Start at seconds (Use current time from player)
Nate Silver: Hillary Clinton has a near 80% chance of winning the election
watch RWNJ's heads explode....4..3..2...LOSERS!
Well, not the original clip in it's original form. What Fox Propaganda will do is edit the video to have boos and jeers instead of cheers.
What's Ryan going to do? Bring in fire hoses and dogs?
Calling us fools and haters is no way to get us to do what you want. Do insults and mockery work on you? If so, you're a wussy. I doubt they do, which leads me to suspect you're a Trump supporter. You know we won't vote for Trump but you have to make sure we won't vote for Clinton if for no other reason than your obnoxiousness succeeds in driving us away. In my case, you're wasting your time. I would never have voted for Clinton under any circumstances. I don't like her. I don't trust her. She's too far to the right for my liking. She's got this aura of entitlement in find disgusting, especially in light of her husband being a lousy president as well as a cad and a bounder. But I realize there are lots of liberals who still buy into the sorry lesser-of-two-evils argument. I suspect you are working on them, making sure none of them hold their noses and vote for the status quo. I can't say I wish you good luck. BTW I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just can't vote for her, and that has nothing to do with your schoolyard insults.
I'd be more receptive to people who want reasonable accommodations for their faith in the workplace if they could actually defend the accommodation as an actual key tenet of that faith.
If a Jewish person who works in a supermarket doesn't want to backfill for the absent butcher, that seems reasonable to me because it's easy to defend Judaism's stance on various meat and food products, and it's easy to demonstrate the rigor to which devout Jews adhere to those tenets in their daily lives.
However, no Christian could defend being anti-gay or anti-abortion as a key tenet of their faith. For ever attempt to quote the Bible or produce a witness who supports the claim, there would be 100 counter-quotes and opposition witnesses who discount the claim... and another 1000 could destroy their logic by asking why some tenets are 'key' while others are ignored altogether (adultery, divorce, etc).
The problem is that their Christian claims are always accepted at face value as being 'valid'... and that's wrong, especially when another person is affected by the action.