😂😂😂😂
I guess you forgot you claimed you don’t watch cable or FOX at all bobby. Another lie you yourself proved false. Such a silly boy.
😂😂😂😂

Pew says only 40% of Republicans and 20% of democrats think homosexuality is “wrong” and should be discouraged, Bob….and that’s people still willing to say they’re republicans, a rapidly shrinking subset.
Gallup says under 30% overall agree with you.
Your claim “most Americans” agree with you is more made up bullshit, and I think you know it.
Not even most republicans do.
You are consistently on the wrong and unpopular (not always the same thing) side of every issue.

His category? Is there another non funny far right “comedian” that doesn’t make jokes, only vitriolic attacks bigots laugh at on tv? Not that I know of…it’s easy to be the highest rated far right “comedian” when you’re the only one. As the only hyper bigoted right wing late night talk show contrasting with at least 6 self competing talk shows (that don’t compete with him because they’re comedy shows, not a far right whine and bitch fest), if he didn’t have the “highest ratings” it would be disastrous. Bigots like to watch and be bigoted with other bigots. If you combine centrist (what you call leftist) talk shows ratings, he’s a sad little blip. He’s the only choice for the right, the right that’s so divorced from sanity they think hating homosexuals isn’t bigotry because they say homosexuality is wrong.
“But…he beat The Daily Show”….only after Trevor Noah retired and they have no host. Try again.

Higher ratings do not in any way contradict my statement, bob. He’s still a cold pile of shit you love to shovel into your empty head.

No hate!?! So, you’ve never watched him at all, not once for one second, because I have and he’s 100% hate. His “jokes” are nothing but snide insults. He’s never made a joke.

Have you ever mowed on Saturday, or had your kids mow? Ever eat shellfish? Ever wear a cotton poly blend? All 3 are just as sinful as homosexuality, and call for the same punishments. How much do you protest red lobster bob? How many times have you ransacked a tjmaxx? How often have you stoned your children to death for working on Saturday, the sabbath the commandments demand you remember and keep sacred (not Sunday, that’s the Christian sabbath, and there were no Christians when the 10 commandments were given).

No hate, he just hates gays….and blacks, immigrants, atheists, young people, Muslims, liberals, centrists, reporters, working women, truth, honesty, reality, etc….but no hate. 😂
He’s nothing but hate, xenophobic fear driven hate by insecure ignorami for insecure ignorami. He’s definitely your guy.

“Sinner side”. 😂 There it is. It’s about your bigoted interpretation of religious dogma that you think should be law, Christian sharia law. You have no clue what kind of backwards murderous Stone Age civilization that begets, do you? Hint, it makes Muslim sharia law look positively enlightened and permissive.
Religious nonsense is always the wrong side, listening to hypocritical zealots that themselves pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow and cudgel others with and what to ignore based on whatever is good for them at the time is the wrong side…or have you picketed schools for allowing blended fabrics or serving pork lunches? Why not, they’re grooming your children to sin. Have you lobbied to ban blended fabrics, shellfish, for a return of and enhancement of blue laws extending to every judeo-christian sabbath and with the biblically prescribed death penalty, just in case, etc? No, because you don’t really believe in the Bible, you only abuse it by trying to force your chosen “beliefs” on others.

Bob, you have never even glimpsed the “right” side, and you live on the wrong side looking away from the correct side while shouting insults behind you. Only you don’t see it. 🤦‍♂️

So I got curious: Could only find one quick data point --the Gallup Polls (since the early 2000s) asking: what do you identify yourself as? Republican, Independent, or Democrat? (respondents in percentages)

----------------R-----I-----D
Feb 2017---31---37---31
July 2020---26---41---31

To win in 2016, Trump needed all his core and then a majority of the electorally important independents (only 6 states matter).

But--he's been bleeding his core; and maybe independents are less in love with him.

I guess, we'll see.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Lol. Good point.....dirty hippies. ;-)

Um....what? Vegans should want to avoid them almost as much as the hunter's helper and slaughterhouse sucker brand lozenges, not flock to the brand marketed at meat harvesters.

Um...really? You think non vegans fear a vegan culinary takeover or something enough to falsify studies/polls? That's hilarious.
As to the 7% number, even vegan organizations in Britain disagree, as does Wiki....
According to a 2018 survey by Comparethemarket.com, the number of people who identify as vegans in the United Kingdom has risen to over 3.5 million, which is approximately seven percent of the population, and environmental concerns were a major factor in this development.[140] However, doubt was cast on this inflated figure by the UK-based Vegan Society, who perform their own regular survey: the Vegan Society themselves found in 2018 that there were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain (1.16%), which is a dramatic increase on previous figures.[141][142]
United States: Estimates of vegans in the U.S. vary from 2% (Gallup, 2012)[143] to 0.5% (Faunalytics, 2014). According to the latter, 70% of those who adopted a vegan diet abandoned it.

I think the basic problem for liberals in America is a numbers game:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

Liberals had the illusion of being the majority because certain recent victories they had culturally and politically, when in fact they were still in the minority . They tried to silence the majority, who complied, as the man said, and then voted.

The power of the vote in America is greater than decades of social conditioning; it can completely change the direction of a country politically and more importantly, ideologically. That is what is happening here, which is a course correction by the majority which will lead to some diminishment of liberal thought in America. It may not last long, however, depending on the character and nature of the Trump presidency.

Liberalism worldwide seeks to change the value system of every nation in the world. The stated goal is a one world government without borders. This is also exactly what the bible predicted would happen. Whether it happens through liberalism, or another ism, there will eventually be a one world government overseen by the Antichrist.

I don't think we can pretend that either of them was trying 100% to engage in serious discussion. Nobody who answers a question with "my whole life has been spent out with the American people, while you're telling jokes" is committed to serious debate, unless the topic of the debate is which countries Frank has lived in.

Still, Luntz was right on one of the few facts they disagreed on - "Reagan's last two Gallup job approval ratings before he left office were 57% in mid-November and 63% in December 1988.

The highest job approval rating of the Reagan administration was 68% -- reached twice, in May 1981 and as previously indicated, in May 1986. As noted, the low point was 35% in January 1983."

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

I meant not to be particularly argumentative, only contradictory. However, I feel that I have been forced into the position to return fire with fire, as it seems you lack the capability and or willingness to discuss something without attacking me, spewing meaningless information, circumventing reason, and drawing up arse about face codswallap for your conclusions.(Look mommy, I can curse to!!!!!!!)

Firstly, I should like to address your attacks against me...

Fox bubble? My god, were I to force myself to absorb and process information from such a low level of news broadcasting, I would reel in shock from the incursion into my sanity. Luckily, however, I live in the UK, and had to research Fox on Google to even understand the reference.

Now, to business.

The investigation.... a Red Herring?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299310/Benghazi-probe-Hillary-Clinton-facing-months-FBI-investigation-emails.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/fbi-director-im-following-very-closely-the-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-emails-video/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-jus
t-failing-tell-Obama.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-clinton-e-mail-expands-to-second-data-company/2015/10/06/3d94ba46-6c48-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_sto
ry.html

Research, see? Useful. For finding stuff like....INFORMATION.

Socialism:

http://fee.org/freeman/why-socialism-failed/

https://mises.org/library/greece-illustrates-150-years-socialist-failure-europe

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/01/greek-disaster-is-all-about-socialism.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086/page/full

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-socialism-collapsed-eastern-europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bit of light reading, don't worry, I am getting to a point...


"Mischaracterization of Obama's record" ??????

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/06/25/six-problems-with-the-aca-that-arent-going-away/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/07/problems-with-obamacare-that-could-prove-difficult.aspx

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/so-long-as-you-ignore-the-problems-obamacare-is-perfect/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obamacare-problems/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-poll-disapprove-isis/2015/08/21/id/671190/

http://theweek.com/articles/589272/obamas-isis-failure

http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/

https://www.gop.com/obamas-biggest-failures/

Next, get a First Class Honours Masters Degree in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and then spent five years of your life convincing rich people to give your bank their money(My job, by the way), carefully analyze anything Obama says about anything important, then come tell me my observations are "ridiculous" and "beyond contradicting".

As for Trump? Sure, all political candidates are devils in disguise. However, why don't you try to turn a mere million into a multi billion dollar empire and say you cant do anything for the economy?

You know how you get rid of 11 million people?

1. Dont let anymore in...

2. Ship the rest out with the Federal resources you already have...

3. Smile, because you just saved your bloody country:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/14/americas-heroin-epidemic-fueled-by-flood-of-illegal-immigrants/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/isis-camp-a-few-miles-from-texas-mexican-authorities-confirm/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20678-report-with-cartel-help-isis-crossing-border-from-mexico

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/mexican-cartel-sicarios-crossed-texas-kidnapped-u-s-citizen/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414969/mexican-drug-cartels-caused-border-crisis

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=379605&CategoryId=10718

How do you make Mexico build a wall?

1. Stop official trade with Mexico until they give up and build it.

Wow... That was easy...

As for making China ignore our debt... Basically impossible, but that's who's fault?

Obama got you blinkered people into $18 Trillion dollars of debt with his hysterically shoddy plans, I can't believe no-one is smart enough to realize that simple and plain a truth.

No way on Earth his plans would even be tried? He is the Republican frontrunner... By popular poll.

You tried Obama's plans, and his bloody approval rating is (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx). Its about time you Americans experienced some success in the world, don't you think?

Sod it all, I am tired, I could say more, but I await your response. May I request that you refrain from using vulgar language in response to an amicable post? As you can see by the content of my article here, I can be a ripe-mouthed cur, but is it truly necessary?

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

Racist, bigot and homophobic have nothing to do with this argument, Yet another straw man argument from the left.

The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change its thinking?



http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Approximately 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse, and another 0.5% identify as being in a same-sex domestic partnership

Once again you just spew hyperbole trash.

You can apologize after your read facts. You do know hat a fact is. It is truth. AS of 2014 24% of Americans describe themselves as Liberals and 37% conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx


As for you call me a Necon. then you add you own definition is just stupid on your part.

From Webster Dictionary.
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
------------
Clearly I am not nor ever Item 1
Item 2 is promoting National interest abroad. clearly not what you defined. and B) you would probably fit under this definition.

Please if you are going to insult me please me intelligent about it.

Take your time take off you Liberal rose-colored glasses and realize the if it was not for Republicans there would be no civil rights legislation.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Once again you talk smack.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Hey! No fair rewriting it after I upvote you!

Your imagination steers you wrong again, many people identify themselves as atheist....
Demographics of atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 2012 poll on the demographics of atheism by Gallup International, featuring over 50,000 respondents worldwide, recorded that 13% of those interviewed said they were "convinced atheists".
A 2007 Barna group poll found that about 20 million people say they are atheist, have no religious faith, or are agnostic, with 5 million of that number claiming to be atheists. The study also found that "[t]hey tend to be more educated, more affluent and more likely to be male and unmarried than those with active faith" and that "only 6 percent of people over 60 have no faith in God, and one in four adults ages 18 to 22 describe themselves as having no faith."
'Good' is good because harming others for personal gain is antithetical to civil society, while helping others selflessly is of great benefit to society.

Give me back my vote!

Hey Enoch,

The premise of the video is wrong. Christians, if you include Catholics, make up around 1/3 of the worlds population. By 2050 it is predicted there will be over 3 billion Christians in the world. Christianity in many places in the world, especially Asia and Africa, is exploding. Even in the west, it is isn't exactly stagnating. 42 percent of the population of the United States believes in young earth creationism, for example:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

It is simply not true to say people no longer believe; believers are increasing, not decreasing, in the world.

I know the source. It's called Facebook meme's, or in other words, some attention seeking dumbass with absolutely no facts posting some random bullshit and then other dumbasses repost it because it was a picture and a quote.

There's a reason you can't find a source on it . . . Because it's simply not true.

I've read your posts on here and I have to say, I thought we left YouTube. This level of stupidity and willful dumbassery is usually only found there.

Liberal street gangs? Do you even know what liberal means?? Or what a street gang is?

I really hope you're just a pathetic troll and not really this stupid.

This is called a "survey" where people do statistical data mining to find FACTS.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

As far as gangs: "The profile of a typical gang member is a male school dropout or truant, who is unemployed or has no employable skills. The gang member is usually in trouble with the police and does not receive adequate family attention. The gang provides identity and status and, in return, the member develops a fierce loyalty to the gang and nation."

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/Communities/Gang%20Awareness

Sorry, but liberal isn't listed as a requirement. What really happens is gangs tend to pick on poor, disenfranchised people that liberals, as a political party, are typically trying to help out of those situations so they can become productive members of society. Such programs include, public education, adult literacy programs and so forth.

My only guess is someone's been watching too much Fox News. . .

There aren't really that many non-believers, actually. Worldwide belief in God is usually pegged at 85 to 90 percent. A gallup poll from last year places belief in God in America at 92 percent:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

But I am not going to go into idealism. Let's say some of our experience of God is in natural terms, in that we experience Him through our senses (I will leave out the spiritual aspect). Well, if someone comes up to you and says "Thus sayeth the Lord..lightning will strike just west of your house at 12:33 pm" and then it happens, are you going to conclude coincidence, or are you going to conclude God supernaturally influenced reality? That's a way you can use empiricism to deduce a supernatural reality. This sort of thing happens all the time to people who know God. He makes impossible things happen in their lives and sometimes even lets them know before hand.

The central question of philosophy is this: what is truth?

Jesus says He is the truth:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

If that's true, and you are honestly searching for the truth, you will find Jesus.