President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Boomchild]

Then there is banning all Muslims...which I didn't need Khan to tell me it was unConstitutional. I said that before it was even on the news. As soon as such a Presidential order happens, it will be challenged in court. But, it really doesn't matter...because how is this even going to be implemented? "Check here if you are a Muslim?" Come on...how ridiculous. So, now he wants to ban countries with terrorism issues, removing the religious context. So, we are going to ban Norther Ireland because of the NRA? Does he even think before he opens his fucking mouth?

My understanding is that his administration would put in place a temporary halt on immigration from areas that are considered a threat. The ban would be lifted once the administration figures out a way to properly and effectively vet those wishing to enter the U.S. from those areas. So what this means is that NO ONE from those areas would be allowed entry. This notion that it would single out Muslims is incorrect. It doesn't matter what your race or religion is, if you are trying to enter from the areas identified your not getting in. As discussed here before, immigration was temporarily halted from certain areas during WWII. So it is not an un-Constitutional act.

[Memorex]

Illegal immigration stops with two actions. Zero welfare benefits and no hiring of any non-citizen. That's it. You don't have to round them up. You don't have to arrest or deport anyone. There will be a migration back to their homes where they should demand jobs and help there.

You punish the businesses, not the immigrants. It's beyond simple and obvious.

[Monker]

It was common news yesterday that Kahn scrubbed his website. Also that he wrote many PRO Sheria papers.

And, CNN interviewed Kahn who said he was being spammed with hits and his provider advised him to take down the THREE PAGE site.

Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you are saying.

[Monker]

Then there is banning all Muslims...which I didn't need Khan to tell me it was unConstitutional. I said that before it was even on the news. As soon as such a Presidential order happens, it will be challenged in court. But, it really doesn't matter...because how is this even going to be implemented? "Check here if you are a Muslim?" Come on...how ridiculous. So, now he wants to ban countries with terrorism issues, removing the religious context. So, we are going to ban Norther Ireland because of the NRA? Does he even think before he opens his fucking mouth?

My understanding is that his administration would put in place a temporary halt on immigration from areas that are considered a threat. The ban would be lifted once the administration figures out a way to properly and effectively vet those wishing to enter the U.S. from those areas. So what this means is that NO ONE from those areas would be allowed entry. This notion that it would single out Muslims is incorrect. It doesn't matter what your race or religion is, if you are trying to enter from the areas identified your not getting in. As discussed here before, immigration was temporarily halted from certain areas during WWII. So it is not an un-Constitutional act.

And, my point is - how does he define "considered a threat?" Ireland because of the NRA? Saudi Arabia because the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from there, and many terrorists are from there. Israel because of their issues with Palestinians? India because of their huge Muslim population?

It's a bullshit plan aimed at naive people like you who vote from their emotions and not their brain.

[Monker]

Billionaires for Hillary. among them, the Koch Brothers, and no surprise to me, George Soros.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... fight.html

And, this should be called a "billionaires not for Trump" because people like the Koch brothers (who Hillary denounced and said she didn't want their support) are almost EXCLUSIVELY Republican but now say that Clinton is the more conservative choice and will be better for business. TRUMP IS A LIBERAL...that is why Clinton is getting this much support from Republicans.

[Memorex]

Illegal immigration stops with two actions. Zero welfare benefits and no hiring of any non-citizen. That's it. You don't have to round them up. You don't have to arrest or deport anyone. There will be a migration back to their homes where they should demand jobs and help there.

You punish the businesses, not the immigrants. It's beyond simple and obvious.

You don't have to arrest or deport or ban anyone....but the President can if he wishes and it is not Unconstitutional. It's the law.

And I whole heartedly agree with you about the welfare and hiring being big attractions to come here illegally.

It's bad optics to round up anyone. It also is needless to talk about a wall. Trump should maybe use the gun language that Hillary uses: "We will improve the situation by enforcing our common-sense immigration laws."

[Memorex]

Billionaires for Hillary. among them, the Koch Brothers, and no surprise to me, George Soros.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... fight.html

And, this should be called a "billionaires not for Trump" because people like the Koch brothers (who Hillary denounced and said she didn't want their support) are almost EXCLUSIVELY Republican but now say that Clinton is the more conservative choice and will be better for business. TRUMP IS A LIBERAL...that is why Clinton is getting this much support from Republicans.

It's my impression that the Koch brothers are staying pretty much exclusively Republican, up and down the ticket, but are sitting out of the Presidential donations. They are not backing Clinton. They just don't feel Trump is good for the establishment. I hadn't read where they said Hillary was more conservative.

[Monker]

And you would be correct Boomchild. After all, it's not like Trump is going to round them up and put them in prison like Democrats did japanese, Germans, Italians, ect.

So, I spose as these people are rounded up they are all going to be invited to stay with Trump at the White House.

Of course they are going to be in some kinda "camp" or "prison" while they wait to be deported. You are such a fucking naive idiot.

[Monker]

It's my impression that the Koch brothers are staying pretty much exclusively Republican, up and down the ticket, but are sitting out of the Presidential donations. They are not backing Clinton. They just don't feel Trump is good for the establishment. I hadn't read where they said Hillary was more conservative.

Yes, there was an article during the primaries where the Koch brothers were interviewed and they said they could not support Trump but Hillary may be the more conservative option this time, and that she was much more aligned with them than Trump was. When Hillary was asked about it she said she did not want their support. This was way back in January or February.

[Monker]

[
It's bad optics to round up anyone. It also is needless to talk about a wall. Trump should maybe use the gun language that Hillary uses: "We will improve the situation by enforcing our common-sense immigration laws."

Call it what it is - LIES.

There will be no wall because it is physically, financially, and logistically impossible.

There will be no mass deportation of illegals for the exact same reasons.

There will be no banning of Muslims.

These are ALL LIES that the naive people out there are buying into and believing.

I have to wonder what would happen if Trump actually got elected and NONE of these things he was elected to do happened. He is acting as much a politician and Clinton or any of the others who ran this year. The only difference is he has convinced the small minded that he is an outsider who doesn't act the way he is acting. How stupid you people are.

[Monker]

Illegal immigration stops with two actions. Zero welfare benefits and no hiring of any non-citizen. That's it. You don't have to round them up. You don't have to arrest or deport anyone. There will be a migration back to their homes where they should demand jobs and help there.

You punish the businesses, not the immigrants. It's beyond simple and obvious.

You don't have to arrest or deport or ban anyone....but the President can if he wishes and it is not Unconstitutional. It's the law.

And I whole heartedly agree with you about the welfare and hiring being big attractions to come here illegally.

You can bet that is tested in court as soon as ANY President tries to ban people from this country based on Religion.

[Memorex]

Illegal immigration stops with two actions. Zero welfare benefits and no hiring of any non-citizen. That's it. You don't have to round them up. You don't have to arrest or deport anyone. There will be a migration back to their homes where they should demand jobs and help there.

You punish the businesses, not the immigrants. It's beyond simple and obvious.

You don't have to arrest or deport or ban anyone....but the President can if he wishes and it is not Unconstitutional. It's the law.

And I whole heartedly agree with you about the welfare and hiring being big attractions to come here illegally.

You can bet that is tested in court as soon as ANY President tries to ban people from this country based on Religion.

I don't there is a ban by religion being proposed right now. More like a ban by region, like Obama did with Iranians.

Anywho, I was talking about illegal immigration.

[Memorex]

Obama suspended Iraquis for 6 months, it was Carter who banned Shia Muslims and ordered Iranian students and others out of the Country. It wasn't racists when they did it.

Yea. Sorry. Had Iran on the mind.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama ... le/2594016

[Boomchild]

And, my point is - how does he define "considered a threat?" Ireland because of the NRA? Saudi Arabia because the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from there, and many terrorists are from there. Israel because of their issues with Palestinians? India because of their huge Muslim population?

It's a bullshit plan aimed at naive people like you who vote from their emotions and not their brain.

Just because I pointed out that your notion that it would single out immigration of ONLY Muslims was not correct doesn't mean that I personally believe or agree in such a plan. That is being naive. As to how he would define such areas of threat, it would seem they would start with areas that we know the terrorists have used to enter the U.S.. Another example would be Syria where ISIS has specifically stated that they would exploit the Syrian refugee program to hide operatives among them.

[Memorex]

Wonder if something is about to get interesting. Or just, not.

https://imgur.com/a/11Hex#pjoFu1h

[Monker]

Then there is banning all Muslims...which I didn't need Khan to tell me it was unConstitutional. I said that before it was even on the news. As soon as such a Presidential order happens, it will be challenged in court. But, it really doesn't matter...because how is this even going to be implemented? "Check here if you are a Muslim?" Come on...how ridiculous. So, now he wants to ban countries with terrorism issues, removing the religious context. So, we are going to ban Norther Ireland because of the NRA? Does he even think before he opens his fucking mouth?

My understanding is that his administration would put in place a temporary halt on immigration from areas that are considered a threat. The ban would be lifted once the administration figures out a way to properly and effectively vet those wishing to enter the U.S. from those areas. So what this means is that NO ONE from those areas would be allowed entry. This notion that it would single out Muslims is incorrect. It doesn't matter what your race or religion is, if you are trying to enter from the areas identified your not getting in. As discussed here before, immigration was temporarily halted from certain areas during WWII. So it is not an un-Constitutional act.

And you would be correct Boomchild. After all, it's not like Trump is going to round them up and put them in prison like Democrats did japanese, Germans, Italians, ect.

Except that FF is implying that Trump could do it if he wants to. He would have to go to court to ban a religion.

[Monker]

If Trump, or any other President, wants to ban a religion by executive order, then none of the below matters and that executive order will be challenged in court as being unContitutional, or not. If he tries to pass a ban on a religion via congress, well, good luck with that.

The Courts must uphold the law Monker, right? The law says...

suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem necessary.

Ya know, in reading thru that law..our elected and appointed leaders are derelict in duty. (but we knew that)

The Attorny General as head enforcer of the law..

He shall have the power and duty
to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States
against the illegal entry of aliens and shall, in his discretion, appoint
for that purpose such number of employees of the Service as to him
shall appear necessary and proper.

Is this law being followed?

GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND
EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION

(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of
performing skilled or unskilled labor, if the Secretary of Labor has
determined and certified to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney
General that (A) sufficient workers in the United States who are able,
willing, and qualified are available at the time (of application for a
visa and for admission to the United States) and place (to w^hich
the alien is destined) to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, or
(B) the employment of such aliens will adversely affect the wages
and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly
employed.

15) Aliens who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of
application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the
time of application for admission, are likely at any time to become
public charges; (this means in our jails and prisons)

(27) Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows
or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally,
or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial
to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security
of the United States;
(28) Aliens who are, or at any time have been, members of any of
the following classes:
(A) Aliens who are anarchists;
(B) Aliens who advocate or teach, or who are members of or
affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition
to all organized government;
(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with (i) the Communist
Party of the United States, (ii) any other totalitarian
party of the United States, (iii) the Communist Political Association,
(iv) the Communist or any other totalitarian party of any
State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political
or geographical subdivision of any foreign state, (v) any section,
subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association
or party, or (vi) the direct predecessors or successors of any such
association or party, regardless of what name such group or
organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter
adopt: Provided^ That nothing in this paragraph, or in any other
provision of this Act, shall be construed as declaring that the
Communist Party does not advocate the overthrow of the Government
of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional
means;

(G) Aliens who write or publish, or cause to be written or published,
or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display,
or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, published,
or displayed, or who knowingly have in their possession
for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display,
any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition
to all organized government, or advocating or teaching (i) the
overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of
the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or
(ii) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or
killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or
of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or
of any other organized government, because of his or their official
character; or (iii) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of
property; or (iv) sabotage; or (v) the economic, international,
and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment
in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship;

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle an alien to
whom a permit to enter the United States has been issued to enter the
United States, if, upon arrival in the United States, he is found to be
inadmissible under any of the provisions of this Act, or any other law,
relating to the entry of aliens into the United States.

You know the Communist Party is alive and kicking in Chicago and New York and other Cities as well. There is some very good info out there showing Obama as a member of Democratic Socialist of America Party in Chicago, that Party is tied to the Communist Party

The DSOC, in Harrington's words "the remnant of a remnant", soon became the largest democratic-socialist group in the United States, and in 1982 was merged with the NAM, a coalition of intellectuals with roots in the New Left movements of the 1960s and former members of Socialist and Communist parties of the Old Left, to form the DSA.[

Wonder why these people weren't rounded up and deported years ago instead of being allowed to thrive and get one of their own in the White House. The DSA endorsed Obama going way back when he was in the Ill. State Legislature. You can look it up.

[Monker]

And, my point is - how does he define "considered a threat?" Ireland because of the NRA? Saudi Arabia because the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from there, and many terrorists are from there. Israel because of their issues with Palestinians? India because of their huge Muslim population?

It's a bullshit plan aimed at naive people like you who vote from their emotions and not their brain.

Just because I pointed out that your notion that it would single out immigration of ONLY Muslims was not correct doesn't mean that I personally believe or agree in such a plan. That is being naive. As to how he would define such areas of threat, it would seem they would start with areas that we know the terrorists have used to enter the U.S.. Another example would be Syria where ISIS has specifically stated that they would exploit the Syrian refugee program to hide operatives among them.

If Trump, or anybody else, wants to make a case to ban immigrants from Syria, or Iran, or another terrorist state that is a direct threat to the US, that is another thing when compared to attempting to ban all Muslim immigrants via country of origin. And, BTW, there is a difference between immigrants and refugees....banning immigrants would not include refugees. If he tried to do that, I think both parties would fight it and Trump would lose.

[tj]

If Trump, or any other President, wants to ban a religion by executive order, then none of the below matters and that executive order will be challenged in court as being unContitutional, or not. If he tries to pass a ban on a religion via congress, well, good luck with that.

The only religion that will be banned is Christianity for being intolerant. Because it is historically the religion of the "establishment" in the US, it is the target.

[Monker]

Billionaires for Hillary. among them, the Koch Brothers, and no surprise to me, George Soros.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... fight.html

And, this should be called a "billionaires not for Trump" because people like the Koch brothers (who Hillary denounced and said she didn't want their support) are almost EXCLUSIVELY Republican but now say that Clinton is the more conservative choice and will be better for business. TRUMP IS A LIBERAL...that is why Clinton is getting this much support from Republicans.

Liar again monker. The Kochs have said they are social liberals.Fiscal republicans. In reality, they would be independents.

In the real world, that is almost the very definition of a Libertarian. But, whatever....

YOU are ignorant and do not know what you are talking about. The only LIAR here is YOU posting that Koch is somehow a sponsor of Clinton.

This is what I was talking about:

http://www.snopes.com/koch-brothers-off ... y-clinton/

On April 23, 2016, Charles Koch was briefly on air on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. During that interview, ABC Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked Koch, “So is it possible that another Clinton could be better than another Republican this time around?"

Koch responded, “It’s possible. It’s possible.”

When pushed by Karl about whether he could see himself supporting Hillary Clinton, Koch hesitated, “Well... we would have to believe her actions will be quite different from her rhetoric, let’s put it that way.”

It should be noted that the Koch brothers have not expressed support for either Trump or Cruz. Quite the opposite. Charles Koch claims they have not spent a dollar for or against any Republican presidential candidate this year, although they have been widely cited as being prepared to spend more than $900 million on this year’s presidential race. Charles Koch stated that this is because he and his brother are “disgusted” with the rhetoric being expressed by this year’s Republican candidates.

Hillary Clinton responded to the interview the next day, tweeting that she’s “not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.”

[Monker]

What part of the law ""suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem necessary."" do you not understand. Nobody said a word about banning a religion. The President has the authority to ban or suspend any class of people he deems necessary, especially if they are deemed a threat to the USA. The law states that said immigrants must have proper paperwork and the FBI Chief said the Syrians and others have no verifiable papers. We don't know who they are or where they are from. We can't pick up the phone and contact Damascus and say hey, can you vouch for Mahmoud. And you want to argue about this. Quit twisting words. Here I'll help, "Lets suspend immigration of the bad guys", is that better. Go pick a bone with Jimmah Carter.

Politifact already checked into your Carter bullshit and compared it to what Trump was proposing said it was bullshit. Well, that's not an exact quote:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... me-jimmy-/

And, Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-bann ... mmigrants/

"WHAT'S FALSE: Carter's sanctions were equivalent to Donald Trump's suggestion that Muslims be banned from entering or immigrating to the U.S."

And, even that was challenged in court and found unContitutional in a lower court.

Maybe next time FactFinder will post some actual facts he finds rather than bullshit propaganda from his bullshit propaganda laden conservative propaganda websites. The FACT is this "story" is from last year and proven to be bullshit a long time ago.

[Monker]

No, what I'm talking about is when I was watching the Koch Brothers being interviewed and they said they were social liberals and fiscal republicans. The question was about why liberals hated them so much.

Bullshit. There was no question about why "liberals" hated the Koch brothers. I don't care why anybody hates the Koch brothers. You posted a list of billionaires for Hillary which included the Koch Brothers. I posted a response and you called me a liar. You are either ignorant, or flat out lying about what was said in this thread. Either way, you are pretty damn pathetic.

[Monker]

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/democrat-pres-carter-banned-iranians-deported-students-during-hostage-crisis/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b42_1449 ... comments=1

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... nians-u-s/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12 ... ge-crisis/

Oh, grow up and stop posting propaganda. No matter how many links you post doesn't make it any truer. Both Politifact and Snopes already fact checked and said this is bullshit. You shouting it from a mountain isn't going to make it an more true.

The comparison between Carter's Iran sanction and Trump wanting to ban all Muslims is nothing but propaganda.

[Monker]

Snopes can twist words damn near as well as you, that's the most far reaching conclusion I've ever seen from that shithole. Trump or Hill can damn well do exactly as Carter did, with the proper wording and obviously with the help of his inner circle and lawyers. He can put sanctions on Syria, Iran, Iraq, PookEstan, Afghanistan, Romanian Gypsies or Canada if he likes or deems it necessary. And he can do it for as long as he deems necessary.

But, what he CAN'T do is ban a religion. THAT was what you were originally arguing. And, Carter did NOT DO THAT. If that happens, it will be taken to court and most likely lose.

[Monker]

Snopes can twist words damn near as well as you, that's the most far reaching conclusion I've ever seen from that shithole. Trump or Hill can damn well do exactly as Carter did, with the proper wording and obviously with the help of his inner circle and lawyers. He can put sanctions on Syria, Iran, Iraq, PookEstan, Afghanistan, Romanian Gypsies or Canada if he likes or deems it necessary. And he can do it for as long as he deems necessary.

But, what he CAN'T do is ban a religion. THAT was what you were originally arguing. And, Carter did NOT DO THAT. If that happens, it will be taken to court and most likely lose.

I read thru that immigration law, did you? Granted I am not a lawyer, but I am going to look through it again because I don't remember seeing a word about Religion, let alone Muslims in it.

You know what, it doesn't really matter. Trump is going to lose and lose very, very, VERY badly. By the time this is over, he'll be lucky if he carries ANY state.

[Monker]

Liar, Liar Monker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R_s1hvIMGg

You know, if you are going to accuse somebody of lying, at disagree with him. I already addressed....so the Politico link. He banned IMMIGRANTS...NOT MUSLIMS.

[Monker]

No, what I'm talking about is when I was watching the Koch Brothers being interviewed and they said they were social liberals and fiscal republicans. The question was about why liberals hated them so much.

Bullshit. There was no question about why "liberals" hated the Koch brothers. I don't care why anybody hates the Koch brothers. You posted a list of billionaires for Hillary which included the Koch Brothers. I posted a response and you called me a liar. You are either ignorant, or flat out lying about what was said in this thread. Either way, you are pretty damn pathetic.

Asshole, I watched an interview. The question was real, as was their answer. What you "think" has no value.

I don't care what bullshit you watched. I said what I said and you called me a liar. You were wrong.

And, now you are calling me an asshole because you don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you go back to school and learn how to read and understand what you read so you can read these posts and reply to the content of the posts, instead of replying to the made up bullshit that is in your tiny mind.

[Monker]

No, it doesn't.

First of all, any attempt a President Trump makes to ban Muslims will be challenged in court, regardless of the crap you are posting here.

Second, what Carter did had NOTHING to do with banning a religion - AND IT WAS STILL CHALLENGED IN COURT AND CARTER LOST IN THE LOWER COURTS.

Third, the "law" you posted has not been challenged in court when banning a religion. So, you saying a President can ban any group he wants is very flimsy when banning a religion has never happened in the history of this country and has never been challenged in court.

Lastly, Trump is currently losing as bad as Dukakis and the reason, IMO, is because of bullshit like this. So, go ahead keep arguing about Trump banning religions. Don't you think there is a reason a POLITICIAN like Trump changed this policy? The guy who he almost endorsed instead of Paul Ryan not only wants to ban Muslims but stopped just short of saying he wanted to kick Muslim Americans out of the country...and instead said we should be spying on ever Mosque in the country. Yeah, OK, do you realize how badly Paul Ryan is beating this guy? This crap may have gained the support of ignorant Republicans like you....but it is not doing much for the rest of the country....mostly because the rest of the country have functioning brains.

It does fucking matter...

[steveo777]

It is within the scope of the president's power to limit immigration at any time. We don't owe people of other nations immigration at will. Some idiots don't understand that his proposal is not eliminate immigration and discriminate against people. He wants a pause until we can do better vetting, so we know who we're getting. I see nothing wrong with that! Should we just welcome everyone with open arms, even though some may be jihadists or other violent criminals? No thanks! I'll pass and I want a president who also passes.

[steveo777]

Following the conventions, a pattern has emerged from the polling: Donald Trump has taken a commanding lead in all demographics. From the well to poorly educated and even out-performing Romney among women and Hispanics. According polling aggregates the only demographic Hillary is winning is African American single women and White College Males with advanced degrees in Social Sciences.

We spoke to a source who works at Nate Silver's political advocacy group fivethirtyeight.com.

RealTrueNews: "Is it fair to say that Silver is worried?"

538 Source: "In a panic. Our business model is predicated on making liberals feel better about the election. Right now? It's a disaster."

RTN: "So what are you doing?"

538: "Well, we're changing the model for starters. There were a few hours when the server was showing the real projections and while traffic was pretty high, let me tell you, it was a melt-down politically."

RTN: "What do you mean?"

538: "Well, Nate's a liberal. No secret there. When he saw what was happening he flipped out. Had us look for bugs–something gone wrong–looking at the feeds. Of course nothing was wrong. Nothing had changed. Then he got on the phone with his people embedded with Q-Pac and Survey Monkey and PPP and all those guys–"

RTN:"Wait–embedded?"

538: "Huh? Oh, yeah–it's a big social club. The pollsters all work together. We have a Slack-room that's sharing all kinds of results and skews and all that. That's how we keep it all orderly."

RTN: "Orderly?"

538: "Sure–what? You think it's . . . random? Come on. Who do you think pays for the polls? People who want results. You're buying media. It's like ads or . . . I don't know. Like newspaper stories? You pay 30k for a poll of Florida, it says what you want."

RTN: "But what about on election day?"

538: "Oh–we drive it. You set the expectations ahead of time. It's called pre-loading. You'd be surprised how we can fine-tune things. Mass belief is powerful. The problem here is (a) not everyone plays nice. Fox is rogue. Rasmussen was . . . bad. They were doing real polling. Also, there's like a game of chicken. At the start of the cycle we do real polling so that everyone knows how they better buy in. This time . . . Trump just caught us by surprise. The impact was so big–it came on so fast–Hillary just collapsed."

RTN:"What–what happens next?"

538: "I don't know, man. There are a bunch of smaller groups out there doing real polls. I don't know if anyone can keep this under wraps. They had to talk Silver off the edge of the building yesterday. It was bad."

RTN: "He was literally going to throw himself out a window?"

538: "Yeah–he was–well, but we're on the second floor. He was just really pissed. I mean, he got a call from the White House telling him to fix it and shit."

RTN: "Wow."

538: "Wow is right."

Man, I sure wish you would post links to your copy and pastes. This one is potentially some serious shit and I can't verify it. Not citing your sources is just BFE - bad fucking etiquette.