Without a big chunk of Obama's supporters? Will republicans switch over to vote for her?
I say this because there has been a recent push to get those millennials/independents voters. I think the republicans will have a good turnout- trump received more votes then any other republican candidate during the primaries and he went up against a bigger fried.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark
Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?
Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?
PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!
We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.
You're right, that was petty of me. That said, it's frustrating that I debunk statements in the article you linked, and you repeat those exact statements (quite arrogantly) as though they are "Fact: ...". I'm sorry, but it's hard to claim a statement is factual when someone refutes it, and your retort is to repeat said statement without addressing the rebuttal nor adding anything to the original statement. I still say that almost every single statement in that article is either absurdly hyperbolic (when if statements were made without embellishments, they truly would not offend many/any), or lacking context to the point where the meaning was different than stated, or simply incorrectly paraphrased in ways that change the meaning. This is unprofessional and disingenuous.
Edit: If you address my objections reasonably and rationally, then we'll be effectively engaging in debate, which is what I love about this place. I hope we can get there, Free. I've been exposed to plenty by you, and look forward to learning more.
Well, let's not ignore that Free seems to now just be making shit up, and then when someone says something about it he just pretends it never happened.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
So let's flip it. What do you appreciate or think that HRC does well? I'm sure we can find some things to criticize if you can find some things to compliment.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
Sure it's fair. She should have been more straightforward on the email stuff. Her first instinct is to move into protect mode. Maybe she has always been that way, maybe the 90's made her that way. Either way, it has certainly hurt her and why she is the position she is today. When they left the WH, she was very popular. Something happened. I guess it's the emails. Most of the other stuff reminds me of inside stuff, not enough to sway me either way. Should she do more pressers? Yes, of course. I think that would help her more than a speech. I voted for Obama in 08 primary. I would have voted for Biden. But I'm voting on issues first and foremost and that's how I landed on her.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
Sure it's fair. She should have been more straightforward on the email stuff. Her first instinct is to move into protect mode. Maybe she has always been that way, maybe the 90's made her that way. Either way, it has certainly hurt her and why she is the position she is today. When they left the WH, she was very popular. Something happened. I guess it's the emails. Most of the other stuff reminds me of inside stuff, not enough to sway me either way. Should she do more pressers? Yes, of course. I think that would help her more than a speech. I voted for Obama in 08 primary. I would have voted for Biden. But I'm voting on issues first and foremost and that's how I landed on her.
Honestly, at this point I think she's playing this campaign very conservatively, and with the double standards surrounding what is asked of her compared to what is asked of Trump, it doesn't surprise me. The strategy seems to be to respond to naysayers when absolutely necessary, let the vagaries of the potentially negative situations wash those situations away (as best as possible). I think she'll be more responsive to the public when she's in the Oval Office, when she doesn't have that potential to lose.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm absolutely baffled by the last couple pages of this thread. It's spun into complete stupidity.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for her.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for Ron Paul.
Gruber voters usually are.
Well he did earn .03% of the vote in '08 and .02% in 2012, so I guess you guys are just the Mensa members of the electorate.
Works for me.
I only debate my peers, all others I teach. I like that quote.
In politics, it's kinda important to get people to agree with you. The Libertarians are horrible at it. Maybe it's because no one agrees with their policies. Doesn't matter how smart you think you are if no one agrees with you.
She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark
Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?
Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?
PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!
We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.
You're right, that was petty of me. That said, it's frustrating that I debunk statements in the article you linked, and you repeat those exact statements (quite arrogantly) as though they are "Fact: ...". I'm sorry, but it's hard to claim a statement is factual when someone refutes it, and your retort is to repeat said statement without addressing the rebuttal nor adding anything to the original statement. I still say that almost every single statement in that article is either absurdly hyperbolic (when if statements were made without embellishments, they truly would not offend many/any), or lacking context to the point where the meaning was different than stated, or simply incorrectly paraphrased in ways that change the meaning. This is unprofessional and disingenuous.
Edit: If you address my objections reasonably and rationally, then we'll be effectively engaging in debate, which is what I love about this place. I hope we can get there, Free. I've been exposed to plenty by you, and look forward to learning more.
The entire article is not factual, however, what I repeated is. From her mouth herself.
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
Sure it's fair. She should have been more straightforward on the email stuff. Her first instinct is to move into protect mode. Maybe she has always been that way, maybe the 90's made her that way. Either way, it has certainly hurt her and why she is the position she is today. When they left the WH, she was very popular. Something happened. I guess it's the emails. Most of the other stuff reminds me of inside stuff, not enough to sway me either way. Should she do more pressers? Yes, of course. I think that would help her more than a speech. I voted for Obama in 08 primary. I would have voted for Biden. But I'm voting on issues first and foremost and that's how I landed on her.
Now that's a reply I can certainly appreciate. You make the right points, however some of them I find less easy to gloss over(not that that's what your doing). I think for many indepentents, such as myself, we find the whole secrecy thing very eye opening and disturbing, it's like a replay of Bush, obviously not entirely Bush, but that gets to my point of moving forward and not wanting to have any of it. Some of us weren't old enough to understand Clinton's presidency, meaning we didn't live it and breath it like we do now that we're adults. Bush/gore was our first exposure/taste into politics- and really left us disappointed. Especially after going through the crap we did with Bush. Obama was huge and inspiring, really giving us a feeling that this was more about progress rather then dems/rep. A very intelligent man that came from nothing(food stamps) and became the most important person on the planet. That was great and emotional, kind of how you described the feeling you had when you were watching Clinton's speech with your daughters. I certainly remember the feeling and knew exactly what you were describing. I wish I could say I felt the same way, but for me it was way more about the individual then the history. I admire Clinton's intelligence without a doubt- she can write an entire book on one single subject matter, such as Syria, do I agree with it? No, but can she do a hell of a job talking about it in ways I could never imagine? Hell yeah.
Lastly, I know this is kind of rambling, but the whole sanders thing wasn't about male vs female or who's turn it was etc... It had to do with two individuals - one that was, in my opinion as honest as Abe Lincoln, and another who wasn't. Both on the left, only one was more honest and one had pure intentions of progress with no sugar coating it. The other demonstrated lots of red flags. That doesn't mean I completely agreed with sanders- shit I think he was way to liberal for me and some of the spending scared me, but his ideals and principles trumped all and that was critical in moving in an honest direction. Obama was a solid step forward, a huge step, and now we needed someone who was going to go even further in that same direction. Would there be a huge battle in congress? Fuck yeah! Would he have gotten free education for all? Fuck no!! But it would be a positive light for our next generation. A great start. I don't see/hear Clinton taking climate change very serious. Might be all the distractions of this election or it might be that that's not on the top of her to do list. I know it was for sanders and important to me. It might not be important to everyone else, but at the end of the day everyone will be great full that it was taken on.
I know there's a lot of rambling... Typing from my phone as usual and I'm multitasking.
I responded directly to the super-predator video. To reiterate, I encourage anyone buying this crap to watch the video. It's not anger, it's Clinton with an agenda that she wished to adhere to. Had the young woman who interrupted Clinton done so with an ounce of respect or decorum, maybe she would have received an answer instead of an escort out of the building.
I also responded directly to the embellished Town Hall discussion. To reiterate what was said in the article (and is accurate to the clip):
“If you’re new to politics, if it’s the first time you’ve really paid attention, you go ‘oh my gosh, look at all of this’ and say, ‘why are they throwing all of that at her’?,” the former first lady responded. “I’ll tell you why — because I’ve been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age. I’ve been fighting for kids and women and the people left out and left behind to help them make the most of their lives.”
Clinton also said that she’s happy to see young people engaged on the Democratic side no matter who they’re supporting.
“I’m totally happy to see young people involved in any way,” the former secretary of State said. “That’s what we want — a good primary to pick a nominee and then everybody to join together to make sure we win.”
To me, that's very different than "a symptom of their cluelessness".
On "Why don't you go run for something": I honestly don't see that interaction as negative at all. She showed some of the most sincere emotion I've seen from Clinton (pride), and frankly, I feel that the public should be challenged to rise to the occasion if they feel that the average colour of a politician is too white. It's not like there's a lack of precedence of an African-American's ability to rise to the top...
On the last video you posted (again, I directly responded to it), I don't think this was diminutive, she was clearly saying to be weary of undue thought control if you're new to this game. If that's offensive to a person, he or she needs to grow some thicker skin, because it will serve a person well in this modern world, and prevent a person from being taken advantage of.
Honestly Free, this is the third time that I've posted my responses to your incorrectly analyzed behaviours from Hillary Clinton, and the third time that you've simply posted the same original source material with no effort to address how I interpreted the material. Again, you are not debating reasonably or rationally. You are also not quoting our previous correspondences, which to me reads as a cheap way to make sure that those reading our discussion do not see the back-and-forths where I've tried (and failed) to have you address my rebuttals. To anyone reading (and caring), feel free to look at our discussion on pages 151 and 152, and come to your own conclusions.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I responded directly to the super-predator video. To reiterate, I encourage anyone buying this crap to watch the video. It's not anger, it's Clinton with an agenda that she wished to adhere to. Had the young woman who interrupted Clinton done so with an ounce of respect or decorum, maybe she would have received an answer instead of an escort out of the building.
I also responded directly to the embellished Town Hall discussion. To reiterate what was said in the article (and is accurate to the clip):
“If you’re new to politics, if it’s the first time you’ve really paid attention, you go ‘oh my gosh, look at all of this’ and say, ‘why are they throwing all of that at her’?,” the former first lady responded. “I’ll tell you why — because I’ve been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age. I’ve been fighting for kids and women and the people left out and left behind to help them make the most of their lives.”
Clinton also said that she’s happy to see young people engaged on the Democratic side no matter who they’re supporting.
“I’m totally happy to see young people involved in any way,” the former secretary of State said. “That’s what we want — a good primary to pick a nominee and then everybody to join together to make sure we win.”
To me, that's very different than "a symptom of their cluelessness".
On "Why don't you go run for something": I honestly don't see that interaction as negative at all. She showed some of the most sincere emotion I've seen from Clinton (pride), and frankly, I feel that the public should be challenged to rise to the occasion if they feel that the average colour of a politician is too white. It's not like there's a lack of precedence of an African-American's ability to rise to the top...
On the last video you posted (again, I directly responded to it), I don't think this was diminutive, she was clearly saying to be weary of undue thought control if you're new to this game. If that's offensive to a person, he or she needs to grow some thicker skin, because it will serve a person well in this modern world, and prevent a person from being taken advantage of.
Honestly Free, this is the third time that I've posted my responses to your incorrectly analyzed behaviours from Hillary Clinton, and the third time that you've simply posted the same original source material with no effort to address how I interpreted the material. Again, you are not debating reasonably or rationally. You are also not quoting our previous correspondences, which to me reads as a cheap way to make sure that those reading our discussion do not see the back-and-forths where I've tried (and failed) to have you address my rebuttals. To anyone reading (and caring), feel free to look at our discussion on pages 151 and 152, and come to your own conclusions.
I proved it happened, and admitted much was embellished. It's what she said. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it, I said it happened. Nor did I say anyone in the videos are completely victims or are complete aggressors either.
One thing about Hillary Clinton that you aren't mentioning (you're completely defending her) is that what comes out of her mouth isn't exactly what she does. She has proven in the past that she will say anything at anytime to appease her audience. Do I need to show those videos too? She does not fight for the middle class or those not making a living wages. She says she's for movement on climate change but accepts big oil money. The contradictions are numerous. I understand you don't like that article and that's fine. I merely pointed out that some of it was actually true and she did say much of it.
Benjs, if you want to debunk the article that's fine. All I am saying that there are some factual parts in that certainly don't cast Clinton in a very positive light. In the super predator video, I agree with you about the protester. Clinton said she would answer her questions later. Did she? I don't believe she ever did. I think they both look bad. Clinton needs votes. Right now she needs the young people's votes. But she hasn't treated Millennials very good in the past when they were Bernie supporters. What she needs to do now if she wants their votes? Not plead, not beg, how about listen and answer at their questions?
I can't remember now Free - who are you planning on voting for again? It seems that you spend all your time railing against Clinton, but I can't recall if you are spending any time actually expressing support for someone. I admit that it's possible that you've said who you're supporting many times and that I've seen it many times, but if so, frankly, it all just got drowned out by the anti-Hillary campaign so I can't recall. Again, honest question (you didn't answer my last honest question, I think because you thought it was somehow a dig or something, I'm not sure. Or maybe you've just decided not to engage with me at all no matter what, which is fine, I'm just not sure one way or the other). I assume it's not Trump you're voting for, lol. Was it Johnson??
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can't remember now Free - who are you planning on voting for again? It seems that you spend all your time railing against Clinton, but I can't recall if you are spending any time actually expressing support for someone. I admit that it's possible that you've said who you're supporting many times and that I've seen it many times, but if so, frankly, it all just got drowned out by the anti-Hillary campaign so I can't recall. Again, honest question (you didn't answer my last honest question, I think because you thought it was somehow a dig or something, I'm not sure. Or maybe you've just decided not to engage with me at all no matter what, which is fine, I'm just not sure one way or the other). I assume it's not Trump you're voting for, lol. Was it Johnson??
Please give me one reason why I should answer someone who likes to personally attack and make this a divisive environment.
She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark
Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?
Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?
PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!
We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.
You're right, that was petty of me. That said, it's frustrating that I debunk statements in the article you linked, and you repeat those exact statements (quite arrogantly) as though they are "Fact: ...". I'm sorry, but it's hard to claim a statement is factual when someone refutes it, and your retort is to repeat said statement without addressing the rebuttal nor adding anything to the original statement. I still say that almost every single statement in that article is either absurdly hyperbolic (when if statements were made without embellishments, they truly would not offend many/any), or lacking context to the point where the meaning was different than stated, or simply incorrectly paraphrased in ways that change the meaning. This is unprofessional and disingenuous.
Edit: If you address my objections reasonably and rationally, then we'll be effectively engaging in debate, which is what I love about this place. I hope we can get there, Free. I've been exposed to plenty by you, and look forward to learning more.
Well, let's not ignore that Free seems to now just be making shit up, and then when someone says something about it he just pretends it never happened.
That was just a factual statement. Sorry if you don't like the truth. I'm surprised that you expect to be able to just make stuff up that isn't true and not get called out on it. But I don't give a shit. Don't answer then, fine with me.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.
Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
Sure it's fair. She should have been more straightforward on the email stuff. Her first instinct is to move into protect mode. Maybe she has always been that way, maybe the 90's made her that way. Either way, it has certainly hurt her and why she is the position she is today. When they left the WH, she was very popular. Something happened. I guess it's the emails. Most of the other stuff reminds me of inside stuff, not enough to sway me either way. Should she do more pressers? Yes, of course. I think that would help her more than a speech. I voted for Obama in 08 primary. I would have voted for Biden. But I'm voting on issues first and foremost and that's how I landed on her.
Lastly, I know this is kind of rambling, but the whole sanders thing wasn't about male vs female or who's turn it was etc... It had to do with two individuals - one that was, in my opinion as honest as Abe Lincoln, and another who wasn't. Both on the left, only one was more honest and one had pure intentions of progress with no sugar coating it. The other demonstrated lots of red flags. That doesn't mean I completely agreed with sanders- shit I think he was way to liberal for me and some of the spending scared me, but his ideals and principles trumped all and that was critical in moving in an honest direction. Obama was a solid step forward, a huge step, and now we needed someone who was going to go even further in that same direction. Would there be a huge battle in congress? Fuck yeah! Would he have gotten free education for all? Fuck no!! But it would be a positive light for our next generation. A great start. I don't see/hear Clinton taking climate change very serious. Might be all the distractions of this election or it might be that that's not on the top of her to do list. I know it was for sanders and important to me. It might not be important to everyone else, but at the end of the day everyone will be great full that it was taken on.
I know there's a lot of rambling... Typing from my phone as usual and I'm multitasking.
So Clinton was the first POTUS I could vote for. I was 18 in 92 (perfect for PJ!). And for a lot of us that were politically inclined, we saw the rise of the right wing as a force for utter bullshit. This was the era of Rush. He lied, invented, harassed and lied some more. We saw the utter BS of Whitewater to Monica. We saw HRC try to go super liberal on healthcare and get DESTROYED on tv by false ads. We all knew Bill was a dog, but he was a damn good president on a range of issues. But we saw everythign get distorted and manipulated. So I think Gen Xers are a little more understanding of her being secretive and mistrusting of media, in particular. We are as jaded as she is, to some extent and that's why when the same accusations were rolled out by the far left, it struck a HUGE nerve with us.
Regarding Bernie, I had plenty of good things to say about Bernie. I tried debating several people about moderating some of the positions on education, in particular. I wasn't in support of total free education, rather only places with jobs needed in our economy (STEM, nurses, etc.). I still feel this way.
As far as the issues, I think the debates will finally be a time to talk about issues like climate change and really draw a distinction. The problem with our awful media is most people don't care about discussion on important topics. I mean, how does the Russia stuff not get any traction but Gennifer Flowers does? WTF??? Maybe it all changes tonight. Who knows.
I think the Iraqi's that suffered and died from Bill Clinton's sanctions, the single mothers forced into welfare to work programs and the masses that were incarcerated for non violent crimes would likely disagree with him being a damn good president. Now on to Hilliary.
I think the Iraqi's that suffered and died from Bill Clinton's sanctions, the single mothers forced into welfare to work programs and the masses that were incarcerated for non violent crimes would likely disagree with him being a damn good president. Now on to Hilliary.
I would think you would be more concerned about the North Koreans who have suffered far more due to their leaders.
Regarding the other things, it's called historical perspective. Very few people were against it (not even Bernie). In fact, the vast majority of nay's were by the GOP because the federal assault weapons ban that was included. It also included enhanced penalties for sex crimes, hate crimes and established the sexual offenders list. But kudos for you for having 20/20 hindsight on one aspect. I'm sure you would havevoted nay. Nicely done.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I'm absolutely baffled by the last couple pages of this thread. It's spun into complete stupidity.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for her.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for Ron Paul.
Gruber voters usually are.
Well he did earn .03% of the vote in '08 and .02% in 2012, so I guess you guys are just the Mensa members of the electorate.
Works for me.
I only debate my peers, all others I teach. I like that quote.
In politics, it's kinda important to get people to agree with you. The Libertarians are horrible at it. Maybe it's because no one agrees with their policies. Doesn't matter how smart you think you are if no one agrees with you.
You're right, I should pander to them because they are so smart they see through it. But before I do lemme change my accent and grab my hot sauce out of my purse.
Stupid people fall for that shit, not intelligent. Thats her base. The low IQ, low info Gruber voter.
I'm absolutely baffled by the last couple pages of this thread. It's spun into complete stupidity.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for her.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for Ron Paul.
Gruber voters usually are.
Well he did earn .03% of the vote in '08 and .02% in 2012, so I guess you guys are just the Mensa members of the electorate.
Works for me.
I only debate my peers, all others I teach. I like that quote.
In politics, it's kinda important to get people to agree with you. The Libertarians are horrible at it. Maybe it's because no one agrees with their policies. Doesn't matter how smart you think you are if no one agrees with you.
You're right, I should pander to them because they are so smart they see through it. But before I do lemme change my accent and grab my hot sauce out of my purse.
Stupid people fall for that shit, not intelligent. Thats her base. The low IQ, low info Gruber voter.
Uh huh. You know that people with advanced educations overwhelmingly vote Democrat. But not you. You must have super awesome advanced education, so you vote with the .02%. If only we could achieve that level....
I'm absolutely baffled by the last couple pages of this thread. It's spun into complete stupidity.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for her.
I am baffled that anyone would vote for Ron Paul.
Gruber voters usually are.
Well he did earn .03% of the vote in '08 and .02% in 2012, so I guess you guys are just the Mensa members of the electorate.
Works for me.
I only debate my peers, all others I teach. I like that quote.
In politics, it's kinda important to get people to agree with you. The Libertarians are horrible at it. Maybe it's because no one agrees with their policies. Doesn't matter how smart you think you are if no one agrees with you.
You're right, I should pander to them because they are so smart they see through it. But before I do lemme change my accent and grab my hot sauce out of my purse.
Stupid people fall for that shit, not intelligent. Thats her base. The low IQ, low info Gruber voter.
Lol...thanks for the laugh
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
I say this because there has been a recent push to get those millennials/independents voters. I think the republicans will have a good turnout- trump received more votes then any other republican candidate during the primaries and he went up against a bigger fried.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I only debate my peers, all others I teach. I like that quote.
To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.
I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This next one was embellished by the author: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/01/26/iowa-democratic-town-hall-clinton-dishonesty-18.cnn
And I already posted this one.
I appreciate Benjs, that you recognize the decisiveness and pettiness...
Lastly, I know this is kind of rambling, but the whole sanders thing wasn't about male vs female or who's turn it was etc... It had to do with two individuals - one that was, in my opinion as honest as Abe Lincoln, and another who wasn't. Both on the left, only one was more honest and one had pure intentions of progress with no sugar coating it. The other demonstrated lots of red flags. That doesn't mean I completely agreed with sanders- shit I think he was way to liberal for me and some of the spending scared me, but his ideals and principles trumped all and that was critical in moving in an honest direction. Obama was a solid step forward, a huge step, and now we needed someone who was going to go even further in that same direction. Would there be a huge battle in congress? Fuck yeah! Would he have gotten free education for all? Fuck no!! But it would be a positive light for our next generation. A great start. I don't see/hear Clinton taking climate change very serious. Might be all the distractions of this election or it might be that that's not on the top of her to do list. I know it was for sanders and important to me. It might not be important to everyone else, but at the end of the day everyone will be great full that it was taken on.
I know there's a lot of rambling... Typing from my phone as usual and I'm multitasking.
I responded directly to the super-predator video. To reiterate, I encourage anyone buying this crap to watch the video. It's not anger, it's Clinton with an agenda that she wished to adhere to. Had the young woman who interrupted Clinton done so with an ounce of respect or decorum, maybe she would have received an answer instead of an escort out of the building.
I also responded directly to the embellished Town Hall discussion. To reiterate what was said in the article (and is accurate to the clip):
“If you’re new to politics, if it’s the first time you’ve really paid attention, you go ‘oh my gosh, look at all of this’ and say, ‘why are they throwing all of that at her’?,” the former first lady responded. “I’ll tell you why — because I’ve been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age. I’ve been fighting for kids and women and the people left out and left behind to help them make the most of their lives.”
Clinton also said that she’s happy to see young people engaged on the Democratic side no matter who they’re supporting.
“I’m totally happy to see young people involved in any way,” the former secretary of State said. “That’s what we want — a good primary to pick a nominee and then everybody to join together to make sure we win.”
To me, that's very different than "a symptom of their cluelessness".
On "Why don't you go run for something": I honestly don't see that interaction as negative at all. She showed some of the most sincere emotion I've seen from Clinton (pride), and frankly, I feel that the public should be challenged to rise to the occasion if they feel that the average colour of a politician is too white. It's not like there's a lack of precedence of an African-American's ability to rise to the top...
On the last video you posted (again, I directly responded to it), I don't think this was diminutive, she was clearly saying to be weary of undue thought control if you're new to this game. If that's offensive to a person, he or she needs to grow some thicker skin, because it will serve a person well in this modern world, and prevent a person from being taken advantage of.
Honestly Free, this is the third time that I've posted my responses to your incorrectly analyzed behaviours from Hillary Clinton, and the third time that you've simply posted the same original source material with no effort to address how I interpreted the material. Again, you are not debating reasonably or rationally. You are also not quoting our previous correspondences, which to me reads as a cheap way to make sure that those reading our discussion do not see the back-and-forths where I've tried (and failed) to have you address my rebuttals. To anyone reading (and caring), feel free to look at our discussion on pages 151 and 152, and come to your own conclusions.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
One thing about Hillary Clinton that you aren't mentioning (you're completely defending her) is that what comes out of her mouth isn't exactly what she does. She has proven in the past that she will say anything at anytime to appease her audience. Do I need to show those videos too?
She does not fight for the middle class or those not making a living wages. She says she's for movement on climate change but accepts big oil money. The contradictions are numerous. I understand you don't like that article and that's fine. I merely pointed out that some of it was actually true and she did say much of it.
WHAT MILLENNIALS WANT FROM HILLARY CLINTON
But I don't give a shit. Don't answer then, fine with me.
Regarding Bernie, I had plenty of good things to say about Bernie. I tried debating several people about moderating some of the positions on education, in particular. I wasn't in support of total free education, rather only places with jobs needed in our economy (STEM, nurses, etc.). I still feel this way.
As far as the issues, I think the debates will finally be a time to talk about issues like climate change and really draw a distinction. The problem with our awful media is most people don't care about discussion on important topics. I mean, how does the Russia stuff not get any traction but Gennifer Flowers does? WTF??? Maybe it all changes tonight. Who knows.
Now on to Hilliary.
Regarding the other things, it's called historical perspective. Very few people were against it (not even Bernie). In fact, the vast majority of nay's were by the GOP because the federal assault weapons ban that was included. It also included enhanced penalties for sex crimes, hate crimes and established the sexual offenders list. But kudos for you for having 20/20 hindsight on one aspect. I'm sure you would havevoted nay. Nicely done.
Stupid people fall for that shit, not intelligent. Thats her base. The low IQ, low info Gruber voter.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm