Don't listen to the liberal MSM: Trump crushed Hillary at the debates.

a reply to: imjack

All you're doing is proving that you're stating these things to fit your narrative. You have zero proof whatsoever that these polls showing Trump winning were altered in anyway.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

We can agree there, so let's drop the act that Hillary has a chance of being that person.

No act. I actively listened, have listened, even visited her website.

She's likely to be our next president regardless of what I think.

It'd be in anyone's best interest to know as much as they can.

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

People do KNOW OF IT.

Then show me proof that it happened.

I did. You ignored it.

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

People do KNOW OF IT.

Then show me proof that it happened.

I did. You ignored it.

The daily dot? Is that your "official" source?

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

Seriously? Seriously? It wasn't a 4chan link. It was a news article ABOUT 4chan being about as trustworthy as you can throw it. The article is ABOUT 4chan.

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

People do KNOW OF IT.

Then show me proof that it happened.

I did. You ignored it.

That's another Trumpism. Can't refute it? Can't bash it into nonexistence? Ignore it.

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

Seriously? Seriously? It wasn't a 4chan link. It was a news article ABOUT 4chan being about as trustworthy as you can throw it. The article is ABOUT 4chan.

Again, "The Daily Dot"? Thats your official source?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodydagger

The common everyday Joe who thinks internet polls represent reality? When Gustoff in Germany can vote ten times and Paulo in Rome can vote and Maria in Portugal and Gareth in London and Shlomo in Haifa Get my drift???

But thanks to the Democrats fighting voter ID, all of those people can vote in the real election to.

I hope someone has already come along and informed the OP that those are surveys, not polls. Most can be taken multiple times on-line so, not an accurate measure. LOL! You crazy internet, you!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodydagger

The common everyday Joe who thinks internet polls represent reality? When Gustoff in Germany can vote ten times and Paulo in Rome can vote and Maria in Portugal and Gareth in London and Shlomo in Haifa Get my drift???

But thanks to the Democrats fighting voter ID, all of those people can vote in the real election to.

And maybe ole Hillary can go look into graveyards for votes too.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

Seriously? Seriously? It wasn't a 4chan link. It was a news article ABOUT 4chan being about as trustworthy as you can throw it. The article is ABOUT 4chan.

Again, "The Daily Dot"? Thats your official source?

As far as covering internet news... yes, the Daily Dot is better than MSM at reporting internet related news. There are similar links from Fortune, Vox...

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

Seriously? Seriously? It wasn't a 4chan link. It was a news article ABOUT 4chan being about as trustworthy as you can throw it. The article is ABOUT 4chan.

Again, "The Daily Dot"? Thats your official source?

As far as covering internet news... yes, the Daily Dot is better than MSM at reporting internet related news. There are similar links from Fortune, Vox...

LOL, okie dokie.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Your point is moronic asking for proof when there are well defined mechanisms to double-vote. You don't need more proof than I have used an Internet Poll in the past and voted for something twice, it was easy.

Common protection measures are:
cookie: just clear browser cookies or start an anonymous session.
ip: connect from a different ip, by proxy or different internet provider.
timing: this is usually combined with ip or cookie. wait the time delay and you won't need to worry about the ip or cookie.
account: make multiple accounts, may need multiple emails. if you're lucky, you may be able to use gmail's plus addressing.
id number: get an id generator and be aware this is also ilegal

The analogy is similar to you proving you have a brain, without physically removing it. You obviously don't need such substantial proof of perpetrators when there are EASY instructions for ANYONE to cheat it.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: SKMDC1

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: imjack

We'd know of it by now. People cite things to fit their narrative. Its all there is to it.

We do know of it. I posted a link to an article about a bunch of computer nerds HACKING the online polls. You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

Yes, and I trust 4chans word about as far as I can throw it. That link is hardly evidence of anything. Show me something more official.

Seriously? Seriously? It wasn't a 4chan link. It was a news article ABOUT 4chan being about as trustworthy as you can throw it. The article is ABOUT 4chan.

Again, "The Daily Dot"? Thats your official source?

As far as covering internet news... yes, the Daily Dot is better than MSM at reporting internet related news. There are similar links from Fortune, Vox...

LOL, okie dokie.

Typical Trump apologist... head in sand sheeple.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Dont be a like a HIllary supporter and bury your head in the sand.

1. Nobody got crushed in that debate.

2. Online polls are a joke and typically used for generating income based on hits and nothing more.

3. Trump had a few good moments but his rambling destroyed him. He just didn't appear to be there last night in that debate. He turned what could have been Gold material to into dust like when Hillary was talking about Cyber Security. He should have been all over that , instead he let himself be distracted and then want to some rambling.


4. Hillary, only did good because Trump did bad, but that was enough for her to make it to round 2.

Hillary won because the only thing expected out of her in this debate was to show she was alive, and she could survive a long debate without her PD kicking in. Mission accomplished.

Trump lost because all he had to do was keep attacking her worthless 30 year record as a politician with nothing but scandals to show for it. He did a few times but then he put the trump to bed and brought out a rambling cousin. Then he let her AND the moderator , put him in the defense while she just laughed and smiled at his ramblings.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Having actually watched the debate i have to say Trump came across as a retarded buffoon.

He kept on going off at tangents, could not help himself repeating the same statement over and over again.

He ducked questions or refused to answer in any meaningful fashion, blamed others for Americas mistakes, made derogatory comments regrading Mexicans, black people and the Chinese.

Generally he done exactly what i imagined he would do, spectacularly so. LoL

I don't have any time for any of the candidates but Trump just showed he does not have a clue.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Your point is moronic asking for proof when there are well defined mechanisms to double-vote. You don't need more proof than I have used an Internet Poll in the past and voted for something twice, it was easy.

Common protection measures are:
cookie: just clear browser cookies or start an anonymous session.
ip: connect from a different ip, by proxy or different internet provider.
timing: this is usually combined with ip or cookie. wait the time delay and you won't need to worry about the ip or cookie.
account: make multiple accounts, may need multiple emails. if you're lucky, you may be able to use gmail's plus addressing.
id number: get an id generator and be aware this is also ilegal

The analogy is similar to you proving you have a brain, without physically removing it....

In bloodydagger's case it seems brain removal has already happened, so that's a dead end.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodydagger

The common everyday Joe who thinks internet polls represent reality? When Gustoff in Germany can vote ten times and Paulo in Rome can vote and Maria in Portugal and Gareth in London and Shlomo in Haifa Get my drift???

But thanks to the Democrats fighting voter ID, all of those people can vote in the real election to.

And maybe ole Hillary can go look into graveyards for votes too.

You don't think the Republicans can be guilty of voter fraud? Check it out.....

addictinginfo.org...

And guess who owns most of the voting machines....

truedemocracyparty.net...

To argue a position it's best to not let your ideology get in the way of your common sense. imo of course....

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I hope someone has already come along and informed the OP that those are surveys, not polls. Most can be taken multiple times on-line so, not an accurate measure. LOL! You crazy internet, you!

People reach all the time when it comes to Trump. They try to find anything and everything wrong in what he does and says etc. So if Trump is actually winning, there is something wrong with the whole process. People in America are retarded for voting for him, etc. People just find it impossible that Trump can win anything in this election. There is always a fault when Trump wins.

It honestly falls into the whole "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" category when it comes to Trump naysayers.

Truth be told, a lot of you have been brainwashed by the MSM to believe all of this crap regarding Trump and meanwhile, forget about the atrocities that Hillary has committed.

So to me, when it comes down between the two, I can't stand for what Hillary has DONE, however, all Trump has done are "words" and i'm hardly effected by "words", its actions that effect me and Hillary has had a ton of bad actions that have had negative impacts on peoples lives. But I guess most millennials these days get their feelings hurt over words easily and need a safe place with their participation ribbon collection. So its not surprising that Trumps words Trump (no pun intended) Hillary's evil actions more to some people.