparison, a long and exhausting exercise with questionable results, it's left up to the impression either of them leaves.

I'll admit that I have more of a favorable impression of Palin (although I can't stand her voice or her choice of words) WRT to honesty and integrity than I do of Hillary.
Click to expand...
Erm, I'd argue against the honesty and integrity for both of them.
 
Nicci said:
Erm, I'd argue against the honesty and integrity for both of them.
Click to expand...

I guess depends on how much 'more' favorable we are talking about here. Could be a slight edge, or could be a huge margin, or more likely something in between.

I can handle someone who doesn't have all the answers but is honest about it far better than someone who doesn't have all the answers and lies about it.
 
eohrnberger said:
I guess depends on how much 'more' favorable we are talking about here. Could be a slight edge, or could be a huge margin, or more likely something in between.

I can handle someone who doesn't have all the answers but is honest about it far better than someone who doesn't have all the answers and lies about it.
Click to expand...
Err.. Palin was honest? Thats like saying Bachmann knew what facts were. ;)
 
Nicci said:
Err.. Palin was honest? Thats like saying Bachmann knew what facts were. ;)
Click to expand...

I say that she's more honest than Hillary any given day of the week.

So where do you recall that Palin was dishonest? I mean we all know Hillary's dishonest foibles over her long history in the public eye.
 
eohrnberger said:
I say that she's more honest than Hillary any given day of the week.

So where do you recall that Palin was dishonest? I mean we all know Hillary's dishonest foibles over her long history in the public eye.
Click to expand...
Sure, lets look at her statement on oil drilling in the golf that was supposed to cost us $8B a day. That's a pretty large fabrication. It was a fraction of that, 34M~.
 
Nicci said:
Sure, lets look at her statement on oil drilling in the golf that was supposed to cost us $8B a day. That's a pretty large fabrication. It was a fraction of that, 34M~.
Click to expand...

Citation?
 
Nicci said:
Uncut: Palin: 'The Fire in the Belly Is Still Raging' | On Air Videos | Fox News

The total projected drop in oil production in the gulf between 2010 and 2012 is 320,000 barrels per day. At projected 2012 prices ($108.12 per barrel), that comes to $34.6 million a day.

Pulled that part from Politicofact. It's basic math but this was a few years ago. Obviously the "cost per day" is a lot less with oil being $45~ barrel
Click to expand...

OK, so I think you are saying she got her math wrong, or perhaps was operating with incorrect information or bad assumptions which made her math wrong.
 
eohrnberger said:
OK, so I think you are saying she got her math wrong, or perhaps was operating with incorrect information or bad assumptions which made her math wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying she lied, not only was her math completely wrong but she repeated it several times on different days.

If that doesn't make it a lie then I don't know what you consider one. We can just agree to disagree on her "trustworthiness".
 
Nicci said:
No, I'm saying she lied, not only was her math completely wrong but she repeated it several times on different days.

If that doesn't make it a lie then I don't know what you consider one. We can just agree to disagree on her "trustworthiness".
Click to expand...

There's a difference between incorrect information and maliciously lying for personal or political gain.

Do politicians, as well as everyone else, get their facts wrong on occasion? Sure. However, that's not at all like claiming to want the convenience of a one device before the public, all the time known that you are carrying around several devices, in other words malicious intent to deceive.

We could look at the whole uproar about 'death panels' for example.

Some would call this a lie on Palin's part, but if you go and read the legislation, which has no section on death panels per say, but does have a section specific to the Independent Payment Advisory Board who's purpose is to "achieving specified savings in Medicare". Now granted, it's supposed to happen without impacting coverage or quality, but one needs to ask if that's realistic or not. How much cost savings can be had before coverage or quality is impacted. We have yet to see.

Lie or exaggeration? Hyperbole to make a political point? I recall that around the same time there was a Democratically led talking point about the Republicans wanting to drive grandma and her wheelchair off of the cliff, which of course they never said. Lie or exaggeration? Hyperbole to make a political point? Or just to score some points?

Somewhere someone is making decisions if continued supportive care is warranted for a terminally comatose patient, as I'm sure they are now. To my thinking the attending and the family need to struggle with this decision, not some bureaucrat. With the law it is, I'm not so certain that this isn't going to creep in someplace, but we can hope that it doesn't.
 
j-mac said:
What I want to know is who are the 23% that answered that they would vote for her? These have to be some of the absolute dumbest lemmings on the planet.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't a poll stunt, I would expect about 30-40% to back down on their negative vote and vote for her. When push comes to shove, you're going to be fighting over a 10% popular vote difference just about every election.

Always expect a 45-49% vote for the losing candidate.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
What I want to know is who are the 23% that answered that they would vote for her? These have to be some of the absolute dumbest lemmings on the planet.
Click to expand...

Probably not the same people who don't know that 100 minus 87 is 13, not 23.
 
eohrnberger said:
There's a difference between incorrect information and maliciously lying for personal or political gain.

Do politicians, as well as everyone else, get their facts wrong on occasion? Sure. However, that's not at all like claiming to want the convenience of a one device before the public, all the time known that you are carrying around several devices, in other words malicious intent to deceive.

We could look at the whole uproar about 'death panels' for example.

Some would call this a lie on Palin's part, but if you go and read the legislation, which has no section on death panels per say, but does have a section specific to the Independent Payment Advisory Board who's purpose is to "achieving specified savings in Medicare". Now granted, it's supposed to happen without impacting coverage or quality, but one needs to ask if that's realistic or not. How much cost savings can be had before coverage or quality is impacted. We have yet to see.

Lie or exaggeration? Hyperbole to make a political point? I recall that around the same time there was a Democratically led talking point about the Republicans wanting to drive grandma and her wheelchair off of the cliff, which of course they never said. Lie or exaggeration? Hyperbole to make a political point? Or just to score some points?

Somewhere someone is making decisions if continued supportive care is warranted for a terminally comatose patient, as I'm sure they are now. To my thinking the attending and the family need to struggle with this decision, not some bureaucrat. With the law it is, I'm not so certain that this isn't going to creep in someplace, but we can hope that it doesn't.
Click to expand...
If you are going to take one person to task for what you call lying and then ignore it for another. I'm all for calling politicians to task for their hyperbole, but to point out one person and ignore or make excuses for another is just silly.

Especially when it is mentioned that they are "more trustworthy" than another.
 
Kobie said:
I've never seen a shred of integrity or honesty out of either of them. Palin's just as full of **** as Hillary is.
Click to expand...

Is Palin seeking the job of president of the United States?

I know that six years ago she was a vice presidential candidate, but she hasn't been in public life since.

Why would you use her as a comparison instead of Fiona or one of the many, many women candidates the Democrats are putting up?
 
Nicci said:
Err.. Palin was honest? Thats like saying Bachmann knew what facts were. ;)
Click to expand...

One was a candidate six years ago and has returned to private life and has no control over any public money or policies. The other is seeking the office of president of the United states. The more honest comparison on lying candidates for president would be others now in the race, not a figure from history who happens to be the go-to whipping mat whenever a democrat says something stupid.

Six years and any given day on any forum you are likely to come across a thread about how stupid or dishonest she is.


The issue before the American people is who can be trusted with the top job and who is the subject of this thread. I would like to make the comparison away from a gender bias, which the whole debate about Hillary has become, and say we compare Hillary's many lies to say Jeb Bush. Has he ever made up a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia? Has he ever defied the aw and had a private email server?

Sarah Palin is "old news" it was six years ago we can stop playing distract the thread by mentioning Palin.
 
Kobie said:
Probably not the same people who don't know that 100 minus 87 is 13, not 23.
Click to expand...

ooops...I thought it was 77%...There do you feel superior now? I'm happy for your internet win....

win5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom