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.
Totally off topic, but are you a woman unsung?? Always thought you're a man, but if you carry a purse...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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....
You catch on fast, there might be hope for you.
Politics are about winning elections. Thus far the Libertarians have managed to win exactly zero fed elections. No thanks, I don't think I need to join that crew.
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.
Totally off topic, but are you a woman unsung?? Always thought you're a man, but if you carry a purse...
Is it wrong? Did you just assume my gender? Are you trying to trigger me? Stop, I'm in my safe space.
Oh, uh, sorry. I was pretending to be a 2016 beta liberal.
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....
You catch on fast, there might be hope for you.
Politics are about winning elections. Thus far the Libertarians have managed to win exactly zero fed elections. No thanks, I don't think I need to join that crew.
Politicians are about winning elections and therein lies the problem.
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....
You catch on fast, there might be hope for you.
Politics are about winning elections. Thus far the Libertarians have managed to win exactly zero fed elections. No thanks, I don't think I need to join that crew.
Politicians are about winning elections and therein lies the problem.
You need to win elections to enact change. That's a peaceful democracy. Win the election first. Libertarians can't do that.
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.
Totally off topic, but are you a woman unsung?? Always thought you're a man, but if you carry a purse...
Is it wrong? Did you just assume my gender? Are you trying to trigger me? Stop, I'm in my safe space.
Oh, uh, sorry. I was pretending to be a 2016 beta liberal.
I guess I just actually un-assumed your gender!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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....
You catch on fast, there might be hope for you.
Politics are about winning elections. Thus far the Libertarians have managed to win exactly zero fed elections. No thanks, I don't think I need to join that crew.
Politicians are about winning elections and therein lies the problem.
You need to win elections to enact change. That's a peaceful democracy. Win the election first. Libertarians can't do that.
I agree but did you watch the libertarian convention and nomination?
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....
You catch on fast, there might be hope for you.
Politics are about winning elections. Thus far the Libertarians have managed to win exactly zero fed elections. No thanks, I don't think I need to join that crew.
Politicians are about winning elections and therein lies the problem.
You need to win elections to enact change. That's a peaceful democracy. Win the election first. Libertarians can't do that.
I agree but did you watch the libertarian convention and nomination?
I watched the CNN town hall with Gary Johnson but not the convention. Weld was much better at articulating the Lib position than GJ was to be honest. I like Johnson as a person (not that I know him) but he seems like a good enough guy. I think most people are libertarian on social positions, but I vehemently disagree with his economic formulas. I was a reader of Reason for a while but now it's very amateurish. So is Huffington Post and most writing. About the only internet writing I can stand now is American Conservative, the New Yorker and the Atlantic (on occasion).
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.
Totally off topic, but are you a woman unsung?? Always thought you're a man, but if you carry a purse...
Is it wrong? Did you just assume my gender? Are you trying to trigger me? Stop, I'm in my safe space.
Oh, uh, sorry. I was pretending to be a 2016 beta liberal.
Unsung please let these new bees know your gender!! I've been dying to inform these guys!!
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.
You have a lot of experience and a lot of real world understanding of our politics, Without a doubt. Give me an unbiased opinion of who won the debate. Now I'm not saying who had the most articulate message or who had the most substance. Tell me connected with the average voter? I hosted a debate party ... Many Clinton supporters in the house and many of them were somewhat in disbelief.
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.
You have a lot of experience and a lot of real world understanding of our politics, Without a doubt. Give me an unbiased opinion of who won the debate. Now I'm not saying who had the most articulate message or who had the most substance. Tell me connected with the average voter? I hosted a debate party ... Many Clinton supporters in the house and many of them were somewhat in disbelief.
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.
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.
All of this is against the backdrop of his affectionate comments about that fucking vicious dictator Putin. There is speculation that Trump has major ties to Russia (see Eric's comments) and that these comments have zero to do with foreign policy and everything to do with his investments. Same goes with his comments about NATO, which is the bulwark against Russian aggression.
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.
You have a lot of experience and a lot of real world understanding of our politics, Without a doubt. Give me an unbiased opinion of who won the debate. Now I'm not saying who had the most articulate message or who had the most substance. Tell me connected with the average voter? I hosted a debate party ... Many Clinton supporters in the house and many of them were somewhat in disbelief.
Give me a common sense opinion. Thanks
Trump was strong the first 20 minutes, talking about NAFTA. Then it was all down hill from there. He took the bait on her comments about his inherited fortune. His comments on birtherism were absolutely ridiculous. Somehow he managed to talk about Japan, nuclear weapons and Rosie O'Donnel in the same sentence. I don't think there is any doubt she won the debate and appeared far more presidential. When he tried to mock her for preparing for the debate and she said, "You know what else I prepared for? I prepared for the presidency." I thought that was powerful. My only concern is that sometimes people only tune in for the beginning of the debate. He was strong then, but quickly tuckered out and looked exhausted. I just hope key swing voters weren't already gone.
Yeah Trump was good on the NAFTA talk...not all completely accurate but it would have gone over well with the working class.
Trump was strong with his followers but those on the fence didn't like him. He interrupted the moderator multiple times...insisted that he was right about stop and frisk when he was completely wrong. Trump looked and sounded completely unprepared.
I saw a graphic that said he spoke 62% of the time to Clinton's 38%. I can't figure out why Holt let him take advantage the way he did.
I thought Clinton did great. You can bet she knows how to tear him apart this next debate.
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
Giuliani is stuck in the deep end and can't get out. What happened to that guy? I ate at a table next to him one night many years ago and he seemed like an alright guy. Another time he didn't even get upset when I pulled a 'Coming to America' and nearly ran into him rounding a corner when we were neighbors. Now he's just plain nuts. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/giuliani-trump-debates-228756
I think he spoke loud and clear to those people who are on the fence. He made her look like an establishment politician, which is a bad thing at present time, hence him beating a large field of establishment politicians and Sanders making such a huge push on the left. When he talked about trade he made her look bad with the whole "gold standard" comment, when he talked about Iran he made her look bad with the talks about giving them cash money (that must strike a nerve), he seemed to control the debate with most of the talking (making him seem powerful), his comments of him being a business man in contrast to her/administrations failures (don't remember the exact exchange), overall I think he made her appear as an establishment politician- and he seemed to make her look bad because of it- "all talk no action, sounds good but it's all repeated failures"- then he mentioned the Fed and said something about Clinton/Obama politicizing it and that it would effect out economy once the rates go up. That had to strike fear in many folks. It seemed almost desperate when she called him out about the beauty pageant girl- that seemed to take the convo away from the policy talk. She looked bad and had no response when he mentioned her campaign spreading that image of Obama in those middle Easter garments.
Most of the talk today is about the beauty pageant woman. The Clinton camp released a web ad on the subject, yet the Clinton camp are the ones claiming that trump isn't talking policy. They are playing the game too and the media is all over it.
Anyhow, I thought this was similar to the Obama/Romney first debate. I think that it might have been a boost for him amongst those who are on the fence.
Ya, Lester is the known single alt -right media guy on msnbc. lmao Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
and....Trump's people
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
That's trump being trump. He dominated the time- and there were several times when Clinton had zero responses to his comments. Such as when he called her out on spreading the images of Obama. She gave one of her smirks and that was it.
Ya, Lester is the known single alt -right media guy on msnbc. lmao Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
and....Trump's people
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
That's trump being trump. He dominated the time- and there were several times when Clinton had zero responses to his comments. Such as when he called her out on spreading the images of Obama. She gave one of her smirks and that was it.
That's Trump not being properly moderated. Holt wasn't assertive enough. Megan Kelley was tougher.
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
Ya, Lester is the known single alt -right media guy on msnbc. lmao Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
and....Trump's people
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
That's trump being trump. He dominated the time- and there were several times when Clinton had zero responses to his comments. Such as when he called her out on spreading the images of Obama. She gave one of her smirks and that was it.
That's Trump not being properly moderated. Holt wasn't assertive enough. Megan Kelley was tougher.
I think that made him look more powerful and in control. Not saying it wasn't rude or out of control, but for those on the fence they might like someone who appears strong and in control to represent the country. Romney did the same during the first debate with Obama and he got a big boost.
Ya, Lester is the known single alt -right media guy on msnbc. lmao Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
and....Trump's people
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
That's trump being trump. He dominated the time- and there were several times when Clinton had zero responses to his comments. Such as when he called her out on spreading the images of Obama. She gave one of her smirks and that was it.
How about when Trump called her out on the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Bernie Sanders? She had no response.
Ya, Lester is the known single alt -right media guy on msnbc. lmao Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
and....Trump's people
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
That's trump being trump. He dominated the time- and there were several times when Clinton had zero responses to his comments. Such as when he called her out on spreading the images of Obama. She gave one of her smirks and that was it.
That's Trump not being properly moderated. Holt wasn't assertive enough. Megan Kelley was tougher.
I think that made him look more powerful and in control. Not saying it wasn't rude or out of control, but for those on the fence they might like someone who appears strong and in control to represent the country. Romney did the same during the first debate with Obama and he got a big boost.
I'm surprised by your comments. The overwhelming feedback from the press, focus groups and polling (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/index.html) believes that Clinton won the debate handily. Look at Guiliani and Christie in the spin room. They are talking about Obama losing the first debate in 2012. Trump is on TV talking about a bad mic. Guiliani is saying Trump should not debate again unless it is more 'fair'. These are all clear signs as to who the American people and the campaigns think won the debate.
Comments
Oh, uh, sorry. I was pretending to be a 2016 beta liberal.
I was a reader of Reason for a while but now it's very amateurish. So is Huffington Post and most writing. About the only internet writing I can stand now is American Conservative, the New Yorker and the Atlantic (on occasion).
I hosted a debate party ... Many Clinton supporters in the house and many of them were somewhat in disbelief.
Give me a common sense opinion.
Thanks
2. His national chairman Paul Manafort having to resign because of taking illegal off the books payments from Russian backed Ukrainian oligarchs http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
3. Trump adviser Carter Page under federal investigation for possibly negotiating with Russian officials about lifting the sanctions against Russia (due to Crimea annexation) should Trump win the presidency. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/23/trump-foreign-policy-advisor-reportedly-being-probed-for-ties-to-russia.html
4. Eric Trump's said in 2008 "“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
All of this is against the backdrop of his affectionate comments about that fucking vicious dictator Putin. There is speculation that Trump has major ties to Russia (see Eric's comments) and that these comments have zero to do with foreign policy and everything to do with his investments. Same goes with his comments about NATO, which is the bulwark against Russian aggression.
My only concern is that sometimes people only tune in for the beginning of the debate. He was strong then, but quickly tuckered out and looked exhausted. I just hope key swing voters weren't already gone.
Trump was strong with his followers but those on the fence didn't like him. He interrupted the moderator multiple times...insisted that he was right about stop and frisk when he was completely wrong. Trump looked and sounded completely unprepared.
I saw a graphic that said he spoke 62% of the time to Clinton's 38%. I can't figure out why Holt let him take advantage the way he did.
I thought Clinton did great. You can bet she knows how to tear him apart this next debate.
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
Dude, everyone is saying what a great job he did except ..... Gern.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/giuliani-trump-debates-228756
It seemed almost desperate when she called him out about the beauty pageant girl- that seemed to take the convo away from the policy talk. She looked bad and had no response when he mentioned her campaign spreading that image of Obama in those middle Easter garments.
Most of the talk today is about the beauty pageant woman. The Clinton camp released a web ad on the subject, yet the Clinton camp are the ones claiming that trump isn't talking policy. They are playing the game too and the media is all over it.
Anyhow, I thought this was similar to the Obama/Romney first debate. I think that it might have been a boost for him amongst those who are on the fence.
Did you watch? Seriously....62% to 38%, that's not good moderating
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
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
What matters is how many people decided to vote for either candidate who are undecided.