Browse By

Iowans Getting Flooded With Calls From Ohio, Pushing Donald Trump

People in Iowa have been suffering a deluge of political telephone calls this year. Iowa families sit down to eat dinner together, and the phone rings. Is it an emergency call from Aunt Marge? No, it’s a phone call from a telemarketer who has been paid a low wage in compensation for making as many telephone calls on behalf of Donald Trump as possible. Sitting in a cubicle, these people go through their scripts, not caring how much they interrupt people’s lives. They’re just looking to make their numbers.

Many of these phone calls have been coming from Infocision, a telemarketing firm that has its corporate headquarters in Akron, Ohio, a full day’s drive away from Iowa. These phone calls aren’t made by grassroots activists. They’re made by employees of a big corporation, and they don’t have the choice about whether to make the calls. They either make the calls promoting Donald Trump or they lose their jobs.

infocision

This telephone harassment operation is being conducted by Patriots for Trump, an operation set up by Republican scam artist Scott Mackenzie, who was found by a court to have withheld money he raised, claiming to be on behalf of political candidates. According to the FEC, Patriots for Trump just dumped $100,000.00 into Infocision’s bank accounts to pay for the telemarketing onslaught against Iowa families.

Is this vision of rude phone calls by fake activists, paid for by corrupt super PACs, organized by cold corporations from far away, what you want to see more of in the United States? If so, then Donald Trump is your candidate.

62 thoughts on “Iowans Getting Flooded With Calls From Ohio, Pushing Donald Trump”

  1. ella says:

    I have been rudely interrupted by campaigns before. The phone is usually off the hook during ‘the season’, but not everyone has that luxury. None have come from the trump campaign yet, so I don’t know what they are saying. Most of what has come through has been Democrat. The one point “… No, it’s a phone call from a telemarketer who has been paid a low wage in compensation for making…” that I find interesting is that Trump cared enough to give some people a job, a paying job, not just used people for his benefit without pay. Or as they are called – “volunteers”.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Except that, in this case, it isn’t Trump doing the hiring. It’s the DC power broker Scott Mackenzie, who was found by a court to have dishonestly redirected money away from the very people he was claiming to support. Also, the people doing the calling are telemarketing workers, not Donald Trump fans. Nobody gave them jobs just to work for Donald Trump. Their corporation has been hired by Scott Mackenzie’s PAC, and the workers have been handed a script.

      1. ella says:

        You don’t like Trump, do you? I see your point, but don’t you see that someone has to hire the corporation to make the calls? And Trump did pay to have the company hired. So that indicates that the people who are working have kept their jobs, in part at least, because Trump hired the bum who hired the company to do the calling. Is that called out-sourcing? I am beginning to think it is impossible to say something nice about Trump to you guys! :0

        1. Leroy says:

          I can’t speak for J. Clifford or anyone else here, but, you are right in MY case.

          It IS impossible to say ANYTHING nice or positive or good about Donald Trump to me.

          And, IMO, anyone who does so is not only clueless, but expressing sheer ignorance.

    2. Leroy says:

      Ella,

      RE: “None have come from the trump (sic) campaign yet, so I don’t know what they are saying. Most of what has come through has been Democrat.”

      I take it that you live in New Hampshire? Or maybe Iowa?

      You see, this is the PRIMARY ELECTION, and NOT the General Election. Which means that candidates of ANY party are focusing on the states whose primary elections are coming up NEXT… In this case that is New Hampshire and Iowa.

      So I am not surprised that you haven’t received any campaign calls from the Trump campaign… And I seriously doubt that you received ANY calls from any Democrat candidate either.

      Everyone’s strategy at this point is to focus (especially this early) on those first states – and then expand outward from there.

      So while candidates (mainly the Republican ones) will shoot off to other states for brief visits (campaign stops), they aren’t running active campaigns in those states. Their active campaigns are… New Hampshire and Iowa.

      1. ella says:

        Actually I have had calls from candidates, but I am not telling who. The reason I can be so diverse, seeing the candidates as people, is that I am not anything but wishing for the best for America. To me the country has been on a downward slide for some time. Mostly because of the change in technology and political challenges globally. The nation must come to some brilliant conclusion as to what alterations are needed for it to prosper, for the people to retain the gains of humanity that are to admired throughout the world. Standards of living, education, employment, transportation. All of these areas are going through change overs to accommodate changes in climate and the technology to facilitate the change overs. Part of that technology requires a workforce that is trained and of a mindset that what they are doing is not only needed but they are part of the change. Having been around when they touched down on the Moon, I can tell you I would love to go there, to travel in space, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. Someone who is young and talented, educated and has what it takes will do that. Tell Vegas – there is bound to be someone else who can see beyond curtain.

        1. Leroy says:

          Yes, in the past during general elections or when your state’s primary election was due, you likely did receive calls from campaign personnel (I seriously doubt that you received calls from any national level CANDIDATE).

          But now, or recently? Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

          As to the rest… you aren’t saying anything that anyone concerned about this country isn’t saying.

          (Are you sure that you’re not really a politician? Like most politicians you most frequently talk in GENERAL terms and don’t mention specifics… but of course when you do, those specifics are pretty much always wrong! “To me the country has been on a downward slide for some time. Mostly because of the change in technology and political challenges globally…” WHAT changes in technology? WHAT global challenges? Technological changes and global challenges that are WORSE than what Americans have faced in the past?????)

          Where you fall down is with your answers.

          You espouse a childlike fanatical ddisciple-like devotion to Trump… and yet Trump (and the One-Percenters like him) are THE cause of our problems – and electing him (or and of the GOP candidates) will guarantee not just a continuation of our problems, but an even ever worsening of those problems!

  2. Leroy says:

    Had someone read the first posting to me, I would have immediately guessed that it was from Ella.

    She (I assume a “she”) has yet to come across an anti-Trump article that she actually understands. Nor an anti-Trump article that she doesn’t try (with a lot of ignorance) to turn it around to an anti-Democrat article. (*)

    Ella… the only person in America (or so says the Vegas betting line) that is strongly pro Trump AND pro Sanders — apparently not realizing that they are as far apart politically as two politicians could possibly be!

    (*) As an example, on the Irregular Times article where Trump outright lies about weather conditions in NYC in order to trumpet (no pun intended) his own beliefs and political position regarding Climate Change / Global Warming, Ella responds with:

    “Sadly, that is not anything new at this time. Obama did not believe in global warming either, when he started. But then he refused to salute the troops in review for his inauguration too. He salutes without a problem now. There are probably still Congressmen that still do not believe the ice melt at the poles has anything to do with global warming. Maybe they have put a giant mirror in space to melt the poles. Did that in a Bond movie you know. I think he does that stuff to get attention and keeps what he really believes to himself a lot of the time. At this moment, I see no reason to not want him for President. There is a Democrat candidate, and her husband, that definitely there are reasons to not want in the White House. I’d vote for Trump even though I called him a Bob Hope type in the beginning. But he got serious and seems to really want to win. It would be a real problem at this time if he did not.

    On the other foot (“on the other hand, maybe???), there is Bernie Sanders. A person with an uncanny ability to reach out to people and deliver his message clearly for them. It turns out he is learning about politics on the national trail too (yes, political – at the national level – rookie, poor guy, who served as a United States Congressman from 1991 to 2007 and a United States Senator since 2007!). I still do not know if he is getting significant electoral attention. (Electoral attention? Probably won’t know that until Primary Elections. But voter support? Jeez, paying attention to ongoing polls could give one that information **)”

    See the article:

    “Donald Trump Prediction Of An Early Freeze In NYC Fails To Materialize”

    (with Ella’s comment as of 5:29pm 10/20/15… ahhh, the links blasting holes in that whole piece of junk that I could have posted)

    (**) For example, AP/GfK Poll released just hours before Biden (and Webb) withdrew from the Democrat race:

    “Along with being the most popular within her party, Clinton has a big advantage on perceptions she is a general election winner. Nine in 10 Democrats think it would be possible for Clinton to win the general election if she were the nominee, while seven in 10 say the same of Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn’t said whether he will run.

    (Note: Biden has since announced that he is NOT running… And in New Hampshire at least, the majority of Biden supporters have said – according to PPP poll from 2 days ago – that they would support Clinton if Biden chose not to run)

    “Democrats are divided on whether Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders could win a general election, with 52 percent saying he could and 46 percent saying he could not.

    It’s not just Democrats who view Clinton as a possible winner. Three-quarters (75%) of those questioned think Clinton could win in a general election, INCLUDING two-thirds (66%) of Republicans.

    By comparison, 56 percent of respondents think Biden could win and just 44 percent think Sanders could.

    Less than half (LESS than 50%) of people surveyed said that they think ANY of the Republican candidates for president could win in a general election.”

    But then it is still awful early, even for the opening States of Iowa and New Hampshire.

    1. ella says:

      I also told you that Biden would never run and why!

      1. Leroy says:

        What?

        You told ME (Leroy), specifically me – since that’s who you tried to – that Joe Biden was not going to run and why?

        And just when and where was that?

        I have a VERY good memory – and I clearly don’t remember you telling me that information.

        1. ella says:

          Leroy, Not YOU, the post, blog whatever it is. But then I guess you are right. It has become YOU.

      2. Leroy says:

        Still waiting for my answer.

        When did you tell ME specifically that Biden would ultra not run?

  3. ella says:

    You sound like a Hillary fan. You know and tell everything. Hillary tells nothing.

    1. Leroy says:

      Wow.

      What backwards logic.

      I know and tell everything… so I support a candidate who (supposedly) tells nothing.

      What ignorant logic!

      And actually I primarily support Bernie Sanders. Although I will vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she wins the Democrat nomination.

      And Hillary tells a LOT more and with a lot more details than Donald ever has!

      1. ella says:

        Deceit and lies don’t count with some people, but I understand it is a moral obligation with Democrats. Or is it just with lawyers. Yes, there are many good Democrats, so it must be with “…charge by the minute…” lawyers, who ‘say one thing here, and another thing there’. Since she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, how would you know when she was telling the truth. That is what I meant by ‘tells nothing’. Two lawyers, in a marriage to retake the White House. If we want a Democratic Republic, or a Republican Democracy, we do not want a person in office whose husband was there for 8 years, and of course, wants to be there again. A lawyer who believes he has found the way to bypass the Constitution by running his wife in his place, there-by gaining his position again, just without the title. But what difference does that make. Biden couldn’t be Vice President for another 4 years either, but he did help Hillary get more support.

        1. Leroy says:

          Absolutely sheer ignorance.

          The vast majority of lawyers are… Republicans.

          More law firms donate by fat to the Party of… Republicans

          The political party that is internationally known for its lying and deceit is… Republicans. (*)

          You don’t want a presidential candidate whose husband was president for 8 years (because it will destroy our “Democratic Republic or Republican Democracy” – the correct term is Democratic Republic – looks like you had a Freudian slip there; you’d love it if we were a strictly REPUBLICAN democracy where only Republicans could vote wouldn’t you)… and yet, have never said one negative word about a FAMILY whose father was President (41st) for 4 years, his brother was President for 8 years (43rd) and he now wants to be President (45th) for 8 years (which would be 20 years of Bush father / sons presidents since 1988) and ALL three are proven, estabished liars. (**)

          And then what about all those other horrible examples (that you’ve never mentioned).. I mean there’s John Adams (our second president) and his son, John Quincy Adams (our 6th president). And then Benjamin Harrison (our 23rd president) who was the grandson of William Henry Harrison (our 9th president).

          Then there’s the cousins! OMG! James Madison (our 4th president) and Zachary Taylor (our 12th president) were 2nd cousins. Theodore Roosevelt (26th president) was 5th cousin to Franklin Roosevelt – easily one of our GREATEST presidents – (32nd president… in fact, though he himself never knew it, genealogists have determined that FDR was distantly related to a total of 11 U.S. presidents, 5 by blood and 6 by marriage: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, Martin Van Buren, and George Washington).

          Good Lord… how did our Democratic Republic (as we are Constitutionally a Republic that is established under principles of Democracy) ever survive that, that horrible, repeatedly horrible situation(s)? The fact is that they are different people in different situations that still have to deal with two houses f Congress and a federal court system headed by a Supreme Court… and operate within the framework of a firmly established U. S. Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

          (I am still stunned… Hillary getting elected is somehow going to create a Hinton Dynasty dictatorship, but the Bush situation didn’t – and won’t create a Bush one???)

          Then there’s these continual snide comments about Hillary being a total liar and not capable of being trusted – yet without showing any examples from credible, non biased (i.e., not a rightwing wingnut site that takes snippets out of context, relays hoaxes and urban myths that having since been debunked, and outright lies).

          And how did Biden help Hinton get more support? By dropping out? If almost all of his supporters were for Clinton, and he wanted to help her win, he wouldn’t have even ever hinted at running (plus polls I have seen show that about 40% – less than half – of his supporters indicating that they are throwing in with Hillary, with the others split between Bernie and Undecided)

          1. Leroy says:

            Then there’s Trump’s lies. Way too many to cover in detail, so let’s just look at the most latest:

            http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/trumps-bogus-boast-on-ford/

            (The Ford plant that is referred to – in Avon, Ohio.- has been there for years, for decades. And the plans INITIALLY announced by Ford have remained exactly the same! Donald had NO impact on Ford stopping jobs going to Mexico – and can take NO credit for the handful of new jobs coming to the half-empty older Ford plant in Ohio; but hey, Donald has never let any facts interfere with his fictitious claims)!

            “Ford Motor Co. has released a statement saying, “Ford has not spoken with Mr. Trump, nor have we made any changes to our plans. We decided to move the F-650 and F-750 medium-duty trucks to Ohio Assembly in 2011, long before any candidates announced their intention to run for U.S. president. We are proud that Ford has invested $10.2 billion in our U.S. plants since 2011 and hired nearly 25,000 U.S. employees. Overall, more than 80 percent of our North American investment annually is in the U.S., and 97 percent of our North American engineering is conducted in the U.S.”

            In other words, Trump should not get credit for any of that. The proposed Ford plants in Mexico that Trump has been talking about throughout his campaign are moving forward as planned.

            And:

          2. Leroy says:

            Good Lord!

            Trump is still at it in his “thrashing Ford” and “forcing Ford to stop sending jobs to Mexico” and “being the force behind Ford moving tons of new jobs to Ohio”…(all lies of course):

            http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-ford-jobs-mexico

  4. ella says:

    Here you go Leroy:

    “Entertainment donors in California have poured $5.5 million into the 2016 presidential race. Of that, Clinton has collected 9 of every 10 dollars — a total of $5 million as of Sept. 30, which gives her a commanding lead in the race to collect checks from the state’s signature industry.”
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-prez-hollywood-donors-story.html

    Who donates to Donald Trump: ”

    “Tough, bold, a candidate like no other who is “willing to stand up and say it like it is. When things don’t go well, the worst thing you can do is pretend things are going well,” said Steve Farland of Colorado, who dashed off a $250 check to Donald J. Trump for President Inc. “five minutes after he began his [announcement] speech.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-president-2016-donors-213102#ixzz3pV6b3xQW

    1. Leroy says:

      So what?

      A group of Hollywood celebrities donate $5.5 million and that’s a big deal???

      I’m now LMAO.

      You are clueless about who donates how much and to who!

      $5.5 million is a drop in the bucket.

      And the other quote deserves a big yawn – and a “so what?”!

      Donald also said early on and for some time that he would accept NO donations, that he would fund his own campaign (with his $9 billion dollars – when the truth came out that counting all his assets was more like $3.6 billion).

      But then it turned out that the NO donations accepted by Donald was simply another lie.

      (How can you tell when Donald is lying? Easy. his lips are moving!)

      http://www.mediaite.com/online/after-saying-he-doesnt-need-donations-trump-starts-an-online-fundraiser/

      http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/donations-to-donald-trumps-campaign-outpace-self-funding/

      1. ella says:

        I just copied this comment because it says it all: It maybe that it is not legal to do so, please check for me. Thank you.

        “sdyankfan • 3 days ago
        Amazing to watch someone portray themselves as ultra-competent but unaware, in control but out of touch, fully informed but out of the loop, in charge but not responsible, ignorant but intensely committed, all while blaming a dead man for his own death. Bottom line, the phone rang at 3 a.m., and multiple decisions were made that clearly indicate that Hillary’s political career and covert administration objectives involving arming of terrorists were deemed far more important than American lives. Criminally reprehensible”

        http://www.mrctv.org/blog/watch-clinton-claims-she-never-got-security-requests-libya#.wmz8lq:ftaR

        1. Leroy says:

          Completely and totally out of context.

          The Hearing and questioning went on for ELEVEN hours (and the vast majority of experts say that she did great)… so some far rightwing wingnut sites strip out a few moments of that, place it out of context and try to make an “Ah ha moment” out of it???

          Sheer ignorance!

          1. ella says:

            Good Grief! It sure did go 11 long boring, evasive, deceptive hours of Clinton managing to posture and make it all about her political ambitions. Even having her Democrat “questioners” loudly lament her poor self for having to come to the hearing just so those reprehensible Republicans could publicly ask her unfair questions that have only to do with her political campaign, just to give her political campaign more negative attention. It was all about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats had better make sure that was all that anyone could hear. At the end the Democrat woman on the right end could do nothing but moan and groan about how long it was taking – just when Hillary looked like she was pinned and had to answer a question, each and every time. That was indeed very nearly the greatest waste of money ever brought before a Congressional Committee. There was just enough for Hillary to purger herself according to some legal sites. It is up to the government to say if anything will be done about it. It appears she spent too much time talking about other things that she could point up as good political sound bites while evading a question. But you are right, that was a Capital farce.

          2. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            You poor embittered person…

            Why do you insist on putting things in my mouth that I never, ever said?

            I never said that it was a farce.

            What was a farce was that they had this hearing AGAIN! You do know that this Hearing process has been going on for years – and that top Republicans have admitted that its purpose is to smear Hillary with SOMETHING, ANYTHING right? Polls show that 72% (most 3 out of 4) American voters understand that – and do not approve of it!

            But, no, from your language you clearly don’t grasp any of that.

            Personally (and polls and unbiased media agree with me), I think the GOP handed Clinton a great campaign ad in her favor. A great ad that went on for hours.

            P. S. For someone so positive and who deals it with specifics, your bitterness and need to always generalize is seeping (no, pouring) out!

            There’s Reality. And then there’s Fantasyland.

            And you live in Fantasyland.

            Hillary “won” that contest hands down – and the GOP took a major, major hit… And ended up looking like the fools, liars, and hypocrites that they are.

          3. Leroy says:

            Actually, I think that the GOP members of that House Committee are all Republicans who are planning on defecting to the Democrat Party and become official Clinton supporters (along with the senior GOP Congressman who WAS going to run for Speaker of the House, but then let it slip out that the whole purpose of the Committee Hearing was to “get Hillary”).

            I mean what else could explain their actions?

            Polls BEFORE she testified showed that a majority of American voters felt the Hearing was a fraud, a misuse of taxpayer time and money to “get Hillary”. AFTER she testified, the polls showed that 72% of American voters now felt that way!

            In the FIRST HOUR after her testimony, her campaign donations skyrocketed (higher than something like any WEEK previously).

            Well, that’s something, but what about the upcoming primaries. The first ones on the radar?

            Hmmmm…

            Well. We know about Iowa now.

            On September 10th, the poll numbers were 41% Clinton, 40% Sanders, 12% Biden (and 7% Other candidates and Undecided).

            In this morning’s release, the poll by Monmouth showed:

            Ready for this?

            Are you sure?

            Positive?

            65% for Clinton and 24% for Sanders (11% for Others and – mainly – Undecided).

            AND… 88% of Iowa Democrats have her a positive favorability rating.

            http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/27/trey-gowdys-benghazi-hearings-hillary-clinton-41-point-iowa-lead.html

            I loved this comment in the article:

            “In the interest of balance, Senator Sanders probably ought to request that Congress conduct a hearing to investigate him for imaginary misdeeds, so that he can catch up to Hillary Clinton in Iowa. If Republicans were hoping for a divisive primary where Sanders would soften up Clinton, or perhaps even defeat her for the Democratic nomination, they did themselves tremendous harm by overreaching on their witch hunt against her.”

            Don’t get me wrong, Senator Bernie Sanders is STILL my choice.

            I will pick a Democratic Socialist over a Progressive any day. I will pick a Progressive over a Liberal any day. I will pick a Liberal over a moderate Liberal any day. I will pick a left-leaning Centrist over a Centrist any day.

            Bernie Sanders = Democratic Socialist
            Clinton = Moderate Liberal
            Biden = Centrist (no longer in game)
            Webb = Centrist (no longer in game)

            Meanwhile the Republicans have NO candidates that are Centrists or right-leaning Centrists or moderate Conservative – or even, that I can tell just Conservative. They range from Far Right Fundamentalists to Plutocratic Oligarchs to Theocratic oligarchs to outright (IMO) Fascists.

            But it sure awesome this Committee (and their informal allies) are RHINos looking to switch teams and elect Hillary.

            Unless it’s just that they are really that stupid, that ignorant, that egotistical, that arrogant…

            Could it be that simple?

          4. Leroy says:

            I found ONE article that sounded good for Bernie’s chances,so I guess one can always hope.

            In the sake of full disclosure, however, even I have to admit that this author is a rabid Bernie fan. He (and aside from Huffington, also writes Op/Eds for some local papers, including I think, the Cleveland PD) has admitted he could not imagine a Trump or any other Republican candidate or any “hawkish Demo rat” as president and would be very disturbed… so take that into account; also this CURRENT article uses not just voting polls but also favorability polls from way back in August and early September (One should be careful in looking at favorability ratings; my favorability rating for Clinton might be lower and I therefore vote for Sanders in the primary election… but Clinton wins the nomination. Now I have somewhat lower favorability ratings for Clinton, but heads and shoulders above ANY Republican candidate – as their ratings are like down in.the sewers… so I vote for Clinton in the general election. Keep that in mind when reading this article… but many note that ALL of his figures are older – he cites Iowan Democrats as having a 59% unfavorable rating against Clinton… today, following the Republicans’ Benghazi Hearing fiasco, she now has an 88% POSITIVE rating! So beware…)

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/favorability-ratings-show-hillary-clinton-is-unelectable_b_8388316.html

          5. Leroy says:

            And before anyone gets the wrong attitude or bitter thoughts, I like Journalist H. A. Goodman.

            I like him a LOT.

            I readily agree with 97.64525% of what he writes!

            http://www.hagoodman.com/

            I just believe that campaigns and strong media support SHOULD be absolutely accurate and current facts and data… and NOT based on hopes and emotions.

            (And actually his CURRENT article uses figures from as far back as JULY!!!!!)

            “Regarding swing states in 2016, Quinnipiac University’s July and AUGUST “Swing State Polls” highlight that voters in Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania don’t find Hillary Clinton to be trustworthy… “(the more accurate term should be “favorable” from my readings).

            Now we already KNOW that Clinton’s favorability rating in Iowa raced from -59% back then to +88% now! That’s a FORTY SEVEN percent turnaround. And just in one state as known for sure. Polls over the next couple of days should be interesting.

      1. ella says:

        The point is that, the name of her game is get the money, not allow donations. There is a major difference between asking for donations and going to the guild and putting out a platform to get the money. Unions demand their members pay out of their paychecks a set amount. Her game is go to the union bosses and get the money automatically.

        1. Leroy says:

          Sheer ignorance on your part.

          First, your comment makes no sense.

          Sheer ignorance on your part.

          Secondly, it is a lie. Union workers can opt out of ANY of their dues going to political.purposes.

          Sheer ignorance on your part.

          Thirdly, only 8% of American workers are unionized.

          Sheer ignorance on your part.

          So, now that their CEOs have them making minimum wage, those CEOs have more millions to throw at Republican candidates.

          I can’t recall when you posted something that wasn’t sheer ignorance.

          Maybe ill just Rey in that form – unless there’s something actually legitimate there!

          1. ella says:

            You don’t have a leg to stand on. Obviously you do read a lot though.

          2. Leroy says:

            LOL!

            I don’t have a leg to stand on?

            I have posted numerous, numerous legs to stand on.

            Basically, NONE of this is MY “opinion”, these are articles by journalists and writers who must RESEARCH their material and who (usually) have more than one level of review which must approve those cited articles (because they are REAL websites, often real media websites – and not some rightwing wingnut posting anything that he or she wants).

            So, as your postings are, by your own frequent admission, strictly your own opinion and often just your own personal belief, you are the one without a leg to stand on.

            But, I’ll tell you what.

            Truthfully answer me a question and I’ll admit something about my postings.

            As you said in an earlier posting in THIS article, that you quit reading my Reply to you after the first sentence… you don’t really read the links that I provide do you (maybe one where or there, but pretty much none of them, right)???

          3. ella says:

            So far, right! By the way “I don’t have a leg to stand on?” Spider or Centipede? (Just joking) I haven’t had much time lately it would seem. Carson is who he is. A nice person certainly, but he has less than no place in governing a nation. He is loved by fellow church members and others who are attracted to his ‘doctors’ manners. He made a living with them until now and will in the future. Some of the problems came out in the debate last night associated with his medical career. My biggest disappointment was Rubio’s childish reaction to his best friend and mentor JEB. Rubio is too immature at this time, it was a reaction of an 8 year old, the way he did it. But I liked Christie’s answers, and maybe he would make a good Attorney General. Trump, according to the after debate poll by cnbc, was still on top. Their poll was in excess of 500,000 voters. The poll that showed Carson on top was of 535 respondents. That was a pre-debate set-up to “see how Trump would react to being in second place”.

          4. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            No, dear, that’s not quite how those things work.

            Those others are SCIENTIFIC polls where the polling agencies select specifically chosen voters that meet a a specified criteria as being representative.

            But the CNBC “poll” was not a scientific poll or survey, but just a questionnaire for anyone (even kids under 18, felons, foreigners, and others who have to right to vote). It was (still is) a website page where anyone can go to a select who they think “won” the vote. Any you can vote repeatedly. (All you have to do is go into your Settings and clear your “cookies”)

            So it is not only inaccurate, but wide open to cheating. For example, someone who was really upset at falling in the polls could go to some commercial organization (like Bolton) and pay them to have their workers (most who don’t even support that candidate or maybe any Republican candidate) to go online and repeatedly select the candidate that they’re ordered and being paid (minimum wage) to select.

            Sad,but true.

            Here’s the website:

            http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/28/vote-who-won-the-cnbc-republican-presidential-debate.html

            At the very bottom of that CNBC website it even says:

            “Disclaimer: This is an informal poll. Results are not scientific and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of the public as a whole.”

            As to the polls that showed that Carson had moved ahead slightly nationwide, and more so in Iowa, those were multiple polls and primarily by long established nationally renown polling agencies (not that there aren’t some “stinkers” who have every poor reputations for their “polling” – Fox News being one example). Those prominent polling agencies would lose all future credibility and not be used seriously by anyone if they ever were caught intentionally “fudging” polling results like you felt to be the case with the recent Carson results.

            Bottom line:

            CNBC was definitely NOT a poll.

            Carson’s poll results were relatively accurate (all polls have a built-in – and announced – accuracy rate figure, like “plus or minus 2.5%” or whatever).

            (Personally, I think that Carson’s current polling is temporary and will slip down… just like 2012, different candidates will be in the lead at different times… and as the primary cycle progresses, candidates will drop out more and more as their support just never really materializes or they run out of money to campaign, etcetera… To me, even real, legitimate polls this early tend to be “somewhat” meaningless.)

          5. ella says:

            Leroy, they called for the vote live during the debate. They do have an online site where others can vote, but I am referring to the live vote. It was settled by the end of the debate. And the New York Times has/had an article stating the ‘poll’ that showed Carson ahead was taken days before the debate and of 535 respondents. Telephone survey. Of course there was no clear winner, there was no clear debate. It was a farce and somewhat amusing. Some say the so called moderators were Clinton shills, probably so. Maybe they are waiting until a candidate is selected to actually ask any questions. Hillary isn’t good with that, and that is probably the point. She has been through a lot personally and I doubt has much left to give if anything. But she is a devoted wife and mother. There is good, and there is Bill she will do anything for. He just let power get a firm grip on his ambitions.

          6. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            Here’s another example (like CNNC’s) of an online non-scientific “poll”:

            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/republican_presidential_debate_who_won_vote_in_our_poll.html

            Now, I haven’t checked any “real polls” yet… it might be another day or two before their results are tabulated as they have to design the polling structure (looking for not only selected voters according to their established criteria to insure as much accuracy as possible, but also ones that are Repuican voters as this is for the Republican nomination, and not a general election yet).

            Anyway, Donald may have very well won the debate. If he did, it would be interesting as in this debate he actually said VERY little (as compared to the other debates or to daily chatter in general). Maybe he’s learning that shooting his mouth off has begun to cost him support? Or… maybe he just doesn’t really have detailed answers to more important issues?

            In any case, personally I hope that the Republican nomination goes to Trump (or if not, then to Carson or Huckabee or Cruz – in that order).

            Also… I know that Trump promised that he would not, but if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination and has a solid supporter base around 25% or so, I wonder if he WILL pull loose and run as a Third Party candidate? That would put an interesting spin on things!

          7. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            And yet another non scientific “poll”:

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/28/blaze-poll-who-won-the-cnbc-republican-debate/

            Note that this one has Cruz winning it!

          8. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            And as the far right wingnut Allen West showed on his website, his reporting of the Drudge Report (a notorious far rightwing website) and their non scientific “poll” (done just a couple hours after the end of the debate, which shows you something as real polls are going to take a day or two even if done quickly):

            http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/whoa-post-debate-flash-gop-poll-shows-big-shake-up/

            (In this one Trump “won” by more than 50%… Hmmmm. What’s that fishy smell?)

            I’ll wait until Monmouth, Pew, Rasmussen, and the other highly reputable agencies whose only line of work is doing legitimate polls and surveys release their polling data before doing any conclusions as to who won and who had what percentages. This is approaching the time where candidates are going to start dwindling away as lack of campaign support and funding forces them out.

          9. Leroy says:

            Ella,

            Shoot!

            I wish that I had found this earlier!

            Here’s an interesting article that explains (from expert analysts) what I was saying above:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/who-won-the-debate_56312a28e4b0c66bae5aba9a

            “Initial reactions to the first Democratic debate also proved to be dissimilar from the results of later polling on the race. Another Luntz focus group named Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) the clear winner, and suggested many of Clinton’s supporters had deserted her. Other focus groups and instant online polls told a similar story, as did a surge of web searches and Facebook follows for Sanders. Days later, though, scientific surveys showed a more quotidian outcome: While both candidates made a good impression, the debate, if anything, strengthened Clinton’s lead.

            It’s possible for both of those reactions to be true, to some extent: Media coverage, which was largely favorable to Clinton, is at least as important as the candidate’s actual performance in guiding opinion. Respondents’ opinions on later polls are likely influenced by the media’s dominant narrative, especially if the poll includes people who didn’t watch the entire debate.

            But there are plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of most of the attempts to instantly gauge reaction after a debate.

            Online “instant polls,” which don’t attempt to weight their responses and may allow people to vote multiple times, often end up rewarding enthusiasm over numbers, reflecting the views of a small group of supporters rather than the nation’s debate-watchers as a whole.”

          10. Leroy says:

            RE: “Leroy, they called for the vote live during the debate. They do have an online site where others can vote, but I am referring to the live vote. It was settled by the end of the debate… ”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/who-won-the-debate_56312a28e4b0c66bae5aba9a

            The fact that it was done during the debate made it even more meaningless.

            It was unscientific, inaccurate, and settled nothing.

    2. Leroy says:

      And what about the other kind of donations? Like the kind that go to charities? I am sure an ultra wealthy man like Donald is a major donor to charities:

      http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/

  5. ella says:

    Let us try another article on Donald Trumps charitable actions. Consider the following.

    “Adoption, Fostering, Orphans, AIDS & HIV, Animals, Bullying, Cancer, Children, Conservation, Emergency services, Environment, Family/Parent Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Hunger, Miscellaneous, Oceans, Parkinson’s Disease, Philanthropy, Physical Challenges, Poverty, Slavery & Human Trafficking, Veteran/Service Member Support”

    https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/donald-trump

    1. Leroy says:

      Maybe so.

      We only have his lying word for that.

      As my link showed, the main point is that over his many years for as wealthy as he is, he gives them very little!

      He is the world’s stingiest greediest billionaire when it comes to charity.

      Period.

      None of your finding websites that take things out of context can change that.

      If you wish to donate to him, to campaign for him, to vote for him, fine.

      But don’t sell your soul by lying so much about him.

      Take him for what he is… warts and all. Don’t try to turn him into some kind of knight in shining armor!

      1. ella says:

        You poor, embittered person. Take a deep breath and meditate for a few minutes. Think, you are the only one voicing negativity. Pointing out the positive or negatives concerning a candidate does not require mouth foaming, or angelic posturing. Supporting a person for President, or rejecting that person for whatever reasons, is a matter of personal perspective. If you have legitimate reasons, state them. I have no objections to you doing so. It really isn’t that hard if you have the mental picture of something that has repulsed you concerning Trump, lay it out to be read. There are many possible reasons for doing so. There are an equal amount of reasons concerning a lot of people. Those that are of immediate concern are those that relate to ‘why do you want to be President of the United States? and what will you do to/for the United States once you get there?’ Relate your personal bitterness toward Trump in that context. I have related my personal distaste for another candidate in that context. Maybe I can begin to understand you then.

        1. Leroy says:

          You ARE nuts.

          I base my rationale on supporting candidates on FACTS, not emotions, not something that I heard somewhere (or maybe dreamt about). I have spoken very POSITIVELY about Bernie. I have spoken fairly positively about Hillary. I have spoken positively about Him (Webb)… but I am an embittered, negative person?

          Oh, wait, I get it. I don’t growth at the mouth enthusiastically about Donald! I don’t accept his lies, his racism, his intent to destroy the middle class. Why, even worse, I don’t cheerfully make up LIES (that I then can’t back up) about him. Why – even worse – I don’t worship him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

          I have REPEATEDLY laid out LEGITIMATE CONCERNS for my non support of Donald (the onus is not on me, but on you as you REFUSE to accept it). I, though I have no obligation whatsoever to do so, have REPEATEDLY “layed it out to read” (much MORE so than YOU have, with your CONSTANT general comments with normally no sources referenced).

          Yes, I agree, YOU should do those things that you mention to understand YOUR bitterness for Hillary (you poor thing). Me? I sleep fine. I am content with using logic, common sense, a legitimate research ability and combined with a true ethical outlook on virtue and equality for all peoples (not a select few) in making my choices.

          BTW, statements like this one of yours is typical of fascist propaganda. “You don’t agree completely with me, so there MUST be something wrong with you”… How typical.

          And, as to:

          “Supporting a person for President, or rejecting that person for whatever reasons, is a matter of personal perspective. If you have legitimate reasons, state them. I have no objections to you doing so.”

          Why, thank you.

          How patronizing of you.

          How parental of you (when the fact is that I am probably older than you – and MUCH MORE worldly experienced than you).

          That you’d have NO connection to me doing things EXACTLY as you want them done.

          Wow… that’s awfully condescending of you!

          It is also a great example of hypocrisy!

          (While I would simply sigh in relief if you could do things in a rational, understandable manner!)

  6. Leroy says:

    Poor Donald… he had it SO tough as a young man (while also dodging the Draft with great agility):

    http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-small-million-dollar-loan

    I imagine that many of us could be pretty successful entrepreneurs with a million dollar family loan!

    (Plus he NEVER talks about his businesses that failed, his bankruptcies, the businesses that were closed and jobs shipped overseas)!

  7. Leroy says:

    We all know – with great irritation – about the Banks and Businesses that get “too big to fail” (or to refuse to bail out or to prosecute)… But who was maybe really the first?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-too-big-fail-debt-2015-10

    “As revealed in this landmark biography, Donald Trump is a man whose appetite for wealth, attention, power, and conquest is practically insatiable. Declaring that he is still the person he was as a rascally little boy, Trump confesses that he avoids reflecting on himself “because I might not like what I see” and he believes “most people aren’t worthy of respect.”

    A product of the media age and the Me Generation that emerged in the 1970s, Trump was a Broadway showman before he became a developer. Mentored by the scoundrel attorney Roy Cohn, Trump was a regular on the New York club scene and won press attention as a dashing young mogul before he had built his first major project. He leveraged his father’s enormous fortune and political connections to get his business off the ground, and soon developed a larger-than-life persona. In time, and through many setbacks, he made himself into a living symbol of extravagance and achievement.”

    (No matter who he grinds underfoot!)

  8. Leroy says:

    Here’s an interesting article that explains (from expert analysts) what I previously said in regards to “quickie polls” (though not really polls, as completely unscientific) as released by CNBC, Slate, The Blaze, Drudge Report, etcetera):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/who-won-the-debate_56312a28e4b0c66bae5aba9a

    “Initial reactions to the first Democratic debate also proved to be dissimilar from the results of later polling on the race. Another Luntz focus group named Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) the clear winner, and suggested many of Clinton’s supporters had deserted her. Other focus groups and instant online polls told a similar story, as did a surge of web searches and Facebook follows for Sanders. Days later, though, scientific surveys showed a more quotidian outcome: While both candidates made a good impression, the debate, if anything, strengthened Clinton’s lead.

    It’s possible for both of those reactions to be true, to some extent: Media coverage, which was largely favorable to Clinton, is at least as important as the candidate’s actual performance in guiding opinion. Respondents’ opinions on later polls are likely influenced by the media’s dominant narrative, especially if the poll includes people who didn’t watch the entire debate.

    But there are plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of most of the attempts to instantly gauge reaction after a debate.

    Online “instant polls,” which don’t attempt to weight their responses and may allow people to vote multiple times, often end up rewarding enthusiasm over numbers, reflecting the views of a small group of supporters rather than the nation’s debate-watchers as a whole.”

    And:

    “The results rely on a self-selecting group of respondents with no regard to political affiliation, age, country, or even whether the person doing the responding actually watched the debate,” Slate’s Josh Voorhees wrote, explaining why a reader poll posted to the site’s homepage had shown Sanders dominating. “They also tend to favor those candidates with active and impassioned fans — something that Bernie’s fundraising numbers and campaign crowds suggest he clearly has in spades.”

    “Focus groups, a similarly imperfect snapshot of the American electorate, are also often dominated by the loudest voices.

    “While these discussions make for far more compelling television than dry survey statistics, they have important limitations,” HuffPost’s Mark Blumenthal wrote in a 2008 column. “Every group is a small, non-random sample, and it is hard to know the degree to which the views of participants may be influenced by the atmospherics of the telecast, the probes of the moderator or the opinions expressed by others in the group.”

    And even if a focus group or online poll accurately takes the measure of public opinion, there’s another, more fundamental challenge with trying to figure out who “won.” Unlike a sports game or an election, debates don’t necessarily produce clear-cut winners or an objective way of naming them. Supporters of a politician are likely to think their preferred candidate won, regardless of the outcome, and even a strong performance can have relatively little impact on the polls.”

  9. ella says:

    I am starting to read your posts, it will take a while. I just have a snap back response to what seems like violent – you would consider blunt – conversation. I see that has actually turned out to be just as you have said, reasonable. But I was very busy for a while and haven’t had time to catch up. You probably are a couple of years older than me. As, of course, I am the youngest.

  10. big tom says:

    we are arguing about calls for support? must be a slow news day

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!