Hysterical. Just hysterical. Thank you for proving my point. Good night.
And just for more shits and giggles, Toniflig, (or whatever your name is) can you please quote me where I "dehumanized" Trump in any other another thread? I'm trying to recall the last time I said anything about Trump. It may have been Easter when I told a story about my brother who loves Trump and I had to endure his similarly unhinged view of the world. I believe I dehumanized my brother in that thread. In fact, my view of Trump is that he would be relatively harmless because I believe as a president he'll never accomplish anything. Kind of like Bernie. A one term do-nothing president, he would be. Clinton might get some things done. Maybe not. Who knows. She's a flawed human being as well. My consistent opinion has always been that we are all flawed human beings, and I'm okay with Clinton's warts.
I also happen to be a thyroid cancer survivor. When I read people ripping Clinton to shreds through 10 pages because she has a thyroid condition and it makes her unqualified to be president, it kind of pisses me off. You may see that as whatever you wish. Who cares. I see you as a member of the unhinged electorate. Too bad that I really hit a nerve.
Interesting. Maybe try scrolling up.
As for HRC's thyroid condition, no that should not be a big issue here. Three very important women in my life have or had a thyroid conditions and or cancer. But HRC's overall health is what is more important and might factor in if she can't muscle through the next few months.
And the fact remains, there are plenty of other issues that make HRC problematic as potential president. And this- we all know how politics work- drag any old thing out you can to bash the other candidate. Business as usual.
Bit it wouldn't have been if Sanders had been nominated. No way near to the degree it is between HRC and The Donald. But maybe we don't want an election. Maybe we just want a circus. Curious, we Americans.
It's a bummer that Bernie is not the candidate and Stein won't win of course but look father down the path. It's not all desert.
Honestly, I really feel that the first left-leaning POTUS in ages needs to have the first left-leaning support system (i.e. House and Senate) in ages. The first of anything in the US government carries the weight of setting a precedent. All African-American Presidential candidates will be compared to Obama. All female Presidential candidates will be compared to Clinton. When someone like Sanders sits in office, he must possess the ability to drive major change without the bullshit of power-seizing/maintaining in the House and Senate. For the liberalization of America to penetrate the government levels, this can't be a game of checkers, it must be chess.
I disagree. The job of Congress is to work with and compromise w/ the sitting president. It's not being done now, and you can't blame the president for that. You're suggesting that we wait to vote in the appropriate representatives that would work with progressive president? And how long would that take? When congressmen and women do not have term limits?
congressmen and woman do have term limits, its called voting. I understand that it is very hard to get a person out of office but what has to happen is that people have to vote not just during the main elections but also during the mid terms elections.
Hysterical. Just hysterical. Thank you for proving my point. Good night.
And just for more shits and giggles, Toniflig, (or whatever your name is) can you please quote me where I "dehumanized" Trump in any other another thread? I'm trying to recall the last time I said anything about Trump. It may have been Easter when I told a story about my brother who loves Trump and I had to endure his similarly unhinged view of the world. I believe I dehumanized my brother in that thread. In fact, my view of Trump is that he would be relatively harmless because I believe as a president he'll never accomplish anything. Kind of like Bernie. A one term do-nothing president, he would be. Clinton might get some things done. Maybe not. Who knows. She's a flawed human being as well. My consistent opinion has always been that we are all flawed human beings, and I'm okay with Clinton's warts.
I also happen to be a thyroid cancer survivor. When I read people ripping Clinton to shreds through 10 pages because she has a thyroid condition and it makes her unqualified to be president, it kind of pisses me off. You may see that as whatever you wish. Who cares. I see you as a member of the unhinged electorate. Too bad that I really hit a nerve.
Interesting. Maybe try scrolling up.
As for HRC's thyroid condition, no that should not be a big issue here. Three very important women in my life have or had a thyroid conditions and or cancer. But HRC's overall health is what is more important and might factor in if she can't muscle through the next few months.
And the fact remains, there are plenty of other issues that make HRC problematic as potential president. And this- we all know how politics work- drag any old thing out you can to bash the other candidate. Business as usual.
Bit it wouldn't have been if Sanders had been nominated. No way near to the degree it is between HRC and The Donald. But maybe we don't want an election. Maybe we just want a circus. Curious, we Americans.
It's a bummer that Bernie is not the candidate and Stein won't win of course but look father down the path. It's not all desert.
Honestly, I really feel that the first left-leaning POTUS in ages needs to have the first left-leaning support system (i.e. House and Senate) in ages. The first of anything in the US government carries the weight of setting a precedent. All African-American Presidential candidates will be compared to Obama. All female Presidential candidates will be compared to Clinton. When someone like Sanders sits in office, he must possess the ability to drive major change without the bullshit of power-seizing/maintaining in the House and Senate. For the liberalization of America to penetrate the government levels, this can't be a game of checkers, it must be chess.
I disagree. The job of Congress is to work with and compromise w/ the sitting president. It's not being done now, and you can't blame the president for that. You're suggesting that we wait to vote in the appropriate representatives that would work with a progressive president? And how long would that take? When congressmen and women do not have term limits?
I don't blame the President for this reality, but recognizing that the various levels of government aren't collaborating right now, why would you expect this to change with a President without deep party ties and with a much larger delta between himself and prevalent D & R positions? There's not going to be a sudden substantial deviation in the way these entities act in the face of opposition, and a reliance on the Executive Order certainly isn't the right approach for a candidate who preaches giving a voice to the people (i.e. bringing back something which closer resembles democracy). I've said it too many times to count here, but long-lasting tangible change takes efforts, and it takes stepping stones - you can't attempt to jump from Point A to Point Q and expect short- or long-term success.
'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
What Dreams, what's with the world being on the brink of destruction? Do you know something we don't, like a giant meteor heading our way? It's definitely a changing world and anthropogenically damaged world but unless something cataclysmic like a massive meteor coming, the world will carry one and re-establish new balances. Humans on the other hand- yeah, we're doing a good job of putting ourselves on the endangered species list. If that concerns you, Bernie would have been a better pick that HRC or Trump. And even better than Bernie is Stein.
But really, is avoiding our (and other animal's) extinction what America wants? Doesn't seem so to me. Seems to me America wants:
-A "strong, vigorous economy" (mass consumption with little or no regard to limits to resources).
-Lots of crap to buy to satisfy our instant gratification ADHD buying habits.
-Wars, crashing cars at auto races, football injuries, trauma drama, and all sorts of other kinds of violence.
-The continuation of suburbia and car culture.
-Greasy food and sweets.
-Mind numbing amusement (the word come from a (lack of) musing (thinking). Like amoral, only amusement.)
These were not high on Bernie's list of priorities and certainly not on Stein's. They are major factors for the other candidates. Don't get mad at me for saying this. If you look at it, you can't deny this is true.
I'm thinking the Yellowstone super volcano.... (no, seriously).
I know. That kind of shares the shit out of me. That will be the end of this civilization
To me, the difference between, say, nuclear annihilation and Yellowstone super volcano would be like the difference between dying a slow rotting death due to exposure to chemicals and being struck and killed by lightening. In both cases I think the latter are so much more desirable. There are human disasters but there is no such thing as a natural disaster. There are just natural occurrences. If Yellowstone want to blow her top (or bottom in this case), let 'er rip. I want to be there to see it!
I don't disagree at all. The difference is that we have zero control on Yellowstone. At least with nuclear weapons, maybe someone will make the right decision...
Let's hope!
Well so far so good, and it seems that we're much less at risk now than we were for decades back in the 20th Century. I am personally much more concerned about a natural disaster that has a globally catastrophic impact than I am about a nuclear holocaust.
I have to say it again (and then you can give me hell for being so adamant, LOL) There are no "natural disasters", just natural occurrences.
I wish I knew how to help people with worrying about things like earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc. For whatever reason, I don't worry about such things. I'm way more concerned about the harm humans can incur, both on a large scale and on a personal scale. I've been hurt far more severely and more often by people than by nature... so far anyway. And I would much rather die by lightening stick than gunshot.
Well, unless you know people who are having actual psychological problems in terms of fearing such natural disasters (yeah, millions of people dying and extreme destruction is a disaster no matter what, doesn't matter if it's natural), then I don't think anyone needs help coping with the thought. I think it is very normal and healthy for people to have some level of fear when it comes to Mother Nature. It is, as you should appreciate, a natural occurrence! Nature is our last natural predator. There is nothing natural about what we do to ourselves, for sure. But at least there are preventative measures we can take. It's preventable, technically. Humans can change and improve. I see hope there. Not so with stuff like super-volcanos. It's not like it keeps me up at night, but yeah, I have a healthy fear of it because I don't fucking wanna be smothered in ash until I die while the rivers turn black, thank you very much.
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
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
What Dreams, what's with the world being on the brink of destruction? Do you know something we don't, like a giant meteor heading our way? It's definitely a changing world and anthropogenically damaged world but unless something cataclysmic like a massive meteor coming, the world will carry one and re-establish new balances. Humans on the other hand- yeah, we're doing a good job of putting ourselves on the endangered species list. If that concerns you, Bernie would have been a better pick that HRC or Trump. And even better than Bernie is Stein.
But really, is avoiding our (and other animal's) extinction what America wants? Doesn't seem so to me. Seems to me America wants:
-A "strong, vigorous economy" (mass consumption with little or no regard to limits to resources).
-Lots of crap to buy to satisfy our instant gratification ADHD buying habits.
-Wars, crashing cars at auto races, football injuries, trauma drama, and all sorts of other kinds of violence.
-The continuation of suburbia and car culture.
-Greasy food and sweets.
-Mind numbing amusement (the word come from a (lack of) musing (thinking). Like amoral, only amusement.)
These were not high on Bernie's list of priorities and certainly not on Stein's. They are major factors for the other candidates. Don't get mad at me for saying this. If you look at it, you can't deny this is true.
I'm thinking the Yellowstone super volcano.... (no, seriously).
I know. That kind of shares the shit out of me. That will be the end of this civilization
To me, the difference between, say, nuclear annihilation and Yellowstone super volcano would be like the difference between dying a slow rotting death due to exposure to chemicals and being struck and killed by lightening. In both cases I think the latter are so much more desirable. There are human disasters but there is no such thing as a natural disaster. There are just natural occurrences. If Yellowstone want to blow her top (or bottom in this case), let 'er rip. I want to be there to see it!
I don't disagree at all. The difference is that we have zero control on Yellowstone. At least with nuclear weapons, maybe someone will make the right decision...
Let's hope!
Well so far so good, and it seems that we're much less at risk now than we were for decades back in the 20th Century. I am personally much more concerned about a natural disaster that has a globally catastrophic impact than I am about a nuclear holocaust.
I have to say it again (and then you can give me hell for being so adamant, LOL) There are no "natural disasters", just natural occurrences.
I wish I knew how to help people with worrying about things like earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc. For whatever reason, I don't worry about such things. I'm way more concerned about the harm humans can incur, both on a large scale and on a personal scale. I've been hurt far more severely and more often by people than by nature... so far anyway. And I would much rather die by lightening stick than gunshot.
Well, unless you know people who are having actual psychological problems in terms of fearing such natural disasters (yeah, millions of people dying and extreme destruction is a disaster no matter what, doesn't matter if it's natural), then I don't think anyone needs help coping with the thought. I think it is very normal and healthy for people to have some level of fear when it comes to Mother Nature. It is, as you should appreciate, a natural occurrence! Nature is our last natural predator. There is nothing natural about what we do to ourselves, for sure. But at least there are preventative measures we can take. It's preventable, technically. Humans can change and improve. I see hope there. Not so with stuff like super-volcanos. It's not like it keeps me up at night, but yeah, I have a healthy fear of it because I don't fucking wanna be smothered in ash until I die while the rivers turn black, thank you very much.
I guess that's why I don't fear the Big Shit Mother Nature Can Throw at Us. We can't do a damn thing about it and viewed objectively, most of that Big Stuff is pretty (literally) awesome. But what we as humans do to cause havoc and misery, that we can change!
"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: 42,309
OK, so in the past Bernie was more in favor of voting for third candidates and later in life decided the best way to make a change was to go at it as a Democrat and now is not in favor of voting third party. First of all, this is only about this particular election. Like many here, Bernie is worried about Trump getting elected. Fair enough. I still am in favor of voting for a third party candidate but just because Bernie evolved to a different place that way doesn't, to me anyway, make him a whore.
If someone is a vegetarian and later in life decides to be an omnivore, does that make them a whore?
If someone hates free jazz but later in life becomes an Albert Ayler fan, does that make them a whore? Is so, I'm a whore. Whore whore whore whore!
There, feel better?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
OK, so in the past Bernie was more in favor of voting for third candidates and later in life decided the best way to make a change was to go at it as a Democrat and now is not in favor of voting third party. First of all, this is only about this particular election. Like many here, Bernie is worried about Trump getting elected. Fair enough. I still am in favor of voting for a third party candidate but just because Bernie evolved to a different place that way doesn't, to me anyway, make him a whore.
If someone is a vegetarian and later in life decides to be an omnivore, does that make them a whore?
If someone hates free jazz but later in life becomes an Albert Ayler fan, does that make them a whore? Is so, I'm a whore. Whore whore whore whore!
There, feel better?
Hey Brian...what about HRC? Do you cut her the same break since she was a "Goldwater Girl" when she was 16/17?
OK, so in the past Bernie was more in favor of voting for third candidates and later in life decided the best way to make a change was to go at it as a Democrat and now is not in favor of voting third party. First of all, this is only about this particular election. Like many here, Bernie is worried about Trump getting elected. Fair enough. I still am in favor of voting for a third party candidate but just because Bernie evolved to a different place that way doesn't, to me anyway, make him a whore.
If someone is a vegetarian and later in life decides to be an omnivore, does that make them a whore?
If someone hates free jazz but later in life becomes an Albert Ayler fan, does that make them a whore? Is so, I'm a whore. Whore whore whore whore!
OK, so in the past Bernie was more in favor of voting for third candidates and later in life decided the best way to make a change was to go at it as a Democrat and now is not in favor of voting third party. First of all, this is only about this particular election. Like many here, Bernie is worried about Trump getting elected. Fair enough. I still am in favor of voting for a third party candidate but just because Bernie evolved to a different place that way doesn't, to me anyway, make him a whore.
If someone is a vegetarian and later in life decides to be an omnivore, does that make them a whore?
If someone hates free jazz but later in life becomes an Albert Ayler fan, does that make them a whore? Is so, I'm a whore. Whore whore whore whore!
There, feel better?
Hey Brian...what about HRC? Do you cut her the same break since she was a "Goldwater Girl" when she was 16/17?
Knowing she was only 16 or 17, sure. And in any case, everybody is free to change. In fact, it's often a good idea. But in this case, I don't see the change or at least not solid evidence of it.
Oh, and the sad thing about all this is, people are getting divided over this mess, over two candidates that don't add up to beans on Sunday. To be at odds with somebody over this fiasco of an election is the shits. Bummer!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What Dreams, what's with the world being on the brink of destruction? Do you know something we don't, like a giant meteor heading our way? It's definitely a changing world and anthropogenically damaged world but unless something cataclysmic like a massive meteor coming, the world will carry one and re-establish new balances. Humans on the other hand- yeah, we're doing a good job of putting ourselves on the endangered species list. If that concerns you, Bernie would have been a better pick that HRC or Trump. And even better than Bernie is Stein.
But really, is avoiding our (and other animal's) extinction what America wants? Doesn't seem so to me. Seems to me America wants:
-A "strong, vigorous economy" (mass consumption with little or no regard to limits to resources).
-Lots of crap to buy to satisfy our instant gratification ADHD buying habits.
-Wars, crashing cars at auto races, football injuries, trauma drama, and all sorts of other kinds of violence.
-The continuation of suburbia and car culture.
-Greasy food and sweets.
-Mind numbing amusement (the word come from a (lack of) musing (thinking). Like amoral, only amusement.)
These were not high on Bernie's list of priorities and certainly not on Stein's. They are major factors for the other candidates. Don't get mad at me for saying this. If you look at it, you can't deny this is true.
I'm thinking the Yellowstone super volcano.... (no, seriously).
I know. That kind of shares the shit out of me. That will be the end of this civilization
To me, the difference between, say, nuclear annihilation and Yellowstone super volcano would be like the difference between dying a slow rotting death due to exposure to chemicals and being struck and killed by lightening. In both cases I think the latter are so much more desirable. There are human disasters but there is no such thing as a natural disaster. There are just natural occurrences. If Yellowstone want to blow her top (or bottom in this case), let 'er rip. I want to be there to see it!
I don't disagree at all. The difference is that we have zero control on Yellowstone. At least with nuclear weapons, maybe someone will make the right decision...
Let's hope!
Well so far so good, and it seems that we're much less at risk now than we were for decades back in the 20th Century. I am personally much more concerned about a natural disaster that has a globally catastrophic impact than I am about a nuclear holocaust.
I have to say it again (and then you can give me hell for being so adamant, LOL) There are no "natural disasters", just natural occurrences.
I wish I knew how to help people with worrying about things like earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc. For whatever reason, I don't worry about such things. I'm way more concerned about the harm humans can incur, both on a large scale and on a personal scale. I've been hurt far more severely and more often by people than by nature... so far anyway. And I would much rather die by lightening stick than gunshot.
Well, unless you know people who are having actual psychological problems in terms of fearing such natural disasters (yeah, millions of people dying and extreme destruction is a disaster no matter what, doesn't matter if it's natural), then I don't think anyone needs help coping with the thought. I think it is very normal and healthy for people to have some level of fear when it comes to Mother Nature. It is, as you should appreciate, a natural occurrence! Nature is our last natural predator. There is nothing natural about what we do to ourselves, for sure. But at least there are preventative measures we can take. It's preventable, technically. Humans can change and improve. I see hope there. Not so with stuff like super-volcanos. It's not like it keeps me up at night, but yeah, I have a healthy fear of it because I don't fucking wanna be smothered in ash until I die while the rivers turn black, thank you very much.
I guess that's why I don't fear the Big Shit Mother Nature Can Throw at Us. We can't do a damn thing about it and viewed objectively, most of that Big Stuff is pretty (literally) awesome. But what we as humans do to cause havoc and misery, that we can change!
Interesting, because the only things I really fear are the things were we can't do anything! It's that hopelessness that I guess makes me fearful. Of course I worry about the harm humans do all the time, and feel anger and frustration about it, but since there is hope there too, it's just the same as fear for me. Yet I fear, say, the "big one" here - I fear that my building will collapse into the underground parking lot, specifically, but feel absolutely no anger or frustration about it, obviously, and those emotions are much more vexing for me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What Dreams, what's with the world being on the brink of destruction? Do you know something we don't, like a giant meteor heading our way? It's definitely a changing world and anthropogenically damaged world but unless something cataclysmic like a massive meteor coming, the world will carry one and re-establish new balances. Humans on the other hand- yeah, we're doing a good job of putting ourselves on the endangered species list. If that concerns you, Bernie would have been a better pick that HRC or Trump. And even better than Bernie is Stein.
But really, is avoiding our (and other animal's) extinction what America wants? Doesn't seem so to me. Seems to me America wants:
-A "strong, vigorous economy" (mass consumption with little or no regard to limits to resources).
-Lots of crap to buy to satisfy our instant gratification ADHD buying habits.
-Wars, crashing cars at auto races, football injuries, trauma drama, and all sorts of other kinds of violence.
-The continuation of suburbia and car culture.
-Greasy food and sweets.
-Mind numbing amusement (the word come from a (lack of) musing (thinking). Like amoral, only amusement.)
These were not high on Bernie's list of priorities and certainly not on Stein's. They are major factors for the other candidates. Don't get mad at me for saying this. If you look at it, you can't deny this is true.
I'm thinking the Yellowstone super volcano.... (no, seriously).
I know. That kind of shares the shit out of me. That will be the end of this civilization
To me, the difference between, say, nuclear annihilation and Yellowstone super volcano would be like the difference between dying a slow rotting death due to exposure to chemicals and being struck and killed by lightening. In both cases I think the latter are so much more desirable. There are human disasters but there is no such thing as a natural disaster. There are just natural occurrences. If Yellowstone want to blow her top (or bottom in this case), let 'er rip. I want to be there to see it!
I don't disagree at all. The difference is that we have zero control on Yellowstone. At least with nuclear weapons, maybe someone will make the right decision...
Let's hope!
Well so far so good, and it seems that we're much less at risk now than we were for decades back in the 20th Century. I am personally much more concerned about a natural disaster that has a globally catastrophic impact than I am about a nuclear holocaust.
I have to say it again (and then you can give me hell for being so adamant, LOL) There are no "natural disasters", just natural occurrences.
I wish I knew how to help people with worrying about things like earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc. For whatever reason, I don't worry about such things. I'm way more concerned about the harm humans can incur, both on a large scale and on a personal scale. I've been hurt far more severely and more often by people than by nature... so far anyway. And I would much rather die by lightening stick than gunshot.
Well, unless you know people who are having actual psychological problems in terms of fearing such natural disasters (yeah, millions of people dying and extreme destruction is a disaster no matter what, doesn't matter if it's natural), then I don't think anyone needs help coping with the thought. I think it is very normal and healthy for people to have some level of fear when it comes to Mother Nature. It is, as you should appreciate, a natural occurrence! Nature is our last natural predator. There is nothing natural about what we do to ourselves, for sure. But at least there are preventative measures we can take. It's preventable, technically. Humans can change and improve. I see hope there. Not so with stuff like super-volcanos. It's not like it keeps me up at night, but yeah, I have a healthy fear of it because I don't fucking wanna be smothered in ash until I die while the rivers turn black, thank you very much.
I guess that's why I don't fear the Big Shit Mother Nature Can Throw at Us. We can't do a damn thing about it and viewed objectively, most of that Big Stuff is pretty (literally) awesome. But what we as humans do to cause havoc and misery, that we can change!
Interesting, because the only things I really fear are the things were we can't do anything! It's that hopelessness that I guess makes me fearful. Of course I worry about the harm humans do all the time, and feel anger and frustration about it, but since there is hope there too, it's just the same as fear for me. Yet I fear, say, the "big one" here - I fear that my building will collapse into the underground parking lot, specifically, but feel absolutely no anger or frustration about it, obviously, and those emotions are much more vexing for me.
I'm with brianlux, but I totally understand where you're coming from, PJ_Soul! It took me many years to accept that things out of my control are just that. It's worth analyzing whether they can become within my control, but if logic dictates that that's not possible - it's not worth my finite energy, and certainly not worth my anxiety (if I die from being struck by a drunk driver, so be it, but I'm not going to stay inside).
'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
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Surviving near death a number of times has probably made me a little too unafraid of both natural and unnatural disasters/occurrences. Probably best to maintain a healthy degree of caution but yes, Ben, not to the point of staying inside or hiding from life.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Surviving near death a number of times has probably made me a little too unafraid of both natural and unnatural disasters/occurrences. Probably best to maintain a healthy degree of caution but yes, Ben, not to the point of staying inside or hiding from life.
I'm with you, Brian Somewhere between Evel Knievel and Howard Hughes.
'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.
Hillary Clinton has dropped the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.
Hillary Clinton has dropped the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.
Hillary Clinton has dropped the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.
Of course, she has.
Usually candidates negotiate and leverage their endorsement and support. Assuming climate wasn't used, just wondering what was?
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.
If a person makes a post claiming the DNC is biased, then subsequently donates to the DNC, then sues for bias, you don't think that harms their claim? Why didn't they donate to Bernie directly?
Did you read the lawsuit?
I did not read the S&C and the article is unclear as to whether they are suing for damages based on DNC donations or Bernie donations. I was assuming the former as that seems more rational. If the latter then I think the case has even less merit. What about a political party would lead one to believe that it wouldn't have a preferred candidate? Is there a disclosure on a website? Is there something in the public bylaws? I would think there would need to be something to avoid a quick dismissal or judgment for the defendant.
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There is nothing natural about what we do to ourselves, for sure. But at least there are preventative measures we can take. It's preventable, technically. Humans can change and improve. I see hope there. Not so with stuff like super-volcanos. It's not like it keeps me up at night, but yeah, I have a healthy fear of it because I don't fucking wanna be smothered in ash until I die while the rivers turn black, thank you very much.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
If someone is a vegetarian and later in life decides to be an omnivore, does that make them a whore?
If someone hates free jazz but later in life becomes an Albert Ayler fan, does that make them a whore? Is so, I'm a whore. Whore whore whore whore!
There, feel better?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Oh, and the sad thing about all this is, people are getting divided over this mess, over two candidates that don't add up to beans on Sunday. To be at odds with somebody over this fiasco of an election is the shits. Bummer!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Stronger together!
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/bernie-bust-150-turn-sanders-ohio-stop-hillary/
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bernie-sanders-most-popular/
...Still the most popular.
He still wants Bernie
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
most americans still think corporations are good for the country based on some myth that they employ people and that is all that matters
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Assuming climate wasn't used, just wondering what was?
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/dnc-files-scathing-rebuttal-wants-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers-thrown-out/