There are lots of headlines and no actual evidence. The ads mentioned here were basic attack ads.

No idea what you're still going on about but you seem awfully confident about it so don't let me stop you

Man you're just full of silly complaints

Lol please go shout into the wind on somebody else's comments

You're clearly too far gone

Lol what on earth are you babbling about

That's nonsense. Nobody is saying it's not the whole solution but the movement against fracking in PA does not exist without angry people standing up. Eventually they end up electing politicians who take steps to reduce drilling - that's exactly how it works. It's not like scientists have stopped fracking here lol.

Not even close

Man you have no clue what you're talking about

Technology only gets implemented through politics, genius. We have the technology to largely abandon fossil fuels in our daily lives now but that doesn't mean it magically happens. In fact, there is currently overt political resistance to doing so!

It's a political problem, the only solution is to win political fights and that happens not least through protest and activism

The people closely watching election returns come in are mostly not the people who make a last minute decision whether or not to vote

I don't think I've ever waited in any appreciable line to vote in Pittsburgh

>as the count will inevitably leak out

Does it in other states that do this?

>if early results are revealed, it could influence the election

Maybe that's the argument but I've seen nothing to suggest that it is actually true. I don't even understand what the mechanism for "influence" is here - if people see the vote going one way it seems just as likely to encourage them to vote as not. The argument seems pretty half-baked.

>I feel like our current method of news sources reporting exit polls as if they were actual numbers is somewhat deceptive, and manipulative.

I certainly agree that the way these things are reported is not enlightening and contributes to confusion.

Are you intentionally misreading the original post? It is directly engaging with the ad and doesn't call for a boycott at all. It is no different in degree from what you are doing here.

Your position here basically ends up in the exact same spot - accusing everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with of trying to "silence" others is just another way to stop people from expressing that opinion. You can't claim to hold the high ground when you're doing the same thing!

You've only got two options on this - bad and worse. Opting out is the latter

He's not great on that which is why I didn't select him in the primary. But of course Oz is far worse so not sure what you're thinking here

Nope

And they're cherry picking and then weighting those pools

I'm very obviously not telling them how to feel, and am in fact commiserating with them

Lol you guys are trying so hard

You're the expert

You're cherry picking polls, unsurprisingly