Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart
Hello August 24, 2017, 12:38:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart  (Read 1136 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2017, 11:15:54 pm »

Trump was a huge hit at CPAC, and the straw poll showed that he's got huge support on the right.

The poll found that 86 percent of those polled approve of the job Trump is doing as president.

And to the question of "President Trump is realigning the Conservative Movement," 80 percent agreed, while only 15 percent disagreed.

So "conservatives" aren't nearly as divided as you may think.

If there's one thing that this previous election definitely proved, is that polls are bullshit.

Something curious happens though if you do this: Trump got 45.9 of the popular vote, 86 percent of the Republicans polled at CPAC approve of the job he is doing, (.459 * .86) * 100 = 39.474% Net approval rating, which is right about where he sits in the Gallup polls (actually those polls have him higher.) Look, I just manipulated numbers to make him look less popular then he's polling. I wouldn't recommend playing the numbers game if you desire intelligent discussion. The big take away here is that: the majority of Americans disapprove. That's still 7 out of 50 Republicans who don't approve. Generally speaking, a newly elected president has the approval from the majority. You're trying to marginalize his lack of popularity because he still has strong support with his base. I'm not surprised at this point. I'm sure Nazi's still support Hitler, so this isn't the best point to argue.

Polls aren't bullshit most of the time. They get it wrong on occasion and also hte media exaggerates things.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2017, 09:12:08 am »

In 2012, PEW looked at US voter registration, but not voter fraud.

24 million registered voters (1 in 8 or 12.5%) were invalid for one reason or another.   

1.8 million of them were dead, but still listed as voters, for example. 

Another 2.75 million were registered in more than one state.  Regardless of how many states they were registered in, they are only counted as 1 invalid registration for some odd reason.

24% of eligible voters are not registered.

+++++

As to voter fraud, Texas has 2 interesting cases of it recently.    A Mexican woman voting illegally voting for Republicans and a white woman Democrat illegally having her son vote in his father's name without telling the father.
Logged



(Hidden)

« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2017, 10:41:39 am »


No, it doesn't. It indicates how attendees of CPAC feel about him.

Maybe you're not aware, but CPAC is a conference of conservative Americans.

Quote
That poll, proves jack shit.

Again, it seems like you're not aware of what CPAC is and who it attracts.

The poll certainly indicates how conservatives feel towards Trump. Whether the 86% is accurate or not isn't the point since the poll has a margin of error that can go a few points in either direction. It definitely indicates that he has overwhelming support.

Quote
You're new to politics aren't you man? Be honest ... In America only about half the eligible voters actually vote, but it's not the exact same people each election. Some people become disenfranchised and stop voting, while others, who didn't previously vote, engage. People don't actually switch sides, excluding moderate voters who don't have a party affiliation. Suggesting that his popularity among all Americans, is irrelevant, is quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, he beat the democrats, great, and when enough Republicans get sick of him, he'll destroy that party as well. While he simultaneously infuriates 55%+ of America.

I have to ask you if you're new to politics, because you seem to think that the "feelings" of the non-voters matters. They don't. Why? Because they don't vote. Everyone has an opinion in politics, but unless they vote, that opinion doesn't mean jack.

And it's fairly obvious that people DID switch sides to vote for Trump, but if you're new to politics, I can see how you might not have picked up on it. He won in states that have been blue for years. Pennsylvania had been fools gold for Republicans for years, but they couldn't win there. Trump won those blue states and he won them because some voters on the left were unhappy with their candidate and some voters on the left supporter Trump. None of the other Republican candidates could have pulled that off because they were all stuck on the party's failed ideology of the past.

Quote
Donald doesn't seem to understand that his words and his actions (or more importantly, in-actions) have consequences and in about 2 years, I'm wondering who I'll be supporting, because it's completely obvious to me, that I was lied to. Elected officials don't have life time positions, the rest of the Republicans understand this, but I don't think Donald does, or understands the relationship between his approval rating, and other officials in the party. This creates a situation where the Republican controlled congress can't make controversial decisions, since they risk going down with the captain as the ship sinks. So, ACA repeal = lies, they can't touch it with out committing political suicide.

Trump knows quite well that his actions are why his supporters are so loyal. He's annoying the Beltway crowd by actually sticking to his campaign promises. I'm not sure what you thought you were getting so I don't know what you think you've been lied to about. Since he's only been in office for six weeks, I don't know how you can even determine that you've been lied to yet. The negotiations with the Republicans in the congress will be just fine. His approval rating will increase as people see he has been keeping his campaign promises. Congress needs to get to work on the repeal and replace of Obamacare, and I'm sure they'll have that done before the early summer break. Then they'll tackle tax reform through the fall.

It sounds like you're letting the media's propaganda get to you. Don't believe their hype. They have been throwing everything that can dream up at Trump for almost a year now, and it all winds up being fictional trash with no merit. Don't let his tweets bother you either...he takes two minutes to blast out a tweet, and he gets the media running around in circles all day to disparage it. Then he repeats it all again the next day. It's pure genius, so enjoy it!
Logged


(Hidden)
Muted

« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2017, 06:36:35 pm »

Again, it seems like you're not aware of what CPAC is and who it attracts.

You're right, normal voters go to CPAC. I'm wrong. No idea what I'm talking about. This isn't a clear case of sample bias.

The poll certainly indicates how conservatives feel towards Trump. Whether the 86% is accurate or not isn't the point since the poll has a margin of error that can go a few points in either direction. It definitely indicates that he has overwhelming support.

No, it doesn't. It certainly indicates how attendees of CPAC feel towards Trump. Get over it. Facts are facts.

I have to ask you if you're new to politics, because you seem to think that the "feelings" of the non-voters matters. They don't. Why? Because they don't vote. Everyone has an opinion in politics, but unless they vote, that opinion doesn't mean jack.

And it's fairly obvious that people DID switch sides to vote for Trump, but if you're new to politics, I can see how you might not have picked up on it. He won in states that have been blue for years. Pennsylvania had been fools gold for Republicans for years, but they couldn't win there. Trump won those blue states and he won them because some voters on the left were unhappy with their candidate and some voters on the left supporter Trump. None of the other Republican candidates could have pulled that off because they were all stuck on the party's failed ideology of the past.

Voter turnout was low, this is a fact... How do you come to that conclusion? Democrats voted for Trump? Doubt it. Maybe if you consider not showing up, a vote for Trump. Moderates who are not on a side, voted for Trump. You truly believe Obama voters, went for Trump this time? Come on dude... Your analysis of what occurred is overwhelmingly narrow minded. What stops citizens who don't normally vote from deciding to vote? What stops the youth who have low participation rates from realizing that voting is important? You're not making any sense man... You're describing a world where there are two groups of voters and there are only voters and non voters... That isn't reality.

Trump knows quite well that his actions are why his supporters are so loyal. He's annoying the Beltway crowd by actually sticking to his campaign promises. I'm not sure what you thought you were getting so I don't know what you think you've been lied to about. Since he's only been in office for six weeks, I don't know how you can even determine that you've been lied to yet. The negotiations with the Republicans in the congress will be just fine. His approval rating will increase as people see he has been keeping his campaign promises. Congress needs to get to work on the repeal and replace of Obamacare, and I'm sure they'll have that done before the early summer break. Then they'll tackle tax reform through the fall.

LMAO... The ACA repeal isn't going to happen... He just vomited out Ryan's plan during his speech last night which is unpopular among Republicans, not to mention Trump's supporters. Under that law, the health insurance plan for many Americans will effectively be "You Pay For It" with no actual insurance.

It sounds like you're letting the media's propaganda get to you. Don't believe their hype. They have been throwing everything that can dream up at Trump for almost a year now, and it all winds up being fictional trash with no merit.

Oh my god dude /eyeroll ... "Fictional Trash with No Merit." Be honest: you didn't actually do any research what so ever and you just hear him say "Fake News" and assume it is. What fictional trash with no merit are you referring to? Also, propaganda is a pretty strong word, what are you talking about? What propaganda are you referring to? I think you mean the word "Agenda" and you're going to have to have specific details here or I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.

Trump University was propaganda and it wasn't a massive scam? But he settled ... So ... Wait what?

Trump lies virtually every time he opens his mouth is propaganda? But we can double check that and see it's true ? So ...

The dossier was #FakeNews. Oh wait, more and more details emerge everyday confirming parts of it. "Completely fabricated" but it isn't, is it?

Head over to any of the #FakeNews media sites and find me a single story that's "Fictional Trash" that doesn't have the word "Opinion" next to it. Do it. I want to see this.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2017, 02:13:17 am »


You're right, normal voters go to CPAC. I'm wrong. No idea what I'm talking about. This isn't a clear case of sample bias.

No bias involved since they clearly were surveying a specific subset of the population. It's not hard to understand...they polled conservatives at CPAC to get a feel for the level of support Trump has among conservatives.

The poll results indicate there is a high level of support for Trump among conservatives. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote
No, it doesn't. It certainly indicates how attendees of CPAC feel towards Trump. Get over it. Facts are facts.

And as you just stated above, we know what kind of person attends CPAC, so we know what kind of support Trump has among that subset of the population. See, that wasn't so hard to follow.

Quote
Voter turnout was low, this is a fact... How do you come to that conclusion? Democrats voted for Trump? Doubt it. Maybe if you consider not showing up, a vote for Trump. Moderates who are not on a side, voted for Trump. You truly believe Obama voters, went for Trump this time? Come on dude... Your analysis of what occurred is overwhelmingly narrow minded. What stops citizens who don't normally vote from deciding to vote? What stops the youth who have low participation rates from realizing that voting is important? You're not making any sense man... You're describing a world where there are two groups of voters and there are only voters and non voters... That isn't reality.

Voter turnout was about 58-59% in 2016, which was a little higher than in 2012 and a little lower than in 2008. Trump won in counties that Romney and McCain had both lost in. An analysis of the election results demonstrate where those counties are, and just how large the swings were from 2012 to 2016:

President-elect Donald Trump’s surprising victory on Nov. 8 stemmed from massive surge in Republican voters throughout the Rust Belt.

A TIME analysis of county-level results show stunning shifts in Trump’s favor through the upper Midwest and Northeast, demonstrating the success of his trade and economic message in the nation’s heartland. Meanwhile former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of Trump’s weakness with traditional Republicans to make gains largely in urban coastal centers.

The one exception: the mountain states, where growing Hispanic populations and Mormon distaste for Trump provided some of the sharpest swings for the Democrats.

Of the 3,112 counties for which there is county-level data, 2,728 shifted toward the GOP, 383 shifted Democratic, and 1—Barrow County, Georgia—stayed exactly the same.

The counties where Clinton gained on Obama occurred in much larger counties, where a median of 75,554 people showed up to vote in 2016. The median for the 2,728 Republican-gaining counties is 9,905.


http://time.com/4587866/donald-trump-election-map/

Quote
LMAO... The ACA repeal isn't going to happen... He just vomited out Ryan's plan during his speech last night which is unpopular among Republicans, not to mention Trump's supporters. Under that law, the health insurance plan for many Americans will effectively be "You Pay For It" with no actual insurance.

Ryan's plan? Trump gave his outline for replacing Obamacare, and that included:

-Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions are guaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-care exchanges.
-Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax credits and expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well as flexibility about the design of their plans.
-Give states "the resources and flexibility" in their Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaid covers primarily poor people.
-Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "from unnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down the price of high-cost drugs.
-Creating a national insurance marketplace that allows insurers to sell health plans across state lines.


You have to remember, there may be 20 million vocal people who were given insurance due to the ACA, but there are over 100 million insured people who didn't want or need this huge government program that are the silent majority. Congress isn't catering to the 20 million, it knows where its bread is buttered.

Quote
Oh my god dude /eyeroll ... "Fictional Trash with No Merit." Be honest: you didn't actually do any research what so ever and you just hear him say "Fake News" and assume it is. What fictional trash with no merit are you referring to? Also, propaganda is a pretty strong word, what are you talking about? What propaganda are you referring to? I think you mean the word "Agenda" and you're going to have to have specific details here or I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.

Propaganda is the word I intended to use, it's not too strong at all. When a left-leaning news outlet publishes allegations that the Trump campaign was in collusion with Russian intelligence officials, gives nothing but the comments of an "anonymous source" claiming to have obtained leaked intelligence data as evidence, that's propaganda. When they try and use that propaganda as the basis for a CRIMINAL investigation into the president, that's the beginnings of a treasonous coup attempt.

We're fortunate the Congress isn't falling for any of these unfounded and salacious allegations, but can you imagine what kind of subversion could be taking place if the media's bedfellows, the Democrats, were in control of Congress?

The media has been waging a war against Trump since he won the nomination. They are shameless in their behavior. We all saw their reaction to Trump's win on election night, so we know they're upset about their girl losing. But they should at least try and APPEAR to be objective, even if they have no plans of actually being objective. They risk making themselves irrelevant as people seek alternative sources of information.

So my advice to you of "Don't believe the hype" in regards to their reporting on Trump, still stands.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2017, 06:27:35 pm »

This guy is gross. A total cartoon character
Logged


(Hidden)
Muted

« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2017, 07:14:13 pm »

And as you just stated above, we know what kind of person attends CPAC, so we know what kind of support Trump has among that subset of the population. See, that wasn't so hard to follow.

I'm not going to argue with you any more on this subject, there is already discrepancies in the data and it is not consistent with other national polling data. As I already stated, the numbers are easy to manipulate, but it's completely obvious that the population distribution at CPAC is not the same as the distribution of Donald's supporters across the country. Stop with the BS.

Voter turnout was about 58-59% in 2016, which was a little higher than in 2012 and a little lower than in 2008. Trump won in counties that Romney and McCain had both lost in. An analysis of the election results demonstrate where those counties are, and just how large the swings were from 2012 to 2016:

My bad, the story was updated and I didn't follow it. You are correct, voter turnout was not disproportionately low.

Ryan's plan? Trump gave his outline for replacing Obamacare, and that included:

-Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions are guaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-care exchanges.
-Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax credits and expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well as flexibility about the design of their plans.
-Give states "the resources and flexibility" in their Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaid covers primarily poor people.
-Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "from unnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down the price of high-cost drugs.
-Creating a national insurance marketplace that allows insurers to sell health plans across state lines.


You have to remember, there may be 20 million vocal people who were given insurance due to the ACA, but there are over 100 million insured people who didn't want or need this huge government program that are the silent majority. Congress isn't catering to the 20 million, it knows where its bread is buttered.

Trump was parroting Paul Ryan's plan, I've heard Ryan's plan a dozen times and I could not find any differences.

#1 Saying that people with preexisting conditions will have "access" to health care insinuates that they will lose their current coverage.
#2 That's what I currently and do I don't understand the difference. That plan just seems like they are creating an incentive to buy coverage off the exchange, which you should anyways, since it usually works out cheaper, unless you can't for whatever reason.
#3 Sounds great, but I'd like to read the exact plan on how they're going to do that so I can personally evaluate it.
#4 See #3

You are singing to the choir there but I also don't think it's a good idea to put 20 million Americans at risk. The reality is, under that plan, many of them will die because they can not afford insurance. You failed to mention eliminating the mandate for everyone to have insurance and if they get rid of that, costs will go up for the insured.

Propaganda is the word I intended to use, it's not too strong at all. When a left-leaning news outlet publishes allegations that the Trump campaign was in collusion with Russian intelligence officials, gives nothing but the comments of an "anonymous source" claiming to have obtained leaked intelligence data as evidence, that's propaganda. When they try and use that propaganda as the basis for a CRIMINAL investigation into the president, that's the beginnings of a treasonous coup attempt.

We're fortunate the Congress isn't falling for any of these unfounded and salacious allegations, but can you imagine what kind of subversion could be taking place if the media's bedfellows, the Democrats, were in control of Congress?

The media has been waging a war against Trump since he won the nomination. They are shameless in their behavior. We all saw their reaction to Trump's win on election night, so we know they're upset about their girl losing. But they should at least try and APPEAR to be objective, even if they have no plans of actually being objective. They risk making themselves irrelevant as people seek alternative sources of information.

So my advice to you of "Don't believe the hype" in regards to their reporting on Trump, still stands.

Responses By Paragraph:

#1 Except that we have confirmations of many of the details coming from multiple sources. The journalists are just doing their job, you should interpret their work and think critically about it. Any time an anonymous source is cited, I think "This is a rumor." It's certainly not propaganda.

This on the other hand is propaganda: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tens-of-people-rally-across-the-country-in-march-4-trump_us_58bafc38e4b0b9989417fdcd

Okay, so their march failed... So what? They didn't have this problem at the voting booth. It's obvious what they are trying to do.

And so is this:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/loretta-lynch-need-more-marching-blood-death-on-streets/

I realize you probably don't want to watch a video Loretta Lynch, but just try this: Click the link, watch the video, try to listen objectively, then read the headline and the article.

WND maliciously distorted her direct quote... That's a wicked contortion of her message in my opinion...

#2 It would be just like Benghazi, the Democrats would waste millions of dollars to investigate and they would find nothing concrete, just like they did with Hillary. There are some Republicans who feel that Trump has the ability to clear this up and he should. I agree with them, if the media is BS, then just clear it up and move on, but for whatever reason, Donald isn't. It's also apparent that there is an investigation going on, so I don't see what the purpose of congress investing it.

#3 I agree with your point but that isn't what is happening. The more they attack Trump, the better their ratings. Lets be realistic, we both know it's a business and they wouldn't be doing it, if it didn't make them money. Their role isn't to investigate the president, it's to provide infotainment.

#4 See above.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2017, 07:19:47 pm »

Such a wretched gay...a minority sell out, a hack, a fake...deserves every misery coming his way.
Logged
1x Thumb Down 1x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2017, 09:06:24 pm »

Quote
Edit: I can't wait for the responses to this, I'm just trying to figure out ahead of time, how this is Obama's fault.

See, I knew you weren't honest when you claimed to be a conservative in the other thread. 

I haven't heard anyone, even the most conspiracy theory minded, blame Obama for this.  Sounds like liberal paranoia.


Western morals aren't the morals of the world.   Not everywhere has the same high age of consent.  Usually though, girls tend to have the lowest age of consent compared to boys.

US soldiers got in trouble, under Obama, for complaining about the boy fucking pedo situation in Afghanistan.  Boys are for pleasure and women are for babies.

I Read this headline on DrudgeReport today : "Milo backlash latest fault line in conservative civil war..." And I didn't read it because it's a bullshit article. Who cares about that guys opinion?

You're sitting here telling me political alignment because you don't like what I have to say. Which is hysterical considering we have never met and I'm not impressed by your skills as an "Internet Psychic." You're wrong, not all conservatives support Trump or think that politics is about bashing liberals like you do. Actually, you make the majority of conservatives look bad when you do that.

That's what you're not getting here. Trump divided conservatives and it's pretty clear were not on the same side. It's very apparent that your version of conservatism is inconsistent with reality.

I'm not going to write another essay about my conservative values since it's obviously a waste of my time and I can't communicate with you.

Edit: To me, you're just a random person on the internet. You didn't believe me, I tried to explain, if you still don't believe me, whatever dude, I don't really care. Especially since I'm fairly confident that you don't actually get off your ass and do anything to contribute to the politics in this country besides rant online. Which, uh, that doesn't do anything ... And the reason I'm so confident, is because you would have met Marco Rubio / Paul Ryan supporters like myself sooner or later and realized "Wow, the Republican party is made up of different factions, not every single conservative is going to agree with me on every single issue."

So you know, I'm still upset by how the primary went and I am not happy with the current administration. That doesn't mean I'm a liberal dude ...

I just about threw my laptop out the window when Trump made his comments about Mccain...

The fact that I agree with liberals that our president is a fucking idiot, does not make me one...

I like you.. lol - i think people think i am some kind of Super Liberal cos i'm gay and do not agree with Trump on most things.. which is not the case
Logged



All the world is waiting for you and the power you possess
(Hidden)

« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2017, 09:55:58 pm »

More like they forced that hateful piece of scum for justifying pedofilia, I am so grateful that he Lost his aborrent book deal.
Logged


Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Request: BBFC Milo trashed and more Spanking esterlion 0 364 Last post October 18, 2015, 06:57:41 pm
by esterlion
Milo (TimTale) / Mason Avery (luciosaints ), where is this sexy Asian dude now? Asian Men yinjustin 2 693 Last post November 21, 2016, 05:52:15 pm
by ahchoo
Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser Politics & Debate rawr 8 583 Last post February 19, 2017, 04:56:12 am
by tensoroff2
Is Breitbart doomed? Politics & Debate Drwas 15 376 Last post June 12, 2017, 02:41:44 pm
by Frederick
After today.. Breitbart is alive and well.. Politics & Debate Frederick 2 86 Last post June 09, 2017, 07:10:45 am
by strangeloop