I'm guessing you are not from the South are you.
LOL, what's that got to do with it?
I posted my position a long time ago but I used words, those things you are incapable of understanding.
I don't make it around as much as I used to, so I may have missed it. Who are you supporting? Right now I'm leaning towards Sanders, and if I had to pick a Republican for my own tastes it would be Kasich, hands down. Who you got?
Poll: Nearly 4 in 10 Trump SC supporters wish South won Civil War
A new poll shows 38 percent of Donald Trump's supporters in South Carolina wish the South had won the Civil War.
Another 38 percent say they aren't sure, while just 24 percent say they are glad the Union won, the poll by Public Policy Polling released Tuesday finds.
Seventy percent of Trump backers also believe that the Confederate battle flag should still be flying over their state Capitol.
Lawmakers voted to take down the flag last summer following a mass shooting of parishioners at a black church in Charleston.
The poll also shows Trump's strong rhetoric on Islam resonating with his South Carolina supporters.
Eighty percent say they support his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country. Less than half — 44 percent — think that practicing Islam should even be allowed in the United States, while a third say it should be illegal.
Furthermore, 40 percent say they support shutting down all mosques in the country, compared to 36 percent who oppose the idea. Sixty-two percent want to create a national database of Muslim citizens.
The poll also showed that Trump has a 17-point lead in the state over his nearest GOP rivals, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who are tied at 18 percent.
________________________________________________________________________
The blog opinion piece from “The Hill” should be called “The Race Card Poll”
1.) The Hill writer is a left-wing activist.
2.) The poll was taken by a far-left political activist organization.
3.) The poll was published in the opinion pages of a newspaper although the Poll’s back pages, poll methodology and demographic data for those polled are conveniently missing.
4.) The actual questions asked were not disclosed.
5.) The “analysis” in the above post is either the opinion of the poster or some other liberal blogger based on some other blogger’s opinion from some left-wing political organization.
“Trump’s strong rhetoric”?
“Trumps proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country”?
That of course leaves out what Trump actually said in the same sentence: “until our government can get its act together” meaning the Obama administrations inability to vet the “refugees” coming from the Middle East. That fact has been affirmed by The FBI Director, The DNI and The DCI.
Supported by South Carolinians?
South Carolina residents are some of America’s most patriotic and also SC has a large active duty and veteran population. Does it surprise anyone that they do not want terrorists on U.S. soil?
The post is purely a race-baiting bigoted attempt to paint Trump supporters negatively. Maybe it is because the democrats are so desperate they have to again use division and class warfare to try and win an election.
From the top “Poll: Nearly 4 in 10 Trump SC supporters wish South won Civil War” is not found in the poll nor is it relevant in the 2016 campaign. That line comes from the writer’s opinion.
Poll: Nearly 4 in 10 Trump SC supporters wish South won Civil War.
I wonder if that is higher or lower than the SC population at large?
The blog opinion piece from “The Hill” should be called “The Race Card Poll”
1.) The Hill writer is a left-wing activist.
2.) The poll was taken by a far-left political activist organization.
Bwaaaahh ha hahhh haha hahahahahahaha!!! SSDD
3.) The poll was published in the opinion pages of a newspaper although the Poll’s back pages, poll methodology and demographic data for those polled are conveniently missing.
4.) The actual questions asked were not disclosed.
Wasn't very hard to find if you wanted to.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
5.) The “analysis” in the above post is either the opinion of the poster or some other liberal blogger based on some other blogger’s opinion from some left-wing political organization.
Maybe the International Business Times is more to your liking:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-supporters-wish-south-had-won-civil-war-south-carolina-poll-2309237
How about US News and World Report?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-16/a-look-at-donald-trump-supporters-ahead-of-the-south-carolina-primary
[Edited on 2/16/2016 by gondicar]
The blog opinion piece from “The Hill” should be called “The Race Card Poll”
1.) The Hill writer is a left-wing activist.
2.) The poll was taken by a far-left political activist organization.Bwaaaahh ha hahhh haha hahahahahahaha!!! SSDD
![]()
3.) The poll was published in the opinion pages of a newspaper although the Poll’s back pages, poll methodology and demographic data for those polled are conveniently missing.
4.) The actual questions asked were not disclosed.Wasn't very hard to find if you wanted to.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
5.) The “analysis” in the above post is either the opinion of the poster or some other liberal blogger based on some other blogger’s opinion from some left-wing political organization.
Maybe the International Business Times is more to your liking:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-supporters-wish-south-had-won-civil-war-south-carolina-poll-2309237How about US News and World Report?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-16/a-look-at-donald-trump-supporters-ahead-of-the-south-carolina-primary
________________________________________________________________________Both the International Business Times and the US News and World Report are referring to the same PPP poll.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Nice try, you keep trying there son.
I posted my position a long time ago but I used words, those things you are incapable of understanding.
I don't make it around as much as I used to, so I may have missed it. Who are you supporting? Right now I'm leaning towards Sanders, and if I had to pick a Republican for my own tastes it would be Kasich, hands down. Who you got?
I'd like to see Kasich get some traction. It would go a long way to restoring my faith in the electorate.
I also like Bernie. I know he could never implement most of the policies he's proposing but I think he has correctly identified some of the major issues facing our nation, those being the declining middle class and the undue influence of big money in politics.
I know that the threat of terrorism is real, but I don't buy into the scare tactics being employed by several candidates. I think the threat has been way overstated for political gain. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have zero appeal to me. Ben Carson, well, I don't even know what he's doing there. And Bush, through no fault of his own, has been saddled with the legacy of his brother. The only level headed clear thinker I see on the Republican side is Kasich.
On the Democratic side I am among those who are highly suspicious of Hillary. The trust issue is very real. Bernie, on the other hand, seems to have his integrity intact. Like I said, he could never implement everything he says he'd do, nor would I want him to. But if he refocused the conversation away from fear of terrorism and towards preserving the middle class that would be victory enough.
But, alas, it is unlikely that either Kasich or Sanders will get their party's nomination, meaning I will probably either vote 3rd party or write-in my wife. She is promising free toilet paper for everyone.
The blog opinion piece from “The Hill” should be called “The Race Card Poll”
1.) The Hill writer is a left-wing activist.
2.) The poll was taken by a far-left political activist organization.Bwaaaahh ha hahhh haha hahahahahahaha!!! SSDD
![]()
3.) The poll was published in the opinion pages of a newspaper although the Poll’s back pages, poll methodology and demographic data for those polled are conveniently missing.
4.) The actual questions asked were not disclosed.Wasn't very hard to find if you wanted to.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
5.) The “analysis” in the above post is either the opinion of the poster or some other liberal blogger based on some other blogger’s opinion from some left-wing political organization.
Maybe the International Business Times is more to your liking:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-supporters-wish-south-had-won-civil-war-south-carolina-poll-2309237How about US News and World Report?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-16/a-look-at-donald-trump-supporters-ahead-of-the-south-carolina-primary
________________________________________________________________________Both the International Business Times and the US News and World Report are referring to the same PPP poll.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Nice try, you keep trying there son.
You are a lying piece of work.
The blog opinion piece from “The Hill” should be called “The Race Card Poll”
1.) The Hill writer is a left-wing activist.
2.) The poll was taken by a far-left political activist organization.Bwaaaahh ha hahhh haha hahahahahahaha!!! SSDD
![]()
3.) The poll was published in the opinion pages of a newspaper although the Poll’s back pages, poll methodology and demographic data for those polled are conveniently missing.
4.) The actual questions asked were not disclosed.Wasn't very hard to find if you wanted to.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
5.) The “analysis” in the above post is either the opinion of the poster or some other liberal blogger based on some other blogger’s opinion from some left-wing political organization.
Maybe the International Business Times is more to your liking:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-supporters-wish-south-had-won-civil-war-south-carolina-poll-2309237How about US News and World Report?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-16/a-look-at-donald-trump-supporters-ahead-of-the-south-carolina-primary
________________________________________________________________________Both the International Business Times and the US News and World Report are referring to the same PPP poll.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Nice try, you keep trying there son.
You are a lying piece of work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Can't prove it so call me a liar.
Typical liberal.
When you have no facts and can't prove their statements, call someone a liar.Ha ha ha.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Hmmmm, I feel compelled to ask, did you read this document at this link?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
Methodology is in the final paragraph of page three of the press release:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 897 likely Republican primary voters and 525 Democratic primary voters on February 14th and 15th. The margin of error is +/-3.3% for the Republicans and +/-4.3% for the Democrats. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.
You seem to have missed that 897 likely Republican primary voters were polled. Actually, 66 of the 82 pages of that poll report deal specifically with those 897 likely Republican voters.
Are you challenging the validity of the poll because there are too many questions? Hmmmm. I've worked with survey/poll data in the private sector and have attended seminars on the subject, led by statisticians, where the consensus is always that more data is better, not less.
Especially with survey/poll data. Ultimately the key is more answers by the most respondents possible. Now, whether or not 897 people is representative of all probable Republican voters in South Carolina is probably best left to the grains of salt that everyone should probably take with any such poll.
PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Hmmmm, I feel compelled to ask, did you read this document at this link?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdfMethodology is in the final paragraph of page three of the press release:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 897 likely Republican primary voters and 525 Democratic primary voters on February 14th and 15th. The margin of error is +/-3.3% for the Republicans and +/-4.3% for the Democrats. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.
You seem to have missed that 897 likely Republican primary voters were polled. Actually, 66 of the 82 pages of that poll report deal specifically with those 897 likely Republican voters.
Are you challenging the validity of the poll because there are too many questions? Hmmmm. I've worked with survey/poll data in the private sector and have attended seminars on the subject, led by statisticians, where the consensus is always that more data is better, not less.
Especially with survey/poll data. Ultimately the key is more answers by the most respondents possible. Now, whether or not 897 people is representative of all probable Republican voters in South Carolina is probably best left to the grains of salt that everyone should probably take with any such poll.
PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.
_________________________________________________________________________
Wow, you attended seminars on the subject.
“PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.”
PPP is a left-wing activist organization with a definite political agenda.
Rasmussen is an independent, major and unbiased polling organization. That is why their poll results are so well respected on both side of the aisle.
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Hmmmm, I feel compelled to ask, did you read this document at this link?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdfMethodology is in the final paragraph of page three of the press release:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 897 likely Republican primary voters and 525 Democratic primary voters on February 14th and 15th. The margin of error is +/-3.3% for the Republicans and +/-4.3% for the Democrats. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.
You seem to have missed that 897 likely Republican primary voters were polled. Actually, 66 of the 82 pages of that poll report deal specifically with those 897 likely Republican voters.
Are you challenging the validity of the poll because there are too many questions? Hmmmm. I've worked with survey/poll data in the private sector and have attended seminars on the subject, led by statisticians, where the consensus is always that more data is better, not less.
Especially with survey/poll data. Ultimately the key is more answers by the most respondents possible. Now, whether or not 897 people is representative of all probable Republican voters in South Carolina is probably best left to the grains of salt that everyone should probably take with any such poll.
PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.
_________________________________________________________________________
Wow, you attended seminars on the subject.
“PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.”
PPP is a left-wing activist organization with a definite political agenda.
Rasmussen is an independent, major and unbiased polling organization. That is why their poll results are so well respected on both side of the aisle.
Rather than go by the opinion of one person who dreams up his ideas while working at Burger King, I try to go to an expert source. And if you are talking about statistical analysis, there are not many sources better than Nate Silver. In 2010, Silver determined that Rasmussen, as well as PPP, skewed to the right. He says the cause for this is the method of polling.
Here is a link for Muleman to ignore.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/house-effects-render-poll-reading/
In 2012, he reported this.
The link for mule to ignore is,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/?_r=0
Then there are some interesting criticisms about Rasmussen's tactics here.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html
Now let's watch as Muleboy accuses nate Silver of being a liberal. 😛
The survey of only 525 likely Democratic primary voters never discloses the methodology used. In order to get 525 responses the pollster would have had to call over 3,500 people unless of course they polled a particular list of democrats that they know will provide the answers they want.
The sheer volume of questions proves that this is a bogus poll. No one is going to sit on the phone that long answering evidently race based bigoted questions and those based on truncated statements.
PPP is a left-wing political organization that obviously is crafting a poll to elicit one particular outcome.
This type of polling, common the liberal world, is easily recognized for what it is: crap.
Hmmmm, I feel compelled to ask, did you read this document at this link?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdfMethodology is in the final paragraph of page three of the press release:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 897 likely Republican primary voters and 525 Democratic primary voters on February 14th and 15th. The margin of error is +/-3.3% for the Republicans and +/-4.3% for the Democrats. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.
You seem to have missed that 897 likely Republican primary voters were polled. Actually, 66 of the 82 pages of that poll report deal specifically with those 897 likely Republican voters.
Are you challenging the validity of the poll because there are too many questions? Hmmmm. I've worked with survey/poll data in the private sector and have attended seminars on the subject, led by statisticians, where the consensus is always that more data is better, not less.
Especially with survey/poll data. Ultimately the key is more answers by the most respondents possible. Now, whether or not 897 people is representative of all probable Republican voters in South Carolina is probably best left to the grains of salt that everyone should probably take with any such poll.
PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.
_________________________________________________________________________
Wow, you attended seminars on the subject.
“PPP appears to skew left, but no more or less than Rasmussen skews right.”
PPP is a left-wing activist organization with a definite political agenda.
Rasmussen is an independent, major and unbiased polling organization. That is why their poll results are so well respected on both side of the aisle.
Not only are you a liar but a total fool as well. Keep posting, it's pure comedy gold.
Public Policy Polling is a far-left activist operation funded another far-left activist internet site The Daily Kos:
PPP's sponsors:
To conduct polling, you need money. PPP's main political world patron is the liberal blog Daily Kos. Despite harangues from Cohn and Nate Silver, Kos' leader, Markos Moulitsas, took to Twitter to defend PPP in the aftermath of Cohn's first article. David Nir, who runs the indispensable Daily Kos elections blog, called Cohn's article "a bit curious".
Many professional pollsters have long thought that Public Policy Polling's methods were suspect. Nate Cohn's recent expose confirms for many their suspicions.
Public Policy Polling is a far-left activist operation funded another far-left activist internet site The Daily Kos:
PPP's sponsors:
To conduct polling, you need money. PPP's main political world patron is the liberal blog Daily Kos. Despite harangues from Cohn and Nate Silver, Kos' leader, Markos Moulitsas, took to Twitter to defend PPP in the aftermath of Cohn's first article. David Nir, who runs the indispensable Daily Kos elections blog, called Cohn's article "a bit curious".
Many professional pollsters have long thought that Public Policy Polling's methods were suspect. Nate Cohn's recent expose confirms for many their suspicions.
so what? You don't ever seem to have a problem with right wing groups. They are your go to source for most of what you ever give a link to. You really are a moron.
The Trump Effect spreads because he has a strategy.
1) Find your art form
2) Don't Forget Business if you are no natural - instincts
3) Aim high
4) Be obsessive and focused
5) Play it loose regarding structure - be open and entrepreneurial
6) Ditch long meetings and get busy working on your contacts/deals
7) If you gamble, take chances, be able to life with losing if it doesn't go your way.
8) Trust your instincts not your numbers
9) Use your leverage, have something the other side wants, ideally that they cannot do without.
10) Don't be bullied
11) Get Noticed
12) Have fun
He ain't no politician. He is just someone who loves being alive and doing what he loves, which is having big ideas and making them happen. He also recently made remarks about 9.11. He said that the Saudis did it. I think he needs to have his knowledge base expanded, ohhh whippin' post, could it be, dare I think that someone might actually bring about an independent investigation of the events of that day.....
[Edited on 2/18/2016 by gina]
He's a carnie who a large and growing number of people think should be president. End times.
He's a carnie who a large and growing number of people think should be president. End times.
__________________________________________________________________________
A very wealth Carney who through a good education, intelligence and hard work achieved The American Dream.
The media sure seem to love him. They have given him more column inches than any other candidate which is also known as advertizing and exposure for free.
A very wealth Carney who through a good education, intelligence and hard work achieved The American Dream.
He achieved a whopping inheritance.
A very wealth Carney who through a good education, intelligence and hard work achieved The American Dream.
He achieved a whopping inheritance.
__________________________________________________________________________
Why do you have to lie when taking a shot at someone?
A very wealth Carney who through a good education, intelligence and hard work achieved The American Dream.
He achieved a whopping inheritance.
__________________________________________________________________________
Why do you have to lie when taking a shot at someone?
No lie, except for a few hundred of yours. This is an interesting read which Mule will ignore and attack the source.
I'd say you are the liar Mule. Unfortunately you believe your moronic drivel.
I'd say you are the liar Mule. Unfortunately you believe your moronic drivel.
___________________________________________________________________________
it is easy to call someone a liar.
A real man would prove it.
Trump is in a battle of words with the Pope.
Whoa.
Trump beats Hillary Clinton in Suffolk/USA Today poll:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/suffolk-usa-today-23779
Trump Widens Lead in Quinnipiac Poll
http://bsccomment.com/2016/02/18/trump-widens-lead-in-quinnipiac-poll.html
Trump is in a battle of words with the Pope.
Whoa.
This is true, but Trump is correct in what he says regarding IF and WHEN Rome is attacked (and it will be if you believe in prophecy. Islamic prophecy from 1300 years ago says so, and Isis has said it is one of their goals while they fight France and the UK). The other thing Trump said was that it was disgraceful for the Pope to question his faith as a Christian, which is when that other remark came out.
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians. "
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-response-to-the-pope
Donald is correct. There is Islamic prophecy from 1300 years ago regarding that the army that will be leading us into the final battle against the anti-Christ where Jesus fights and prevails, will include attacking Rome and Muslims conquering it. Now this battle has been going on for a long time, back to the time of the Crusades, but this time, it will be Isis who does it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35607597
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270040-trump-pope-francis-a-terrific-person
From the prophecies of 1300 years ago, during the actual time of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, peace be upon him and all the prophets including Jesus, Noah, Moses etc.
IRAQ and SYRIA
Abu Nadhrah says: "We were sitting in the company of Jabir bin Abdullah (R.A.) when he said: 'Soon the people of IRAQ will neither receive any food (grain) nor any money.'" We asked, "Why would such a thing happen?" He replied, "Because of the non-Arabs." (i.e they will prevent food from going into Iraq, in the form of "sanctions" to this day.) He then said: "Soon the people of Shaam (SYRIA) will neither receive any money nor grain." We asked as to why this would happen. He replied: "Because of the Romans (christians)."
A life of peace as a result of a peace agreement between you and the Banil Asfaar (Romans) which they will break and attack you with a force consisting of eighty flags and under each flag will be an army of twelve thousand men."
WAR
A major war between Muslims and Christians: Half the Christian army will sign a peace treaty with the Muslim army, while the second half of the Christian army remains the common enemy.
ISTANBUL CONQUERED BY CHRISTIANS
The enemy half of the Christian army conquers Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey.
ISTANBUL RECONQUERED JOINTLY BY MUSLIM AND CHRISTIANS
The Muslims and the good half of the Christian army conquer Constantinople together, against the enemy Christians. Thereafter, a Christian will say the victory was due to the cross, and the Muslim will say it was due to Islam. A battle between both sides will ensue, and the Muslim Ruler will be martyred.
SYRIA CONQUERED BY CHRISTIANS
The two Christian armies reunite, conquering Syria.
CHRISTIAN DOMINATION
Christians dominate the world up to Khaiber (near Madinah), and they will pursue Muslims with 80 flags, with 12,000 men under each flag.
MUSLIMS AWAIT Imaam Mahdi
Imam Mahdi will emerge from Isfahan, iran, and the land of Khorasan. [those in the lands of Khorasan are the old al Qaidan fighters, native born talibs, and some of the Pakistani fighters]
IMAAM MAHDI EMERGES
At age 40, Imaam Mahdi appears in Makkah, then flees to Madinah. [when the Mahdi realizes who he is and what role is is to play, he will not want to be the Mahdi, that is why he will go to back Saudi Arabia, he will be a native born Saudi, he will go back there to hide and pray, but the army of fighters from Khorasan will go there to show him, they will be with him, protect him and fight under his tutledge and he will be inspired and accept his destiny to lead them to Palestine to try to retake those lands for Muslim rule].
MUSLIM ARMY MARCHES
The army of Mansoor from Khurasaan will head towards Makkah to aid Imaam Mahdi. They will win many battles on the way. No force will be able to stop them. They will carry black flags. [as Isis and al Qaida have done - the black flags are the war flags, the white flags are the peace time flags].
SUFYAANI ARMY SWALLOWED BY THE EARTH.
The Sufyaani army (an Anti-Muslim force) from Syria singles out Imaam Mahdi for execution. On the way to Makkah, they get swallowed into the ground. A second Sufyaani army is created with 960,000 men (of 80 nations).
Remark: 80 nations, 960,000 troops will be sent to fight this Muslim army. This alone is a staggering thought.
CONFRONTATION IN SYRIA
Imaam Mahdi and the Muslim army go to Syria to confront the Christians. The Christians, before the battle, will ask Muslims for the return of their prisoners-of-war. The Muslims will refuse. The battle will begin. One-third of Imaam Mahdi’s army will flee (their repentance will not be accepted), one-third will be martyred, and one-third will gain victory over the Christians.
MUSLIM ARMY UNDER IMAAM MAHDI CONQUERS PALESTINE
JIHAAD ON INDIA
A group of Muslims wages Jihaad on India and be successful. (Isis has been welcomed in Kashmir it will be them and the others that join them).
SYRIA UNDER MUSLIM RULE
Imaam Mahdi returns to Syria and establishes Muslim rule over the lands he passes.
This is what is coming from the prophecies of thousands of years ago. And here we are fighting in Syria with no way to win a war there. If we leave Assad and Russia would destroy Isis. If we stay, and destroy Isis, we then have to fight Russia who is protecting Assad. Our involvement in the Middle East is what leads up to the End Times war there, after many battles are fought there.
Remarks: Trump sees what is going on in the world, as do many others. I also see, that certain governments and people want certain countries to fail, so that their people can be enslaved and handed over to the evilest of evil to serve them. This is even the Bible in Revelations, Ezekiel and many other chapters that tell you what is going to happen. The next BIG war for the US involves us fighting Russia and China. Russia stands with Syria, Iran and other nations of the Middle East. Is the Bible wrong? Is Islamic prophecy wrong? No they are both right. These things are coming down, and people need to wake up.
A noted astrologer, Diana Brownstone, thinks Trump's winning may not happen due to the cosmos and the plametary alignments in his chart. She predicts world events based on the planets. Quite interesting.
http://stargoddessny.tumblr.com/post/138499055212/the-establishment-or-trump-cynics-guide-to
[Edited on 2/20/2016 by gina]
Apparently the Trump effect is spread using The Force.
This is getting silly now, folks. How about a few facts (courtesy of the NY Daily News):
Fact: As sketched on his website, Trump’s tax and spending plans would add as much as $15 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Fact: Balancing Trump’s budget would necessitate huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which Trump has pledged to protect, as well as cuts to the military, which Trump has pledged to make “bigger, better, faster than ever before so that nobody messes with us” while also saying he wants to “do it for a lot less.”
Fact: His tax plans would deliver massive windfalls to the richest Americans at the expense of the working and middle classes. The richest 0.1% of Americans would get an average tax cut of $1.3 million in 2017, or 19% of their after-tax income; the average cut for everyone else would be just over $5,000, or 7% of their income.
Fact: Trump’s promise to save $300 million annually by negotiating drug prices through Medicare is preposterous given that the entire program cost $78 billion in 2014.
Fact: Imposing a 45% tariff on products manufactured in China would punish the world with a devastating trade war.
Fact: Trump’s promise to torture — not just to waterboard — terrorists would violate the Geneva Conventions and endanger captured U.S. troops.
Fact: Trump has flip-flopped on ISIS, saying both that he would “bomb the s--t out of” the terror group and leave the fight in Syria to Russia with the shrug, “if they want to hit ISIS, that’s OK with me.”
Fact: His signature bit of bluster, “attack the oil and keep the oil,” makes no sense when subjected to a moment’s scrutiny.
Fact: Trump’s oft-repeated statement that he opposed the war in Iraq has been directly contradicted by how he answered in 2002 when asked whether he supported a military invasion: “Yeah, I guess so.”
Fact: He claims he never went bankrupt. Larded with debt, his hotel, resort and casino companies filed for bankruptcy four times.
Fact: Trump claims to have lost hundreds of friends on 9/11 — yet he won’t name one of them.
Fact: While he postures as a veterans’ champion, the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave just $57,000 to veterans’ causes over a recent five-year span. It donated far more to the Clinton Foundation, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and political nonprofits.
Fact: Fact checkers who have scoured all political candidates find that Trump departs from the truth with dizzying frequency: 77% of his scrutinized statements in this campaign were totally or mostly false. Just 6% were true or mostly true.
This is getting silly now, folks. How about a few facts (courtesy of the NY Daily News):
Fact: As sketched on his website, Trump’s tax and spending plans would add as much as $15 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Fact: Balancing Trump’s budget would necessitate huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which Trump has pledged to protect, as well as cuts to the military, which Trump has pledged to make “bigger, better, faster than ever before so that nobody messes with us” while also saying he wants to “do it for a lot less.”
Fact: His tax plans would deliver massive windfalls to the richest Americans at the expense of the working and middle classes. The richest 0.1% of Americans would get an average tax cut of $1.3 million in 2017, or 19% of their after-tax income; the average cut for everyone else would be just over $5,000, or 7% of their income.
Fact: Trump’s promise to save $300 million annually by negotiating drug prices through Medicare is preposterous given that the entire program cost $78 billion in 2014.
Fact: Imposing a 45% tariff on products manufactured in China would punish the world with a devastating trade war.
Fact: Trump’s promise to torture — not just to waterboard — terrorists would violate the Geneva Conventions and endanger captured U.S. troops.
Fact: Trump has flip-flopped on ISIS, saying both that he would “bomb the s--t out of” the terror group and leave the fight in Syria to Russia with the shrug, “if they want to hit ISIS, that’s OK with me.”
Fact: His signature bit of bluster, “attack the oil and keep the oil,” makes no sense when subjected to a moment’s scrutiny.
Fact: Trump’s oft-repeated statement that he opposed the war in Iraq has been directly contradicted by how he answered in 2002 when asked whether he supported a military invasion: “Yeah, I guess so.”
Fact: He claims he never went bankrupt. Larded with debt, his hotel, resort and casino companies filed for bankruptcy four times.
Fact: Trump claims to have lost hundreds of friends on 9/11 — yet he won’t name one of them.
Fact: While he postures as a veterans’ champion, the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave just $57,000 to veterans’ causes over a recent five-year span. It donated far more to the Clinton Foundation, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and political nonprofits.
Fact: Fact checkers who have scoured all political candidates find that Trump departs from the truth with dizzying frequency: 77% of his scrutinized statements in this campaign were totally or mostly false. Just 6% were true or mostly true.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ah, The NY Daily News, a far-left tabloid.
How do you think they would portray Donald Trump?
Noticeably missing is their opinion of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders; or as a Hillary Clinton campaigner at a caucus Saturday yelled at the caucus members “don’t vote for that socialist Jew!
The so-called “facts” above are nothing more than a liberal’s hit piece and is factually baseless.
Here are some facts about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders playing fast and loose with the truth:
AP FACT CHECK: Clinton, Sanders on health care, donors
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-clinton-sanders-health-care-more-030226633--election.html
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and JULIE BYKOWICZ February 11, 2016 11:44 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — In their latest debate, Hillary Clinton glossed over the big-money donors juicing her White House ambitions while Bernie Sanders offered disputed numbers behind his plan for a government-financed health system.
A look at some of the claims in the Democratic presidential debate and how they compare with the facts:
CLINTON: "I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750,000 donors, and the vast majority of them are giving small contributions. ... We both have a lot of small donors."
THE FACTS: Her presidential run is being supported by wealthy donors in ways that Sanders' is not.
Last year's fundraising reports show that Sanders raised fully 72 percent of his campaign money from people who gave $200 or less, while for Clinton those donors accounted for just 16 percent of her funds.
Clinton stretched when putting herself in Sanders' league when it comes to grassroots financing. She said they are both getting small donors and that "sets us apart" from Republican candidates. But her rate of small-dollar contributions isn't that much different than that of some of the GOP contenders.
She also minimized the impact of the super political action committee supporting her effort, saying the group was founded to help President Barack Obama and she has no say over its operations. But no candidate can control the super PACS that are devoted to helping their candidacies, yet they can be vital in White House efforts because they can raise unlimited money and spend heavily on advertising and other help.
Although Priorities USA may have formed to help Obama, it's now steered by her trusted advisers. In fact, Guy Cecil, a former Clinton staffer, was brought in to lead the group last year as a signal to her supporters that they could trust Priorities USA to serve her well.
BERNIE SANDERS: "Our Medicare-for-all, single-payer proposal will save the average middle-class family $5,000 a year."
HILLARY CLINTON: "The numbers don't add up."
THE FACTS: More detail and analysis are needed on Sanders' plan for cradle-to-grave government-financed health care for all. But two early assessments suggest that the accounting comes up short.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the tax increases in Sanders' plan would only cover about 75 percent of what Sanders says it will cost, creating a $3 trillion hole in the federal budget over 10 years.
Emory University economist Kenneth Thorpe says the proposal also underestimates the cost of having the government provide doctors' services, hospitalization, long-term care, and vision and dental care — all without premiums, copays or deductibles.
According to Thorpe, the Sanders plan falls short by about $11 trillion over 10 years. He says the income and payroll tax increases required to pay fully for the proposal would mean 71 percent of those who now have private insurance would pay more.
Thorpe served in the administration of Bill Clinton, handling economic estimates of the former president's failed health care overhaul plan. He says he has no involvement with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
___
SANDERS: "A male African-American baby born today stands a one-in-four chance of ending up in jail. That is beyond unspeakable."
THE FACTS: Sanders, like Clinton in an earlier debate, exaggerated the rate of incarceration for black males.
A 2003 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics said, "About 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current incarceration rates remain unchanged." But that was only a projection. The report went on to say that at the time, 16.6 percent of adult black males had actually ever gone to prison, or 1 in 6.
Since then, the incarceration rate for black men has actually gone down instead of up, according to the Sentencing Project.
___
CLINTON: "He wrote a foreword for a book that basically argued voters should have buyer's remorse when it comes to President Obama's leadership and legacy. And I just couldn't agree — disagree more with those kinds of comments."
THE FACTS: Sanders didn't write a foreword to that book, "Buyer's Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down," by Bill Press.
Instead, he contributed a blurb that's on the back cover and says nothing about Obama: "Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen."
An out-of-context excerpt of that blurb is selectively placed at the top of the front cover: "Bill Press makes the case ... read this book," which suggests that Sanders is cheerleading the case by liberals that Obama has not been liberal enough. But that was not reflected in what Sanders wrote.
___
SANDERS: "There's not one Republican candidate for president who agrees that climate change is real."
THE FACTS: Not so. Some of the GOP front-runners are clearly skeptics on climate science, but not all the party's candidates can be lumped together on this topic. Jeb Bush, in an email interview with Bloomberg BNA in July, wrote that "the climate is changing," adding, "I don't think anybody can argue it's not. Human activity has contributed to it."
And at a 2012 fundraising event, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, "This isn't popular to always say, but I believe there is a problem with climates — climate change in the atmosphere."
Two of the top GOP leaders in national polls — Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz — have been blunt and dismissive of man-made global warming.
___
AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ A look at political claims that take shortcuts with the facts or don't tell the full story
