Strike

You might have a point if you consistently only posted 538 or other aggregators. But you don't. You consistently cherry pick polls and ignore the ones like the one I posted earlier that don't fit your narrative. I'm like @supermike80. I think polls are sh*t. I only post them to show what a hypocritical, biased POS you are. HTH.

You focking liar. I actually had to call you out when you posted a single poll, and *I* posted the link to 538 showing that, in fact, the aggregate showed the OPPOSITE of what you posted. And your response: "538 will CATCH UP EVENTUALLY." Now suddenly you believe 538????? GTFOH. As Jerry likes to say, you're not a serious poster.

Polling data @The Real timschochet won't post in this thread: https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

ROFLMAO. I know nothing about this guy but this is awesome. Watch him destroy a couple of FBI Agents who showed up to harass him:

This Op-Ed pretty much sums up my stance on this issue, with receipts: https://nypost.com/2024/09/15/opinion/shrinking-island-vanishing-polar-bears-the-climate-scare-stories-that-turn-out-to-be-false/

Your problem is that you ONLY link to polls that support Kamalatoe. It's like you're oblivious to the fact that there are other polls saying the exact opposite to the ones you cite. Add on to that the FACT that the polls underestimated Trump in BOTH previous presidential elections he took part in. Your position is weak given the minimal lead Kamalatoe has even in the polls you DO cite. Someone using critical thinking skills, taking in to account all the data, wouldn't take the stance you're taking. They'd be much more measured in their stance as I am in mine. But hey, you've got that great women's intuition so you should go with that.

No. Support your reasoning with data and links.

So...........your intuition. Got it.

Based on what? Your intuition?

Of course I do. The problem with us having all these relatively absolute rights is that having them requires us to act responsibly with them. I try to do that but many, especially in this day and age, do not. But it's constitutionally protected speech and those cops just wasted a lot of time and money for the sole purpose of harassing a citizen availing himself of a constitutionally protected right. Now your turn. Do you have a problem with Feds showing up on someone's doorstep to harass them for doing something they know is legal and constitutionally protected?

How do we know that's even him? But even if it is, so? What he said is clearly legal. They won't be arresting him. As he noted, they wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money "investigating" something they knew was not illegal. That's simple harassment.

Only with an assault weapon. Nothing else is capable.

Used to have to do this annually. Company I worked for did layoffs just prior to giving bonuses. So every year they gave me a list and the time they were meeting with the soon to be ex employee so I could disable network access during their meeting. Sucked.

Rachel Vindman begs to differ with you.

Nope. Same applies to every story. I know you think you have some gotcha, but you don't. You really need to get over that need. You look stupid every time you try to pull it, and that is with me as well as the 20 other people you're always trying to pull gotcha's on around here.

Assassin interviewed by Newsweek, talking about being "unselfish and caring." Then he goes and tries to assassinate our former and future President:

Tree, meet Tim.

Lib of Tik Tok is a private account on SM. Anyone relying on them for accurate information is an idiot. I have NEVER looked at any of their posts, except the ones here embedded in to a post on this site, and I never will. Apparently you do read their posts which explains your ignorance on this topic. I read multiple articles about issues I care about and use critical thinking skills to form an opinion. I read multiple articles about this YESTERDAY that included the FACT that the agent was the only one who fired shots. Which makes sense since, as I noted above, the agent was working AHEAD of Trump so there would be no reason for the wannabe assassin to have shot up to that point. As soon as he shoots his opportunity to take out Trump is wasted and Trump wasn't there yet.

ROFLMAO so you're admitting your ignorance and your libs of tik tok post was, as I said, just a deflection.

Hackboy deflecting from his own ignorance again. .

The question that needs to be answered is HOW this guy knew Trump's schedule.

This was known. The agent who shot was working a hole ahead of Trump and saw the barrel peaking through the bushes and opened fire. Why would the assassin have opened fire before his target was in view?

We should restrict the right of anyone who votes Democrat or attends a Taylor Swift concert from owning a gun. They clearly aren't responsible enough to do so. Even when comitting "insurrection" conservatives respect the 2nd amendment enough to do it with sticks instead of guns.

Libs showing their true colors in here.

AFTER this assassination attempt Hakeem Jefferies tweeted about "Extreme MAGA Republicans" and that "We must stop them.". This is your party, libs.