Nov. 8, 2016 – the day Christians put their foot down
In a new book, pollster George Barna with the American Culture & Faith Institute says Trump's unexpected victory had a lot to do with spiritually and politically engaged conservatives. Two groups – more than any others – had a profound effect on the 2016 elections, he says in his book The Day Christians Changed America. Barna Table 9-6-2017There were the SAGECons*, as he calls them, which make up only 10 percent of American voters, but had an astounding 91 percent turnout at the polls with almost all of them (93%) voting for Trump. Then there were "notional" Christians – 43 percent of the electorate – which usually vote Democrat, but this time went for Trump (49%-47%). "When you put those two groups together, they not only represent a majority of the voters, but they went in very significant fashion for Donald Trump – and that's what put him over," he tells OneNewsNow. Barna Barna admits the brash New Yorker was an odd candidate for the faith crowd. But when the other favorites of that crowd – e.g., Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee – dropped out of the primaries, believers were left with a stark choice between the two major party candidates. One who said this about making abortion common: Clinton: "Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed." And the other who said this about making it rare: Trump: "If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother .... Now Hillary can say that that's okay, but it's not okay with me." While the election was more than just about abortion, those were two key moments, according to Barna, that swung the 2016 election. But for history to repeat itself in 2020, he says conservatives have to engage now – because Democrats sure are. "They're putting their foundations into place now. They're hiring people to do that now. They're raising money to do that now," he points out. "You can never just sit back and watch the battle and say I'll arm myself and get back in the battle in a couple of years." Regardless how the next presidential election turns out, Barna says the 2016 run was unlike anything he had experienced in four decades of polling. "It was a wild ride that ended with a miracle outcome," he states – and faith, he adds, "played a significant role in the campaign and the outcome." https://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2017/09/07/nov-8-2016-the-day-christians-put-their-foot-down-barna
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
So, Christians voted for a serial adulterer, proven liar, fraud, and admitted voyeur when naked teen girls are around?
Not really something to be proud of.
Jesus wept.
Not much choice in '16. I voted for him because he wasn't Hillary. Who needs to relive the Clinton's drama again? Now we have fresh drama instead of stale drama.
I was actually ready to vote dem for the first time had Jim Webb got the nomination. He gives both sides heartburn.
IMO, not being Hillary doesn't nearly make up for what he is. And I believe that using Christianity to validate choosing such an obviously immoral person, who has broken nearly all of the Ten Commandments that some Christians want to plaster everywhere, to be the worst sort of hypocrisy. It's ok if you lie and say you're a Christian, I guess.
IMO it does!
Then you have chosen a serial adulterer, liar, thief, and fraud in the name of Christianity.
Well done.
And you would have chosen a liar and grifter. You would have put serial rapist Bill back in the white house.
Trump lied much more than Hillary, and I have seen very little evidence that she's a grifter, while we know that he is.
I have also seen very little evidence that Bill Clinton is or was a rapist, and he wasn't running for office.
You put a soft porn star who broke immigration laws in the White House, in the name of Christianity.
Well done.
Trump lied much more than Hillary,
I don't like pols who lie. That's why we had two bad choices. So I picked the one that wasn't Hillary.
And you would have chosen a liar and grifter. You would have put serial rapist Bill back in the white house.
- - -
Grifter = A grifter is someone who swindles you through deception or fraud.
Synonyms include fraudster, con artist, cheater, confidence man, scammer, hustler, swindler, etc.
Donald Trump has made a career and his fortune by swindling people. A great deal of evidence and proof exists to verify that. Even the book he claims he wrote, "The Art of The Deal" was NOT written by him. He takes credit for it, but it was actually written by Tony Schwartz.
FACT: Hillary Clinton has been accused and investigated for many things, but she has never been found guilty of any illegal act, including grifting. Labeling her a "grifter" is simply a lie.
Lies = bearing false witness, or making accusations without evidence or proof.
Donald Trump has been proven to be a LIAR at least 70% of the time during the campaign and even more since he was elected.
Bill Clinton was NOT running for president.
FACT: Bill Clinton may have been accused of rape, but he has never been convicted of being a rapist. So, labeling him a "serial rapist" is simply a lie.
- - -
9th Commandment = Thou Shalt NOT Lie.
- - -
Mahatma Gandhi — 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'
- - -
2 Timothy 3:1-17 ESV
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ...
- - -
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
You did a good job of describing Hillary.
I wanted Kasich or Webb. Instead the parties ran the two worst candidates on the planet. I chose the one that wasn't Hillary. I didn't want her appointing judges.
Since you liked it so much I shall repeat it here for you:
FACT: Hillary Clinton has been accused and investigated for many things, but she has never been found guilty of any illegal act, including grifting. Labeling her a "grifter" is simply a lie.
Lies = bearing false witness, or making accusations without evidence or proof.
If she were so great a candidate why did Obama beat her?
Apparently YOU missed the point about this article. It is NOT about Obama at all. LET's NOT DERAIL this article okay?
Let's get BACK ON TOPIC which is...
"Nov. 8, 2016 - The Day Christians Put Their Foot Down"
Or better yet, the day that FAKE Christians finally admitted to the world that they voted for a man who has broken at least eight of The Ten Commandments, and thus they have abandoned Jesus Christ and decided to obey their Donald Christ.
I know you're thinking... "What! Donald Christ broke 8 of 10 Commandments? How so?"
The Ten Commandments
There you go. Back On Topic. Try not to stray off or derail with your next comment. Okay?
Talk about off topic! It seems to me you just want to rant about how evil Trump and Christians are.
We were on topic. Why people voted for Trump on Nov. 8, 2016 the day Christians put their foot down.
I know what your next post will be!
No you don't. (And --- No you weren't.)
BTW, "rant" is defined as "to speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way." I've done none of that, so you are wrong again.
But, if you are looking for a rant - you should try Rantt.com as that is where you will find something you might learn from.
Back to the topic now,
Trump is what Fake Christians voted for on Nov. 8, 2016. Since that day when they 'put their foot down' (in that stuff pictured above) they've put their foot in their mouth with articles and books like the one this article is about.
Back 'ON TOPIC', now it's your turn.
"...you should try Rantt.com..."
Advertising is not allowed here...
1. I did NOT advertise
2. I have no affiliation with Rantt.com, just found it when looking up the definition to "rant" in order to reply to that other person.
3. I looked in the CoC and DID NOT find anything listed for "advertising". So, if you claim it, then please PROVE it.
So easy...
So easy...
Feeling guilty yet? I'm not.
So silly!
My mentioning Rantt.com is NOT advertising in any way shape or form.
I am NOT affiliated with Rantt.com
I make no money from Rantt.com
Rantt.com is no different than any of the sites which are used to seed these articles from, such as the one this article was seeded from, which is:
There is NO difference whatsoever. UNLESS, the seeder of this article does get some form of remuneration from the site he seeded this article from, which I do NOT get from Rantt.com
That was easier! But thanks for the link to the TOS.
Now, seriously people, lets all get back ON TOPIC and admit that the so-called Christians who voted for and support Donald Trump really are a bunch of hypocrites.
I am not interested in your website. Please unsubscribe me.
So easy...
Damn, I haven't looked at that thing in awhile. It's starting to look like the IRS manual.
So, if you claim it, then please PROVE it.
That's true! It's great advice. Thank you
(in that stuff pictured above)
Refers to the stuff above his head, but the picture is actually below my comment.
I did!
It was another rant.
When you want to discuss a topic without the flames feel free to talk to me again.
So addressing Trump's complete lack of Christian attributes in a discussion on an article about Christians voting for Trump is off-topic.
Ok.
So addressing Trump's complete lack of Christian attributes in a discussion on an article about Christians voting for Trump is off-topic.
If it isn't just a flame throwing rant then it is on topic.
I have seen you participate in a discussion without the flames. I like those discussions.
It might have been a rant, but it was accurate, and on-topic.
Trump is no Christian, and even if he were, he is a lousy one.
Anyone who voted for him thinking he was a good Christian, interested in advancing morality and goodness, was either fooled by him, or, more likely, willfully fooled themselves.
He is immoral. Perhaps even amoral. He pretends to care about morality and religion, but his pretense is transparent to the point of being laughable. Listening to people support him as a Christian candidate is like listening to folks tell us how great a person Jim Bakker was, you know, aside from the adultery, and the fraud, and the grifting. But with Jim Bakker, duped grandmas sent him their own money and mostly hurt only themselves, and with Trump in office, we all get hurt.
It might have been a rant, but it was accurate, and on-topic.
Trump is no Christian, and even if he were, he is a lousy one.
To you it might have been accurate. The measure of that is easily tainted by political bias.
I shared with you what got people to vote for Trump. They didn't vote for him because of his religion. Neither candidate is a pillar of virtue. The Christian right voted against Hillary.
That was a silly comment.
Yes! Your comment was "silly" and OFF TOPIC too. Please try to stay ON TOPIC.
No, no. I meant your comment was silly. Which word did you not understand?
I understood every word perfectly.
I also saw that YOUR comment about the "silly" comment immediately followed YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT so obviously YOU were saying YOUR COMMENT WAS SILLY.
What part of that did YOU not undertsand?
After all, YOU wrote it, and it (YOUR COMMENT) was silly.
Now, back on topic please.
(Note to the author: It is not me who is trying to derail your article, but these other silly people with their silly comments. My comments are ON TOPIC and trying very hard to get others to stay ON YOUR TOPIC or get back ON to YOUR TOPIC.)
So is this :
"...you should try Rantt.com..."
Advertising is not allowed here...
silly, that is.
"silly, that is."
Fighting spam is never silly.
"silly, that is."
Fighting spam is never silly.
C'mon, Squirrel's referencing a website was neither advertising or spam, please !
whooooosh!
"whooooosh!"
Lol!
Okay, what about your comment went over my head ?
It was a joke, Pat. I don't actually think she was advertising.
Okay, I didn't know you were joking.
No problem. It was a mystery to others as well...
She wasn't a great candidate.
She was a better candidate than Trump, though. Even by real Christian standards.
For every sin of which Hillary has been accused (with those accusations largely unproven), Trump has generally committed that same sin, to a larger degree. Publicly, and sometimes proudly. But there will always be some who choose to believe the unproven accusations, because it suits their hatred. Frankly, when they do so, I find that to be the worst sort of hypocrisy. And I'm fairly sure Jesus had a pretty big problem with hypocrisy.
The electorate disagreed.
The electorate disagreed.
Sorry, but YOU ARE WRONG. (Again.)
The "electorate" is defined as "all the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election"
The "electorate" voted overwhelmingly for HRC, by about THREE MILLION VOTES.
HRC won the Popular Vote, by almost 3 million votes over Trump, which was/is the vote of the "electorate".
Trump only won the "Electoral College" vote, and that is not the "electorate".
(What a silly comment you made. Almost everyone knows the difference between the "electorate" and the Electoral College. So silly!)
I refer you to the constitution. It's silly to pretend that the popular vote has any meaning. Sooooo silly.
The popular vote only means something within the state (outside of Maine and Nebraska, where it mainly reflects on the districts that have an Electoral vote). Outside of individual states, the popular vote means nothing except as an argument for and against the Electoral College.
Squirrel, in the case of the Electoral College, the Electors ARE the Electorate. They promise the party that chooses them that they will vote for their candidate should that candidate win the state those Electors are from. Most are not even required to honor that promise when they sit down to cast their votes after the General Election. Also, each party in each state chooses their own electors so you will not get the same Electors if a Democrat wins the state as you would if a Republican wins the state.
And, please note that Hillary only got the 3 million excess popular votes because of winning California. I went through using CNN's numbers for the results and proved that is the only reason Hillary won the popular vote. Take away her biggest and smallest Electoral State (in terms of actual Electoral votes) victories and Trump's biggest and smallest victories and Trump wins the popular vote. Just take away California and Hillary loses by the same amount that she won the popular vote by. Now, do you want the country run by California, since that is the key state to Hillary's popular vote totals?
The electorate disagreed.
The electoral college disagreed. The electorate did not.
To get the electoral college vote the electorate had to vote. Both candidates campaigned for the EC vote. Trump did a better job for the reasons I gave you on the other post.
True. Plus, given the amount of electoral votes in each region, it is definitely possible to win the popular vote and still lose in the electoral college. You really just have to win certain key states to win the election.
The electorate voted. Her greater number of votes were not distributed so as to allow an electoral college win. I'd say that's more a problem with the electoral college than the candidate.
Actually the EC worked as it should. The president represents all of the country not just CA and NY.
The electorate voted. Her greater number of votes were not distributed so as to allow an electoral college win. I'd say that's more a problem with the electoral college than the candidate.
I'd say anyone who thinks the electorate should determine the election of the President of the United States either doesn't understand the purpose of the Electoral College in our country or want a pure Democracy ruled by the mob.
There were more votes cast in California than the entire votes for both sides in 41 states. That only leaves 9 states or 16 in Obama's case to vote and there weren't enough votes in those 9 states to elect the President of the United States.
The idea is the President of the United States is to represent all of this country, not just the people in a couple states.
When you're voting for you governor you can use the electorate because he/she is only representing your state, not all the states.
I'd say anyone who thinks the electorate should determine the election of the President of the United States either doesn't understand the purpose of the Electoral College in our country or want a pure Democracy ruled by the mob.
There were more votes cast in California than the entire votes for both sides in 41 states. That only leaves 9 states or 16 in Obama's case to vote and there weren't enough votes in those 9 states to elect the President of the United States.
The idea is the President of the United States is to represent all of this country, not just the people in a couple states.
When you're voting for you governor you can use the electorate because he/she is only representing your state, not all the states.
There is a fatal flaw in your logic. It is quite obvious although not many people with your viewpoint see it.
When you have a national popular vote election people don't vote as citizens of a particular state, by definition a national popular vote election refers to citizens of the NATION. It doesn't matter, at all, what states they come from , what state they come from is immaterial.
So "California" isnt exercising undue influence in a national popular vote election. The concept does not exist. You are so worried about California. What about the red states that Trump won? Why arent you worried about their undue influence. He won Florida , Georgia and Alabama, contiguous states with almost as many people as California has. Let's worry about their undue influence for a change OK? It makes as much sense as what you are saying.
@Sandy: That's not exactly accurate. The votes were distributed appropriately. The flaw in the system is that if you win a state, you win all the electoral votes for said state. I believe only Maine and Nebraska handle tings differently. If they simply counted electoral votes without the winner takes all rule for the other 48 states, it would be a more accurate depiction of the people's will, and the popular vote would be a bit closer to the final results. It also would clear up a lot of confusion regarding popular votes and their efficacy.
See my reply to Squirrel. The Electors for the Electoral College are the members of the Electorate regarding the Presidency. They are the ones that determine the actual President. They "promise" to vote for the party's candidate, but the majority are not required to keep that promise. The analysis of the popular vote is a good theoretical discussion, unless you focus on each individual state or the districts in Maine and Nebraska. The analysis of the entire popular vote is meaningless as it does not determine the Presidency in any way. It is the Electoral College vote that matters and those Electors are chosen by their respective Parties long before the General Election and they only go to the Electoral College if the candidate they promised to vote for wins their state's (or district's) popular vote.
Generally speaking, voting for political candidates based on their alleged religious views is a terrible practice. It kind of goes against the whole separation of church and state to make decisions in such a fashion.
Well said Peter.
Since pols do and say whatever it takes to get elected I cross religion off the list.
Generally speaking, voting for political candidates based on their alleged religious views is a terrible practice. It kind of goes against the whole separation of church and state to make decisions in such a fashion.
That is an EXCELLENT point.
Voting FOR a candidate based on religious beliefs is very much like attempting to establish a THEOCRACY.
Is that what The (so called) Christians attempted to do on November 8, 2016, to establish an American Theocracy?
"Voting FOR a candidate based on religious beliefs is very much like attempting to establish a THEOCRACY."
Not even close. Voting for any candidate based on their belief set is in no sane way advocating for a theocracy. Silly.
Generally speaking, voting for political candidates based on their alleged religious views is a terrible practice. It kind of goes against the whole separation of church and state to make decisions in such a fashion.
I agree. Neither of these candidates nor the last President were very religious, Christians or otherwise.
People didn't vote from the pulpit for the most part, they voted against the other candidate.
She wasn't a great candidate. She lost for the same reason she lost to Obama. She was more of the same when the electorate wanted change. McCain lost for the same reason. Now we come to '16 and the electorate still wants change. Hillary is still the same old Hillary with the same old baggage that was rejected in '08. She couldn't attract the Obama voter and lost.
Trump is no choir boy for sure. I didn't even like "The Apprentice". He had a couple of things going. When he gave a list of judges he would appoint he sealed the deal with me. When he came out pro life he got those senior citizen voters who stayed home against Romney back. They didn't come back for Trump as much as in opposition to Hillary.
Her position on coal and manufacturing cost her. Take the unions for granted and the rank and file will make you pay. That cost her three states.
Now she is going on the blame game tour for her book. The dems cringe and the reps laugh. Failed candidates are much better off if they fade into obscurity. A place her ego won't allow her to even visit.
Her position on coal and manufacturing cost her. Take the unions for granted and the rank and file will make you pay.
Her position on coal is the realistic one. And Trump's no friend to labor. He just played one on TV.
Her position on coal is the realistic one. And Trump's no friend to labor. He just played one on TV.
To you it is. To the coal miners it isn't To the laborer it isn't either.
To you it is. To the coal miners it isn't To the laborer it isn't either.
Are the coal miners going to make more coal? Not mine more, make more once the coal is gone? Are they going to raise the price of natural gas to make coal competitive again?
If they can't do that, then their view isn't realistic. Wishful thinking doesn't make reality.
Same with Trump and labor.
If they can't do that, then their view isn't realistic. Wishful thinking doesn't make reality.
They like most Americans must put food on the table today. Waiting for something else to come along is not an option. That is where she lost the working man. She sided with the greenies instead of them.
Many of them aren't putting food on the table now, but Hillary had a plan to remedy that. Too bad nobody wants to listen past sound bites.
Like most people, they and their children and grandchildren will have to sleep in the bed we're making for ourselves. The "greenies", as you call them (who's flame-throwing?) are trying to keep that world around for a while.
The "greenies", as you call them (who's flame-throwing?) are trying to keep that world around for a while.
Good call. I'll refer to them as "persons who oppose carbon based fuel use" instead. If you have a better term I am willing to use that.
Keeping the environment clean and healthy is a good thing. It does require an understanding of transitions.
Homes heated with coal are so rare they are nonexistent. That transition to cleaner fuel took about 60 years. The transition to clean energy sources won't take as long. My wife and I are currently exploring solar panels on our home. The cost has dropped so much they are becoming a viable choice.
That doesn't put food on a coal miner's table though. Had she sold the change as a slow transition she could nave kept the coal miners voting block and the "persons who oppose carbon based fuel use" as well.
Had she sold the change as a slow transition she could nave kept the coal miners voting block and the "persons who oppose carbon based fuel use" as well.
I doubt that. Too many people don't want to read a plan, nor listen to a speech long enough to detail one. They hear sound bites. They heard "we're going to be busy shutting down coal mines", but didn't want to listen past that to hear what we'd be doing to mitigate the economic damage of that.
Same as they heard Trump say "we're gonna bring back coal", but didn't care to hear whether he actually had a plan to do so, or whether it was even possible.
Some are still of that mindset.
They hear sound bites.
That's for sure! The last thing people want is to research a candidate.
Yeah, not conveying a plan in a way that the working man/woman can believe in was a failure on Hilary's part. She should have laid out a plan to replace coal mines with renewable energy industry in the area instead. I'm sure coal miner's, for example, could be provided free training and solar/wind companies incentives to move into that area. Then, instead of continuing with coal, the miners and ancillary occupations in the area could move into something more rewarding and far more sustainable (and far less dangerous as well).
But, she didn't articulate her plan well IMO.
I don't think Trump's next Dem opponent will make that same mistake.
I'm sure coal miner's, for example, could be provided free training and solar/wind companies incentives to move into that area.
WV already has several wind farms, and plenty of space for more.
I agree that she didn't articulate that plan well, but I'm not sure she would have been given a chance. Too many people are convinced she is a liar, grifter, and wife of a serial rapist, so they voted for a worse liar, grifter, and committer of sexual assaults instead. What she says or does means very little, when they're only willing to believe the worst.
You may be right, but she certainly didn't give herself the chance to find out.
When he (Trump) came out pro life he got ....
You should watch this YouTube Video:
(Sorry if it appears as if I am 'advertsing' YouTube, but I am not.)
Trump lied.
Because in the video Trump says:
"I'm Very Pro Choice"
I wish that video wasn't from 1999. People definitely change or have their opinions changed over time.
Some people have their opinions change.
And others just lie to say whatever they think will suit their base the best.
This is true. That is why you would ideally find these types of statements made more recently, if trying to use them as an clear example of lying.
Personally, I despise Trump, but my own opinions change over time, so I see no reason why his don't either. From what I can tell, his opinions change from day to day lol. Do I believe anything he says? 95% of the time I don't. But, using 18 year old video isn't perhaps the best way to make a case.
But ask yourself this: Is Hillary Clinton as capable of changing her mind or political point of view as is Donald Trump? If so, then why do they constantly refer back to her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama? If neither can change their political views then Trump clearly lied. True? The only question is, did he lie in 1999 or in 2016? Is he lying now?
If so, then why do they constantly refer back to her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama?
I refer to it constantly because a lot of dems don't know why she lost. After excerpts from her latest book I don't think Hillary knows why she lost.
Why did she lose to Obama? She lost to him for the same reason McCain and Romney did.
Under those circumstances, "they" would also be better suited remembering that people change as do their thoughts on various topics, over time. It's all the same from one side to the other IMO. Both cherry pick whatever suits an argument with no seeming perspective on how people can and do change, consistently throughout their lives. It doesn't mean they change everything, but change is inevitable, and we have to allow for this.
"And others just lie to say whatever they think will suit their base the best."
Like with Obama and gay marriage? I agree.
Someone doesn't like the pictures?
They're not pleasing to the eye for sure.
Actually, I also said it was a grey area and technically was part of CoC rule 7. You might also note that I didn't remove it. However, I did note that it would be subjective interpretation, and Perrie determined that it wasn't appropriate.
... and Perrie is free to flip and flop like a fish out of water, as she demonstrates regularly.
I would say she looked at the new evidence presented and made an informed decision.
She has a clear history of leaving up certain imagery that some found offensive, and removing others that other people found offensive. She plays favorites. The notion that moderation is evenly applied on NT is laughable.
Hal,
I have found that leaving up offensive images has not been beneficial to the site. This is not personal to you or anyone else. I have also removed some of the emoticons when they have been meant to inflame.
But I should say this. Your image alone, would have been fine. I had seen it earlier in the morning and it didn't even occur to me to remove it. But then there was a second and then 2 more and suddenly it was just disgusting. I am sorry you got caught in the crossfire, but I couldn't see how I could leave up yours and take down the others.
She plays favorites. The notion that moderation is evenly applied on NT is laughable.
You know Hal, I find this kind of funny or sad.. depending on how I look at it. Everyday I get the same claims from conservatives of playing favorites with the liberals. It seems that I play favorites with everyone, or no one. Or maybe I am trying my best to be fair with everyone.
Btw, it is my very last intention to drive you from the site. Hence why I am taking the time to write you about this issue.
Cool. So pictures or memes without any additional comments are ok? Just checking...
So the same people that believe in a sky fairy also believed in trump.
Not surprising one bit.
What this tell us is that these "christians" really have no moral foundation whatsoever. But we've known that for generations....centuries, in fact.
Hillary didn't lose because Christians showed up. She lost because Obama voters didn't.
I have served as an election judge since '08. I could tell she was going to lose after the first hour of voting if what I saw was a national trend. It was!
This is true. I witnessed it when I voted.
What I also witnessed was that most people actually just chose the easy, "let the ballot be filled out automatically based on party rather than choose anything individually" method of voting. I saw at least 30 or 40 people come and go while I chewed on whether I should vote for Johnson or Hilary. There were a few other tough choices as well that had me pondering. That said, it still only took me like 5 or 6 minutes to vote, and that many people managed to run through during that short span.
I was amazed at the huge number of young people especially young minority first time voters in '08 and especially in '12. There was one in '16.
"it still only took me like 5 or 6 minutes to vote"
LOL it took me 6 hours.
But I research all the candidates for all the offices and I vote for whom I believe is most qualified for each job.
You stood at the voting booth for 6 hours?
As far as choosing, I knew who was who. There were just a couple that I couldn't decide on for more than one reason. So, I had a little indecision under those circumstances. When you are independent, your choices aren't always cut and dry like they typically are for Pubs and Dems.
They definitely put their foot somewhere.
OK, apparently I have to take away the crayons from some of the kids who don't know how to play nice with them. I have removed all the obnoxious images. No one wants to see that much poop on an adult discussion. So, if I see that again, the next person will get a 2 day vacation. Clear?
Either behave like adults or find another forum where you can behave like children.
THIS IS OFF TOPIC BUT IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE R.A.'s ACTION:
I would like to say this much.
I posted 2 of those pictures in response to a sanctimonious comment that accused "progressives" of being "primates". And strongly implied that conservatives were more highly evolved than that.
My point was that conservatives where no more highly evolved or above creating and posting poop memes than were anyone else.
Yet. now that sanctimonious post has been turned into an article which the R.A. is now praising.
I am sorry to point this out, but the R.A. is being MANIPULATED and used to support conservatives against progressives and all others (like me an independent), when such is quite the opposite.
As I said in two of my posts above "You reap what you sow." The conservatives created memes like the original two posted. I posted 2 conservative memes to prove it. I proved it. Yet the non-conservatives are being scolded, and the conservatives are getting away with their 'holier than thou' bullshit.
Okay, ban me or do whatever, because every single time I have tried to follow the rules here I have been rebuked.
If you have "rules" then the "rules" should be applied fairly to all. I am sorry, but in my short experience here I have seen this to NOT be the case. Conservatives are given far more latitude and allowed more leniency with the so called "rules" than anyone else here. That is nothing but my completely objective viewpoint.
Okay, BAN me now if that's what you want to do.
Here we go with the censorship bullshit again. You are wrecking your forum. Congrats.
Here's a picture for you, Perrie.