my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
I think anyone claiming that Johnson doesn't know where Aleppo is, must know that they are full of shit. What, has he been hiding in a cave for 5 years? He wasn't in a conversation related to anything close to Aleppo when the question came up, and was caught off guard as to what they were asking. How hard is that to understand?
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
I think anyone claiming that Johnson doesn't know where Aleppo is, must know that they are full of shit. What, has he been hiding in a cave for 5 years? He wasn't in a conversation related to anything close to Aleppo when the question came up, and was caught off guard as to what they were asking. How hard is that to understand?
I don't know I'm full of shit. I can only go off of what I saw on tv, and that was a blank stare. Did you watch it? How can you know that he knows when all indications are that he didn't know. And further did you hear his follow up answer when hear heard that Aleppo was in Syria? That gave Sarah Palin's 60 minutes interview a run for its $. Although I give him credit that he knew Russia was involved.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate.
Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
2% + 10% doesn't equal the majority of the population. If they were as disillusioned as you, they would vote for a third party. But they don't.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
2% + 10% doesn't equal the majority of the population. If they were as disillusioned as you, they would vote for a third party. But they don't.
A lot of people are voting out of fear for certain candidates. You hear it all over the place. I've seen it during interviews, I've witnessed it in my state, I see it on forums across the board, it's on talk radio, people on the left/right are both doing it, etc..etc.. Voting for a third party candidate is difficult, especially when they can't even be a part of the debates. Keep supporting big money in our politics.... Hopefully the lesser pile of shit wins.... making us all winners.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
Well said!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
2% + 10% doesn't equal the majority of the population. If they were as disillusioned as you, they would vote for a third party. But they don't.
A lot of people are voting out of fear for certain candidates. You hear it all over the place. I've seen it during interviews, I've witnessed it in my state, I see it on forums across the board, it's on talk radio, people on the left/right are both doing it, etc..etc.. Voting for a third party candidate is difficult, especially when they can't even be a part of the debates. Keep supporting big money in our politics.... Hopefully the lesser pile of shit wins.... making us all winners.
Exactly.
Other than a few people on this forum, I really don't know anyone who strongly supports either HRC or Trump. To me anyway, this place is a bit unusual that way.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
The winners are Wall St., the 1%, the crooked special interests driven politicians and all their cronies w/ no souls. The losers are just nations of the world, the people who are the 99%, and the planet.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
2% + 10% doesn't equal the majority of the population. If they were as disillusioned as you, they would vote for a third party. But they don't.
A lot of people are voting out of fear for certain candidates. You hear it all over the place. I've seen it during interviews, I've witnessed it in my state, I see it on forums across the board, it's on talk radio, people on the left/right are both doing it, etc..etc.. Voting for a third party candidate is difficult, especially when they can't even be a part of the debates. Keep supporting big money in our politics.... Hopefully the lesser pile of shit wins.... making us all winners.
But we know that the lesser pile of shit is still a pile of shit.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
The winners are Wall St.
And those of us with our retirements in the stock markets! We've had a great run since 2008, I can tell you that. I hope we continue down this same path and people continue to invest their retirement in the market to recognize the very excellent run we've been on for the past several years. Excellent news. Nice job Obama! Keep it up Hillary!
Although if you are vested in Apple, I'd get the hell out of that. They haven't had a decent innovation since Jobs died. It's really sad how levered to his genius they were.
Hey, I didn't write Apple's obituary, but I really think they have fundamental problems. Alphabet is a much more diversified organization and poised to crack a $1000 per share (at current offering) in the next 18 months. Be smart.
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
I think that people's standards have dropped way too low when it comes to who US presidential candidate are, no matter where they stand in the polls. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too low. What a terrible example it is setting for future generations.
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
Hey, I didn't write Apple's obituary, but I really think they have fundamental problems. Alphabet is a much more diversified organization and poised to crack a $1000 per share (at current offering) in the next 18 months. Be smart.
I'm curious to hear how you feel that Alphabet is more diversified than Apple. From what I can see, Alphabet's exclusive profit-generating product is personal data. Their search algorithm links people to buying opportunities, for which they charge advertisers a matchmaking fee. All other creative ventures are designed to support this initiative, from Android (which Google charges OEMs to install, should they wish to access Gmail, Google Maps, and the Google Play Store), to the Google Play Store itself, to Google Play Music. On the other hand, Apple's product is a walled ecosystem that leaves your security squarely within that ecosystem, unfindable by anyone but you. In that sense, Apple and Alphabet are as diametrically opposed as any of our lovely POTUS candidates. I think that Alphabet is fundamentally flawed: as we move closer to truly becoming an Orwellian society, and as we subsequently become more fearful of that direction, I feel that the Apple premium will become not only about UI/UX/strength of ecosystem, but also their commitment to data privacy. But maybe I'm wrong!
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
my jaunt through Maine last week showed more signs for Gary Johnson and Trump than Clinton ... there were actually not many signs at all to be quite honest ... but of the ones I saw ... didn't see any for HRC except for a sticker on a person's car ...
Gary Johnson? You mean the guy that this morning didn't know what Aleppo was? Yeah, informed voters for sure. He's ready.
Maine will go for Clinton by 8 points+. Don't you worry.
I didn't know where Aleppo is until just now. But I'm an uninformed idiot, right? Right....
If you were running for POTUS, I would say yes. If you are just a guy that pays attention to what's going on in the world when you can, then I would say no. Sorry, the bar for uninformed for you and a POTUS candidate are far different. I don't want to 'drink a beer' with the president. That's how we got W.
I'm looking for a good president, not an encyclopedia.
You don't think the person running for POTUS should be expected to know where Aleppo is?? While the USA is essentially at war with ISIS in Syria??
Yeah, I suppose he probably should but it does not bother me in the least that Johnson goofed on Aleppo. Johnson is not a potential POTUS. Johnson is an idea. Just like Bernie is an idea (that verged on a reality for a while, and that is saying something) and Stein is an idea. The best of the ideas and dreams of those three- Bernie, Stein, and Johnson- add up to a whole lot more in terms of what makes sense than what Clinton and Trump offer combined- hugely! And is a more sensible group of ideas not easy to imagine, to see, to move toward? And potentially wonderful even?
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
Well I can agree with some of what you say here. Johnson is an idea. Johnson as POTUS is a bad idea though. Good news is that Trump learned about Aleppo and possibly Syria yesterday.
You completely missed what I'm saying here.
Oh I understood. I'm just pointing out where I agree, rather than where I disagree. The problem is that Johnson and Bernie/Stein are not compatible ideas. In fact, they are diametrically opposed in more ways than they agree.
You did not at all show understanding. In fact, you were coming off as a bit trollish.
Sorry you feel that way Brian. We rarely agree on things as you are far to the left of me, but saying it's trollish seems a little harsh and misplaced. I'm a marginally smart guy so most things don't get past me. If you expect me to agree with your perspective, then don't waste your time waiting.
OK, I too apologize. Trollish is a bit harsh. But I did get the sense you were not addressing what I said which, in essence, is that to my way of thinking, the combined ideas of Stein, Sanders and Johnson make more sense to me- and I might add, also seem more inclined toward being focused on the good of the people- than everything I hear from Clinton and Trump combined.
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
No worries. I get your point. Like I said, I just think the ideas of those candidates are actually opposed to each other. For Stein and Johnson, it's easy to come off in a certain way because they never had to cast a federal vote, or compromise with their fellow Senators, or run a State department, or be in the spotlight with people coming after you the whole time. For Sanders, the Republicans completely left him alone in the primaries because there was no reason to try to damage him, to HRC's benefit. But you can be assured that every one of these three would be torn to shreds if they were the candidate.
Some of their ideas do oppose each other. We need to sent them to the lab and have them integrated into a hybrid candidate. Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
Shit.... I can get behind that. That certainly beats our two current options: Big pile of shit and a Bigger pile of shit
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
2% + 10% doesn't equal the majority of the population. If they were as disillusioned as you, they would vote for a third party. But they don't.
A lot of people are voting out of fear for certain candidates. You hear it all over the place. I've seen it during interviews, I've witnessed it in my state, I see it on forums across the board, it's on talk radio, people on the left/right are both doing it, etc..etc.. Voting for a third party candidate is difficult, especially when they can't even be a part of the debates. Keep supporting big money in our politics.... Hopefully the lesser pile of shit wins.... making us all winners.
I find it unlikely that a revolution will take place between now and November in the US. Hence, the status quo will be perpetuated by either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. Were any of Stein, Sanders, or Johnson to become POTUS, he or she would be utterly useless due to the party politics in the House and Senate, which have become more significant to Members of the House and Senate - who will put the perpetual power of their respective parties far before the justness of a decision.
Given this, why aren't we having talks about comparing foreign affair policies? What about issues surrounding mass incarceration? Homelessness? Racial discrimination? Nuclear arms development (or international disarmament agreements)? Unilateral support of Israel in spite of mass injustices?
Why aren't we discussing how to put the House and the Senate in control of the PEOPLE again, so that the POTUS can do his or her job without the inevitable politically-driven opposition or support. In other words - why the fuck does "it's political" have to be a negative, akin to "I want to align myself with the positionality to gain power"? Why can't acting politically mean "I have moral and ethical obligations to do what's right for the people who gave me the responsibility of a vital task"? Real, long-lasting change requires design. I wish we could all be discussing the stepping stones to create the changes that will make or break the perpetuity of the human race, based on whether they occur or whether they don't.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hey, I didn't write Apple's obituary, but I really think they have fundamental problems. Alphabet is a much more diversified organization and poised to crack a $1000 per share (at current offering) in the next 18 months. Be smart.
I'm curious to hear how you feel that Alphabet is more diversified than Apple. From what I can see, Alphabet's exclusive profit-generating product is personal data. Their search algorithm links people to buying opportunities, for which they charge advertisers a matchmaking fee. All other creative ventures are designed to support this initiative, from Android (which Google charges OEMs to install, should they wish to access Gmail, Google Maps, and the Google Play Store), to the Google Play Store itself, to Google Play Music. On the other hand, Apple's product is a walled ecosystem that leaves your security squarely within that ecosystem, unfindable by anyone but you. In that sense, Apple and Alphabet are as diametrically opposed as any of our lovely POTUS candidates. I think that Alphabet is fundamentally flawed: as we move closer to truly becoming an Orwellian society, and as we subsequently become more fearful of that direction, I feel that the Apple premium will become not only about UI/UX/strength of ecosystem, but also their commitment to data privacy. But maybe I'm wrong!
I actually think that Apple's reliance on hardware sales (and apps within the ecosystem) is very dangerous as its products begin to stale. The have not produced anything revolutionary in a long, long time. Google is more diversified in my mind because it generates so much revenue from search and ads. It doesn't need to innovate a product per se to retain its margins. Their ad revenue has skyrocketed over the past two years and they have an ungodly amount of cash on hand which I love as an investor. This cash on hand allows them to make bets into weird markets and if they fail, they fail. Google glasses is probably a failure. Who cares, it doesn't even dent the bottom line. Self-driving cars is one they are working on now which is interesting. And most ominously, they are circling Uber and determining whether to enter the ride share market. Uber has already been dinged by Lyft. Google will be big trouble. So for me, the fact that it is so diversified is really appealing. Will I hold a lot of share in five years? Doubt it. But I bought in heavy in 2010 I think and it's been quite the ride, and I'm not ready to get off yet.
Comments
So no, looking at it that way I honestly could care less if Johnson blew it on Aleppo.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 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; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
"Find me sitting by myself, no excuses that I know"
Yeah.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
As for being far left, I don't think so. I think I'm actually rather conservative. At least I try to conserve where ever possible. But left, right, conservative, liberal, moderate- those terms have mostly lost their meaning.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Jill Sanderjohnson For President!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It seems that a majority of the population agrees with that, too... Just look at how horrible these two piles of shit are perceived by the public.
The real losers are the American people and the real winners are......... ???
Keep supporting big money in our politics.... Hopefully the lesser pile of shit wins.... making us all winners.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Other than a few people on this forum, I really don't know anyone who strongly supports either HRC or Trump. To me anyway, this place is a bit unusual that way.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Although if you are vested in Apple, I'd get the hell out of that. They haven't had a decent innovation since Jobs died. It's really sad how levered to his genius they were.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Given this, why aren't we having talks about comparing foreign affair policies? What about issues surrounding mass incarceration? Homelessness? Racial discrimination? Nuclear arms development (or international disarmament agreements)? Unilateral support of Israel in spite of mass injustices?
Why aren't we discussing how to put the House and the Senate in control of the PEOPLE again, so that the POTUS can do his or her job without the inevitable politically-driven opposition or support. In other words - why the fuck does "it's political" have to be a negative, akin to "I want to align myself with the positionality to gain power"? Why can't acting politically mean "I have moral and ethical obligations to do what's right for the people who gave me the responsibility of a vital task"? Real, long-lasting change requires design. I wish we could all be discussing the stepping stones to create the changes that will make or break the perpetuity of the human race, based on whether they occur or whether they don't.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This cash on hand allows them to make bets into weird markets and if they fail, they fail. Google glasses is probably a failure. Who cares, it doesn't even dent the bottom line. Self-driving cars is one they are working on now which is interesting. And most ominously, they are circling Uber and determining whether to enter the ride share market. Uber has already been dinged by Lyft. Google will be big trouble.
So for me, the fact that it is so diversified is really appealing. Will I hold a lot of share in five years? Doubt it. But I bought in heavy in 2010 I think and it's been quite the ride, and I'm not ready to get off yet.
Here's a quick article from beginning of the year. It's a big old, but the fundamentals are consistent. http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabet-reports-rising-profits-at-core-google-businesses-1454361634