Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.
Obama briefly dropped by Eddie's house in the middle of the day once kind of as a neighborly courtesy call, since they vacation in the same neighborhood. That is not "spending part of New Years Eve with Obama". Anyway, I suspect that Eddie will support Hillary. He supported Obama wholeheartedly, so I see no reason why he wouldn't give his support to Hillary on some level. I think the days when he really gets loud about it are over though. I don't think he is in love with where he lays his political support now. I think he is just a moderate now. He is making the safer choices when he feels he needs to. I think he learned his own lessons after supporting Nader the way he did. I think he will now specifically try not to support splitting the left. He's said that that was ultimately a mistake back when GW won again. Obviously I agree with that, given who the current alternative winner is. (Not that any of this matters, lol. Just saying, since it was brought up).
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
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.
Obama, Biden and Bill Clinton have no heft. You must be kidding yourself. You may not agree with them, but they are not lightweights.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that.
If you were honest you would have rebutted Jearlpam's initial insinuation that anybody on here said (and I paraphrase) "Since Nate SIlver was wrong once then he will always be wrong". That was not said.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that.
If you were honest you would have rebutted Jearlpam's initial insinuation that anybody on here said (and I paraphrase) "Since Nate SIlver was wrong once then he will always be wrong". That was not said.
Right, I did not choose to comment on that. I didn't feel any desire to. Still don't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?
100%. As an aside...being from Toronto we had a massive rivalry with the Detroit Tigers in the 1980's. My dad would take us to old exhibition stadium to see the Jay's play the Tigers in late September. In 87 the jays were up about 3 games over the Tigers with maybe only 8 remaining and had an epic collapse to blow the division. At the time former Jay Doyle Alexander was pitching for the Tigers and we would bring tinfoil to the park and chant "Foil Doyle'. It never worked. He went like 8-0 down the stretch to help Detroit win the division. Massive sore spot in my life.
Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defence
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?
100%. As an aside...being from Toronto we had a massive rivalry with the Detroit Tigers in the 1980's. My dad would take us to old exhibition stadium to see the Jay's play the Tigers in late September. In 87 the jays were up about 3 games over the Tigers with maybe only 8 remaining and had an epic collapse to blow the division. At the time former Jay Doyle Alexander was pitching for the Tigers and we would bring tinfoil to the park and chant "Foil Doyle'. It never worked. He went like 8-0 down the stretch to help Detroit win the division. Massive sore spot in my life.
That's good background. I remember Doyle Alexander pretty clearly. I don't remember the "Foil" nickname, but now it makes sense. So GFY.
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.
Obama briefly dropped by Eddie's house in the middle of the day once kind of as a neighborly courtesy call, since they vacation in the same neighborhood. That is not "spending part of New Years Eve with Obama". Anyway, I suspect that Eddie will support Hillary. He supported Obama wholeheartedly, so I see no reason why he wouldn't give his support to Hillary on some level. I think the days when he really gets loud about it are over though. I don't think he is in love with where he lays his political support now. I think he is just a moderate now. He is making the safer choices when he feels he needs to. I think he learned his own lessons after supporting Nader the way he did. I think he will now specifically try not to support splitting the left. He's said that that was ultimately a mistake back when GW won again. Obviously I agree with that, given who the current alternative winner is. (Not that any of this matters, lol. Just saying, since it was brought up).
Except he did it on Dec 31st, so that would mean he spent part of the New Year’s Eve. Jeesh
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.
Bill Clinton was a Rhode's Scholar in Economics. I'd love to see the intellectual heft of your resume compared to anyone's on that list.
For God's sake, can't you people ever concede anything?
Post edited by what dreams on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,972
Well now, this is quite the entertaining thread today!
So as someone who has been a strong support of you-know-who (apparently we're not allowed to mention that name on the HILLARY THREAD), here's my challenge to you HRC supporters: Convince me there's a good reason to vote for her. While doing so, however, consider this:
To my way of thinking it makes no sense to openly support someone who broke major government protocol with her basement servers etc. (and no, I don't care that they let her off the hook, we all know she's guilty) nor do I see how I could be convinced to vote for big money UNLESS it really appears that Trump has a chance of winning (I still say, no way!). And yes, I would prefer Hillary over Trump... by a hair- a very fine baby thin hair.
So instead my current choice is you-know(J)-who(S). So why, you might ask, would I vote for someone (I won't mention her Green name because that's probably not allowed here on the HILLARY THREAD) who has no chance of winning?
Well, simply for two reasons: 1) I think she is the best candidate and 2) because even if Hillary does (probably) win, I surely don't want her to win by the biggest landslide in history. No way! She doesn't serve the job in the first place and she sure as hell doesn't deserve to set any landslide voting records.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Brian - no one can convince you to vote for someone who you are not inclined to vote for. The arguments in my mind, are against Jill Stein and they have to do with her lack of leadership experience, government experience (like Trump) and finally the reality of the situation for her. She isn't going to win, so she can only enable Trump. She could be, however, a very good Surgeon General. I think her experience leads her to that path, not Commander-in Chief.
I do have a question for you though. I asked Free this a few times but he refuses to engage me. I know this because he sent me a series of PMs telling me that over and over. However, my question is...
He claims that Bernie supporters have been mistreated by Hillary Clinton. As a Bernie supporter, can you tell me how HRC has treated them poorly? I just don't see any evidence of it. In fact, in light of her moving left on a series of issues (much to my dismay), I think it is quite the opposite.
Can you expand on that mind set?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,972
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
Then why the fuck did you ask the question? Just so you AGAIN could tell us we're wrong and pull out your patronizing, condescending crap about how you really are just trying to save us all from ourselves?
I can't believe I even fell for the idea that you are genuinely interested in reasons people are voting for her. I can't believe I didn't predict you would again resort to the "lying, power-hungry Hillary" meme. I'm so disappointed. And I'm done in this thread if nobody wants to talk policy. I'm going to hang out in the "Do Aliens Exist" thread for awhile.
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
I'm sorry Brian.. but which election did Hillary win where she told us a bunch of stuff and didn't deliver? Are you upset with her tenure as NY Senator? Her time as Sec'y of State is serving at the pleasure of the POTUS. She doesn't make policy. So I'm not sure where you are pulling this out of?
Is Jill Stein's track record in her time in office more suited for you? Do you like the changes she implemented? Does her history of getting things done at a national and international level resonate with you?
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
Then why the fuck did you ask the question? Just so you AGAIN could tell us we're wrong and pull out your patronizing, condescending crap about how you really are just trying to save us all from ourselves?
I can't believe I even fell for the idea that you are genuinely interested in reasons people are voting for her. I can't believe I didn't predict you would again resort to the "lying, power-hungry Hillary" meme. I'm so disappointed. And I'm done in this thread if nobody wants to talk policy. I'm going to hang out in the "Do Aliens Exist" thread for awhile.
Whoa! First of all, the only question I asked here today was "So why, you might ask, would I vote for someone (I won't mention her Green name because that's probably not allowed here on the HILLARY THREAD) who has no chance of winning? " which doesn't have anything do do with your little rant here.
And secondly, why the vitriol? What the hell did I say to set you off like a grenade in a flower shop? Man, really, I'm not here to cut anyone's balls or ovaries off.
Thirdly, no, I didn't ask for reasons why anyone here is voting for Hillary. I challenged you who are HRC fans to give me good reasons why I should vote for her. All I got so far was some cut-and-paste article listing some generic but hollow sounding campaign promises. It's easy to post where she has said, "I will do this or that for you!" but not so easy to illustrate what she has done. Maybe that's what frustrates you. If so, take it out on a punching bag. I'm not the enemy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,972
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
I'm sorry Brian.. but which election did Hillary win where she told us a bunch of stuff and didn't deliver? Are you upset with her tenure as NY Senator? Her time as Sec'y of State is serving at the pleasure of the POTUS. She doesn't make policy. So I'm not sure where you are pulling this out of?
Is Jill Stein's track record in her time in office more suited for you? Do you like the changes she implemented? Does her history of getting things done at a national and international level resonate with you?
Moot points. Jill Stein is on a different track. The old course has worn through to the gravel.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
Yes, I've read all these wonderful things Hillary "will do for us" but I'm sorry to say this because it's very sad that it's true, but a political figure such as HRC will say what ever it takes to win because it's all about winning and power for someone like her, not about doing what is best for us or the planet (please let us not forget about the rest of life while talking about these issues!).
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
Then why the fuck did you ask the question? Just so you AGAIN could tell us we're wrong and pull out your patronizing, condescending crap about how you really are just trying to save us all from ourselves?
I can't believe I even fell for the idea that you are genuinely interested in reasons people are voting for her. I can't believe I didn't predict you would again resort to the "lying, power-hungry Hillary" meme. I'm so disappointed. And I'm done in this thread if nobody wants to talk policy. I'm going to hang out in the "Do Aliens Exist" thread for awhile.
Whoa! First of all, the only question I asked here today was "So why, you might ask, would I vote for someone (I won't mention her Green name because that's probably not allowed here on the HILLARY THREAD) who has no chance of winning? " which doesn't have anything do do with your little rant here.
And secondly, why the vitriol? What the hell did I say to set you off like a grenade in a flower shop? Man, really, I'm not here to cut anyone's balls or ovaries off.
Thirdly, no, I didn't ask for reasons why anyone here is voting for Hillary. I challenged you who are HRC fans to give me good reasons why I should vote for her. All I got so far was some cut-and-paste article listing some generic but hollow sounding campaign promises. It's easy to post where she has said, "I will do this or that for you!" but not so easy to illustrate what she has done. Maybe that's what frustrates you. If so, take it out on a punching bag. I'm not the enemy.
Go back to the part where you said, "Convince me of a good reason to vote for HRC."
I apologize for believing you were sincere. I see now that you are not.
Comments
Anyway, I suspect that Eddie will support Hillary. He supported Obama wholeheartedly, so I see no reason why he wouldn't give his support to Hillary on some level. I think the days when he really gets loud about it are over though. I don't think he is in love with where he lays his political support now. I think he is just a moderate now. He is making the safer choices when he feels he needs to. I think he learned his own lessons after supporting Nader the way he did. I think he will now specifically try not to support splitting the left. He's said that that was ultimately a mistake back when GW won again. Obviously I agree with that, given who the current alternative winner is.
(Not that any of this matters, lol. Just saying, since it was brought up).
For God's sake, can't you people ever concede anything?
So as someone who has been a strong support of you-know-who (apparently we're not allowed to mention that name on the HILLARY THREAD), here's my challenge to you HRC supporters: Convince me there's a good reason to vote for her. While doing so, however, consider this:
To my way of thinking it makes no sense to openly support someone who broke major government protocol with her basement servers etc. (and no, I don't care that they let her off the hook, we all know she's guilty) nor do I see how I could be convinced to vote for big money UNLESS it really appears that Trump has a chance of winning (I still say, no way!). And yes, I would prefer Hillary over Trump... by a hair- a very fine baby thin hair.
So instead my current choice is you-know(J)-who(S). So why, you might ask, would I vote for someone (I won't mention her Green name because that's probably not allowed here on the HILLARY THREAD) who has no chance of winning?
Well, simply for two reasons: 1) I think she is the best candidate and 2) because even if Hillary does (probably) win, I surely don't want her to win by the biggest landslide in history. No way! She doesn't serve the job in the first place and she sure as hell doesn't deserve to set any landslide voting records.
The article I posted was written by the founding editor of a reliably progressive magazine, when being a progressive wasn't cool.
If you dig around in the website, you will find another article calling for Sanders's supporters to vote for Hillary, which I did not link because I am trying not to inflame the thread.
I do have a question for you though. I asked Free this a few times but he refuses to engage me. I know this because he sent me a series of PMs telling me that over and over. However, my question is...
He claims that Bernie supporters have been mistreated by Hillary Clinton. As a Bernie supporter, can you tell me how HRC has treated them poorly? I just don't see any evidence of it. In fact, in light of her moving left on a series of issues (much to my dismay), I think it is quite the opposite.
Can you expand on that mind set?
If anyone here believes HRC is in for your best interest, that's your right to believe that and perhaps nothing I say will make a difference that way.
If any of you here have the same misgivings about HRC as some of us here do and you are supporting her simply because you abhor the idea of Trump becoming president, I would suggest at least considering the notion of giving severe reservations along with that support.
Think outside the box. This is more than just about a foot race.
I can't believe I even fell for the idea that you are genuinely interested in reasons people are voting for her. I can't believe I didn't predict you would again resort to the "lying, power-hungry Hillary" meme. I'm so disappointed. And I'm done in this thread if nobody wants to talk policy. I'm going to hang out in the "Do Aliens Exist" thread for awhile.
Is Jill Stein's track record in her time in office more suited for you? Do you like the changes she implemented? Does her history of getting things done at a national and international level resonate with you?
And secondly, why the vitriol? What the hell did I say to set you off like a grenade in a flower shop? Man, really, I'm not here to cut anyone's balls or ovaries off.
Thirdly, no, I didn't ask for reasons why anyone here is voting for Hillary. I challenged you who are HRC fans to give me good reasons why I should vote for her. All I got so far was some cut-and-paste article listing some generic but hollow sounding campaign promises. It's easy to post where she has said, "I will do this or that for you!" but not so easy to illustrate what she has done. Maybe that's what frustrates you. If so, take it out on a punching bag. I'm not the enemy.
I apologize for believing you were sincere. I see now that you are not.